"Is that so difficult to understand?" How about the logical extension or implication of that concept? How about: The best govt. is no govt.? How about the best govt. is self governance? How about the best social system is voluntary, not compulsory?

This would be a simple, easy to understand social system. It would take a paradigm shift in politics. It would require the common man to insist the principle,"all men are created equal (politically)" be applied to the public realm. It would mean the end of a double moral standard, one for the citizen, and exemption for public employees, aka, the authorities.

The collusion between the Federal Government and banks with the FED, FDIC, FHA, HUD, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Community Reinvestment Act and more is what led to the financial crisis.

When government gets in bed with big business we get: ratings agencies rubber stamping investments, regulators looking the other way, banks giving liar loans, the government bailing out banks and taxpayers paying for everything.

This regulatory capture also increases the barriers to competition, further hurting citizens/consumers.

Abolish the FED, FDIC, FHA, HUD, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act.

Abolish the Federal Reserve as we know it. Replace it with an automated system as Milton Friedman suggested until better solution is discovered

I agree. Abolish the Fed. Yet, a better system is already discovered and doesn't need to be replaced with anything. Honest sound money for trade is the better system.

"There's nothing wrong with markets and there's nothing wrong with competition or the Invisible Hand or spontaneous order. This system, now in its advanced stages, can't be fixed by regulatory fiat, or by governing better or finding better people to govern. The truth is very simple: Better governments govern less. Is that so difficult to understand? Perhaps we are too sophisticated and jaded to accept it. Too bad." - AW

Well said.

If you would have STARTED the article with that quote... Bet would have been a better article.

It was a summation not an introduction.

5 U.S. Banks Each Have More Than 40 Trillion Dollars In Exposure To Derivatives By Michael Snyder, September 24th, 2014

When is the U.S. banking system going to crash? I can sum it up in three words. Watch the derivatives. It used to be only four, but now there are five "too big to fail" banks in the United States that each have more than 40 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives. Today, the U.S. national debt is sitting at a grand total of about 17.7 trillion dollars, so when we are talking about 40 trillion dollars we are talking about an amount of money that is almost unimaginable. And unlike stocks and bonds, these derivatives do not represent "investments" in anything.

http://theeconomiccollapseb...

Another legal concept as mischievous, if not more so than corporate personhood, is sovereign immunity. Government employees from the highest officials to the police out on the street are immune from criminal prosecution and therefore all responsibility for criminal behavior if its sanctified by law or official agency policy.

It would seem that this "Sovereign Immunity" refers to "Monarchy" vs. the "British Crown." However this has been extended now to the private sector, as a quasi "corporate immunity," such as the UNSEEN "red shield hand" of Central Bankers like the Rothschilds in Britain, for instance, particularly since Nathanial. SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... "Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. "

And I suppose this also then includes the "diplomatic immunity" of "the state" and their parade of "pardoned" loyalists, when the king steps down... as the marching band plays: "onward..." Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. soldiers? EMPIRES of the the STATISTS = GOD?

Lao Tse said (to paraphrase) "He who thinks he knows GOD (in thinking, vs. truly knowing...) knows NOTHING!" So where does that leave those who believe they are (in effect) NOW GODS... or the supposed "CHOSEN PEOPLE" of ANY... MYTHIC GOD?! WST

The truly chosen are anyone who chooses to listen. Those who believe they already know, (in thinking terms) run off with a counterfeit reality. We can observe this in ourselves on many levels. We interpret everything through the bias of our narrative. Conscious or unconscious as that may be.

The intent to usurp the 'divinity' is perhaps the intent to use the mechanisms of human psychological archetypes as levers to assert and maintain power along the logic of its own self-definitions. It can easily see all what is wrong with others so as to justify itself.

But the belief that we know (at personality level) operates the usurpation of actual Divinity. The persona itself is a construct THROUGH which life in the world is experienced. To ascribe creative ability, power or knowing to this level is an ignorant and vain arrogance.

Yet our cultural identity is founded on just such ideas - which go back millennia.

However, a sense of disconnection is no less undone by reconnecting after millennia than after a moment - it is its own 'proof'. Human society has tended to deny our native knowing in favour of mental intellectualising- which appeals to external idols or authorities and operates as a fear-given power.

To be free of coercive will within one's own consciousness is to trust to a power that is inherent to existence - but it is not at all of the same order as our minds are conditioned.

