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

Honestly at this point I think it would be a long uphill struggle to try and wrangle control back of our money. I would love nothing more than to see our country become it's own and not sit at the heels of debt; but we need some politicians who can start the process and are not blinded by the paper that only has a slight amount of value to it which is that we give it.

We need leaders (not heads, but people that lead by example along with everyone else) not politicians. In other words politician are people that have a career. We need average folk, with no political background but with understanding of systems (social, technological, geographical etc..). Not one leader, but a few in their given fields that can input their understanding of their given field. And we all need to help connect the dots to make it cohesive. This will require lots of compromise in decision making, and have to be rooted not in ideology but rooted in what is best for the majority, what is best for our ecosystem which keeps us alive (along with all living organisms) and what is best and sustainable for our future. No special interests, no lobbying, no career service.

Of course that is all easier said than done. Without addressing what we view as money, none of this will ever be possible. It has nothing to do with voting in individuals that "aren't corrupt" because the very basis of our voting system which is tied to our economic system and our banking system is broken and beyond repair which is why we need completely revolutionary ideas.

Yeah.
2 bad we all don't just say to heck with valuing money over valuing cooperative people.

We already know how to cooperate, but I guess that is not incentive nor compensation enough.

a reply to: Chewingonmushrooms

I once heard Neil Degrasse Tyson talk about "where are all the scientists in government?" There are lawyers and businessmen, that's all. No engineers, artists, technicians, ect. The people and more to the point, LIFE, is not represented in government. Lets start with that.

Totally wrong thread.

a reply to: tadaman

Yes exactly, legalese scripture writers and actors are what we get. Why is that? Part of it is social psychology and part of it is manipulation of who gets exposure and who gets funds. Top leaders in ecology, academia, science, military (not intelligence agencies)DEFENSE, experts in city planning/infrastructure, experts in development (efficiency), geology etc..

Not cabinet, not sliding door experts with connection to the private sectors, not people that scratch backs not any of that. Economics needs to ACTUALLY economize not believe in the fairytale infinite growth.

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

One thing that has to be taken into account - When the Constitution was written there was 'real' money - All money of today is backed by nothing and is no more than a game. All money today is based more on credit for what its worth than anything else. Bad a job as the bankers do in controlling such a system, it is still even more questionable whether government would do any better. And it is probably too late to go back to the old economic system of the past.

So the way I look at it now we should all take a more critical look at both government and the banks and attempt to influence them in keeping the game fair for not only the billionaires that control most of the system, but for all levels of the economy. Maybe nothing is ever really fair - But if the game becomes too unfair it will implode, as some are predicting - In which case everyone loses including the rich who are running it.

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 ?

Are they not printing fiat money? So it is all the same.

My big thing with the gold standard is that even though it worked in the past I don't know if it would work today. There is a finite amount, which most would look at as a good thing, in that it raises the value (or holds its value) of whats around. Problem is we are at 7.1 billion strong now and growing. Projected population in 10 years is about 10 billion. Now unless you want scarcity where everyone is fighting for that ownership of gold and people have power and influence to hoard an un-purportionate amount, I don't see how that is necessarily a good thing. It would put the next generation at a serious handicap and still doesn't address the problems that comes with a scarcity economy (environmental destruction, and vast inequality for one).

And even if money was backed by something tangible do you think that the banks would be honest at the amounts they had at the vault? This would also make everyone poorer over night, no loans, no grants, restricted funding for science etc.. And how would you convert the money that you have presently to a gold backed one? In other words where would the millions of tons of the stuff come from in order to do that? Unless they plan on distributing it equally (a fixed amount) to everyone and let the market decide from that point on, I don't see how they can implement it. That would also run into problems because those with more money, or those with saved large amounts of money would be "shafted".

a reply to: Chewingonmushrooms

Instead of just a straight, gold-backed dollar, tying it to a basket of commodities would make it more stable.

Yeah that sounds a bit more practical IMO

a reply to: Chewingonmushrooms

Like I said it makes no difference what [or if] money is backed by something tangible or not - The way they have it running its all IOU's and credit - there is no real money. There are some who question the gold stored in Fort Knox which at one time was supposed to be backing the US dollar - Not anymore, Nixon took us off the gold standard a long time ago....Now do you think it would make any diffence if Fort Knox was found to have all those billions [or trillions] of dollars of gold in it like it is supposed to have or it had nothing but empty space and air - Wouldn't make two cents worth of difference - We function on an economic system which in essence is a game - it is backed by nothing except the bankers who control it - See why governments are afraid of the bankers? And I really wonder if governments would know how to create an operable economic system - Sure they might do a better job - But they could make things worse. I say we just keep monitoring [as best as possible] what is going on and try to get them to keep the game fair - I know that's hoping for a lot.

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

We just started bombing Syria surely we have weeks if not months of more bubble growth. Who knows, with any luck we can get ourselves into a prolonged engagement with Russia. That should keep oils prices up.

a reply to: AlienView

We are in agreement Alien. Currency of any kind can, and most likely will be, manipulated no matter what the form. As long as we link material goods with reward, power, and prestige there will always be people trying to gain as much of it as possible regardless of repercussions or ethics. Especially in a scarcity type economy. But I do not have the answers on how to solve that dilemma.