Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: ATTENTION: If things are ever going to change, this is what you must be making a fuss about.

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 7, 2011, 3:24 a.m. EST by jeffersonjackson1913 (37)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Dear Occupy Wall St.,

I don't frequent this forum, so forgive me if this has been mentioned before. If it has, I can't understand why it is not the main focus of this movement.

The heart of all of the problems you are seeing lies with the current BANKING system. It has little to do with capitalism as an economic philosophy. Our current banking system, which has been practiced since currency was a thing, is a massive pyramid scheme, to say the least. Money creation (or lack thereof) is completely controlled by the BANKING "class", if you will.

We must amend the constitution so that the government issues our currency, and it is not tied to debt. Money should only be created proportionately to the size of the population. Our central bank, the Federal Reserve, can expand and contract the money supply as it wishes. I can go into it more but I want to see if people will read this.

This will solve many problems of scarcity when it comes to money.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

seems they have funds to buy the world

or was that debt

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 8 years ago

It's long, but interesting documentary on banking


[-] 1 points by jeffersonjackson1913 (37) 8 years ago

Yes an excellent one. It's precursor, The Money Masters, is much longer but very comprehensive in terms of historical accounts.

Banking is a public service. Let's make it part of the public sector! Credit Unions are awesome in the meantime. If people here are truly fed up with the amount of control the banking industry has on our economy, a good start is moving your money to a credit union. They are not-for-profit banks.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

You are right in that a large source of the problem IS the banking system. Your proposed solution, however, is exactly what we already have. Clearly you have never read the constitution or you would know that in article 1 section 8, congress is given the power.....

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

Now, you're right that it should not be tied to debt. The only way to do this is to re-establish an objective standard of value (such as the gold standard). Money is, first and foremost, a means of savings. It is the means of turning perishable goods into wealth which can be exchanged at the owner's convenience for goods or services. If money is to be worth anything it must represent something which actually exists and have value in and of itself. There are other considerations as far as appropriate currency but they have to do, mostly, with choice of materials. The idea of regulating the 'money supply' is equivalent to regulating that which it stands for: goods and services that people endeavor to produce in order to improve their own living conditions.

[-] 1 points by jeffersonjackson1913 (37) 8 years ago

That part of the constitution doesn't say anything about paper money, or notes, which is the issue. Coin makes up a small percentage of the money supply.

For money to be worth anything, all the government has to do is accept it as tax payment, and the public will accept it as a means of exchange. If we were on a metal standard, the possibility of the market getting cornered is pretty high, so therefore whoever has control of the gold controls the money supply. We also don't have enough metal in accordance with the population. There was a point where the colonies issued their own notes, debt-free and it worked well. When the colonies were made to go back onto a gold standard the people were poor again.

The constitution needs be amended to say that it can issue its own paper notes. This could possibly be done through public sector banks who lend money. At least then, the banks profits go to the state or federal government, who can then spend it on infrastructure to be dispersed into the economy. If the tax payer's money goes to the bank, the bank's profits should go to the tax payers. North Dakota is the only state with a state owned bank, and it seems to be doing well.

At the moment, even the Federal Reserve makes private profits. While they do apparently give a majority back to the treasury, it's shareholder banks surely influence what is done with these profits. Money creation is the responsibility of the public sector.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

the phrase "to coin money" was used not to refer to coins, but to the government's stamp of approval on whatever currency was used. And the government's acceptance of a certain type of currency as tax payment has nothing to do with the worth of the currency. It is the case that the government will accept it because it has worth, NOT that it has worth because the government accepts it. It has worth to the government because when it comes from US, it represents products or services that WE have created. They use that worth, in turn, to justify having printed it and loaned it to us in the first place.

Just what do you mean by "If we were on a metal standard, the possibility of the market getting cornered is pretty high"? Cornered by whom? The whole idea of a legitimate currency system (as opposed to what we have now) is that the currency represents something which actually exists. In such a system, the 'money supply' is controlled, not by anyone's whim, but by the amount of goods that can be produced or services that can be rendered.

