The Secret of Oz

[Serpo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h8qLkpA_PSshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h8qLkpA_PSs

Thirteen years ago, in a documentary called "The MoneyMasters", we asked the question why is America going broke. It wasn't clear then that we were, but it is today. Now the question is how can we get out of this mess. Foreclosures are everywhere, unemployment is skyrocketing - and this is only the beginning. America's economy is on a long, slippery slope from here on. The bubble ride of debt has come to an end.

What can government do? The sad answer is - under the current monetary system - nothing. It's not going to get better until the root of the problem is understood and addressed. There isn't enough stimulus money in the entire world to get us out of this hole.

Why? Debt. The national debt is just like our consumer debt - it's the interest that's killing us.

Though most people don't realize it the government can't just issue it's own money anymore. It used to be that way. The King could just issue stuff called money. Abraham Lincoln did it to win the Civil War.

No, today, in our crazy money system, the government has to borrow our money into existence and then pay interest on it. That's why they call it the National Debt. All our money is created out of debt. Politicians who focus on reducing the National Debt as an answer probably don't know what the National Debt really is. To reduce the National Debt would be to reduce our money - and there's already too little of that.

No, you have to go deeper. You have to get at the root of this problem or we're never going to fix this. The solution isn't new or radical. America used to do it. Politicians used to fight with big bankers over it. It's all in our history - now sadly - in the distant past.

But why can't we just do it again? Why can't we just issue our own money, debt free? That, my friends, is the answer. Talk about reform! That's the only reform that will make a huge difference to everyone's life - even worldwide.

The solution is the secret that's been hidden from us for just over 100 years - ever since the time when author L. Frank Baum wrote "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz."

If you like this film, please support the makers by purchasing an official DVD, by spreading the word about the movie, by making a donation on their web page, or by other means available to you. Thank you!

[palani]

If they accepted fiat when they could have demanded substance then there is no debt. This accounting ledger number known as "the national debt" is a fiction used as an excuse to demand more servitude. Two important common law maxims are


Si quid universitate debetur singulis non debetur, nec quod debet, universitas singuli debent. If anything is due to a corporation, it is not due to the individual members of it, nor do the members individually owe what the corporation owes.

Cujus per errorem dati repetitio est, ejus consulto dati donatio est. Whoever pays by mistake what he does not owe, may recover it back; but he who pays, knowing he owes nothing; is presumed to give.

Owing nothing I presumed to give while debts I contracted for have been paid. There is nothing to fix.


Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt. One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I cannot resist quoting P. T. Barnum, who tells us that There is a sucker born every minute. This should be translated into Latin and made a legal maxim, if it hasn't already been.

Seriously, Palani, how many Americans know that they are not liable to pay the debts of the multitude of corporations that presume to borrow in their name? How many Americans have even an inkling that their governments are private corporations? When we speak of our governing corporations, such as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Inc, or of the states, counties and municipalities, who are the members? Is it the owners? Those who have loaned money to these corporations? Or is it the taxpayers--the slaves who provide the productive energy to repay the owners for the credit they issued to the government corporations?

I personally feel no obligation, moral or legal, to repay the loans (or any part of them) made to any of the corporations which govern me. Likewise, I feel no obligation to pay taxes, but I do it anyway, because everyone else does, and it is the path of least resistance. The nail that stands out gets hammered. And like you, my personal debts have all been paid (or rather 'settled' because there is no real money of substance that has inherent value).

The owners of this country have my securitized birth certificate, and they rely on my continued affirmation of personal liability incurred by their slave, my 'strawman'.

Does knowing all this make me a fool in the eyes of the law?

I agree with you, however that there is no problem for me to fix. I did not contract for any of the debts of any government. I do not owe that money, so there really is nothing to fix. The problems the governments have are their own. I try to keep the number of FRNs in my possession down to an absolute minimum, so no problem there if the money becomes worthless. I am wary of any 'benefits' provided by the governing corporations because they come with far greater liabilities which I cannot honorably accept.


Hatha

[palani]

Seriously, Palani, how many Americans know that they are not liable to pay the debts of the multitude of corporations that presume to borrow in their name?

