T Nation

'If the Gov. Can Issue a Bond...'


I recently watched "The Money Masters." It is available on Youtube, Google Video, etc. I do not know who produced it nor their original motivation. It is dated, around ten years old I would guess. It is also approx. 3 hours long, but worth the time in my opinion. While I do not agree with all of their conclussions, their content appears well researched.

One of their key arguments, if I can explain it adequately, is that neither the current Fed Reserve system nor a gold standard are the way to go. Either are too easily manipulated and create artificial extremes of inflation and deflation.

One of the key points made was "If the government can issue a bond, it can issue a dollar bill." As I understand it, the government issues bonds. The Fed buys bonds with its printed currency. As soon as it is issued, it immediately has interest attached. This is why we WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM IN PLACE. We end up having to sell more bonds (borrow money) to service the debt, all the while the new money borrowed is issued with attached interest (debt). Again, the answer is not in going back to a gold standard.

A bond is simply an I.O.U. by, in this case, the US government. It is backed by the taxing power of the government. The question then becomes, why do we need the middle man and all the nonsense involved. Remember, the Federal Reserve is not Federal. It is not a government entity, but rather a private corporation given special treatment and rights by our government. It is perhaps the truest example of a monopoly in existence.

If we simply cut out the Federal Reserve, we could issue our own notes instead of bonds, free of interest that would continue to accumulate, necessitating the borrowing of new funds, in a never ending debt cycle. In a matter of a few years our country could pay off our national debt. We could enter a new cycle of prosperity that is almost unimaginable.

Not possible you say. As it turns out, there are plenty of examples of such systems including our own country before the revolutionary war. Another fascinating example is its use in England up until 1826 in the form of the Tally Stick. Under this system, England experienced an unparalleled period of prosperity.

It seems that all the government would have to do upon issue of this new currency is make it acceptable for the payment of taxes. This validates it in the minds of citizens, allowing them to accept it in trade and commerce.

This post is getting long, so I will pause for review and comment. I am sure I am not giving the idea its full justice. I am also sure that the Fed and the powers behind it would fight this to the death. But, it makes a whole lot of sense does it not......


You do know that the Fed is taxed 100% after a certain level?

Insofar your idea would make very little difference, because basically that is what you have now anyway.

You would cut out the middle man and give the printing press to the govermment directly.

That however would probably lead to such enormous inflation as to make the soon to come one like a pick nick.


No, it is balancing the budget.

Other problems - the Fed doesn't necessarily buy the bonds. Investors - domestic and foreign - buy the bonds. They happily take this never-ending stream of interest payments. The Fed typically buys (and sells) the bonds after initial issuance as part of monetary policy operations.

No offense intended, but this is a horrible explanation that makes zero sense. You say "we" could issue our own notes - who is "we"? We already do.

And who would offer up interest free notes?

There is one way to pay off national debt - take income and pay it off. There is no other magic pill.

Phasing in the "new" currency to add to the "old" one we borrowed too much under will not create any new effect in the minds of the citizens - it's the same as printing more of the "old" dollars. No difference.


It is not my idea. I found it interesting and present it here for discussion.
It is in no way what we have now.
Would it not be better to have the printing press in the hands of the government rather than the hands of a third party that apparently has not been audited in over thirty years and refuses to tell our elected representative where our $700 billion in tax dollars has been spent.
As to your last statement concerning run away inflation, I do not see where you come to this. Maybe you misunderstood some bases of my post, or perhaps I have not adequately explained it. After all, I was trying to condense three hours into a few paragraphs.
Again, in the limited examples presented, it worked exceedingly well.
The confusion might lie in the transition, getting the new currency in and retiring the old. There would be a finite amount of currency so that would not lead to run away inflation.
I am not pretending to be an expert. I am looking for others to help me understand the flaws. I just do not think you have done so as of yet.


Again, I made he mistake of trying to over simplify and condense a tremendous amount of information. There was a clip of Milton Friedman explaining the concept as well. This does not necessarily validate it but it does lend credence.

