I understand and agree your point about Ron Paul, Bluebird (if our vote counts at all). We are hanging from a cliff,as a nation, and help has arrived (Ron Paul)and we refuse the help just so we can hang on the cliff a few moments longer. That is what a vote for the staus quo equates to. I have heard the "...he can't win argument" over and over -- it is always what is said about Ron Paul, so much so, that the "spoiler" aspect of him has become a dominant social meme(thx DB for teaching me to recognize these!) to prevent likely voters (perhaps even Mr.Skousen) from supporting him. What a perfect way to keep his message of Liberty and economic policies, the very things that can save our country, out of the White House -- tell his supporters he can't win! It is one of the ways that election outcomes are controlled. The media manipulates you into voting for the lesser of two evils...which is still evil. The money power maintains control and the beat goes on... I believe the only way to break free of the mind control and manipulation of the American political media is to see it, understand it for what it is, mind control, and not comply. (aren't we all here for that reason?) If we all voted upon principle instead of pragmatism Ron Paul would be the next president. What ever happened to principles?

I realized that as long as we continue to play to the two party hegelian dialectic, nothing will change and we will continue to decline as a nation.
Both parties represent the status quo, which is what must stop for our Republic and prosperity to be restored. Both parties support the same policies and they are passed on from one administration to the next. Many now call Obama "Bush the Third" and I see Mitt Romney in the same light...he, as President, will continue to promote many of the same failed policies of the previous administrations; Patriot Act, TSA groping, growth of the Police state, Nation building, reform Obamacare into Romneycare, reining in the internet ( the last bastion of freedom on the planet).

I have yet to find emphasis on restoring the Constitution in Mr. Romney's web site. He speaks of reforms and vision, but does not outline a plan. He takes few powerful or controversial positions with the exception of assuring us he will continue to support no reduction in military spending, and he supports NATO and establishing alliances with democratic allies, this equals -- Nation Building...a Bush policy that Obama continues, that we can ill afford economically or for our image globally. Strong military to defend our country in case of attack, YES! Nation Building...NO!

Finally, I would like to point out that Ron Paul's message of restoring our civil liberties and ending the foreign wars is appealing to a growing number of centrists Democrats who voted for Obama for his, now obvious, campaign rhetoric. Even Prof. Cornell West, leftist progressive, who worked hard to get Obama elected no longer supports him. These people are disappointed and feel duped by Obama. This is a HUGE demographic that I can GUARANTEE will not vote for Romney or any status quo Republican! Who will they vote for? Think about it. Ron Paul is appealing to these, cross over voters. So it doesn't matter if he splits the Republican party if he is a candidate who appeals to BOTH parties...to American citizens. Liberty, returning to our Constitution, the real possibility of restored prosperity, sound money, End the Fed and an end to endless wars is a powerful message. Lastly, the economy is THE ISSUE in this cycle. Does Mr. Skousken really think Romney has the economic intellect to beat Ron Paul on these issues?

"On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."
- Murray N. Rothbard

"Division of Labor" (peaceful trade) versus "Division of Spoils" (enforced by conflict) Civilization.
-Bill Ross

@DB
"Ha, feedbackers such as yourself spread the word."

You talking to me?

I am so devoid of wisdom and insight that I must have the Free Market to tell me what to do.

"On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."
- Murray N. Rothbard

Reply from The Daily Bell

Good and clever point, thanks.

@DB

"Read I Claudius and Claudius the God to see a narrative of how history will treat these banking families in the future. Over time, we shall see that nothing changed - that there were still Emperors contemptuous of their subjects. They are secret emperors now, in our view, but not forever ..."

Very good reference!

And as far as they are now hiding is secret goes, well, that's why you are the Daily Bell. You are the new Paul Revere, bringing the details of how to defend Individual freedom from thoese who would enslave, whether through chains, or mind control!

Reply from The Daily Bell

Ha, feedbackers such as yourself spread the word.