Not only are they not liable but they have no MEANS to pay any debt at all. You pay debt with something you OWN. Ownership of private property is not permitted according to the 10 planks.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I watched this on DVD when it first came out in 2009. It caused me to change my entire opinion about investing in gold. Gold has no intrinsic value except as money--and if it cannot be money because of the ease with which the gold markets can be controlled (as they are), then it doesn't have intrinsic value at all. The only value it has is it's desirability as a hedge against uncertainty because of peoples' belief that it maintains value. So, it's good in periods of monetary crisis, such as the period in which we now live. The time to sell it would be just before a new stabler money system is about to be put in place.

There seemed to be two Bill Stills. A young one and an older one, stitched together from two different videos separated by time.

Also, he has the wicked witches (who symbolically are the 'money powers' with green faces. Interesting that the medieval witches, the ones who were burned at the stake or drowned in Salem were women who had different ideas from the mainstream, likely influenced by their practice of applying a herbal brew of belladonna, henband and some other herb to their faces and limbs, hence making them green. The visions they got from these psychotropic drugs were often at odds with the views of the money power. In the 1600's European witches warned people about the health risks of sugar, so they were marginalized (and burned or drowned) by the powers who had interests in Sugar Plantations in the Caribbean. Not much different from today's drug wars.

Stills assertion that it is not what backs the money, but who controls its supply is the critical issue, sounds right to me. The problem I have with this is that it will either be politicians or bankers who control the money supply, and I trust neither.

I am more of the opinion that if you allow the value of money to be tied directly to the production of value, and people issue money themselves based on what value they contribute to an economy then you have a system that cannot easily be manipulated by the politicians or the bankers. The system that comes closest to this I think is Social Credits, proposed in 1920 or so by Clifford Douglas, and popularized at this web site:

http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

This system regulates the amount of money created in a way that is very very decentralized, and not easily monopolized by greedy evil power trippers.


Hatha

[Horn]

The problem I have with this is that it will either be politicians or bankers who control the money supply, and I trust neither.

Public control is better than private.

Add term limits & Congressional/Government paycuts to minimum wage you should be O.K.

[Bigjon]

I watched this on DVD when it first came out in 2009. It caused me to change my entire opinion about investing in gold. Gold has no intrinsic value except as money--and if it cannot be money because of the ease with which the gold markets can be controlled (as they are), then it doesn't have intrinsic value at all. The only value it has is it's desirability as a hedge against uncertainty because of peoples' belief that it maintains value. So, it's good in periods of monetary crisis, such as the period in which we now live. The time to sell it would be just before a new stabler money system is about to be put in place.

There seemed to be two Bill Stills. A young one and an older one, stitched together from two different videos separated by time.

Also, he has the wicked witches (who symbolically are the 'money powers' with green faces. Interesting that the medieval witches, the ones who were burned at the stake or drowned in Salem were women who had different ideas from the mainstream, likely influenced by their practice of applying a herbal brew of belladonna, henband and some other herb to their faces and limbs, hence making them green. The visions they got from these psychotropic drugs were often at odds with the views of the money power. In the 1600's European witches warned people about the health risks of sugar, so they were marginalized (and burned or drowned) by the powers who had interests in Sugar Plantations in the Caribbean. Not much different from today's drug wars.

Stills assertion that it is not what backs the money, but who controls its supply is the critical issue, sounds right to me. The problem I have with this is that it will either be politicians or bankers who control the money supply, and I trust neither.

I am more of the opinion that if you allow the value of money to be tied directly to the production of value, and people issue money themselves based on what value they contribute to an economy then you have a system that cannot easily be manipulated by the politicians or the bankers. The system that comes closest to this I think is Social Credits, proposed in 1920 or so by Clifford Douglas, and popularized at this web site:

http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

This system regulates the amount of money created in a way that is very very decentralized, and not easily monopolized by greedy evil power trippers.


Hatha

Everything you state, I agree with, but I don't believe you go far enough in analyzing our monetary system.

The founders of our country put in place a to my mind perfect system that the bankers destroyed, because they didn't control it and they replaced it with worthless paper of their own control.

The Constitution provided for the congress to coin money and regulate the value. It put in place a system that allowed ordinary citizens access to the mint to have their own bullion turned into coins. We had a dual metallic system with silver as the primary unit as dollars and gold as a secondary unit. The people were in control of the monetary supply and through market forces could regulate the value of the currency of the country. If bullion prices rose above the value of it's respective coin those excess coins could be sold for their melt value. and conversely as long as coins were at a premium bullion could be turned into coin.

