Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lincoln greenback’s, interest free greenbacks paying for war, federal reserve notes, seven financial conspiracies, contracting currency to pay for Iraq war
But you sure are no Lincoln. Lets have a look as the Lincoln greenback. They reduced the money supply and collected the bonds.
THE third scheme of robbery was that of contracting the currency by destroying the greenbacks. In pursuance of this plan the act of April 12, 1866, was passed whereby it was provided that a regular and systematic cremation of greenbacks should take place. Let it be remembered that upon this government money the greenback, the people did not pay interest. It was backed by the government, which made it safe and reliable, and issued in sums convenient for small as well as large business transactions. The money monger, with $1,000 in greenbacks, had found it necessary to employ that money in order to derive any profit from it. This added to his care, which apparently was the very thing he sought to avoid ; investments in commerce and manufacturing required his personal supervision ; investments in houses and land incurred taxation, risks, and often loss ; but investment in bonds seemed quite suited to his esthetical tastes, for they returned a rich golden harvest, without any of the annoyances of taxation, insurance or even the care of looking after his investments. Is it any wonder he hailed with joy the contraction policy, and gladly gave his $1,000 in greenbacks (to be consigned to the furnace), in exchange for a $1,000 untaxed, interest-bearing bond ? But what of labor seeking employment ? Shylock has invested his property in bonds, he has no need of labor ; true, labor must pay the interest on his bonds, but he has no employment for it. While this $1,000 was in government money it could have given two men employment in some profitable business ; but with his money invested in bonds, he kicks labor into the street and growls about the inefficiency of the tramp law. He does nothing whatever to advance the interests of labor, but drains its life-blood in payment of his everlasting interest. By investing the $1,000 in bonds it is taken from circulation. There is $1,000 less for the people to do business with, and $1,000 more for them to pay interest upon.
Seven Financial Conspiracies
-Sarah Emery
This makes good mention of the interest free greenback the bankers hated. However notice the similarity that they had an incentive to best employ the greenback with real investment. Instead however they were able to exchange them for interest bearing bonds and sit on them. Since banks are not lending just sitting on interest bearing treasuries suits them just fine. Why risk loaning money out when you keep getting treasuries which happen to be the best investment? Why trade away bacon for spam? All they need to do is keep letting their private loans tank and keep asking for them to be replaced with treasuries. Why try to put money to a useful purpose that needs to be managed?
As the final triumph the tax payer will need to make good on the bond that the bank sat on its hands to get but has a harder time paying it off since the bond gave incentive to the bank to give no consideration to employment.
I feel dumb. I don't understand the article. The gist I'm getting is that investment banks are investing in the treasury instead of loaning. Am I right?
I feel dumb. I don't understand the article. The gist I'm getting is that investment banks are investing in the treasury instead of loaning. Am I right?
Hi mjohnson4381,
Its not hard once you get it. Lincoln Green backs were how Lincoln avoided high interest banker gold to pay for the war. He printed his own currency. However once these were in circulation no one owed anything on them unlike our Federal Reserve notes that someone owes to a bank at interest. This is revenue the banking system is loosing as people happily exchange business with debt free notes. However the financiers moved in a law to allow for the exchange of green backs for bonds. What this meant is instead of using the money in the economy the money was sucked out and exchanged for bonds at interest( Econ 101 selling bonds draws money out). Drawing greenbacks out of the private economy and parking them in government debt that pays interest causes unemployment for those who will have to pay it. It also removed some of the debt free currency via the contraction act.
As the government keeps bailing out the banks they can sit on them and make acquisitions just as they are doing. However just as it was more than a 100 years ago it easier just to sit on bonds than actually try and put funds to use and if the economy gets worse they will increase in value. Why should they even bother?
Of course once they do start loaning again its back to the regular old usury fractional reserve notes that will bring it to this point once again.
I feel dumb. I don't understand the article. The gist I'm getting is that investment banks are investing in the treasury instead of loaning. Am I right?
Not exactly. Loaning to do what?
Actually gwynedd1 has hit the nail on the end in explaining the current economic crisis, as expressed through the financial crisis.
I'll try to put it succinctly.