Kyoto Station.

Mark is a pretty neat person. He deals in truth. In his letters he writes things like;"The last train is leaving out of Koyto station..." i reckon he's interesting. i always thought he meant American Eagle I Owe You. AEIOU. Mark is cool. i want to meet him on Masschuettes Avenue over there at his office up near Diplomatic Row.

@ DB

"Now if we can only get you to see that Real Bills can be applied in an entirely free-market context (absent any government involvement) we will be entirely on the same page."

I catagorically state that Real Bills can ONLY EXIST in entirely free-market context without government involvement, whatsoever. If I left you with an impression to the contrary, I apologize.

I do maintain, however that state governments must be involved if the Real Bills are to be used as "legal tender".

To your statement: "Ha, you have done the libertarian world a service by rehabilitating the concept of Real Bills." ---- I must say that you give me too much credit. It is Dr. Fekete who singlehandedly has fought the fight to bring Real Bills back into popular consciousness. I am happy to have had him as my teacher.

@ DB

"The power elite works by incrementalism and through fear-based promotions. Thus, they will create a system or facility and gradually corrupt it into authoritarian madness. One sees this deeply cynical and ruinous process over and over. The environmental movement of the 1970s has turned into an insane gambit that intends to penalize animals, humans and their environment for EMITTING CARBON DIOXIDE. The same thing can be said of the Fed. The elites planted it as a small monstrosity and took some time to create a large one."

I don't disagree with this statement at all. As a matter of fact, I heartily endorse it. I even say it applies to the Federal Reserve, except it does not apply as you assume.

Here is the way that I see it.

The big bankers always were concerned about congressional hearings to reorganize the banking business. After the 1907 Depression the necessity to do so became pressing for the Congress. To have a meeting without official record, where the NY bankers and Senator Aldridge could sit together and discuss the coming federal banking regulations, they decided to meet at Jekyll Island in great secrecy. They likely did write the legislation they wanted passed by the Congress. However, the political climate in the country did not favor the big banks. The NY bankers knew that they could not get their legislation passed, and consequently their thinking concentrated more on what to do in the future.

Here is how their contemplations tie into your statement.

When the NY bankers saw that the Congress would not enact banking legislation to put control over the banking system into their hands, they looked at the demands the Progressive Movement was making for a more even distribution of wealth. The movement tried to accomplish this by demanding an Income Tax Amendment. They also wanted to fight corruption in state legislatures in the selection of U.S. Senators by demanding popular elections for that office.

Therein lies the reason why U.S. Senator Nelson Aldridge initially opposed the Income Tax Amendment, but then full square supported the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

The bankers also stood fully behind the ratification of the 17th Amendment. The had the Hearst papers taut it wherever and whenever possible, because they realized that it would eliminated their opposition to central banking.

So, what significance did the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments hold to the furtherance of the interests of the big NY banks?

The 16th Amendment provided the U.S. Government with constitutional power to collect an Income Tax from the American people. The bankers knew that if they wanted to monetize debt and sell this debt, they had to have an iron clad guarantee that the government would be in the position to collect taxes with which to pay interest and to repay the debt. The 16th Amendment was that iron clad guarantee. Ratified when...??? February 3, 1913.

Furthermore, the big NY bankers also knew that, if they ever wanted the Congress to pass legislation to establish a central bank, they would not be able to do so as long as the state governments had a voice in the U.S. Senate. The renewal of the 20 year charter of the First Bank of the U.S. was defeated by strong opposition from the states. President Jefferson concurred. The renewal of the 20 year charter of the Second Bank of the U.S. was defeated by opposition from the states. President Jackson concurred strongly.

The 17th Amendment proposed to change the selection of U.S. Senators by state legislatures to an election of U.S. Senators by the people of the state. The big bankers realized that the 17th Amendment, designed to eliminate corruption by introducing more "Democracy" into the process, would in fact remove the voice of the state governments from the U.S. Congress. That is why they backed the ratification of the 17th Amendment with full force. Ratified when...??? April 8, 1913.