Perhaps the strutting of the lunatics will make clear what you are not, and thus serve a deeper and more wholly focussed appreciation of who you are.

WILE: "There is already a good deal of predictable huffing and puffing about putting "Wall Street criminals" in jail and maybe, as well, about making "private" central banks public, as if their legal status will have any impact on their monopoly money printing privileges. It won't."

BISCHOFF: When the New York Federal Reserve Bank conducted open market operations in the 1920s contrary to prohibitions set out in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, it clearly engaged in illegal conduct. The Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve System, an oversight body created by the Congress and answerable to the U.S. Senate for the conduct of Federal Reserve Bank Associations within the Federal Reserve System, did nothing.

After the crash of the redeemable Federal Reserve Note in the early 1930s, resulting from illegal open market operations, instead of prosecuting the FRB NY, the Congress modified the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to retroactively legalize "open market operations" with the National Banking Act of 1935. Retroactive law is unconstitutional. However, once passed it immunizes from prosecution, thereby letting the FRB NY get away scot-free with ruining the redeemable currency system of the United States.

Furthermore, in 1933 the members of the FRB NY lobbied President Roosevelt to nationalize the gold savings of the American people as well, as to prohibit Americans from holding gold in the future, in order to save the banks from endless litigation for fraud, because of failure to redeem.

The National Banking Act of 1935 established the Federal Reserve System as an agency of the federal government with headquarters in Washington, DC. along with twelve district banks throughout the country. The board of directors headed by a president and serving as an oversight body of the "private" Federal Reserve Bank Associations was abolished by Congress in 1935 in favor of a Board of Governors headed by a chairman as well, as a "Federal Open Market Committee" also chaired by the Chairman of the Board of Governors.

The nomination for Chairman of the Board of Governors as well, as the nomination for members of the board of governors, come from the President of the United States. Nominees to the board of governors by law must come from the banking sector. It is the U.S. Senate which confirms the nominees to chairman and as member of the board of governors. While in the 1920s the FRB NY had to violate law to get their way, the 1935 NBA actually protects them in doing legally that which was clearly against the law previously. Clever, is not.....?????

The Congress conducts fiscal policy through voting of annual budget deficits, while the FOMC conducts monetary policy in setting interest rates. The 1935 Federal Reserve central bank monetizes the annual budget deficits through open market operations conducted by the Trading Desk at the New York Reserve Bank, generally known as the "Open Market Window" at the NY Fed.

Prime dealers, authorized by the FED to bid on government bonds, place their bids at the "Open Market Window". One of a handful of approved "prime dealers" is and always has been Goldman, Sachs & Co., along with Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and the now bankrupt firm of Lehman Bros.

As result of the elimination of the Glass-Steagall requirements under Bill Clinton, which separated "commercial banking" from "investment banking", prime dealers can now also be commercial bankers. The relaxation of Glass-Steagall requirements became especially important in saving the banks and investment houses after the 2008 financial debacle.

So, now we have an employee of the FRB NY, who probably doesn't have a full comprehension of the history of the "FED", listening to deliberations and decisions which she finds abhorrent and crooked, and she feels compelled to make them public.
So, what is new....???

The skullduggery she exposes, and which she finds abhorrent and crooked, has been going on for nearly a century. At minimum, the banking committees of the House and Senate had to be aware of it all.....but, then maybe not. Barney Franks doesn't know when the original Federal Reserve Act was passed, and Chris Dodd's mind was constantly on anything else, except to check what the prime dealers and the people at the FRB NY were up to.

"Huffing and puffing to put Wall Street criminals in jail" isn't a scare to those people. What scares the pants of the monetary elites is the removal of the "legal tender" protection from the Federal Reserve Note and the creation of a "National Banking System". By forming a "pact" with approval by Congress under provisions set out in Section 10 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the states can take back control over the creation of redeemable currency. The original Federal Reserve Act can serve as a perfect guide for a "National Banking Pact". After the initial acknowledgement by Congress of the formation of the National Banking Pact, the federal government will NO longer have any say regarding the creation of redeemable currency, preferably under the gold standard.

Talk about a "scare"...!!! If a pact between the states to issue redeemable currency were to happen, the irredeemable FRN created through annual congressional budget deficits would have to compete with a restored redeemable national currency created against Bills of Exchange and physical gold held by private banks. That is a nightmare which the central bankers would dread.....

Well, this is eloquent, Ingo - but why do states have to control money? As we recall, prior to the Civil War, the marketplace itself produced private redeemable money with minimal interference ...

DB: "Ingo - but why do states have to control money?"

BISCHOFF: States DO NOT "control" money. The founders prohibited states from "making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts", meaning that states are prohibited from making paper currency "legal tender" in payment of debt. The Constitution sets gold and silver as the measurement of value, and it prohibits the states from setting any other standard of measurement. It is too bad, but for their own good reasons, the framers did not put the same prohibition on the federal government.

On the other hand, a paper currency which is redeemable for a specific amount of gold or silver, is a currency which is not in violation of the Constitution. Such redeemable paper currency can rightfully be termed "money".

Common law states (since Louisiana changed from statutory law, all fifty states are now under common law) require that courts adjudicate civil cases involving financial settlement in terms of "constitutional" money or paper currency redeemable for "constitutional" money. Federal law is statutory law, and equity cases are not litigated in federal courts.

The framers believed that decisions in equity made by state courts should dispense justice in accordance with natural law, meaning that court directed financial settlements must be stated in terms of "constitutional" money, meaning that the standard to measure value be either gold or silver.

To insure the judiciary that decisions in terms of "money" are in fact expressed in terms of "constitutional" money, states issue charters to private banks for the creation of redeemable paper currency. These charters set forth the quantity of gold reserves a bank is required to have on hand as well, as the requirement that the value of paper currency in circulation match the value of not yet matured Bills of Exchange held on a 1:1 ratio by the issuing bank.

Redeemable paper currency has existed in the U.S. since the Coinage Act of 1792. States specified the creation of redeemable currency by issuing state bank charters before the Civil War as well, as after the Civil War. The violation by banks of charter requirements in using "idle" currency (currency "idle" to maintain the 1:1 ratio under the Real Bills Doctrine) for "speculative" real estate investments caused the domestic economy to periodically sink into recession and depression cycles of 18 to 20 years after the Civil War.

To prevent the recession and depression cycles caused by rogue bankers, the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. Under this system, private regional Reserve Bank Associations, under supervision by the U.S. Congress, created a national redeemable paper currency, called the redeemable Federal Reserve Note. Under the provision of the Act, member banks kept their gold reserves on deposit with their regional Reserve Association Bank, and they received from it redeemable FRNs to match the Bills of Exchange held, effectively eliminating "real estate speculations" with idle currency.

The Federal Reserve System created with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was nominally in effect until 1935. I say "nominally", because the private, regional FRB NY started to undermine the provisions of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act by conducting OMOs starting in the early 1920s. These rogue acts by the FRB NY eventually destroyed the redeemable Federal Reserve Note currency in 1933.

For currency created under the Real Bills Doctrine, the states had absolutely NO control over the quantity of such currency in circulation. The states only specified that the value of the currency in circulation match the value of the Bills of Exchange held by banks.

If a bank was successful in discounting a large number of Bills of Exchange, they were able to create a large amount of redeemable currency and consequently could earn a sizable discount. On the other hand, if consumer demand slackened, and the number of Bills of Exchange which could be discounted contracted, then a certain amount of currency had to be withdrawn from circulation to maintain a 1:1 ratio under the "Real Bills Doctrine" until such time that the Bills of Exchange inventory increased again.

It must be apparent from this explanation that the states DO NOT control the "quantity of money or redeemable currency" in circulation. What states do DO, and what states are required to DO under the Constitution, is to control the "quality of redeemable paper currency" in circulation.

It is the market, and the market alone which "controls" the "quantity of money and redeemable currency" in circulation.

The spending/investing of 'idle' currency by 'rogue' bankers is a fraud no different than counterfeiting. If the 1913 FRA put the State level rogue element out of business, it was only to monopolize the fraud for rogue elements of the FOMC. Now we are seeing pressure to clean up the FED, and I'll predict, soon other CBs at national levels, surely to be overseen by a global entity. And just as before, I'll predict that any such 'system' introduced will be fair and equitable, probably a gold standard, only corruptible from the very top, a birthplace for the roguest of rogues to operate.
.
I don't see how any county or the US, even under a National Banking Pact can go back to a redeemable currency at this point, because of a bigger problem. The bigger problem is that the rogue element, through regulatory capture have created and maintain monopoly statuses that has spread into almost all commodities, resources and productive capacity, globally. There is your pact, and currency will be what they say it is because average people will accept it for their labors if they need it to purchase their life sustaining products.
.
The only solution as far as I can see will have to be a grass roots one. Legal tender protection can be skirted by simply not extending credit, thereby creating debt, by demanding payment on delivery. This would include the paycheck. It will require pockets of local sustainable (hate that word) economies. It might be akin to barter, but people and business still have the right to issue their own currency, or coupons, redeemable in their own product or service. It would be a buyer/seller beware marketplace, but I'd rather the rogue element, which will always exist, be present at the ground level where they can either be dealt with or shunned; instead of occupying high office protected by states/governments. Winners and losers will be sorted out by the market and eventually a 'system' will emerge. Overly simplistic, I know. But that is what it boils down to, imho.

Hello Dave,

"The spending/investing of 'idle' currency by 'rogue' bankers is a fraud no different than counterfeiting."

The spending/investing of 'idle' currency by rogue bankers amounted to borrowing "short" and lending "long". Any banker "worth his salt" must know that such lending spells disaster.

The operation of the FOMC was made possible by the ratification of the 16th Amendment (Income tax to guarantee Treasury bonds) and the ratification of the 17th Amendment (shutting out the voice of the states in the U.S. Congress)

"....and I'll predict, soon other CBs at national levels, surely to be overseen by a global entity".

That global entity is the IMF and its SDRs (Special Drawing Rights). SDRs have gone nowhere..... There will never be more centralized control as is presently exercised by the FED, in conjunction with the Saudis, over the status of the world's reserve currency, aka Petro Dollar as well, as the domestic dollar, aka irredeemable Federal Reserve Note.

"The bigger problem is that the rogue element, through regulatory capture have created and maintain monopoly statuses that has spread into almost all commodities, resources and productive capacity, globally."

That is quite true. Therefore, it is imperative that the 17th Amendment be repealed. Once states retake their voice in the U.S. Senate, they will set upon dismantling the regulatory "sweetheart" deals as well, as the governmental central bank agency known as the FED.

"Legal tender protection can be skirted by simply not extending credit, thereby creating debt, by demanding payment on delivery."

Legal tender protection is not negated by failure to extent credit. "Legal tender" protection of the FRN means that, if I owe a debt to you and I offer to pay with FRNs, but you refuse to accept the offered FRNs, because you prefer to be paid with another type of currency or even money, you effectively have forgiven my debt to you. If you go to court suing me for non-payment of the debt, the judge will side with me, citing the Coinage Act of 1982. In other words, you have to accept my FRNs or you get nothing. Who under those circumstance would pay their debt with gold or silver (money), if it possible to settle the debt with irredeemable FRNs of uncertain or dubious value...???

Removing the "legal tender" protection from the FRN allows states again to charter private banks for the purpose of creating redeemable currency under the "Real Bills Doctrine" and the gold standard. The discounting of Bills of Exchange will immediately put the economy into swing. The redeemable currency will initially trade at a huge premium to the irredeemable FRN. This will make government employees, paid with irredeemable FRNs, very unhappy and drive them to seek work in the productive sector of the economy, furthering the up swing of the economy even more.

"... It might be akin to barter, but people and business still have the right to issue their own currency, or coupons, redeemable in their own product or service."

Why go back to the "stone age"...??? Redeemable currency created against domestic and international Bills of Exchange was in full bloom after Waterloo in 1814 until the beginning of WW I in 1914. It created a world trade volume in nominal terms in 1890 which was not again matched for a hundred years in 1990.
Just follow the proper doctrine for redeemable currency creation, and the "invisible hand" will take care of the rest. As long as governments stay out of the "money" business, you can have a "free market" distribution system. The minute governments enter the "money" business, government mandates results and creates a distribution system known as "Socialism".