The captains of industry and banking in the US have decided that it is not worth their effort, for whatever reason, to invest in productive, real employment-generating enterprises in the US. Instead they do that, if they do it at all, in countries like China, and let the Chinese worry about managing the labor, meanwhile back at home they suck out what is left of the country's wealth accumulated over decades of hard productive work.
They even whipped up the people to join them in this hysteria, convincing them that the path to wealth was borrowing to "own" unproductive, depreciating assets like cars and houses (even US education is now overpriced and in many cases not a good return on investment), not to mention reckless spending on consumer goods, part of the Ponzi scheme designed to suck out accumulated wealth and whatever meager income produced by their resource-destroying "services", putting them further into debt.
In the end, the average US worker will be treated no differently than the average Chinese worker, for example, and there will be a better balance of productive enterprises across continents, though fewer will accumulate the wealth generated, unlike what occurred in the US and Europe during the golden age of the middle class, roughly the 1950s-1990s period.
The comparison with the US Civil War period is very appropriate because it represents a watershed in pre-industrial vs. industrial economy societies. What we are witnessing now, after the European Civil Wars of the mid-20th Century, is the next step in the global spread of industrialization.
To gain some perspective, it took some 10,000 years for the social and political implications of the Agricultural Revolution to unfold. In the meantime, many empires and civilizations came and went during the process and a lot of slaves - of all colors - worked in fields.
For a comparison with the Roman Empire, study Italy's economic position and the status of its population as the Roman elite started up large-scale production enterprises in the newly conquered provinces. Eventually everyone attained citizenship but they were by and large de facto slaves, though it is worth observing that some slaves live better than others depending skills and their usefulness to their masters.
The moral of the story for the average person going forward is to avoid debt as much as possible and to keep up skill levels in the hopes of becoming a house slave, maybe even joining the master's family, rather than being forced to break one's back in the fields, whatever form that assumes in the coming decades and centuries.
There are many other ways to express what is happening, many other details to illustrate, many other comparisons to make, but I hope this helps a little. In the meantime ...
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,655 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Hi mjohnson4381,
Its not hard once you get it. Lincoln Green backs were how Lincoln avoided high interest banker gold to pay for the war. He printed his own currency. However once these were in circulation no one owed anything on them unlike our Federal Reserve notes that someone owes to a bank at interest. This is revenue the banking system is loosing as people happily exchange business with debt free notes. However the financiers moved in a law to allow for the exchange of green backs for bonds. What this meant is instead of using the money in the economy the money was sucked out and exchanged for bonds at interest( Econ 101 selling bonds draws money out). Drawing greenbacks out of the private economy and parking them in government debt that pays interest causes unemployment for those who will have to pay it. It also removed some of the debt free currency via the contraction act.
As the government keeps bailing out the banks they can sit on them and make acquisitions just as they are doing. However just as it was more than a 100 years ago it easier just to sit on bonds than actually try and put funds to use and if the economy gets worse they will increase in value. Why should they even bother?
Of course once they do start loaning again its back to the regular old usury fractional reserve notes that will bring it to this point once again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002
Not exactly. Loaning to do what?
Actually gwynedd1 has hit the nail on the end in explaining the current economic crisis, as expressed through the financial crisis.
I'll try to put it succinctly.
The captains of industry and banking in the US have decided that it is not worth their effort, for whatever reason, to invest in productive, real employment-generating enterprises in the US. Instead they do that, if they do it at all, in countries like China, and let the Chinese worry about managing the labor, meanwhile back at home they suck out what is left of the country's wealth accumulated over decades of hard productive work.
They even whipped up the people to join them in this hysteria, convincing them that the path to wealth was borrowing to "own" unproductive, depreciating assets like cars and houses (even US education is now overpriced and in many cases not a good return on investment), not to mention reckless spending on consumer goods, part of the Ponzi scheme designed to suck out accumulated wealth and whatever meager income produced by their resource-destroying "services", putting them further into debt.
In the end, the average US worker will be treated no differently than the average Chinese worker, for example, and there will be a better balance of productive enterprises across continents, though fewer will accumulate the wealth generated, unlike what occurred in the US and Europe during the golden age of the middle class, roughly the 1950s-1990s period.
The comparison with the US Civil War period is very appropriate because it represents a watershed in pre-industrial vs. industrial economy societies. What we are witnessing now, after the European Civil Wars of the mid-20th Century, is the next step in the global spread of industrialization.