I don't know where copper fit into this equation, I presume one could also take copper bullion to the mint to be made into pennies, but I'm not sure of it.

Considering that copper is an abundant metal and one of their pennies was worth about what one of our dollars are worth today leads me to believe the bankers would have a very hard time creating deflationary busts as they routinely do today.

[Carl]

If bullion prices rose above the value of it's respective coin those excess coins could be sold for their melt value. That makes no sense, how can the melt value be greater than the coin value when the coin value is used to determine the melt value? How can a one ounce silver coin be worth more or less than a one ounce silver coin?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Thank you for your expansion in an area that I perfunctorily dismissed. As with any analysis, if you reach the point where you consider the object under analysis to be absurd, the analysis stops.

Our current money system is absurd. Debt based money is absurd. But only if you understand it. Most people have no idea that our money is created by somebody going into debt. And that the money that is used to pay interest on that debt has to be taken out of the existing supply of money, and so to keep the money supply constant, much more debt has to be created--i. e. people have to borrow money at an exponentially increasing rate to keep the system stable. That is absurd. End of analysis. Beginning of activism to dispose of the system. Beginning of analysis on what alternative method makes sense.

I vote for Social Credits. Even Bill Still's solution would work better.

BTW, Bill still wrote a book called No More National Debt describing what he talks about here in much more detail.

Hatha

[Horn]

Hugo Salinas has the best idea allowing for a non-denominational silver coin that only floats to the upside of the market.

Along with whatever flavor was the fiat currency of the day.

Of course Gold could be included for the more snobery fellows...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh3R32zy3x8

[Bigjon]

That makes no sense, how can the melt value be greater than the coin value when the coin value is used to determine the melt value? How can a one ounce silver coin be worth more or less than a one ounce silver coin?

There is and always will be a market for gold and silver for their industrial and jewelry uses. If there becomes a shortage of the respective metal due to it's usage being tied up as a unit of monetary value, the price will rise and could exceed the value of the coin. So the answer is sell some coins as bullion and drive the value of the coins higher to match or exceed the bullion price.

[Bigjon]

I think there should be some way to create a system where the people control the value of their monetary system. That is why I like the original system.

I think another tack to take would be to have everyone put up a bond of precious metal and then let them issue paper or electronic currency up to the value of their stake in the system. Through their labor they would redeem these units of currency to keep their bank account in balance.

[Bigjon]

. And that the money that is used to pay interest on that debt has to be taken out of the existing supply of money, and so to keep the money supply constant, much more debt has to be created--i. e. people have to borrow money at an exponentially increasing rate to keep the system stable. That is absurd. End of analysis. Beginning of activism to dispose of the system. Beginning of analysis on what alternative method makes sense.
Hatha

You still persist in spouting this nonsense.

The INTEREST is built into the original loan amount and is kept in the system by the bankers spending of the interest collected.

Assume an island with only two people, one with nothing and one with all the wealth. The wealthy man has various tools, all the land and assets including 100 gold coins which are the only coins on the island.

Suppose the man with nothing makes a deal with the wealthy man in the hopes of bettering himself. He takes a loan from the wealthy man for 100 gold coins with a promise to pay back 110 gold coins in 5 years. Now it might seem to some that the poor man was fooled because the island only has 100 gold coins and to pay back the loan it would seem there needs to exist 110. However there is actually no problem because work itself has value.

Here is how the impossible loan payback happens:

The man uses his 100 coins loan productively to buy land, tools, etc. from the rich man. He works and produces food and other things of value which he sells to the rich man for 23 gold coins a each year. Each year he pays 22 coins toward the loan and keeps 1 himself. The number of coins always remained the same yet in 5 years the man paid off his 110 coin debt and owns land, tools, and 5 gold coins. The rich man has 95 coins plus the items of value the man produced with his work. The poor man's work added value into the closed island system that makes up for the loan interest plus more.

People forget that the coins are only representations and storage of work/value--in the end work is what produces the real value.

The little story is also a good example of how not all debt is bad. Productive debt can be good.