The Federal Reserve Act was signed by President Wilson on December 23, 1913.

Just as you alledge in your statement, down the line the 16th Amendment came in handy to conduct illegal FOMOs and get away with it. The new U.S. Senate obliged the bankers by passing an ex-post-facto amendment to Section 14 of the FRA in January of 1934 which retroactively legalized the illegal acts of the NY Fed bank that were started in the 1920s.

The 17th Amendment came in handy when it came to passing the Banking Act of 1935 which established a U.S. central bank in perpetuity. By 1935, every U.S. Senator was then popularly elected and could not be recalled by their state legislature. In fact, the U.S. Senators no longer represented the state governments, instead they represented the people at large who elected them only every six years. The majority of U.S. Senators today get their campaign contributions from the big banks to successfully prevail in popular elections.

There....that is how I see our statement to apply to the development of the Fed into a central bank.

@ DB

"We don't want to stop your frequently interesting and insightful comments and we when we asked you stop posting the "1935-stuff" we were making a rhetorical suggestion based on the incorrectness of the statement. It simply not correct. But you are welcome to continue to make it and any other pertinent comments that come to mind. Fire away."

Thank you for your clarification and your generous comment.

The internet no doubt is a teriffic tool to communicate and learn. What also must be understood is that none of us has the absolute truth. We all only have our points of view, however staunchly expressed.

Sometimes, it is well to contemplate the meaning of phrases, words or expressions before rushing to conclusions. Also, more fact based conclusions are better than opinionated statements. Fact based conclusions can be easily questioned, not so opinions.

Thank you again for providing the platform to express my views, though they are often not accepted. They are however what I truly believe, and they are not given just to be contrary, nor are they given to fall in with a popular notion.

If the DB can accept controversal views, I for my part will state mine and explain them as best and as simply as I can.

Reply from The Daily Bell

"If the DB can accept controversal views, I for my part will state mine and explain them as best and as simply as I can."

Ha, you have done the libertarian world a service by rehabilitating the concept of Real Bills. Now if we can only get you to see that Real Bills can be applied in an entirely free-market context (absent any government involvement) we will be entirely on the same page.

Aldrich's proposed bill starts on page 43. His bill never got voted out of committee because the public perceived it as "a scheme for a central bank in disguise." A situation that clearly called for a better disguise as delivered by Glass-Owen.

Final report of National Monetary Commission (Aldrich Plan) - 1912

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for the link. We would argue that many of the elements that Aldrich and others wanted in the bill were incorporated.

Massive intervention into Markets was commenced by the Republicans right after the Civil War

"Dickson G. Watts was President of The New York Cotton Exchange between 1878 and 1880. This exchange was one of the greatest arenas of speculation in America. Seats sold for as much as $45,000. At this writing, the bid is $770 and the trading ring is deserted. The epitaph of The Cotton Exchange is that our Great Society of Free Enterprise sup? ports the price of cotton above the world market. Speculators cannot out-bid The Government, so the price cannot go up. The price cannot drop because Uncle Sam has unlimited funds. There is a remote possibility that the cotton produc? ers will grow cotton faster than the Government can print money and the market will be free again."

Reply from The Daily Bell

The Civil War was Leviathan's turning point.

Stopping by Sir?

Now you make me feel like an outsider.

This is Home :)

I think the editor's note was clear enough, I don't need to expound on it as John Danforth(Its a habit of his now and I am not complaining) has put forth a most eloquent summary of it.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Ha, welcome home then.

@ DB

"It was THEIR plot. They wrote the Act as we understand it Congress merely rubber-stamped it. And the world has been paying for it ever since."


If you get your history from Griffin's book "The Creature from Jekyll Island", no wonder you have to preference your statements with "as we understand it". It shows that you lack confidence in the knowledge you gained by reading just one book.

