Skip to content

Ed Griffin admits the Bankers own all the Gold and that Usury is the issue

December 19, 2013
Ed Griffin

In an amazing interview with the restarted Daily Bell, Ed Griffin candidly admits the Banker own all the Gold and that Usury is their main tool.

Some time back the Daily Bell restarted their operation. Openly admitting they were in it to provide good investment advice, which is fair enough. For a while they left us alone, focusing on commentating on current events. But a few days ago they unexpectedly reopened our little feud with an uncannily scathing attack at paper money reformers in general and ‘the anti-usury crowd’ in particular.

To be honest, I would have ignored it, I don’t really know what there is left to say about Austrianism and the Daily Bell’s quaint economic ‘theories’ that has not already been said many times now. But then a few days later they posted a highly intriguing interview with G. Edward Griffin, directly responding to a number of vital issues that I discussed in ‘Who is Ed Griffin?‘. This article described how Ed Griffin’s ‘the Creature from Jekyll Island’ aimed to subvert the legacy of Ezra Pound and Eustace Mullins in the Truth Movement. Mullins, coached by Pound, described how the bankers created the Federal Reserve and how they love Gold, which Griffin tried to make go away with his book. Pound’s great enemy, of course, was Usura, not paper money or, God forbid, ‘inflation’.

Interestingly, in the already mentioned hit piece, the Daily Bell warned its readers for people talking about the Federal Reserve being ‘private’, but this was not an issue interviewing the author making a career of claiming the same thing. As we know, the Daily Bell, Ron Paul, Tom Woods and all the others want us to believe Central Banking is a ‘statist’ operation, fiddling with the wonderful free market operations of the banking cartel.

Ed Griffin responds
Let’s just get to the core of it. The interview is here.
Anthony Wile asks Griffin: “Public banking types – those who want a central bank controlled by “the people” – continue to attack libertarian websites for proposing that gold is money. They believe all gold is owned by central banks and elite families and their colleagues.”

Griffin responds: I think the main question there is the assumption that the gold supply in the world is predominantly held by the richest families and the banking cartel. That’s not a truth. There’s no doubt they own a lot of gold and maybe in terms of any single source they may own more than any other single source unless you consider the earth itself. Most of the gold in the world has never been dug out or pulled out in any form at all – 99.99% of it is still in the earth and the oceans. There is no doubt that bankers have a lot of gold and the reason they have gold is because they’re smart. They know that gold is a storehouse of value and that as all the currencies of the world devalue, those who hold gold will not lose their wealth. So they’re smart.

Now, the issue is what about the rest of the gold? Who owns that? Well, like I said, most of it’s still in the earth. When the price goes up people start to dig it out, extract it from the oceans. One of the reasons they’re trying to suppress the price is so as not to make it attractive. I personally became involved in a very small gold mine in Montana some years ago and as we were activating that gold because the price went up there were new mines opening up all over the place that had been dormant for all these years. Gold is everywhere. It can easily be extracted; it’s just a question of price. If you allow the price to seek its normal, free-market level then the price would balance. So there’s no shortage of gold. When the price goes up, all the gold that’s in people’s drawers in the form of old watches and rings and bracelets and stuff, which is a tremendous amount, will come back into the market.”

So there you have it: the Bankers own the Gold, but we’re lucky: 99,99% of the Gold is still in the Earth and when the price rises, more people will dig up Gold. At this point they’re talking about 170,000 tonnes of Gold as the Globe’s official reserves and mining adds about 1% per year to that. So, should we move on to Gold as money, we can just dig for Gold a few decades and have some Gold of our own. Bankers are just very smart, you see?

This is Ed Griffin’s line.

He then continues:
“So the question is, then, how come the banks are the leading opponents of backing a money system with gold?”

So even in the face of his own admission that they own it all, Griffin still claims the bankers are against Gold as money. Of course Griffin is just pretending he doesn’t understand the Dialectic, where the bankers own both sides of the conflict, in this case Paper vs. Gold.

Before getting into this, here’s the other major issue that Wile brought forward: “What are the top men of central banking interested in? Are they in it for the usury or are they in it for control? This is a major and profound question, in our view.”
Yes, you read that right: The Daily Bell wonders whether the bankers are in it for the Usury! Of course he’s only talking about ‘the top men of central banking’, but perhaps in a next interview he can explore the Trillions of usury commercial banking rakes in yearly? Please remember the Federal Reserve Bank pays back to the Government the usury it makes on Sovereign debt it holds. And that commercial banking creates up to 97% of all money in the economy, not central banks.