I believe most of the confusion lies in my explanation. Maybe I will spend a little time in review tonight and try to post a little more coherent scenario.


The money doesn't matter. So long as the majority believes that robbing your neighbors is an efficient way to run a society, we'll have trouble.


First of all yes they want interest for the bonds and sell them.

However, what they make they give to the federal government.

So what difference does it make whether they or the government issue bonds?

Then, they at least theoretically should be independent so that no government can inflate it way out of its misery and destryoing the currency while doing that.

That did not work too well with a somewhat independent Fed and you want to give the printing press directly to the government?

Hellz no.


'However, what they make they give to the federal government.'

This is what I need to learn more about. I am unsure of the process and procedure. Again, I will review the info tonight, make sure I am communicating the concept more clearly, and post back.
I believe part of what I am trying to understand is the total nature of our fractional banking system and how it all operates.
For example:
A bank is required to keep 10% reserves. They charge an average of 8% on their loans. Whereas the average person thinks they only make 8 cents on the dollar, they are forgetting that they are loaning 10 times the money they actually have. Therefore, they are actually making 80 cents on the dollar before expenses. That is unless I have tied myself mentally into a knot. Part of what I am trying to understand is if the fed is participating in the fractional nature of the banking system (they may not and this could be where I am going Navajo). If so, while I know it is nowhere near the 8% example given, it still has to add up considerably. Are you saying the Fed gives all this money back to the Gov?


Ok, I have had time to look over my original post and noticed several errors. One major being I said we could issue our own notes. I meant to say currency. The treasury prints, the fed issues. Rather than go over this point by point, I am going to make a series of posts. These will be of the notes I took from the series.

A great deal of it is a historical overview. I did this for my own entertainment. I am lucky to be able to type about as quick as I hear. It will be long, so if no one else finds any value in what I am putting out there just say so and I will save my time and TNation forum space. Here goes the first installment.

Since 1864, all of our money has been based on gov debt. We cannot distinguish our debt without extinguishing our money supply. The Fed is a privately owned, for profit corp. with no reserves of its own to back up our. It is the largest single creditor of the US gov. The treasury prints, the fed issues.

Henry I in about 1100 AD created the Tally Stick. Money is simply what people agree on the use for exchange. The British empire was built on the Tally Stick system.
We do need central banks. We don't need them in private hands. It amounts to a hidden tax. The nation sells bonds to the central bank to pay for things it does not have the support to tax for.

But, the bonds are paid for with money that the central banks create out of nothing. This additional money in circulation makes our money worth less. The politician/gov gets as much money as it needs but the people pay for it in inflation. (hidden tax) Most of the people cannot figure it out because it is hidden in complex economic language. As inflation increases, taxes have to be raised to pay the interest on the increased debt. Through the contraction and expansion of credit, the central banks make untold fortunes.

Colonial Script wasr paper money printed by the colonies, not backed by gold or silver, and issued debt free. The colonies flourished. When Officials of the Bank of England asked Ben Franklin how he would account for the success of the colonies, Franklin replied, â??That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script.

We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In that manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to anyone.â??
The Bank of England freaked. To Franklin it was only common sense. To the BofE the colonies had discovered the secret of money and that genie had to be put back into the bottle.

They pressed parliament to pass the Currency Act of 1764, prohibiting colonial officials from printing their own money. They were ordered to pay all future taxes with gold or silver coin, thereby forcing the colonies on a gold or silver standard. By Francklin's own words, â??Within one year, the conditions of prosperity were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in to such an extent that the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed.â??

Franklin printed in his autobiography that this was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War. By the firing of the first shots, the colonies had been drained of gold and silver coin.

The Bank of North America was opened in 1781, modeled after the BofE and allowed to practice fractional banking. The bank was given monopoly over the issuance of currency. It lasted four years.

Four years later another central bank was rammed through congress under the same leaders. Jefferson fought diligently against it, saying that, â??If the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. â??