Expand your horizons. There are plenty of other books besides the Griffin book. You might have to pay a higher price for them. The popularity of a book has nothing to do with its accuracy. Particularly when it comes to information about the FED or banking. Books that threaten the FED are either not generally available or otherwise they carry a price which is so uncommonly high as to discourage any widespread distribution.

Believe me, Griffin may have told you about the meeting at Jekyll Island and the possible discussions which took place there. I don't doubt that the bankers assembled there wrote a wish plan for the Federal Reserve Legislation to give to Senator Aldridge to try and pass in the U.S. Senate.

However, until Edward Griffin or you can furnish me with the legislation they wrote and how their wording is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, I say what "you understand" happend with the passage of the Federal Reserve legislation is in fact incorrect.

Just answer one question for me with regard to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

If the legislation the bankers wrote was "rubber-stamped" by the U.S. Congress and acted into legislation with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, please tell me why these bankers, going through all the trouble to secretly cabal on Jekyll Island, were so stupid as to write legislation they needed to violate ten years later to gain an advantage...??? Why would they risk prosecution by committing a serious violation of the law they were able to write themselves?

The only answer to the question is that they were either really stupid, or the legislation they wrote to benefit themselves never was incorporated in the final Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

If you discount the existence of stupidity on the part of the bankers, then the only conclusion left is that what you "understand" about the U.S. Congress "rubber-stamping" the bankers' legislative proposal and passing it into law in fact never happend.

Reply from The Daily Bell

The words "we understand" were used because we do NOT know the whole historical process. But this much we do know:

1. The power elite works by incrementalism and through fear-based promotions. Thus, they will create a system or facility and gradually corrupt it into authoritarian madness. One sees this deeply cynical and ruinous process over and over. The environmental movement of the 1970s has turned into an insane gambit that intends to penalize animals, humans and their environment for EMITTING CARBON DIOXIDE. The same thing can be said of the Fed. The elites planted it as a small monstrosity and took some time to create a large one.

2. Every legislation is a price fix. Every price fix distorts the market and transfers wealth from the creator to someone else who will not be able to make "natural" decisions with it. The initial legislation creating the Fed was a mercantilist price-fixing activity. It only got worse from there ...

Firstly, I enjoyed reading about FreedomFest. Up until this point, I had never heard of it. I'm happy to know about it now.

Secondly, Mr. Skousen says, 'For one thing, he (Obama) should push through a major tax cut on US corporations to make them more competitive with the rest of the world.' He also says again, '…cut taxes (especially corporate taxes)'.

My question is, why? They certainly are not going to be bringing the jobs back home. That's a bygone era. I remember several years ago I worked briefly as a temp for a manufacturing company that produced conveyor belts. I remember on one occasion at a staff meeting we were told that one of the company's plants was going to be moved to Mexico. Fortunately, at the time it was not the plant that I was working at.

The sad part of the news was the company planned to pay (per employee) a total of $3 per/hr: $2 would go to the Mexican government and $1 would go to the worker. I was shocked when I heard that because I knew that some of the individuals who worked on the plant floor made around $13-$14 per hr. And that was after being with the company for at least ten years!

I think US Corporations are greedy and they don't deserve anymore tax breaks. The middle class are the ones who really need the tax breaks.

Once again you reply with a history lesson, and off the direct subject, instead of replying to the comments as presented.

I understand you do not reply to me, as you said you no longer would. I don't expect you will reply here either.

However, following are some of DB's comments, which you do not address because you cannot:

"And the establishment of the Fed gave rise to immediate abuses AS MERCANTILISM ALWAYS DOES."

"Supposedly the Fed governors at the behest of the Central Bank of London began printing more money than they were legally allowed to print because they were attempting to weak the dollar to bring it back into parity with the British Pound."

"Then after the crash, the establishment panicked and shut down the banks and confiscated gold because they did not want anyone to find out that they had printed too many dollars."

"If the Fed Act mandated nothing (did not fix prices) why did these powerful men want it?"