Here’s Griffin’s response: “The top bankers are interested in it for the usury but their partners in politics are interested in it for control and it’s hard to say which is which, between the two of them, because it’s a revolving door now. I would say central banks, or the big banks that comprise the central banks, and governments now are welded together into one sold piece. It’s hard to distinguish or pull them apart. So the answer to that question is both usury and control.”

Of course it’s not or/or but both: power, control, this is what the enormous wealth of Usury begets them and indeed they (politicians and bankers) are indistinguishable. The politicians are owned by the bankers though, that should be clear but it’s something Austrianism prefers to downplay for obvious reasons.

So, hardcore Austrians Anthony Wile and Ed Griffin conclude: the bankers own all the Gold and they are in it for the Usury (and the control it brings).

All that is now left is the question: how then, if we move to Gold as currency, will there be no usury? How will there be no control? If they own all of it anyway? Will the Bankers not lend the Gold into circulation at interest?

Why are the bankers against Gold monetary reform, as Griffin continues to maintain, even in the face of these stunning admissions?

We can of course talk about the dialectic, Paper vs. Gold in this case, with the bankers owning both sides and routinely ‘attacking’ one of the protagonists to create the illusion of real ‘conflict’. But why would we. Ed Griffin knows this, as does Anthony Wile.

They’re just out of ammo and they know it and thanks to this interview, we do too.

Who is Ed Griffin?
The Daily Bell: Usurious Commercial Banking is Good, Interest-Free Government Money is Tyranny
How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics
Austrianism is Dying! Truthers Unite!

  1. Yes, it is not out of ignorance that they make such ignorant conclusions. These people are everywhere and they make a pretty good living at it.

  2. The answers are getting really funny too:

    Yes – the bankers have a lot of gold, but there is 9999x more out there – we just need to comb through ALL THE OCEANS AND ALL THE EARTH OF THE WORLD! Everyone getting busy in his own mining and digging-out-grandpa-for-his-teeth-operation! This is really ridiculous regarding the earth’s ownership structure, capital possibilities of corporations or simply the control factor of countries. I know of cases for example in Eastern Europe where one country has denied mining of iron and other more precious minerals (yes – also some 10 bio. $ in gold there) in a region with known reserves in excess of wholesale prices of over one trillion $ !!!! (region in southern Silesia known since Hitler’s control of the place). The state’s official reason for mining denial is that mining would cost 20-30 bio. $ (but would rake in 1000 bio. $!!!!! ) and it would inconvenience 3-4 villages (give them 500.000$ each and it is still highly viable). Of course any kind of these projects can be denied by countries for environmental (usually valid though not this time, since digging would be deep underground) or any other kind of reason. The real reason being of course the restriction of the market for the current owners of it all. This concerns not only gold, silver, but of course other minerals as well.

    As far as usury is concerned the admission is really funny as well since both the Daily Bell as well as Griffin acknowledge the fact – of course whenever officially questioned they would say that it is the atrocious usury of the FED, but not the one stemming from the saintly free market commercial banks…

    Business as usual but thanks for the info Anthony!

  3. apollonian permalink

    Anthony: u lie, again, as usual. Pt. to the Austrian system, as I understand, is commodity money, w. intrinsic value, which cannot be replicated/proliferated like paper. Gold then is only the best commodity to use as money.

    • Well, as the article states apollonian, Ed Griffin admits that the bankers own all the Gold and that Usury is the main problem, which will not be solved with Gold.

      Is it wise to use an artificially scarce commodity completely dominated by the PtB as currency?

      • apollonian permalink

        Anthony: u have problems w. truth, no?–bankers don’t own all the gold, only a lot of it, and gold will surely still work quite well enough as money. And note gold isn’t the only commodity. U still don’t understand usury, which is not mere charging-of-interest. Griffin is surely using the understanding that usury involves fiat money–which is solved by commodity money and gold.

        Note every and any commodity is limited for quantity; “scarcity” is relative, and gold is NOT “completely dominated” by anyone. To extent gold is “scarce” it commands a high price, incentive to spending it back into circulation.