"When the colonies were made to go back onto a gold standard the people were poor again." From what evidence did you draw this conclusion? I am not clear on the historical context here.

Banking, like every other business model, is done for private profit. It is not a 'public service'. When the currency is based on an objective standard of value and not on debt, the banks which make the best investments (loans) are able to increase their own wealth, make more and larger investments, and offer their customers better interest rates as incentive to deposit their savings in the bank. The bank cannot loan out more than it actually owns in assets, nor would it even think of loaning even close to as much as it owned, for if it took a loss on its investments that would wipe it out of existence.

There is a myth which I am out to dispel. It is the myth of 'concentration of wealth.' It stems from the idea that wealth is a static commodity which exists in nature. It is the idea that governments are formed to 'distribute' this wealth amongst the citizens so that they can all live in comfort. Wealth does not exist in nature, it is created by human beings. Wealth can be defined as goods which have been produced and not consumed. Money, when based on an objective standard of value, is a representation of wealth. It is not useful in and of itself, but can be exchanged with others for things that are. The system of capitalism is a system in which the state and economy are separate, in the same way and for the same reason as the separation of church and state. Under capitalism, no one (not even the government, through taxation) has a claim on the products of the effort of another. Wealth must be created by each and every individual, to the extent of his own ability. There will be those who are able to create more wealth than others, and under a system of currency tied to objective values, the size of their bank accounts will reflect this. However, under such a system, the wealth that they produce does not come at anyone else's expense. It is only through the creation of this wealth that those who can not create it are able to obtain it, in return for whatever effort they are able to put forth. Money facilitates this exchange, such that a man pulling a lever or pushing a button for 10 hours a day can afford to purchase goods, which required much more skill than he possesses, to produce.

Any currency that is issued, which is not backed by goods which actually exist, is currency based on debt. Given that the government is, by definition, the organization of the use of force and coercion, any currency issued by government represents, not goods or services that the government has created, but a promise. The promise that You and I will continue to produce and that they will tax us (by force) for it.

[-] 1 points by spflhome (41) 8 years ago

If you really like to change things, please click the following link and start a campaign to get millions to sign it......Thanks.


[-] 1 points by wormholes (19) 8 years ago

Vision statement, Mission Statement and Core Values: these are needed in order to move forward. If the Occupy movement really wants to accomplish evolutionary improvement, it must take the time and discipline to work on these core aspects. If the Occupy movement cannot do this, it will not go far. However, once Vision Statement, Mission Statement and Core Values are determined by the current Occupy system, they should be EVERYWHERE and reviewed daily by ALL GAs. All newcomers will know from the get-go what is expected. IF - and that's a big IF - the Occupy movement can get these three components established, it will take on more potency.

[-] 1 points by jeffersonjackson1913 (37) 8 years ago

Fine. I will post again at within the next 24 hours. It is the core of our problems.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

It's the middle of the night in most places, that's why nobody's responded. Many agree that the Fed is part of the problem. I agree, we should go back to having the Treasury print our money. And I don't think the rational, informed ones on here think that capitalism is the problem either. It's more that capitalism is broken.

[-] 1 points by jeffersonjackson1913 (37) 8 years ago

Haha, good point about the time. Thanks for responding. I just really honestly believe the first step to change ANYTHING is this issue of currency. When the government issues its own currency, the 99% will have money just like the 1%, with the same opportunities to succeed. It's obvious to understand why the wealthy do not advocate this...it creates competition - which is the BEST thing about capitalism.

I really, truly, whole-heartedly believe that if this fundamental aspect of the system changes, everything else will move much faster.

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 8 years ago

That is something that must change, but as long as legislative politicians are allowed to take donations from corporations & special interest groups.nothing is going to change. We need to vote in legislators who will change the law so they won't get rich serving in their office. This will be a monumental task.

I haven't checked them out yet, but this 'Americans Elect' party might have something going for it. They don't take any money from anyone except individuals.


[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 8 years ago

EXactLY!!! Ron PauI 2012