« First « Previous Comments 45 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
No. I am on the camp of ppl who actually read the Constitution.
I don't know what trip you're on.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C5-1/ALDE_00001066/
[The Congress shall have Power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .]
Eric Holder says
Kinda anwers your question, no? Either a country has its own central bank, or some Rotchschild from somewhere else will act as a de-facto one.
And if you say no to both, they assassinate you, and get someone in who says yes.
No, it doesn't. Never did. Didn't then. Didn't when the Brit Parliament issued paper bills before US was established and SCOTUS etc.
Nah, you can't say no to both.
Look up the definition of misdemeanor, too.
Not the same as what is meant by High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the Constitution, either.
You're entitled to your own bullshit. You are not entitled to passing it off as factual reality.
Yet that is what you are trying to do.
« First « Previous Comments 45 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
There are a few small countries without central banks:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-without-central-banks
Andorra
Isle of Man
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Monaco
Nauru
Palau
Panama
Tuvalu
Panama is the largest of those and simply uses the US dollar. So why couldn't it just use silver instead, and price gold in terms of silver? All countries would of course accept payment in silver or gold, so there's no problem of convertibility.
Eliminating central banks would eliminate almost all inflation, and prevent central bank corruption, such as tipping off friends to upcoming interest rate moves.
The above article is also interesting in that it says that the Rothschilds were essentially the unappointed but de facto central bank of many countries in the 1800's: