Should the US take back control of its money as prescribed by the Constitution?

The Congress shall have Power To...coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 5

Congress's power to coin money is exclusive: under Article I, Section 10, the states are not permitted to "coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...." Whereas the prohibitions on the states are clear and detailed, Congress's grant of power under the Coinage Clause is open-ended.

And what bribe, payoff, or threat did the banking cartel use to buy-off the US Congress, establish the Federal Reserve, and hence take control of the currency and economy of the US?

Comments might be interesting here but be aware it is an exercise in futility - 'They' control the game and regulate the rules.

The New World Order is nothing new, the games the same, only the players change.

They say John F. Kennedy wanted to go back to issuing US dollars - And we know what happened to him.

originally posted by: AlienView
They say John F. Kennedy wanted to go back to issuing US dollars - And we know what happened to him.

Then 'they' would be wrong since he never said any such thing.

a reply to: AlienView

Barter.

That eliminates the currency used in the US.

Easy-peasy.

a reply to: AlienView

It would be better for the people than the current system, but imo the best system would be to either allow the marketplace to issue currency and to allow society to sort it out on their own, or to create a standardized decentralized system where every single individual has the power to mint a fixed amount of money over the course of their lifetime so that the expansion of the money supply grew as a fixed ratio to population growth and so that each person had the same power to issue new credit initially.

The way I envision this working is that on your 18th birthday, you have the right to commission the treasury to issue 100 decimalizable credits in your name and every year thereafter you have the power to issue another credit in your name per year. You also have the power to return credits to the treasury to increase your credit score. This score determines the total debt you can accrue from all sources; however, while the money you have issued from the treasury does lower the score, it is not a loan, but your right as a citizen to your share of the issuance of new credit. This should cause a slightly deflationary economic effect as the demand for currency should outstrip the growth of the money supply as the real world economy grows and develops. Deflation encourages savings and discourages risky investments which is good to prevent the boom and bust cycle that is common in capitalist economies.

Anyone who has a credit score can also create a savings account up to the value of their credit score that will empower them to lend on their books up to twice this amount as unsecured loans. This way, new credit can be issued by any single individual, not just banks. Interest rates can be established on a supply/demand schedule up to a certain percentage, after which usury laws should apply. I'd say 10%. I think that's fair given our modern economic situations. That is roughly doubling the debt every 7 years. People should be able to earn their way out from under that.

a reply to: Nechash
I am not sure exactly what such a system would actually produce or whether it could work - Bot one star for creative thinking.

a reply to: AlienView

This is the answer! About eighty years ago!

Stop bailing water and get in one of the life boats?
We've been sabotaged in accordance to that which
only a few understand. So save yourself and those
who want to be saved. The rest never had a chance
any way.

originally posted by: AlienView

The Congress shall have Power To...coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 5

Congress's power to coin money is exclusive: under Article I, Section 10, the states are not permitted to "coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...." Whereas the prohibitions on the states are clear and detailed, Congress's grant of power under the Coinage Clause is open-ended.

And what bribe, payoff, or threat did the banking cartel use to buy-off the US Congress, establish the Federal Reserve, and hence take control of the currency and economy of the US?

Comments might be interesting here but be aware it is an exercise in futility - 'They' control the game and regulate the rules.

The New World Order is nothing new, the games the same, only the players change.

They say John F. Kennedy wanted to go back to issuing US dollars - And we know what happened to him.

Absolutely. Private Debt is a mathematical impossibility. The only allowed debt should be debt to the state, in this way bad debt ends up being covered by taxes causing 0 inflation.

The amount of money in a system should be a cumulative amount needed to operate and facilitate the exchange of goods and services. If the amount of money is determined by the amount of working class citizens, money would be pumped in as population grows or withdrawn through taxation if the population shrinks. Supply and demand will work out the pricing details as the population grows and shrinks.

Money is not a commodity that we can allow to be hoarded, money is a tool for the exchange of goods only. If someone wants to hoard they need to hoard material goods and put the money back into the economy. Putting a reasonable cap on wealth will allow entrepreneurs to dream but ensure the wealthiest are required to reinvest in the system. Allowing unlimited wealth leads some to worship money and use it to buy power, tyranny.

If we force the wealthiest to spend and not hoard thier money, their spending will generate the economy as entrepreneurs look to build new toys for the rich and famous who now have to reinvest in humanity and stop trying to invest in total world domination. We only need one God.

We can recreate the entire system without collapse, it will take faith but who wouldn't vote to start this money game over? Can it get worse?

The abdicating of enumerated powers happened long before the Fed came into exsistence. It would be wise, but our "global" dominance would fall in terms of wealth. Our GDP is based on our total productive output, and moving away from that....as I would like see happen, would put us into hyperinflation as our currency would devalue drastically.

a reply to: sacgamer25

We can recreate the entire system without collapse, it will take faith but who wouldn't vote to start this money game over? Can it get worse?

You say 'we' but 'they' will put every obstacle in the way of changing 'the money game' they control - And I perosnally believe [based on research] that these people when backed into a corner will stop at nothing to maintain control. They are capable of making the power struggles of organized crime look like kids on a picnic - 'They' can't be bought as they control most of the world's money and any physical attempt to stop them would be futile. And then consider that if this controlling power infrastructure were to collapse would government be able to compensate? That's one way that they got control in the first place by claiming they could stabilize world economies - often they have done a lousy job and cynics may see some of this as intentional. But it is easier to postulate replacing the 'powers that be' with a better system but I'm not sure what the consequences would be and most people would rather leave the status quo in place than risk total anarchy.

If enough people take their marbles, credit cards, fiat currency and talents home and never come back to the table, it will happen automatically.

Stop buying things you don't need, stop using credit cards, stop paying interest, default on the whole effing plan of slavery. Refuse to work in a 'job' you hate. Stop pretending 'they' have dominion over you. Barter, barter, barter.

The extent of your negative reaction to the above will tell you the extent of your enslavement in the system.

I think all the countries should stop with the Banking tyrants banks, and have independent ones.

"Give me control of a country's money supply, and I care not what laws they pass".

a reply to: Unity_99

Some still do. Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria (until recently Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) all have banking systems not tied to a Rothschild style central bank. Notice a theme here ?

Many great ideas in this thread. I think it's become obvious that our current banking institutions are a con game and our economic systems is based on unsustainability. We need people that offer solutions and creative new ideas how to push forward. Make no mistake about it, this economic system is failing into shambles along with the ecosystem that it's been taxing. There is no way this can continue as long as countries continue to develop and population continues to grow. The powers understand this and are trying their best to come up with a solution, the end result of which is not beneficial to the majority of us. Has any taken the Venus Projects concept of Resource Based Economy seriously? It's in interesting concept, but my question is who will direct it and how will it come into being? Any massive change in paradigm will have to happen globally. Something like VP cannot happen while there are still "isms" and border disputes.

This creates a problem in that those in power have been wanting to create a global world order for quite some time now, where power is centralized. So something like a Resource Based Economy, although great in theory, makes me a bit weary if done under the guise of progress. Without a doubt though on the same token any real change discussed (I don't believe gold standard is enough, I think we need more radical and fresh ideas) needs to be eventually met and agree upon globally. It would make no sense for something like that to exist in one country while another country is still based on money currency. Eventually a clash would occur.

Maybe instead of a centralized version we could some how localize it, which would avoid the pitfalls of concentration of power in one location (decentralized). I'm not smart enough to come up with the right answer to these problems but I think that individuals such as those in this thread and on this site (and beyond of course with an understanding of seriousness of the situation) can and will do so. Pretty much our survival depends on this.

All options should be on the table to be discarded (yes including socialism and capitalism) and all options explored. The pros and cons of things.

originally posted by: babybunnies
a reply to: Unity_99

Some still do. Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria (until recently Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) all have banking systems not tied to a Rothschild style central bank. Notice a theme here ?

Sorry dude but every nation you mentioned above has a central bank

www.bc.gob.cu...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

etc

You've been listening to poorly constructed propaganda

a reply to: Chewingonmushrooms

All options should be on the table to be discarded (yes including socialism and capitalism) and all options explored. The pros and cons of things.

You've expressed some interesting ideas Chewingonmushrooms but you last statement reflects a belief in a democracy where the people decide their economic options - Fact is it is a democracy where you have the freedom to spend your money like you wish - But when it comes to how the money is issued and controlled it is s pure dictatorship of those who control the money game. We can discuss this till hell freezes over and probably will - but they will do whatever is best for their interests - economics on a national and international scale has nothing to do with democracy - it is a game of power.

a reply to: AlienView

The first president to successfully give the country control of its money again and not get assassinated will be the greatest president ever. Its one thing to avoid the bite of the banking cartels while taking the occasional jab at it. Its another to wrestle away control and recover from the death spin.

If he lives to talk about it, he will be a herculian hero.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: AlienView

The first president to successfully give the country control of its money again and not get assassinated will be the greatest president ever. Its one thing to avoid the bite of the banking cartels while taking the occasional jab at it. Its another to wrestle away control and recover from the death spin.

If he lives to talk about it, he will be a herculian hero.

And the likelihood of this happening when 'they' decide who can run for President and how much money to spend on putting their candidates into office? Very, very, very unlikely. Independent candidates outside of the major political parties stand almost no chance of winning a major election - Remember Ross Perot? He even had plenty of his own money to back him up - Anyway I forget what he stood for- does it matter? Either your with 'them' or against 'them' and if you are against them the deck is stacked against you.

So why do I start posts like this when I don't beleve there is any chance of changing things. I believe it is better that they know we are aware of what they are getting away with- maybe, just maybe we can at least influence them into robbing us less - And remind them that even the Roman Empire eventually fell - Or do we still have the Roman Empire under a different name?

First things first: Set gold and diamonds at pennies per pound. Then, erase the fed. Everything will fall back into place as it should afterwards.

a reply to: AlienView

Oh I agree totally. I understand fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, and compound interest. I don't believe in "democracy" at least in our current structure which is why I know that voting and the two party system is rigged. That's my point entirely, and is why I said that all options should be on the table to be scrutinized. I do not have confidence in any money change to be quite honest, but I am open. The Founding fathers successfully eliminated central banking (of England) which was the real reason for revolution, not the tea party, no taxation without representation that we are taught to death. But guess what happened? Eventually the "powers" infiltrated and changed policy in the early 1900's. That's what will always happen, you can eliminate the fed, but sooner or later it will rear it's ugly head again, this time with a new name.

This is why I think we need to find a system that moves away for currency value and its use in the exchange of energy. Resource based economy is interesting, but not without it's own pitfalls. I do want to say however that the application of said ideas will only come when the current power structure implodes on itself, which IMO, is going to happen within the next 5-10 years. This system is crumbling as we speak. These are exciting times indeed my friend!