To gain some perspective, it took some 10,000 years for the social and political implications of the Agricultural Revolution to unfold. In the meantime, many empires and civilizations came and went during the process and a lot of slaves - of all colors - worked in fields.
For a comparison with the Roman Empire, study Italy's economic position and the status of its population as the Roman elite started up large-scale production enterprises in the newly conquered provinces. Eventually everyone attained citizenship but they were by and large de facto slaves, though it is worth observing that some slaves live better than others depending skills and their usefulness to their masters.
The moral of the story for the average person going forward is to avoid debt as much as possible and to keep up skill levels in the hopes of becoming a house slave, maybe even joining the master's family, rather than being forced to break one's back in the fields, whatever form that assumes in the coming decades and centuries.
There are many other ways to express what is happening, many other details to illustrate, many other comparisons to make, but I hope this helps a little. In the meantime ...
Good luck!
So..............let me ask you guys, What can/should the average American do economically and/or politically to confront this issue? How do they take some of the power back? And what are some alternative methods you can think of for dealing with the current economic meltdown?
So..............let me ask you guys, What can/should the average American do economically and/or politically to confront this issue? How do they take some of the power back? And what are some alternative methods you can think of for dealing with the current economic meltdown?
First, dump the religion of consumerism, the opium of the people, and put the healthy part of materialism back in its place.
Next, and here I wish I had the strength to put my money where my mouth is, invest in local agriculture and manufacturing. This means, besides having capital to invest and technical skills, getting involved in local chambers of commerce and local government.
I have analyzed the membership of some chambers of commerce of my region, and they are dominated by FIRE economy companies and professionals who, in turn, dominate local government, symptomatic of the lopsided economic shape that the country is in.
I do not believe the rhetoric that US and European manufacturers, from the basics like shoes and socks to high technology, cannot compete with the so-called low cost producers. The manufacturing base in the US has been gutted for other reasons.
When there's a will there's a way, but there is no will when everyone's energies are sucked out by the religion of consumerism.
So it's more profitable for businesses to not hire workers when they get interest bearing bonds? Unlike the greenbacks...they had to use those because they couldn't make a profit unless they used them for employees? I guess where I'm confused is that I thought the bailout money was money loaned to businesses that had to be paid back with interest to the government. Doesn't that mean, assuming the money is paid back, that the government will profit?
I'm sorry I'm so slow. I did take the basic Economic classes in college, but I've never heard of greenbacks before.
So..............let me ask you guys, What can/should the average American do economically and/or politically to confront this issue? How do they take some of the power back? And what are some alternative methods you can think of for dealing with the current economic meltdown?
Hi baystater,
I think unless the number of people who understand the monetary system goes up it will be difficult to do much. It is not easy to understand the incestuous nature of money and debt and how it siphons capital away from labor and industry to finance. After labor and industry have their wealth siphoned away it just a matter of killing off those that went along for the ride which is the phase of small banks dieing and being acquired. Banks who have access to the fed win all. Grass roots is all there is at this point.
So it's more profitable for businesses to not hire workers when they get interest bearing bonds? Unlike the greenbacks...they had to use those because they couldn't make a profit unless they used them for employees? I guess where I'm confused is that I thought the bailout money was money loaned to businesses that had to be paid back with interest to the government. Doesn't that mean, assuming the money is paid back, that the government will profit?
I'm sorry I'm so slow. I did take the basic Economic classes in college, but I've never heard of greenbacks before.
Hi mjohnson4381,
Oh you will not learn this in Econ. I took Micro and Macro econ before dropping out of MBA school and shifted to CIS. It was basically just Keynesian. You may learn this in history class. You will learn that selling government bonds crowds out private borrowing. If the Federal government offered you 5% and your neighbor offered you 5% you would not lend to your neighbor. The Federal government is guaranteed. Thats the major complaint of heavy government borrowing. You will only lend to another at a higher rate. When we are in an inflationary environment it forces the Fed to sell bonds to cover the gap. Its quite simply really. If you park cash in a bond you are not giving it to anyone else.
The big scandle was they were running a surplus at the time. What was the need? also instead of selling bonds they just just raise revnue with more greenbacks. If they wanted to reduce their supply just tax them in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