The Bank of the US was formed in 1790 and given a 20 year charter. This was the same year that Amstel Rothschild issued the proclamation, â?? Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who makes the laws.â?? The US put up $2 million, which was to be for a 20% stake in the bank. The shareholders, through fractional lending, then loaned themselves the majority of the money to buy their other 80%.

It was a risk free investment. BTW, they never paid the full amount. The names of the charter members were never disclosed, but it was generally accepted that the Rothchilds were principal among them. Over the first five years, the US borrowed $8.2 million from the bank. In that same time inflation rose 72%. So much for the promised stability.

In 1811 the BofUS charter came up for renewal. The bill was defeated by one vote. It is rumored that Rothschild warned that if the charter was not renewed, the US would soon find itself in a major war. Five months later England attacked the US in the war of 1812. The war ended in a draw in 1814 and the following year Napoleon escaped Alba, only to meet his waterloo approximately 6 months later.

It was common for central banks to finance both sides of a war. Why? Because war is the greatest generator of debt. Countries will borrow any amount to win, and terms were generally written so that the victor paid of the loser's debt.


Installment 2 (The Empire Strikes Back) If you goes don't care, tell me soon. Got lots of this stuff.

Nathan Rothschild stationed a trusted agent near the battle, across the channel. As the end played out, he rushed to England, getting their a full 24 hours before Wellington's own agents. Rothchild went to the British stock and bond market. He was known to have a legendary communications network. He took up his position. Everyone knew that if Napoleon won and was lose on the continent, England's financial situation was grave.

Rothschild feigned an attitude of sadness, looking lost and dejected. He then suddenly began selling. Everyone assumed that Napoleon must have won. They began selling in mass. As the gov bonds were crashing, Rothschild began buying them up through his agents at pennies on the dollar (pound). Pure myth? A hundred years latter the family tried to stop a book detailing the events.

They filled suit, lost, and were ordered to pay all court costs. Many historians claim that by the end of that fateful day, Nathan Rothschild gained control of the Bank of England. The rest of the 19th century commonly known as the Age of the Rothschild.

Meanwhile, back in the states in 1816 congress authorized the 2nd BofUS. Again, congress came up with the original $2 million, and again a large proportion of the remaining $8 million was put up by the wonderful power of fractional lending. While the stockholders again remained a secret, it is known that the largest block, about a third, was sold to foreigners.

After twelve years, the American people were done and elected Andrew Jackson as president against great odds. He immediately set out to destroy the bank, but its charter was not to come up till the last year of his second term, if he lasted that long. Until then he satisfied himself with rooting out the minions working in the federal government. He fired 2000 of the 11000 employees of the federal gov.

In 1832 the bank tried a preemptive blow and asked congress to renew the charter four years early, thinking Jackson would not stir controversy. Congress complied and sent the bill to Jackson. Old Hickory vetoed, sending back the message, â??It is not our own citizens only that are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. ..

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country...Controlling our currency, receiving public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence...would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy.

If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as heaven does its rains, shower its favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.â?? Congress was unable to override the veto. Now Jackson hand to stand for reelection.

Jackson decided to take his message to the people. Jackson's slogan was â??Jackson, and No bank.â?? Despite bankers throwing over $3 million behind his opponent Clay, Jackson won by a landslide. Jackson ordered the Treasury Secretary to start removing the gov deposits from the 2nd BofA and start placing them in safe banks. McClain refused and Jackson replaced him with Dewayne, who also refused. Jackson replaced him with Taney, who complied. Bank head Nicholas Biddle used his influence to get congress to not approve Taney.

In an act of arrogance, Biddle threatened to throw the country into a depression. He openly admitted the bank was going to make money scarce if congress did not renew the charter. Biddle made good on his threat. The bank began calling in old loans and refusing to extend new ones. Panic ensued, followed by a deep depression. Biddle blamed Jackson. The plan worked after the bank threatened to withhold payments of support that could then be made directly to politicians. Congress convened in what was known as The Panic session and censored Jackson.

