WEB OF DEBT BLOG

BUT GOVERNOR, YOU CAN CREATE MONEY! JUST FORM YOUR OWN BANK.

36 Responses

1. 

   Fernando Macias, on May 27, 2009 at 1:48 am said:

   Dear Ellen,

   I just got finished viewing a video entitled “The Obama Deception.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
   This may be a little off topic from your article, but not from your blog. I would very much like to get your feedback on this video. I think it is true that the reason so many are turning to the internet for news is that mainstream media can not be trusted. Much of what I saw on the video I have been able to verify by the news that has come across the media and the research I have done in the past.

   Reply
   • 

     Ellen Brown, on May 27, 2009 at 6:45 am said:

     Haven’t seen it but I’ll look when I get a chance! Incredibly busy these days. Ellen

     Reply
   • 

     Jere Hough, on July 24, 2009 at 3:02 am said:

     The problem, Fernando, is that much of the internet cannot be trusted either. Still, those that are open-minded and seeking truth can find a wide divergence of viewpoints on any given issue on the net.

     The video entitled the Obama Deception should properly be called the “Banker Deception” or the Federal Reserve Deception. The Money Powers are trying to shift the blame for all the money and banking ills on to Obama. Gullible and economically ignorant people (that’s most US citizens) will buy it.

     He’s just serving as their scapegoat or patsy. That’s what he was elected to do… “take the fall” for the monopolistic banksters and corporate hucksters.

     Reply
2. 

   Jere Hough, on May 27, 2009 at 2:16 am said:

   Thanks, Ellen, for another important truth revealing article. Sooner or later the public is going to discover that governments have the sovereign right and responsibility to create money and control its distribution, value, and velocity. The right to create money flows from the constitutional rights of the individual to enter into contracts.

   I hope the discovery is sooner, as later surely means spreading economic chaos and disaster.

   Just a reminder to all that our forum is open at:

   http://www.forum.webofdebt.com

   Reply
3. 

   Joseph Danison, on May 29, 2009 at 1:04 am said:

   Complete this phrase: “You can lead a horse to water, but….”

   Reply
4. 

   Rajiv, on June 2, 2009 at 4:27 am said:

   Saw an interesting map on Itulip

   http://www.itulip.com/forums/showpost.php?p=101451&postcount=1

   

   Which is basically an update to their monthly U.S. unemployment graph for April 2009 from the BLS. The rate of increase in unemployment remains in the range of 1.1 to 40% for every state except North Dakota where unemployment is rising at an annual rate of 0.6% to 1%.

   I think it reinforces what you have been saying all along!

   Reply
5. 

   Bob Walton, on June 28, 2009 at 5:49 pm said:

   Regarding State-Owned Banks:

   Having studied Richard C. Cook’s “We Hold These Truths The Hope of Monetary Reform”, I recognize common ground: “credit as a public utility”. In a recent e-mail I have urged Mr. Cook, a highly respected member of the American Monetary Institute, to support Ellen Brown’s idea of state-owned banks in the model of North Dakota.

   While this approach does not replace or nationalize the Federal Reserve, it seems to hold more promise of success by avoiding a head-on assault on what we all recognize to be a system of immense power. With the model of North Dakota already in place, we have a beach head of success upon which to build and who wants to argue with success?

   I want to encourage Ellen Brown and all monetary reformers to get together on the North Dakota state-owned bank issue- whether or not it is seen as the ideal solution. “Credit as a public utility” should be our common theme.

   How to proceed? I would favor immediately mounting a grass roots “initiative” by petition in each state. We must not rely on any Governor or State Legislature because of the corrupting counter-attack which will be mounted by the Feds. Just as has been shown with the Washington District of Criminals, our state Governors and Legislators cannot be relied upon to side with “we the people” on an issue of such importance to the survival of our Nation.

   This is not to say we should not enlist the help of our public officials. The state-owned bank is desperately needed by State and local officials as a means of fighting back against the manufactured economic crash which is bankrupting states, counties and cities everywhere.

   In particular, I would cite the need to lobby our County Sheriffs to support this initiative. Living in the border region of the Southwest, I have observed that our County Sheriffs are under assault by a Federal policy which encourages foreigners to traffic in drugs and illegal immigrants. The Feds are using the lawlessness they have created as an excuse to bring in a global police state while the Sheriffs Departments are being squeezed financially so that they are unable to defend and protect the Constitution as per their sworn oath.

   The battleground will be in counting the ballots. Any state which has electronic/computer voting will be subject to vote fraud. Any campaign for a state-owned bank must include a campaign for hand-counted votes state wide.