"And they apparently abused them and caused first a bubble, then a crash and finally the Great Depression."

Then my comments, which of course you will not address, not because you said you will no longer address me, but in fact because you have no response:

"Those behind the creation of the Fed never saw it as an innocent clearing house of real bills, they saw in it a tool for control of money."

"To create such a beast is to invite abuse of the power behind it. The burden sits on you to demonstrate where such power has been created and subsequently NOT abused."

You seem to believe that the original Fed act only failed because of bad people, while ignoring that a) bad people were the ones behind it, and b) bad people would have arrived on the scene sooner or later to take advantage of such a powerful entity. It is a naive belief, dis-proven by virtually every act of government enforced centralization known to man.

Reply from The Daily Bell

"You seem to believe that the original Fed act only failed because of bad people, while ignoring that a) bad people were the ones behind it, and b) bad people would have arrived on the scene sooner or later to take advantage of such a powerful entity."

It could not work as advertised but certainly further ruined the US economy. And in hindsight that was actually the plan.

Read I Claudius and Claudius the God to see a narrative of how history will treat these banking families in the future. Over time, we shall see that nothing changed - that there were still Emperors contemptuous of their subjects. They are secret emperors now, in our view, but not forever ...

Thanks to The Daily Bell for bringing these stalwarts to us, stall warts and all

+10

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for the kind words and for stopping by ...

There is no doubt that the big money center banks pushed to have any congressional legislation to reorganize the banking system be written so as to leave control over the system in the hands of the big banks in New York.
The fact that the big banks supported the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments proves to me that they had planned far into the future to eventually establish a central bank.

However, to accuse the U.S. Congress to be in on the plan from the beginning, and to have passed the Federal Reserve legislation to intentionally favor the big banks, is completely false. Yet, it is the popular "wisdom". Nothing could be further from the truth.

While Senator Nelson Aldridge from Rhode Island, the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate rounded up considerable support to give control over a federal banking system to the big New York banks, most U.S. Senators from other states strongly opposed his effort. He initially opposed the Income Tax Amendment, but in the end, he came out in strong support for its ratification. I wonder why...??? Don't you wonder why...???

The Congress held hearings for many years to deal with the recurring crises in the banking system. These hearings were spurred on by the fallout of the 1907 Depression. The congressional hearings of the Pujo Commission of the U.S. House as well as many hearings held by the U.S. Senate contributed to the final provisions in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. These hearings were watched over by the big NY banks with great apprehension.

Contrary to the efforts of the New York banks to be given control over the Federal Reserve System, the final Federal Reserve Act of 1913 divided the Federal Reserve System into twelve districts. The currency creation was controlled on a regional basis by each of the twelve regional Federal Reserve bank. Each of these banks was responsible to account for their operation to the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve System, the oversight body of the U.S. Congress.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank was just one of twelve individual, independent Federal Reserve Banks. However, based on the size of its banking business, it was twice as large as the next biggest bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Soon, the governor of the NY Fed, Benjamin Strong influenced the other federal banks, and intimidated the directors of the congressional oversight body to the point that when the NY Fed in the early 1920s started to conduct illegal Federal Open Market Operations, no objection was heard from the other regional Federal Reserve banks nor from the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve System.

The illegal FOMOs conducted by the NY Fed crashed the stock market in 1929 and ushered in the Great Depression of the 1930s. The rest is history.

Why are the technical and legal differences between the pre- and post-1935 Fed the ONLY thing at issue here...???

BECAUSE, the pre-1935 Fed created a "redeemable" currency until 1933. It was a currency with a "positive value" suitable in which to keep ones savings. It was created only against Bills of Exchange (Real Bills) and gold in existence within the banks of a Federal Reserve district.