A miracle happened. The governor of Pennsylvania came our in support of Jackson and Biddle was caught bragging in public how he had caused the depression. The tide shifted and in 1834 congress voted not to renew the charter. They then voted to form a committee to determine if the bank had worked to cause the depression. When representatives arrived with subpoena at the door of the bank, Biddle refused to give up the books or records and communications with members of congressman.

In 1835 Jackson made the last installment, paying off the national debt. It would be the last time the country would ever be debt free. A few weeks later an attempt was made on Jacksons life.


When Old Hickory went back to Hermitage, he was asked his most important action. â??I killed the Bank.â?? It took the money changers 77 years to come back. However, fractional reserve banking continued.
Next came Lincoln and the civil war. One month after Lincoln's inauguration the first shots of the civil war were fired at Fort Sumpter on April 12, 1861. Slavery was a cause, but not the primary cause. Lincoln knew that the southern economy was dependent on slavery so he had no desire to end it. At the time he wrote, â??I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.â?? Even after the first battles raged, Lincoln continued to insist, â??My paramount objective is to save the union, and it is not to either save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.â??
So then, what did cause the war. Many reasons. One was that the northern industrial states had pushed protective tariffs to prevent the southern states from buying cheaper European goods. In retaliation, the Europeans stopped cotton imports from the South. Now the South was forced to pay more for basic needs from the North, all the while there income from cotton was decreasing.
During the same period the international bankers were still stewing over the lose of control in the States. Since the abolishment of the central bank, the states had flourished. This was setting a bad example for the rest of the world. The central bankers saw an opportunity to split this rich new nation. To divide and conquer. Again, just a conspiracy theory? Consider this. Early in the conflict, Otto Von Bismark, chancellor of the German states said, â??The division of the US into divisions of equal force was decided long before the Civil war by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the US, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would obtain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world.â?? Within months of the first shots, the central bankers loaned Napoleon III of France $210 million francs to seize Mexico, and stage troops along the southern border of the US, violating the Monroe doctrine in an effort to return Mexico to colonial rule. They were counting on the belief that regardless of the outcome, a civil war would weaken the states via a tremendous war debt and allow colonial expansion in Central and South America, violating the very purpose of the Monroe Doctrine. At the same time Great Briton stationed 11,000 troops along the northern border of Canada. The British fleet went on war alert. Lincoln knew the country was in deep peril. This is why his emphasis remained on union, and not just the differences between the North and South.
Lincoln needed money and in 1861 he and the Secretary Simon Chase went to New York to apply fo the necessary loans. The bankers offered loans between 24% and 36%. Lincoln declined and returned to Washington. He sent for old friend Dick Taylor and he assigned him to the problem of finance. After study, Taylor reported, â??Why Lincoln, the problem is easy. Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes...and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also.â?? When Lincoln asked if the people would accept them, Taylor replied, â??The people or anyone else will not have a choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full legal sanction of government and will be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution.â?? In 1862 and 1863, Lincoln printed up $450 million in â??Green Backsâ?? all at not interest to the government. Lincoln was to latter declare, â??The Government should issue, create, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles...the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity.â??
An editorial in the London Times exclaimed the following. â??If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government shall furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry own its own commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.â??


Are you copying and pasting this? Because, again no offense intended, this is terrible. The history is abominable - it's factually incorrect, and it is layered with fatuous anti-bank conspiracy tales.

It's just plain bad.


No. As my previous post stated, I was typing the notes into a word document as I watched. I then pasted them here. There is no written transcript. The historical perspective is interesting to me. What in particular do you object to? It is evident that it has bias. Not a bank bias, but is anti private central bank with the power of issuance of our currency. The documentary was apparently made in support of a proposed Monetary Reform Act. The published summary of this act is as follows:

This proposed law would require banks to increase their reserves on deposits from the current 10%, to 100%, over a one-year period. This would abolish fractional reserve banking (i.e., money creation by private banks) which depends upon fractional (i.e., partial) reserve lending. To provide the funds for this reserve increase, the US Treasury Department would be authorized to issue new United States Notes (and/or US Note accounts) sufficient in quantity to pay off the entire national debt (and replace all Federal Reserve Notes).