   Ron Paul is not the answer. He is a libertarian gold bug whose movement is sucking up the energy of a besieged public living in a matrix of media lies and deception. However, we need to enlist all Ron Paul supporters. I have noted that the state-bank idea was posted on the Daily Paul: “State Banks- A Solution to the Fed and Wall St Greed”:

   http://www.dailypaul.com/node/85147

   From this and similar articles, I am attempting to identify individuals and groups across the country who would be candidates to lead such a grassroots movement as I am suggesting. For example- Does anybody know John Hoeven Governor of North Dakota and former head of the Bank of North Dakota? Now there would be a guy to get on board!

   Drawing on Ellen’s March 3, 2009 article “Playing the Banking Game: How Cash Starved States can Create their Own Credit”:
   http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12522www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12522
   I see reference to Mr. Robert Ellis of Tucson who wrote a letter to California Governor Schwarzenegger. Did Arnold ever respond? Does anybody know how to get in touch with Mr. Ellis? I have been using Google and getting nowhere.

   I hope this post will generate some discussion and I ask that the moderator will flag it for Ellen Brown as I would very much like to get her response.

   Thank You,

   Bob Walton
   Portal, Arizona

   Reply
   • 

     Ellen Brown, on June 28, 2009 at 6:24 pm said:

     Hi, I totally agree! Thanks for writing. Richard Cook and I are friends and in communication. I’ll forward your email to Bob Ellis. I just this moment wrote him an email on this. Maybe you or someone on this blog can check my figures for me. Here’s what I wrote —

     Things are looking dire for California, with the possibility of having to pay workers in IOUs beginning this Wednesday; so I thought I’d try another article on how to fix it. Could you check my calculations on this?

     Projected state revenues for 2009 are $128B.
     Projected expenditures are $134B. (I’m already off somewhere, because Schwarzenegger says we have a $23B deficit; but those are the figures given on the official website,
     http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/BSS/BSS.html.)
     Outstanding bonds = $56B.

     Say California took all $128B in revenues and deposited them initially in its own state-owned bank. These would generate 10x that sum in loans. To lend itself $23B, of course, it wouldn’t need nearly that much, only $2.3B in deposits and about $2B in capital (at 8%). But assume it wanted to buy back all its debt and fund its own bonds: it would need to finance $56B (in bonds) + $23B (the deficit) = $79B. So if it invested $7B of its revenues into the bank as “capital” and kept $8B in the bank as deposits, it would be covered, right? Of course it would now be $7B poorer in terms of available revenues, so say it financed $86B (to cover the extra 7). $7B would still be sufficient to meet the 8% capital requirement, and $8.6B in deposits would meet the reserve requirement, no? But maybe it’s unrealistic to fund all its outstanding bonds. I probably should stick with arguing for funding the $23B deficit to start, just to look credible.

     Reply
   • 

     therooster, on July 1, 2009 at 7:24 pm said:

     Money from nothing , regardless of interest at 0% or 0+% is not an answer. It must be backed.

     Real-time gold has solved the historical liquidity (deflation) problems associated with gold systems of the past. Let it rise in price as per the market and split the weight. Simple.

     Gold was never deflationary. Only the logistics of distribution were deflationary. No more gold is needed. Not an ounce. Just let it float and split it up by weight.

     The irony is that debt based fiat was indispensible to the process and arrival of real-time gold backed digital currency. The peg was the problem and had to be severed.

     Don’t make a simple issue complicated !

     Reply
     • 

       Bob Walton, on July 6, 2009 at 2:49 pm said:

       “real-time gold backed digital currency”:

       therooster: Please provide a reference for this concept. Also do you have data on ownership of the gold in the world?

       We have a crisis that requires a quick solution. What process would you suggest for implementing your plan?

       The North Dakota model is working now and, with enough public support, could be brought on in a matter of months. The bankers will fight it because the interest goes to the people and not the bankers.

       Fractional reserve banking was born as a scam and as such is not the long-term solution. Once the state-owned bank concept takes off, we can then transition into something like the “Cook Plan” which is explained extensively by Richard C. Cook as referenced in my post above.

       The fundamental concept is that the people control the currency which is issued to the people by their government as a “public utility”. It’s value will reflect the productive capacity of the nation and not be in accordance with international bankers who control the gold market worldwide.

       Reply
       • 

         therooster, on July 6, 2009 at 3:48 pm said:

         goldmoney.com and e-gold are two gold backed payment processors. There are others too. Each account holder owns his/her own gold and what gets transfered via the payment system is title to the allocated gold …….. by weight !

         You can now buy a stick of gum in Timbuktu with gold title, fully backed and unencumbered and you can do so in an instant.

         There is no financial crisis. There is only a marketing challenge that must be approached from the bottom-up.

         The elite’s role (top-down) is to carry “the stick”. Most peope, unfortuately, will only respond to change via painful motivation.