With the Banking Act of 1935, the U.S. Congress created a central bank to monetize government debt to create an "irredeemable" currency totally unsuitable to be used as savings. The individual state governments would have never, ever agreed to the passage of the 1935 Banking Act. However, the separate state governments gave up their voice in the U.S. Senate with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

No matter how you structure central banking, monetizing debt is a Ponzi Scheme which sooner or later will lead to the collapse of the system as the compound interest spins out of control.

Go stick your heads into the sand, and wish that what I am saying isn't so. Not until you understand the difference between the pre-1935 Fed and the post-1935, do you also understand the importance of Bills of Exchange in a workable banking system. Yet, who wants to understand the importance of Real Bills, certainly not the central bankers and their academic stooges who have helped them sweep under the rug the importance of Real Bills in the creation a "redeemable" currency which puts control over money back into the hands of American businesses and American savers.

But then, who would want to know about that, right DB...???

Reply from The Daily Bell

"However, to accuse the U.S. Congress to be in on the plan from the beginning, and to have passed the Federal Reserve legislation to intentionally favor the big banks, is completely false."

Where did we accuse Congress? We suggested it was a banking plot from the beginning. You believe donning costumes and sneaking around is perfectly normal for these important men. We disagree.

It was THEIR plot. They wrote the Act as we understand it Congress merely rubber-stamped it. And the world has been paying for it ever since.

I wouldn't put any faith in the Australian Economy most States have seen Commercial, Industrial & Domestic Energy price rises of over 300% just in the last 12 months which is set to possibly double by year's end owing to Australia's Prime-minister Gillard's (a Fabian Socialist) intention to introduce a "Carbon Tax" of $23-$26 per tonne.

Ask any Kiwi on the effects of their "Carbon Tax" whom have faced substantial increases in the costs of living.

The issue (at least for me) has nothing to do with whatever technical or legal differences there may or may not have been pre- and post-1935.

The issue is that once the Fed was created, it was certain to become what it became. Those behind the creation of the Fed never saw it as an innocent clearing house of real bills, they saw in it a tool for control of money. That the 1913 legislation was (perhaps) just getting the camel's nose under the tent was sufficient for those behind the curtain. They knew their time would come.

To create such a beast is to invite abuse of the power behind it. The burden sits on you to demonstrate where such power has been created and subsequently NOT abused. I know of no such event of any significance.

Reply from The Daily Bell

The initial Fed Act, like any other law, is A PRICE FIX. Simply the MANDATED ESTABLISHMENT of a Federal Reserve was enough to help set up the bubble of the Roaring 20s. Members of the Fed were also apparently eligible for DISCOUNTED RATES from the Fed window - another evident market distortion.

And the establishment of the Fed gave rise to immediate abuses AS MERCANTILISM ALWAYS DOES. Supposedly the Fed governors at the behest of the Central Bank of London began printing more money than they were legally allowed to print because they were attempting to weak the dollar to bring it back into parity with the British Pound. Then after the crash, the establishment panicked and shut down the banks and confiscated gold because they did not want anyone to find out that they had printed too many dollars.

This is "secret history" but we long ago confirmed it with several prominent Austrian scholars who have studied the issue at length. Mr. Bischoff may wish to deny it but every law is a price fix and every price fix DISTORTS THE MARKET and moves wealth from where it is earned to where it is not.

If the Fed Act mandated nothing (did not fix prices) why did these powerful men want it? Obviously it did something - provided government mandated privileges - that they would not have had otherwise. And it did. And they apparently abused them and caused first a bubble, then a crash and finally the Great Depression.

DB: Given the frame of reference about economic and sociopolitical issues provided here every day by elves and feedbackers alike, we believe people are capable of making up their own minds about Mark Skousen's comments.

BM: To be clear, my intent was not to be critical toward DB. In fact, it was due to the last Skousen interview that I came to what I believe is a more appropriate place as regards my relationship with this site. As to my overall view of the value of this site to my continuing education, my regular participation speaks for itself.

DB: We recommend the Bug's blog by the way. Very well done.

BM: I thank you kindly, and am humbled.