Peter Schiff vs. Ellen Brown

These are probably my two favorite economists … and here they are together !!!

Obviously, they don't really agree on much … first, here's the 2-part clip (my comments will follow below):

 

 

 

Schiff says, "Do you know where credit comes from? – it comes from deposits!"

Ellen Brown is very soft-spoken, almost shy, and she sort of laid down for that, she tried to explain, but Peter Schiff really wasn't listening, or wasn't able to comprehend what she was saying.

In terms of how economies SHOULD work, yes, credit would come from deposits, but banks have been operating under the bizarro-world rules of Fractional Reserve banking since the Civil War.   Credit, and money, is created out of thin air … by an accounting slight of hand.   The only thing really backing it is the borrower's promise to pay.   The problem with our system is that it is privately owned, and the INTEREST on the money must also be borrowed, and there is never enough money in the system to pay back all the principle and interest that is owed at any given time.   It works only if the economy of the particular nation continually expands … which is a tall order, hence the system is fundamentally unsound.

Now, if the bank creating the credit (and by extension the money) is STATE owned and that interest stays in public hands, the problem goes away and the State can regulate, or if needed generate, its economic activity for the good of its people.   In Benjamin Franklin's day Pennsylvania, which had little or no gold, had a colony-managed fiat system which worked quite well, in fact Franklin sang songs of praise for the prosperity it produced.  

Peter Schiff talks sound economic principles and knows what's wrong with America.   Sound money backed by gold or silver is a great idea, and that's what the founders mandated.   The reason it's such a good idea is because it makes cheating (by powerful bankers) impossible.   That said in Schiff's defense, he doesn't seem to grasp what Ellen understands.  That GIVEN the Fractional Reserve system we have, State-run banks would be a good thing, or at least a big improvement on having our prosperity stolen by private bankers.  

 

 

4 Comments to 'Peter Schiff vs. Ellen Brown'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Peter Schiff vs. Ellen Brown'.

  1. KrNel said,

    Why is gold more valid than paper money? (I used to be 100% for GOLD and SILVER, and commodities… that was then…)
    Who owns most of the gold in the world?  Criminals maybe?  We know the names…
    How would a system of gold be valid when all of it is secretly owned by TPTB?  Any gold in FED anymore… when was the last audit…  hmmmmmmmm
     
    So gold or any commodity that is largely owned by 'them', and that commodity market is manipulated by 'them', then to even have the possibility of gold or a commodity as a valid money source, would mean to obtain all the particular commodity in existance in order to accurately determine its value.  Otherwise, how could you value something properly and have a fair system (which is the goal) if what you thought the gold in "known" existance was 100% accurate, was actually only 33% of the true amount that exists?  Someone still holds a shit load of power.
    — — —
    So for money, what do we pick?  Well it's a shocker, and I thought it counter-productive at first until I fully understand why it is the best solution for proper management of a society in just manner.  Many people labour on various conception that they have come to accept.  They become convinced of that truth.  Sometimes the mind virus is accurate, soemtimes it isn't, but it is ingrained and drives you with your conviction of its actuality.  The government and paper money and two such examples where some believe in them, and some do not.  But the details that create the convictions are the most important.  These are the "facts" that convince us of the validity of our conclusions — as long as we aren't simply believing in a statement as is without any attempt at verification. 
    The government is vilified.  Why is that so?  Is the government the bad thing?  What are the parts of a governement that constitute its whole, that would make it so bad?  There are various department, and more abstraction, but the road ends at the people who consitute the government.  They act out the roles of these departments and follow and make the "laws".  If things are corrupt and bad in government, it is because we have corrupt pand bad people who are making it that way.  Not because it is that way to begin with.  To make things "right", we can' tjust change one part alone, we have to change everything because everything is interconnected.  So for money to work right, you need the system to be right also.
    Given that the system needs to be changed and work lawfully, morally, ethically, justly, we can establish other changes that are built on the same principle.
    Economic change can now be made correctly.  And we are not talking about commodities.  What is needed is properly valued paper money, that can only be regulated and valued with strict ethical basic ecnomic principles.  This money will not be manipulated by private hands.  It would be regulated by a proper correct institution.  Not gonna happen?  Then neither is any other positive and beneficial change goign to happen, because nothing has really changed, such as the perception that gold and or silver are the answer.
     
    Stphen Zarlenga has the drop on this.  Found him through gnosticmedia.com. 
    http://www.monetary.org/
     
    One comment from a review says:

    As Zarlenga has proven in The Lost Science of Money (TLSoM), commodity-based money is a recipe for deflation and depression, as the supply of precious metals is never enough for society's expanding need for money. (I also find myself worrying along the same lines as Brown that even Zarlenga's money-from-Congress solution would not produce enough money either, but it is still better than commodity-based money). Wherever it's been tried, gold-backed money has led to a shortage of the metal, depression, and even collapse
     

    Commodity bad.  Do not understand why this is so?  Please owe it to yourself to find out more about this subject.  Don't agree in the end?  Ok 🙂  But do allow an open mind back into those passages the "conspiracy" movement has blocked in our minds (paper money, government, as good things).  Check out Zarlenga's audio and articles.  He does a good job explaining it in Gnostic Media's podcasts.  He has 3-4 on there (probably archived to pay by now).  I have some resources if you are intersted 😉
     
    Peace.
     

  2. admin said,

    Great post, KrNel.   Silver and Gold is not the only way – the whole topic collapses onto honesty – how do you create an honest system?    Gold and Silver are great because they are physical, which, traditionally, prevented cheating, but they (TM) can easily corner those markets.   I like Ellen Brown because she thinks out of the box.   She supports State run banks (fiat currency, fractional reserve system, but run in the interest of the public as opposed to private bankers).   

    Did you know that Dorothy's slippers in the original Oz books were not Ruby  – but silver.   They represented a Silver standard … because by then the banksters had the gold market cornered while there was a lot of silver being mined in America.  

    Anyway, we have the worst system of all in America … crooks in charge and paper money backed by nothing that can be printed at will.   (Argghghghhh.)

     

     

  3. KrNel said,

    Indeed, if you have an honest ethical system, then just about any system can work to a certain degree.  I still see paper money as the best option.  You couldn't secretly hoard newly discovered paper as you would gold to artificially manipulate the value or give yourself power.  Also, an expanding economy would require revaluating of the gold value for purchasing power as the amount in existiance does not meat the demands of funding services and infrastructure.
    I do not agree with fractional reserve banking though.  Nothing should be franctionalized to permit artificaly creation of money.  Money that is create would only be done in order to pay for things, nationally, internally, i.e. you put money into your own system to make it prosper.  New money would be to pay for services or infracstructure projects.  There are valid and invalid reasons to create money, we need a system built on sound rules.
    Additionally, no private bank can create money, only the state/government one(s), for the public good.  And further, no interest!  Making money from money is highly unsound and unethical.  Loans are another public good, and this can only be taken up by honest institutions not driven by profit motives, i.e. our newly trusted state and government systems.  There is already consequences to not paying a loan back without hvaing to pay more money than you orginally borrowed.  No additional incentive is needed, least of all forceful interest payments!
    My food for thought.  Have a good one 😀
    Peace.

  4. admin said,

    We think alike.  

:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::

No Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Leave a Reply