Thanks Ingo,
.
We're not in any disagreement as far as I can tell, except you have a slant, that the previous system can be revived; where I tend to think the corruptors would rather see a complete destruction of the economy before they let that happen. See Nicholas Biddle's reaction to Andrew Jackson concerning the Second Bank.
.
The 'idle currency' under State banking was supposed to be cleared currency, therefore no longer currency at all. So, I'll maintain that the 'spending' of it was no different than 'spending' a counterfeited new currency, in that day.
.
True, the SDR has gone nowhere while the FRN is being pushed hard. Pays to have a backup plan? And the Saudis? Maybe they and the petrodollar were the most effective tool in the box for the last 40 years, but things are changing rapidly, where the BRICS could take or leave the Saudis as players. And who or what is working to advance the BRICS? Same as the old boss? I dunno.
.
You say, "Legal tender protection is not negated by failure to extent credit."
I was talking about legal protection of the FRN, and not 'failure' to but unwillingness to extend credit. Maybe this needs some more discussion. Once credit is extended (your right to do or not to do), debt is created and the law states that FRN's are legal tender for all debts public and private. Don't create private debt, and one can demand anything he wants for payment in the contract of any sale, so long as one has a willing and able partner in the trade. There is nothing illegal about that. Large commerce needs credit/debit, but there is no law against contracting on account. There is no law against settling in gold, just that one can't refuse FRNs if that is what is being offered...consider yourself paid. Where did the trust go? Was it always with government? Valid question, but I say no. Government replaced trust with fear of reprisal... and coined "in God we trust". And then there is the issue of "public" debt, or taxes 'owed'. Sure taxes can be paid with gold or silver eagles...at face value...what a rip!

Dave,

I fully agree with you that the corruptors would rather see a complete destruction of the economy before they accept the restoration of redeemable currency to compete with their irredeemable FRNs. The example you cite by mentioning Nicholas Biddle's reaction to Andrew Jackson concerning the Second Bank is spot on.

There is no doubt, things are changing. The BRIC countries are emerging as economic blocks which will sooner or later create their own redeemable currency.

As to the North American continent, I suggest that we invade Mexico to get rid of the drug mafia, and while we are there, we might as well turn their state and federal governments into Anglo-Saxon form of government. I am jesting. Nevertheless, restoring Anglo-Saxon form of government right here in the U.S. is something that is urgently needed.

As to trust and making contract with willing participants for payment in other than legal tender currency, I am not ready to agree with you. I like equity courts to be there, just in case the trust business doesn't work out. For awards in money, the courts want to be assured of the value of the "money" they award. A currency providing for redemption in specie is the only assurance the courts ought to accept.

Praetor,
As the framers said, the U.S. Constitution is written for a moral people. The United States law is based on Judeo-Christian ethics, meaning the "Ten Commandments."
I do not doubt that a number of those who have governed us in the past have been less than moral. Yet, we do vote for those who govern us, and the selection we make generally reflects our morals.
It is well to remember that we don't get the government we want. We get the government we deserve.

"A currency providing for redemption in specie is the only assurance the courts ought to accept."
There you go. A very needed and acceptable use of a gold standard. Was the currency used actually redeemable in gold? Maybe, maybe not, as defined in the contract. Was the currency's/coupon's denominational value defined by a specific amount of gold in the contract? Absolutely. Easy peasy for any arbitrator. Even for a US Magistrate.

"It is the market, and the market alone which "controls" the "quantity of money and redeemable currency" in circulation." - Ingo Bischoff

What redeemable currency? I have not seen any redeemable currency, in America, since the Coinage Act of 1965. Please elaborate.

You are absolutely correct. The Coinage Act of 1965 ended redemption of silver certificates, purged silver from coinage and also ceased the issuance of "Bills of Credit" currency (Greenbacks), a currency which had been in successful circulation since 1862.
When I speak about redeemable currency, I speak about the RESTORATION of redeemable currency. United States redeemable currency was destroyed with the destruction of the market for Bills of Exchange (Real Bills Market) brought on by the nationalization of the gold savings of American citizens by FDR in April of 1933.

Wasn't redeemable currency destroyed by the "elastic currency" brought to us by Paul Warburg and the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Redeemable currency is a standard. Elastic standards are oxymorons.

Even the Feds admit to Warburgs contribution for elastic currency. http://www.minneapolisfed.o...

Warburg's Contribution

"The idea of an "elastic currency," which would expand to meet the legitimate needs of business and commerce, was not new. In fact, Warburg himself claimed no originality for the idea, but through his writings, speeches and counsel to others he began to have a greater impact than anyone else. Warburg did, however, succeed in injecting two new ideas into the discussion: first, shifting of emphasis from the currency problem to the reserve problem; and second, advocacy of the principle of rediscounting a new kind of commercial paper."

