How Benjamin Franklin Made New England Prosperous « Friends of the American Revolution:
Before the American War for Independence in 1776, the colonized part of what is today the United States of America was a possession of England. It was called New England, and was made up of 13 colonies, which became the first 13 states of the great Republic. Around 1750, this New England was very prosperous. Benjamin Franklin was able to write:
“There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was reigning on every border. It was difficult, and even impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort was prevailing in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and education was widely spread.”
And when England's bankers discovered this, they put a stop to it immediately. Hence the Revolutionary war - according to Franklin himself and other historians of the day. The history of the uneasy relationship between the US people and the banks is recorded in even greater depth here.
A comment on that link at Digg underlines the importance of this topic:
Not only is this subject not discussed but neither is the debt, the falling dollar or the deficit. The nimrods running for president seem to think that imposing mirror tarrifs(sic) on China (and others) will solve all of our problems. Money policy will be THE issue for the next several decades. The fact that they are focusing on everything but is indicative of thier ignorance and that they are ill-equipped to run the country.Friends of the American Revolution and the other link, entitled "AMERICA'S FORGOTTEN WAR AGAINST THE CENTRAL BANKS " seem to suggest government issued "scrip" - essentially printing money according to the demands of the economy for circulating money.
Ron Paul, and other hard currency activists advocate what seems the direct opposite - a return to a currency with a one-to-one reference to an actual stockpiled commodity - such as Liberty Dollars.
But both concepts contain the essence of the same idea - take the money supply out of the hands of those who might be tempted to control it for their own interests. In fact, Paul welcomes the idea of competing currencies - which, with current computer systems, would not be the pain in the tochis that it sounds like. Indeed, there are already viable competing currences. (See Links below.)
Please ignore the "jew banker" nonsense that inevitably crops up in these discussions. Yes, the House of Rothschild figures prominently in all things monetary in Europe, and later in the Americas , going back to the middle ages, when a doctrinal matter essentially gave Jews a monopoly on finance - and few other options. In other words, another case where religious doctrine trumped common sense.
But to suggest that the Rothschilds are interchangeable with "Jews" is laughable. There are poor Jews. And there are immensely wealthy bankers who are not even ethnically Jewish. The canard distracts from the real principle at hand - that it's unwise to tempt anyone's ethics to the degree that the current ability of bankers - especially central bankers - are privileged to enjoy, and that relying on the religious morality of any person - faced with SUCH a pile of lucre - is hardly the safeguard we need.
But on the other hand, we do need some way of addressing the need a Central Banking system was created to deal with - the Boom and Bust cycle. But clearly, the system we have brings greater dangers.
It seems to me that by taking the idea that Ron Paul has thrown out there - a number of different currencies (with different sorts of backing) freely competing against each other, including a federal "hard money" standard reference dollar - we could have have a self-correcting system, based on a wide variety of different sorts of commodities, futures, debts, bonds, real estate holdings, fractional corporate shares and much much more. In other words, a monitory system - indexed to silver and convertible into gold - that is nonetheless directly representative of the economy as a whole.
There would have to be guidelines, of course. And those would have to be Federal guidelines - but they should be simple and direct. And remember, that "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" does not preclude other mediums of exchange. It simply establishes that this ONE particular currency is a default currency that is "legal tender," and it is the currency that public debts are monetized in and which all domestic governments will accept (exclusively, at the moment).