         We are all foloowing the same “script”. I was cast in a nice role ……. you ?

         Reply
         • 

           Jere Hough, on July 24, 2009 at 3:08 am said:

           Rooster, Why did you not answer Bob’s questions?

           To his, I would add this: Who wrote, or is writing, the “script”?

           Reply
       • 

         therooster, on July 7, 2009 at 12:18 pm said:

         I used to believe that fractional reserve banking was born as a scam. Maybe the intention was based on such intention but there is a strange irony in the development of fiat based debt currency. Without it, real-time 100% gold backed digital currency could not have come about. Real-time gold is predicated on a floating relationship but involved the transfer of weighted gold title as payment. Currencies act as the real-time measure. That’s all.

         I can now buy a flea that resides on a politicians arse anywhere in the world and I can do so in an instant and close out the transaction , completely ….. with no debt.

         Debt free store of value has now married with instant global liquidity. The structure of gold payment processors is such that gold is central and currencies (because of pricing) revolve around gold in a real-time relationship.

         When properly understood, it’s easy to see that the real-time relationship is a major key and a “new wineskin” in monetary history. It’s also easy to see that the pegged relationship of gold and dollars (Bretton Woods) had to be severed so that gold could float as per its dollar price. A pegged relationship (fixed) runs counter to a real-time float.

         This gold backed system is better for the cause of freedom that any system where government issues currency, mainly because of decentralized structure and removing government’s hierarchical power hold (also a feature of central banking). We have been structured in hierarchy since the “fall of man” when the “apple was shoved in our faces”. The structural die was cast and all secular models followed the economic example. Structure is key, primary and most often overlooked because the hierarchical paradigm is looked upon without question and as a matter of default.

         Gold backed digital weight measured by currency in real time is developed and managed within the decentralized private sector with no government interference other than arbitrating the fairness of currency exchange from one paradigm to the other as currency is exchanged for gold and visa versa. Call them the “gatekeepers” is all.

         The best part may be that all gold is owned by account holders, outright, Sovereign. Unencumbered.

         The irony is that debt currency is still part of the real value for real value trade because currency is absolutely indispensable to the algorithm that “measures the amount of gold” that is needed to make payment given that pricing is done in currency.

         If the severing of the Bretton Woods peg at $35/ounce was necessary to reach this moment in time, were all the events that track back to 1913 also necessary ? A necessary evil is still a necessity, no ?

         We are all following the same “script”. Some people get nice parts, while others get those that are “tough jobs”. The script has both.

         The elite cannot take an active part in the proliferation of the above gold backed system because the state of the dollar is important in the transition, specifically, the rate of change. It must be a market endeavour for this reason, bottom-up, not top-down. We’re following the script. The job of the elite is simply to “carry the stick” because most people are stubborn when it comes to change and pain has proven to be a more powerful motivator than pleasure. It’s true and yes, it is a pity but it is what it is.

         Take the carrot. Never forget the gifts of the magi.

         Reply
         • 

           Ellen Brown, on July 7, 2009 at 1:22 pm said:

           Your entries are still too long. I read it fast, and I would say you have it backwards: gold was the ruse that allowed the deceptive fractional reserve banking system to develop. Without the pretense of gold backing, the moneylenders would not have gotten away with their scheme.

           Reply
         • 

           Bob Walton, on July 8, 2009 at 4:24 pm said:

           “Gold-money”, Rooster’s example of the “gold payment” processor concept, is not a monetary system but a private investment/gold storage company where the account holder can make instant irrevocable electronic transactions in “physical gold” which is held for him in a vault. This is fine if an individual wishes to own the commodity gold as a hedge against inflation while also having the opportunity to trade the gold for other goods and services and the convenience of letting somebody else weigh, count and store his gold. But how does this idea get us out from under the boot of the private globalist bankers who are choking us with debt and ruining our Country?

           Rooster crows that there is an “elite” yet “decentralized private sector” to which we the people should entrust our “cause of freedom” and that we must “take the carrot” and give them “the stick” as a “necessary evil”. Is this supposed to be a joke, a distraction or both?

           Reply
           • 

             Ellen Brown, on July 8, 2009 at 8:47 pm said:

             that’s good Bob! Rooster has some other posts pending that I can’t bring myself to approve, because they’re long and don’t seem to say anything and are a distraction. Either he’s trying to sell something or he’s trying to obfuscate and confuse. Best, Ellen

             Reply
6. 

   therooster, on July 6, 2009 at 4:00 pm said:

   This site is promoting government power and leading perceptions toward the concept of socialism. The problem with the current debt money system is not that the ownership is private. The problem is that the banking system is creating money from thin air out of nothing. Nice work if you can get it.

   Asset based money creates an honest market that subscribes to market law, real work and the sweat of the brow. It also allows for competitive decentralization, something that an IOU system cannot do.