[Skirnir_]

On a similar note, monetary velocity is not taken into account by opponents of lending at interest, which is likely the idea behind the above scenario.

In passing, said opponents can go pound sand.

[palani]

The INTEREST is built into the original loan amount and is kept in the system by the bankers spending of the interest collected.

Assume an island with only two people, one with nothing and one with all the wealth.

You have sketched out a fairy tale proposition whereby the rich man parts with everything he "owns" in exchange for 5 years of servitude from the poor man. At the end of five years the previously poor man owns everything plus has five coins. The previously rich man still has 95 coins plus some other goods which he has not consumed (non-perishable). Now lets consider the next five years in which the previously rich man continues to pay 23 coins a year for the use of the labor of his servant. After five additional years he has contracted a debt of 115 coins yet has only 95 leaving him a debtor to the sum of 20 coins. After having been passed through the Fires of Molloch to get where he is now the previously poor man feels little sympathy for his previously rich friend, seizes his warehouses, breaks his legs and casts him into the ocean. The debt is cancelled.

All fairy tales should have a happy ending.

[Bigjon]

You have sketched out a fairy tale proposition whereby the rich man parts with everything he "owns" in exchange for 5 years of servitude from the poor man. At the end of five years the previously poor man owns everything plus has five coins. The previously rich man still has 95 coins plus some other goods which he has not consumed (non-perishable). Now lets consider the next five years in which the previously rich man continues to pay 23 coins a year for the use of the labor of his servant. After five additional years he has contracted a debt of 115 coins yet has only 95 leaving him a debtor to the sum of 20 coins. After having been passed through the Fires of Molloch to get where he is now the previously poor man feels little sympathy for his previously rich friend, seizes his warehouses, breaks his legs and casts him into the ocean. The debt is cancelled.

All fairy tales should have a happy ending.

Another flawed analysis by palani.

Nowhere in my little story does it say that the Rich man was a fool and sold all of his land.

[Bigjon]

On a similar note, monetary velocity is not taken into account by opponents of lending at interest, which is likely the idea behind the above scenario.

In passing, said opponents can go pound sand.

Geez, you want these people to understand velocity of money, get real they can't understand that spent money that leaves their hands doesn't go poof and disappear.

[palani]

Nowhere in my little story does it say that the Rich man was a fool and sold all of his land.

Nowhere does it say he didn't. I can tell you prefer a 2-dimensional view to one that adds another dimension.

http://i49.tinypic.com/21j3qkh.jpg

[Carl]

There is and always will be a market for gold and silver for their industrial and jewelry uses. If there becomes a shortage of the respective metal due to it's usage being tied up as a unit of monetary value, the price will rise and could exceed the value of the coin. So the answer is sell some coins as bullion and drive the value of the coins higher to match or exceed the bullion price. So, whatever is driving up the "price" of gold and silver is the money, not gold and silver.

If gold and silver are the money the what is being used to drive the price of the bullion higher than the money it's made from?

Who is the fool that would be stupid enough to pay more in silver coin for less silver in bullion form?

[Skirnir_]

Geez, you want these people to understand velocity of money, get real they can't understand that spent money that leaves their hands doesn't go poof and disappear.

I do not want them to understand anything, I just want the detritus to leave me the fuck alone. So long as that condition is met, I have no business with it.

[palani]

Who is the fool that would be stupid enough to pay more in silver coin for less silver in bullion form?
In a future scenario where a loaf of bread costs one 90% silver dime you walk into the bread shop with a one pound "mr happy" bar. You might walk out with 100 loaves of bread (of which 99 will spoil before you might consume them) or you might walk out with one loaf and 99 silver dimes in change.

Which option would a fool take?

[Carl]

You still persist in spouting this nonsense.

The INTEREST is built into the original loan amount and is kept in the system by the bankers spending of the interest collected.

Assume an island with only two people, one with nothing and one with all the wealth. The wealthy man has various tools, all the land and assets including 100 gold coins which are the only coins on the island.

Suppose the man with nothing makes a deal with the wealthy man in the hopes of bettering himself. He takes a loan from the wealthy man for 100 gold coins with a promise to pay back 110 gold coins in 5 years. Now it might seem to some that the poor man was fooled because the island only has 100 gold coins and to pay back the loan it would seem there needs to exist 110. However there is actually no problem because work itself has value.