"Wasn't redeemable currency destroyed by the "elastic currency" brought to us by Paul Warburg and the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act of 1913? Redeemable currency is a standard. Elastic standards are oxymorons."

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was not at all unconstitutional. There are too many authors, some I fear act as chills, who mask the real process taking place in the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

The brutal truth is that the supporters in Congress of the big money center banks seeking an exclusive franchise for the creation of a national currency had to give way to the insistence by the states that there be twelve separate franchises given out.

Furthermore, the franchises issued were for the creation of a redeemable Federal Reserve Note, in other words "constitutional" money. So much for the original FRA being an "unconstitutional" act.

However, confusing the public about it is clearly in the interest of the central bankers. Telling the public that it was the bankers and corrupt politicians who screwed them with passage of the 1913 FRA does take the eyes of the re-write of the original FRA with the National Banking Act of 1935. That is when the public really got screwed, in 1935 not in 1913. The sooner the public realizes this, the sooner we might see change.

As to "elastic currency", this may have been a concept voiced by Paul Warburg during the meeting at Jekyll Island, but it was not something that was incorporated in the FRA of 1913. It is the re-write of the original FRA by the NBA of 1935 when the term "elastic currency" is used again and again as justification for the changes to the original FRA.

Of course, "elastic currency" is an oxymoron. Redeemable currency under the gold standard uses gold as the standard measure of value. It is a fixed measuring device, just like a yard stick is a fixed measuring device for measuring linear distance. Who has heard of measuring linear distance with a rubber band......??? Talk about "elastic currency".......The term alone must tell you something about how central bankers think....

Thanks for your reply. I will have to look more into the National Banking Act of 1935.

Edwin Vieira, Jr. does a thorough analysis of the constitutionality of the Fed:
http://www.fame.org/HTM/Vie...

"To Regulate The Value Of Money" - An Analysis Of The Power Of Government To Create And Set A Value On Money

His Conclusion,
"The foregoing analysis proves that there is no constitutional basis for using the power "To * * * regulate the Value" of "Money" for stimulation of the economy, redistribution of wealth, stabilization of the purchasing power of money, creation of "legal-tender" substitutes for real "dollars,” or for any of the other sundry monetary nostrums that politicians and their unelected "expert" advisors have foisted, and continue to foist, on the American people."

I am sorry, Brother.....

Through a malfunction of my computer, I lost a long dissertation to answer you about "elastic currency".

Let me just say that I read the presentation in the link you cited. It contains a lot of verbiage, but few facts.

It always amazes me to learn how some of the most renown bankers, I exclude J. P. Morgan, have not the slightest idea about the nature and history of Real Bills, nor do they understand the "Real Bills Doctrine", put forth by Adam Smith in the 1750s.

I wish I had the time to rewrite my answer to you which I unfortunately lost in a computer mishap. I should learn to compose my replies in Microsoft Word and transfer it to the column, rather than write on the site directly.

In any case, this "elastic currency" business is and always has been a ruse. It is mentioned numerous times as justification for the rewrite of the original Federal Reserve Act by the National Banking Act of 1935.

If you really want to know what goes on in the mind of central bankers, forget about learning anything from reading the information on the sites of the Federal Reserve District Banks. Instead try to get a hold of the original 1913 FRA and compare it to the 1935 version.

Since it is very difficult to get a hold of the original 1913 FRA, I suggest you dig out the changes from the 1935 re-write. There, I particularly direct your attention to Section 14 of the 1935 version. As you scan Section 14 for changes, please don't be confused that paragraph (b), a change made in 1934 is listed before paragraph (c), which used to be paragraph (b) in the original FRA.

Some day, when I have more time, I will elaborate on the nature and history of Real Bills. Let me just state that Real Bills are not short-term commercial loans, and that the discounting of Real Bills has absolutely nothing to do with collecting interest on a loan.

"Elastic" in volume or value? Big difference. I do not see the FRA of 1913 as the original problem, other than it set up a playing field for deceptive corrupt players. And that brings us back to the question of whether legislation, that always seems to give advantage to corruption, is either willful or short sighted. I'm betting on willful. Therefore I condemn the likes of Warburg and the cabal. But nothing can be done without proof. How to prove intention?

Hello Dave,

"I do not see the FRA of 1913 as the original problem, other than it set up a playing field for deceptive corrupt players."