   Centralization and money from nothing are like two codependant sickos in the same cooperative recovery ward.

   Reply
   • 

     Ellen Brown, on July 6, 2009 at 6:47 pm said:

     It’s not socialism. It’s the original American monetary system — money issued by the people for the people, through their own publicly-owned banks. We lost that system to a private banking cartel, and the bankers got it from us by purporting to have “asset-backed” money — notes supposedly backed by gold. Gold has never worked as a medium of exchange. It’s too limited, and “he who owns the gold makes the rules.”

     Reply
7. 

   Nik, on July 7, 2009 at 9:11 am said:

   Decreasing the actual entire money creation process by gold, (which is surely the obvious thing that gold fans relate to primarily in it’s contrast to inflationary debt bubbles) is a method not related to the actual cyclical price and dividend/salary/wage dynamic; it is this dynamic that is the distributive mechanism of society’s energy and resources by and large-not the chemistry make up of the means to do this!

   Ignoring this will only mis-match the medium of exchange volume to the velocity of distribution again.
   The only point gained is making same problem on the ground in a different way! In other words, just another variation on a top down ruled society. The way to implement credit has to be locally and done in a method outside the political paradigm-which the majority of credit should remain as, due to praticalities of human nature in the political realm.

   Reply
   • 

     Ellen Brown, on July 7, 2009 at 1:16 pm said:

     I see it the other way. “Credit” is just a legal agreement; the proper party to oversee legal agreements is a public agency like the judiciary. You don’t want private judges; so you shouldn’t want a private bank dispensing “credit.” A merchant can advance credit to his customers, accepting payment for his goods over time; but in today’s society, the merchant may not know his customers and therefore doesn’t trust them to repay. However, the merchant does trust the local bank, so the bank steps in and says “okay, we’ll pretend to have the money, which we’ll write into the borrower’s account, and he’ll pay us back plus interest, balancing the books.” But it’s all a fraud; the bank doesn’t really have the money, and lately the banks have been caught in that ruse. The BIS has demanded that banks have at least 8% of the money lent in the form of “capital,” and when loans default the missing money is taken out of that capital. If more than 8% of the loans default, the banks are in the hole, which is why they can’t make new loans these days. If it were all on the up and up — 2 parties who go to court with an agreement that the court oversees — there would be no fraud and no capital requirements. The borrower would just pay the merchant over time, paying extra in the form of interest in return for the merchant taking the risk that the borrower doesn’t pay. But you need that third-party court system to make sure everybody plays fair and can be found if he skips town, etc. The third-party intermediary should ideally be a public agency, not a private, secretive company driven by greed and profit, which you can’t necessarily trust.

     Reply
     • 

       Ellen Brown, on July 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm said:

       Anyway how WOULD you issue credit “locally” without government? Credit of what? You can’t issue the “full faith and credit of the United States” (i.e. write dollars into an account) unless you’re a chartered bank. You can have a community currency, but who is going to accept it? Only the members, and they may not have the goods and services you need the credit for. Publicly-owned banks are the cleanest, simplest, most efficient solution.

       Reply
       • 

         Nik, on July 7, 2009 at 9:00 pm said:

         I didn’t explain clearly enough in my meaning.
         The problem being the way credit is defined in the ledger, by the private financial interests, is at it’s core a problem of arithmetic-an accounting error. The accounting error is systemic though.
         So the balancing solution can be advocated for at any level. And it is an accounting error, so it is an untypical issue in the way that most people percieve the politics that they form all their opinions around.
         So it doesn’t neccessary need the usual political battles and issues, internal and external, that are manipulated by the money power. It can theroretically be approached in an entirely different format in relation to people getting together on the ground, not requiring centralisation for organisation, or even consensus on any other issue. It is kind of an inpersonal issue, which is a strong point i think.

         Well run public Banks have been very successful in the past while they lasted in the political process. If common sense was independant it would make things easier, and people would have public banks.

         Reply
         • 

           Ellen Brown, on July 7, 2009 at 10:17 pm said:

           Ah. We agree then!

           Reply
8. 

   Nik, on July 18, 2009 at 11:41 pm said:

   Supporters of a Gold as ‘real’ money concept who believe in choice shouldn’t have a conflict with public liquidating money ‘Credit’ systems -like that of Ms. Brown’s well researched examples of step behind govt. spending of interest payments calibrated to the previous credit price/G&S dynamic, or of step ahead dividend economic credit payments calibrated to the same price/G&S dynamic.
   They both can exist co-operatively side by side to the extent that their respective utility is demanded by a population. If some gold supporters believe primarily in the concept of choice, they should be promoting both for they are complimentary to a free market value system based primarily on goods & services.

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