        Anthony: u gotta start thinking–ONLY commodity money is consistent w. free society; anything else requires dictatorship and accompanying horror.

        • Perhaps you can do some research into the meaning of the word Usury if you don’t believe me apollonian? It’s better than just making it all up as you go. Usury has nothing to do with paper or coin. It is interest on loans of money. Later on, it was subverted to become ‘excessive’ interest on loans of money. You can imagine who might be behind this subversion. In fact, the Jesuits, to whom Austrianism owes most of its ideas, were very important in doing this dirty work for the Money Power.

          • Actually it was Pope Leo X that justified usury of 5% when it benefitted the poor — as if theft benefitted anyone at any amount — “on May 4, 1515 at the lateran council V, Session X, in the Bull, Concilii in decimal sessione super material Montis Pietatais.” pg. 141 Usury in Christemdom, Michael Hoffman. Excommunication awaited anyone henceforth that challenged the Church for its Montes pietatis “charity banks”.

            Later in Germany the Turbingen school of nominalism was formulated by monks, Gabriel Biel, Conrad Summenhart , Johann Eck, to justify any amount. Eck was the patron of the Fugger banking dynasty. pg. 163 “Usury in Christendom” Michael Hoffman

          • Yes, it’s very sad how the Church betrayed Christ.

          • Indeed. The new Pope claims to be against finance capitalism and for supporting economic rights of the poor. Usury is the worst crime against the poor. Has the new Pope condemned it or cast out the moneylenders in Rome? Has he condemned usury?

          • apollonian permalink

            PM: the first thing is to UNDERSTAND “usury” and what it really is. See my reply to Anthony, below, regarding the real nature of usury and the illegitimate confusion of usury w. mere charging-of-interest–they’re not same things. Real essence of usury is issuing of phony receipt-money, un-backed by the real thing, the commodity-money–literally, legalized COUNTERFEITING.

          • I read your nonsense. Usury is by anyone’s definition the charging of money for the use of money. It’s how banks can get rich without producing anything, risking anything or losing anything.

          • Usury is the Church’s definition. It’s not the Austrian definition because they don’t see unfettered greed as a evil.

          • Absolutely not and it’s too bad how easily people are swayed by some PR.

            There circulated a meme on Facebook with a picture of him and a text ‘remember, everytime a company faces bankruptcy because of scandal, they put a PR guy in front of you saying everything you want to hear’.

          • apollonian permalink

            Perhaps u can do some research–and give the citations like a proper scholar, eh? “Usury” originates and comes fm way back, not defined, though it is indeed associated w. charging-of-interest–but it couldn’t have been the only thing as mere interest by itself upon loans of commodity money, or honest bank-receipts thereof, was not, and couldn’t have been onerous and would not cause economic depressions.

            Question is WHAT is it that causes depressions/recessions? For note some recessionary activity is natural as investment in some areas becomes less remunerative and must now shift to other areas.

            And if usury is nothing but charging-of-interest, why are there two diff. words used for same thing?–it’s because usury is not simply charging-of-interest–they’re not exactly same things.

            Charging-of-interest is simply fee one pays for competitive incentive for the lending of LIMITED funds–what’s wrong w. that?

            If u had ur way, Anthony, then there’d be practically INFINITE “money” to be lent, and then there wouldn’t be any need for such competitive interest charging, eh?–but then there’d be obvious problem of inflation, and so then interest would be charged merely to discourage such inflationary lending–which is PRECISELY what we see now happening w. the Fed masterminds.

            Regarding Austrianism, as I understand it, the “school” was founded by Menger, who was Jew, and he was joined by Bohm-Bawerk, among others, another Jew. Menger was one of the first who propounded the “marginal utility” theory of value, along w. Jevons. The school was then most affected by Ludwig V. Mises, yet another Jew, who much stream-lined the theory, and was then further expounded by Murray Rothbard, Jew.

            There’s more to say about Austrianism, of course, and it can be found at, but I don’t see what u’re talking about regarding Jesuits–but this is typical of ur constant question-begging and assertion without substantiation.

          • You’re just speculating apollonian! What’s stopping you from consulting a dictionary?

            you identify with Christianity, not?
            Why do you think the Bible is full of usury condemnation?