The deception and corruption occurred when U.S. Senate majority leader Aldridge and his supporters in the banking circles changed to advocate the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Their financial support to the Progressive Movement championing both amendments made possible their ratification in early 1913. This was clearly intentional. It later facilitated the illegal OMOs of the FRB NY.

Elastic in volume is elastic in value. It cheats everyone except the counterfeiters themselves. Think about it in elementary terms. Imagine you could go to your garage and print money whenever you wanted without paying any penalties. That is what they do. Now imagine that everyone could print their own money without paying any penalties. Nobody's money would be worth anything. Therefore, the FBI had to be created to hunt down any competition and put them in jail. It is a monopoly system of force. Without it the world would be much more peaceful.

Looking at the methods used to create the FRA of 1913 and all the secrecy behind its creation it is obvious that was willful intention.

Proof of intention is a given simply by looking at the players and their actions in order to get the FRA of 1913 passed in the first place. International banker Paul Warburg immigrated to America from Germany in 1902 the same year that the Pilgrim Society was established. He, and other bankers, conspired with Senator Nelson Aldrich (collusion between industry and government) (which is exactly what the Pilgrim Society claims is their mission) on a secret trip to Jekyll Island where they only used first names to hide their intentions. Then they set-up a fund to propagandize the plan at Universities around America. After that they pushed it through the House and Senate two days before Christmas in 1913, with 1/3 of the members absent on vacation. They pushed it through committee in the middle of the night when most members of congress, who were present, were asleep.

http://www.mindcontagion.or...
"The bill had been shepherded through a Congressional Conference Committee meeting scheduled for between 1:30 - 4:30 AM (when most members of Congress were asleep) on December 22, 1913. The Act was then voted on the next day and passed although many members of the body had left for the Christmas holidays and most others who stayed behind hadn't had time to read it or know its contents."

"The matter of the uniform discount rate was discussed and settled at Jekyll Island" - Paul M. Warburg

"Elastic in volume is elastic in value."
.
Not necessarily. We can't ignore the influence of market shortage or oversupply of goods and services. Surely another shoemaker in town will appreciate the value of the town currency in terms of shoes. Or the only shoemaker retiring would depreciate currency with respect to shoes. It would take government price controls to remove this 'elasticity'. It is no different with the sum total of products and services on a global scale. That is why I believe that currency creation needs to be kept as a market function with minimum government, or government sanctioned good gray men (as the DB kindly calls them), involvement. The amount of currency (that which is current) in circulation needs to closely mirror the amount of goods and services on the market if there is to be any semblance of a stabile economy. All else is barter and earth shined pick axes. Mining for money...go figure. What kind of an economy would we have if everyone was a gold miner? Everyone is gold rich and resource poor. Can you see the need for an elasticity in value?

A mile is a standard just like the dollar is a standard. A mile cannot be elastic. A mile must remain 5280 feet forever. A foot must remain 12 inches forever, etc. If the length of the mile was "elastic" and changed to 4000 feet, then everyone would get better fuel mileage and a man could run a 3 minute mile, and an acre would no longer be 43,560 square feet. But we are really only kidding ourselves and cheating 4 minute mile runners of the past.

The American dollar must remain as 371.25 grains of pure silver forever. Changing standards causes chaos and that is the root cause of our monetary problems today including an initiation of force by governments as they seek and destroy their competition. A FRN does not have a clear definition that anyone can count on. It is elastic. A FRN is worth less tomorrow than it is today. How much? Only the Fed governors know because it is a secret. There is no true audit of the Fed.

The volume to which I was referring was the volume of money. As more currency is printed it loses its value through monetary inflation. That is what I meant by elastic in volume is elastic in value. Hyperinflation is proof of that concept.

Yes, a mile is a value standard that can not be altered. But can the number of miles traveled in a day be altered without ruining that standard? Is there any elasticity in volume (distance traveled) allowed or does everyone need to conform to a daily mileage for the sake of fairness and stability, to uphold the standard?
.
This is a pivotal question I posed some time back. Who do you suppose should control the volume of money? And then should they also control the volume of goods and services to make sure everything balances? Does population enter the equation? Better control that too. What else?

I really do not understand how your first two questions relate. Using a standard does not change the standard in any way. Mining silver does not in any way change the fact that minting the silver into dollar coins must be kept at 371.25 grains of pure silver. The volume of money can change but the standard can't.