Here is how the impossible loan payback happens:

The man uses his 100 coins loan productively to buy land, tools, etc. from the rich man. He works and produces food and other things of value which he sells to the rich man for 23 gold coins a each year. Each year he pays 22 coins toward the loan and keeps 1 himself. The number of coins always remained the same yet in 5 years the man paid off his 110 coin debt and owns land, tools, and 5 gold coins. The rich man has 95 coins plus the items of value the man produced with his work. The poor man's work added value into the closed island system that makes up for the loan interest plus more.

People forget that the coins are only representations and storage of work/value--in the end work is what produces the real value.

The little story is also a good example of how not all debt is bad. Productive debt can be good.The rich man is an idiot.

He should've loaned the gold at a compounding rate of interest then leased the land and tools to him for additional fees and at the end of each year, tax the man's productivity to ensure his perpetual indebtedness...

[Horn]

Who is the fool that would be stupid enough to pay more in silver coin for less silver in bullion form?

This is where Hugo's idea works so well, the silver coin only floats to the upside not down, by law.

[Hatha Sunahara]

In the real world it is the interest charged as well as the 'multiplier' of the fractional reserve in combination that results in all the wealth of the world being transferred from the people who work to create it to those who provide them with 'credit'. There is a famous quote from Josiah Stamp, the chairman of the Bank of England that validates this view. There is also a story by an Australian nemed Larry Hannigan on YouTube that illustrates what I described that you can watch here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ-4ElQ1ktE

In addition, there is a famous quote of Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild that says roughly :Give me the power to issue the money of a country and I care not who makes its laws.

The Catholic church banned usury (lending money at interest) for centuries. In the bible there is a thing called the 'Jubilee' in which all the ill gotten gains from charging interest are returned to those who worked for it.

I will continue to spout this nonsense because it is correct. Debtors are slaves to the lenders. This is a fact you cannot ignore when you talk about people who 'lend' money.

BigJohn--go out and borrow some money and tell me how much freer you feel.


Hatha

[Bigjon]

In the real world it is the interest charged as well as the 'multiplier' of the fractional reserve in combination that results in all the wealth of the world being transferred from the people who work to create it to those who provide them with 'credit'. There is a famous quote from Josiah Stamp, the chairman of the Bank of England that validates this view. There is also a story by an Australian nemed Larry Hannigan on YouTube that illustrates what I described that you can watch here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ-4ElQ1ktE

In addition, there is a famous quote of Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild that says roughly :Give me the power to issue the money of a country and I care not who makes its laws.

The Catholic church banned usury (lending money at interest) for centuries. In the bible there is a thing called the 'Jubilee' in which all the ill gotten gains from charging interest are returned to those who worked for it.

I will continue to spout this nonsense because it is correct. Debtors are slaves to the lenders. This is a fact you cannot ignore when you talk about people who 'lend' money.

BigJohn--go out and borrow some money and tell me how much freer you feel.


Hatha

I would assume you have a video from some fellow who is too stupid to analyze where the interest money comes from.

everything you say here is correct, but when you claim that the interest draws down on the amount of money you are dead wrong. Stupid in fact. The exact opposite happens the amount of money increases exponentially creating inflation.

[Bigjon]

So, whatever is driving up the "price" of gold and silver is the money, not gold and silver.

If gold and silver are the money the what is being used to drive the price of the bullion higher than the money it's made from?

Who is the fool that would be stupid enough to pay more in silver coin for less silver in bullion form?

The world is full of fools who do not know the value of things. There are many historical examples where the value of the coins is outstripped by the bullion price, it usually happens when the banks issue paper money alongside gold and silver. Just listen carefully to Hugo Salinas Price who says it oh so clearly.

I should add that when there is no mechanism like our founders provided for the general population to have access to the mint and the government issues the money and makes laws against defacing the currency, the people just hoard all those coins effectively removing them from competition with the banksters paper money.

[Bigjon]

The rich man is an idiot.

He should've loaned the gold at a compounding rate of interest then leased the land and tools to him for additional fees and at the end of each year, tax the man's productivity to ensure his perpetual indebtedness...

You are an idiot, it's an example that money spent can total more than the amount of money.