            Mind you, in biblical times Usury was not only interest on loans of money, but also on commodities.

          • apollonian permalink

            Anthony: get a clue–“usury” is NOT NOT NOT defined for its earliest use in the ancient writings, though it is indeed associated w. charging-of-interest, but they’re not strictly co-terminous and synonymous words, usury and interest-charging.

            Anthony: use ur mind and THINK–would mere charging-of-interest by itself cause depressions or even recessions?–of course not. There had to be something much more to it, this charging-of-interest–can’t u figure this out?

            Thus usury had to have been associated w. issuing of phony receipts fm the “banks” (commodity-money warehouses), interest then charged upon these phony receipts–can’t u figure this out?–and it’s much like the activity of recent times when we have written accounts which supply informative details.

            So when the issuance of the un-backed (phony) “receipts” is curtailed, due to the obvious inflationary problems, the quantity of money in circulation is sharply reduced, and now it becomes impossible to acquire the “money,” such as it now is understood to be, in order to pay off the loans which were originally contracted in the midst of plentiful funds then circulating. Can’t u figure this out?

            Hence then, the mere charging-of-interest is just a COMPLICATING, aggravated factor, not the real, essential cause of the problem–which is actually the fraudulent issuing of phony “receipt” money–just as it is today.

          • apollonian, good money solves three problems: usury, volume (boom bust cycle, money scarcity), and the decentralization of decision making who gets credit.

            Depressions are partly caused by Usury, but the main reason is banking racketeering: first easy credit (boom) and then no credit (bust).

          • apollonian permalink

            Right Anthony: but as usual w. u and ur sort, u leave things un-defined, like “good-money,” ho ho ho ho. And proper money is commodity, like it was and had to have been at the very beginning when money arose fm the preceding barter-system.

            U’re amazing Anthony, the way u just breeze past my noting that there is some confusion over the exact meaning of usury in the original sources–then u presuming it in ur own statement–do u see how u willingly and deliberately fool urself?

            Another thing u ignore, again, is “scarcity”: for money MUST be finite in quantity–it had to have been when it first emerged fm the basic barter system, right or wrong? Money has to be finite as it is commodity w. intrinsic value, hence not able to be (legalistically) COUNTERFEITED by means of illegitimate replicating/proliferating of the receipt substitutes.

            Anthony: there’s no “free lunch,” comrade–that’s why money MUST be finite in quantity, hence commodity, w. “intrinsic value,” in nature–but by golly, u’re just NOT NOT NOT gonna have it, eh? Ho ho ho

            Most tragic is ur devilish refusal to see to the heart of ur schemes: it REQUIRES DICATATORSHIP, nothing less, to enforce ur non-commodity money schemes. For in commodity-money systems we have to put-up w. the random criminals who inevitably arise and issue their fraudulent receipt-money–there’s no solution to it but to be vigilant and act as the need arises; u rather seek to go them one further, compounding the problem, guaranteeing more horrific disaster and consequences.

            And this tragedy is all because u can’t and won’t see to the real nature, hence definition, of what real money is and must be–and it’s why we always get this appalling mass of psycho-babble fm u and ur buddies as u gloss over the obvious problems, slandering and smearing the Austrians, etc. U’re bound and determined to show people how “clever” u are for ur “free lunch” delusions, pretending to discover what no one else was able to see before–never admitting that dictatorship lurking in the shadows which u refuse to acknowledge.

          • I do not leave it undefined apollonian, I just gave you the three qualities it must have.

          • . Usury was not only condemned by the Catholic Church for its first 1500 years but also charging an unjust price for goods and services. It was a mortal sin to charge over what was consider a fair and just price or its intrinsic value. The stands in stark contrast to the Austrian school and putative capitalism’s notion of being able to sell for whatever price a market bears, regardless of what something is actually worth.

          • apollonian permalink

            Well PM, as usual, u suffer fm OBVIOUS illogic, ho ho ho. Tell us how over-charging would be feasible in a free-market? For if a competitor charged more reasonable price, wouldn’t he then get the business? Ho ho ho–this is typical of ur anti-rationalist delusions of economics in order to jury-rig ur excuses for dictatorship. This dictatorship is what u’re really all about, which u don’t want to admit, rather substituting these gross absurdities as excuses for such dictatorship. Ho ho ho ho

          • I’m just explaining what Catholic dogma is regarding usury and economic exchange. Free market isn’t about ensuring that people sell and buy for just prices, but for making as much a profit as possible, regardless of true value and exploitation. You are free to overcharge as greed is god.