Nature always controls the volume of MONEY through the human actions of mining, growing, and sewing products.

Governments currently control the volume of CURRENCY through force and through that control they control the markets ... what is produced, how much is produced, and what quality, and yes control of the population too along with who benefits the most.

Take away government's control of currency and remove legal tender laws, then free markets emerge, and it liberates people. I do not see why anyone should control the volume of currency.

Arrggg! can't edit last sentance... Elasticity in VOLUME, in order to maintain a stable value...sorry bout that.

As the process of currency creation is taken away from the market, the currency becomes no longer redeemable. The only thing currently redeeming the USD, meaning it has any value at all, is "we the people", our properties and labors.

Dave,

"As the process of currency creation is taken away from the market, the currency becomes no longer redeemable."

The quickest way to kill redemption of paper currency is to outlaw the holding of gold. This was done to redeemable currency in the United States by the nationalization of the gold savings of the American people by Executive Order #6201 in 1933.

Redeemable currency created against 90-day Bills of Exchange involves the delivery of materials and supplies by manufacturers to producers. No manufacturer in his right mind will deliver supplies against a signature on a Real Bill which will not pay for the value of supplies delivered in the equivalent of value in amounts of gold.

I agree, and just to keep the record straight, I didn't advocate the outlawing of gold holding and am in total support of the late great Reals Bills Doctrine. That being said, small business may or may not need gold convertibility. Large transactions, very much so. More power to the producers who transact in any means they see fit, so long as it doesn't require government sanctioned involvement in the day to day trade. Let the nanny, or the playground chaperone, stand off to the side, available to resolve disputes, for those who need it.

correction-
"The only thing currently redeeming the USD..."
Dang it, I meant the FRN. The USD, the Silver Eagle, is alive and well, even after being orphaned.

Yes, I understand, and I am hoping that Ingo Bischoff will explain himself in more detail.

Yes, Brother....
I was trying to explain myself. I had an hour into writing my reply to explain when my computer malfunctioned. As soon as I have more time, I will explain.

Thanks. I will look forward to it.

"If a pact between the states to issue redeemable currency were to happen."

Your words ....

Yes, if.......

It is very unlikely for a redeemable currency to be restored with the 17th Amendment as part of the Constitution. The central bankers are now an integral part of the United States government under the provisions of the 1935 National Banking Act, and because they have control over the majority of the members of the U.S. Senate. Only the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and restoring the selection of U.S. Senators by state legislators will make possible the restoration of irredeemable currency in the United States.

Since the Congress will never propose the repeal of the 17th Amendment, I am 100% for the repeal of the 17th Amendment by a Convention of State Delegates called for that purpose. (See Article V of the U.S. Constitution)

"Only the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and restoring the selection of U.S. Senators by state legislators will make possible the restoration of irredeemable currency in the United States."
.
Ha, you did it too. You mean the restoration of REDEEMABLE currencies. We gotta watch those typos.
.
Anyway Ingo, I admire your 'proper' resolution. I only wish the American public had the wherewithal to institute such change and the patience to see it through.

There's a meme here that needed debunking: "In order to keep big monied interests in line, strict honest government regulations and regulators are needed. The current ones are derelict in their duty." Thanks for pointing out this fallacy, Anthony.

Actually, that "fallacy" provides the framework for the easiest way to change things. The regulators just have to regulate the right things: No more central banking (disband the Fed), and no more fractional reserve lending by the banks.

Wow, isn't this strange, I never listen to NPR, especially on weekends but I heard today at noon the whole Carmen deal. It was very interesting but what struck me was how naive Carmen herself was. All she needed to do was read the book Creature and realize that the culture of deception and fear and obscurationism within the Feds and amongst Fed workers had to do with its origins. Carmen has multiple degrees from Cornell and Harvard and who knows where else and speaks four languages and yet, was surprised what her bosses at the Fed said to her, etc.

I wonder if she would have spoken out if she knew more? Ironically, that's a big problem in all of this.

Watch your back Carmen.

Why don't you watch her back? Together we have a chance, divided we don't.

Until the very concept of fractional reserve credit creation itself is discredited and commodity money, managed in 100% reserve banks, restored to the citizens of the planet, there will be no substantive reining in of the excesses of the ruling class.