The funds required to pay off the national debt are always closely equivalent to the amount of money the banks have created by engaging in fractional lending because the Fed creates 10% of the money the government needs to finance deficit spending (and uses that newly created money to buy US bonds on the open market), then the banks create the other 90% as loans (as is explained on our FAQ page). Thus the national debt closely tracks the combined total of US Treasury debt held by the Fed (10%) and the amount of money created by private banks (90%).

Because this two-part action (increasing bank reserves to 100% and paying off the entire national debt) adds no net increase to the money supply (the two actions cancel each other in net effect on the money supply), it would cause neither inflation nor deflation, but would result in monetary stability and the end of the boom-bust pattern of US economic activity caused by our current, inherently unstable system.

Thus our entire national debt would be extinguished â?? thereby dramatically reducing or entirely eliminating the US budget deficit and the need for taxes to pay the $400+ billion interest per year on the national debt - and our economic system would be stabilized, while ending the terrible injustice of private banks being allowed to create over 90% of our money as loans on which they charge us interest. Wealth would cease to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands as a result of private bank money creation. Thereafter, apart from a regular 3% annual increase (roughly matching population growth), only Congress would have the power to authorize changes in the US money supply - for public use -not private banks increasing only private bankers' wealth.

The thing that made me curious about it is the apparent support given to it by Milton Friedman. Apparently before his death he sent the following message to the authors.
"As you know, I am entirely sympathetic with the objectives of your Monetary Reform Act...You deserve a great deal of credit for carrying through so thoroughly on your own conceptionâ?¦I am impressed by your persistence and attention to detail in your successive revisions... Best wishes,
Milton Friedman"

I am taking the time to post it for two reasons. First, many posters such as yourself seem to have a better base of historical knowledge than I and I am looking for feedback. Second, even though there is little comment, it looks as if close to 200 people have read it. Believe me, if no one has an interest or sees any value I do have better things to do with my time.
The only concern I have is that you say it is factually silly, yet you give no specifics. Again, it has a bias. I also realize you have no obligation to give specifics. Friedman seemed to have no issues with the historical lean.

Bottom line, I don't need to waste time if there is no interest. Unless others post in and request I continue, this will be the end of this thread for me.


Why do we need central banks?

And this movie sounds half on one side and half on the other.

The Federal Reserved was established by bankers as a government entity in order to take the bad assets and switch with good assets so the government could write off the bad assets. Now some of that can be argued, but the reality is the reason why some people say it's private is because bankers have had and always will have their hand in the cookie jar when it comes to the Federal Reserve.

You however need to stop taking a ten year old conspiracy theory as gospel.


Good Grief. Does anyone read the preceding posts? It is not mine. I did not claim to believe. Seems well documented and backed by Milton Friedman. BTW, the Fed has never been a government entity. It does not speak of conspiracies, Illuminati, Satan worship, etc. I put it our here for discussion. I get told it is silly and non factual, yet no one gives an example. Again, seems like time to more on. If anyone is interested, they can PM me and I will send them a Word attachment.


Jeaton, why are you spending time watching and taking notes from this video rather than a more reliable source?


Because the Video tells the truth. Money = Debt. Until people get this its hopeless.


The Federal reserve is part of the government.


So why is it when they where asked if it would be bad if they audited them they said that it would interfere with the independence of the Federal Reserve?


Fixed that for ya'.

BTW, for whatever reason, I keep running into references to this Monetary Reform Act of late. The more I read of it, the more sense it makes.
Remember, it is out to fix not only the issuance of our currency and the issues and conflicts that are created by a private entity handling this massive responsibility, but the massive creation of additional currency "out of thin air" that is created by banks through the use of fractional lending, all the while devaluing the currency that we as savers have.
Think of it in its ridiculous opposite example. You have $100 in cash but unfortunately have $1000 in bills. No problem. Through the magic of fractional spending, you send each of you creditors a check for $100 dollars. Problem solved, right.
No, you would go to jail for fraud. Yet your bank does this every day and makes money hand over fist.