            Charging for what requires no labor, risk or loss (usury) and charging a price for things in excess of their intrinsic value (which is easily and objectively determined) are the reasons we have an irreversible transfer of wealth from the 99% to the .01%.

          • yes pm, the profit issue is another quite fundamental matter.

          • apollonian permalink

            PM: it’s pretty useless talking to u, eh? The free market is that economics founded upon the free society, that society based upon a rational legal system, ind. freedom, sanctity of contract, etc.

            The free market doesn’t presume some dictator’s (like urs) definition of “just price,” but rather insures competition so that people can most easily get the best price they can. Same goes for ur typically presumptuous, dripping w. Pharisaic self-righteousness (a redundancy, I know), “true value and exploitation.”

            Yes, one is free to “over-charge,” but it doesn’t guarantee one can make the sale, due to the free competition. And the free market is best guarantee that over-charging will not succeed and achieve success which irrationalist, Pharisaic, like u, presumes.

            And no, “greed” is not God in the free market–rather it’s reason and truth, no less than freedom. Of course self-interest is necessary, human goal, but reason is necessary to proper achievement thereof.

            And PM: fact is U’RE JUST A LIAR, all truth be told–for lending money obviously entails risk and labor, for if money isn’t paid back, there often requires lawyer costs and other legal problems. But u ARE typical of the opponent of freedom and honest (hence commodity) money. Ur object is to establish DICTATORSHIP which u refuse to admit, in order to enforce ur own version of fraudulent (non-commodity) money.

          • Let’s leave it at this guys, we have sufficiently heard your line apollonian and that line is not what we are exploring here. You are not going to change your mind and neither are we and it must have some instructiveness and this does not really. So apollonian, if you don’t mind………….

          • apollonian permalink

            Anthony: tell me this–would u say that a free market would allow for various systems if they were non-fraudulent? So we KNOW the commodity-money system is PERFECTLY consistent w. the free market, yes or no? Commodity money is actually most natural, yes or no?

            And so, if the people and market don’t abide ur system, isn’t that the just verdict of the free market?

            Or, perhaps, is the free market–based upon a rational legal system–just inadequate?–it needs special conditions to over-come free contract and charging of interest? Aren’t these legitimate questions?

          • free market is just newspeak for monopoly capitalism apollonian.

          • apollonian permalink

            Well ok–so is there such thing as free market?–is there a rational legal system? So are u admitting (finally) it’s mere matter of choice among various dictatorship systems?

          • Humans must organize and some sort of rules must be in place.

            What matters is whether the rules benefit the vast majority and does no unbearable injustice to anyone. Or those that own the System.

            In order to have good rules, we must know what we talk about.

            Usury is the worst possible rule that you can imagine.

          • Yeah, the legal system for usury is called admiralty law, wherein the policies of monopolisitic capitalism are enforced.

    • Ross N. permalink

      Commodity money is a great psychological operation on the people. Because money stands in as good at the moment of transaction, it takes only a slight push to convince people money is a good. If money is a commodity then money is trading a good for a good. This is weak minded sophistry, but the Austrians engage in it.

      But, money is not a good. It only stands in as a good. Money is a abstract device created by man – a tool- which can divide down at the moment of transaction and help us trade our output.

      Commodity money is part of a 2000 year history of confusion whispered into mankind’s ears. This confusion is a propaganda operation funded by usury, rents and other schemes.

      In the case of commodity money, there is the confusion of goods and the real abstract nature of money. Then commodity money bankers invariably will want some sort of abstract paper or notional money to flex to the economy. The commodity, due to its inherent fixed quantity cannot flex to the normal S curve of most economies.

      Commodity money bankers will also insist their money is “international” and by definition that reduces sovereignty and the ability of a nation state (like minded people) to govern their own affairs.. This international money can be melted down or spirited out of country, thus collapsing the money supply and people’s ability to work and be productive.

      Another great game of commodity money brokers throughout history is to pretend that the abstract ledger (which they control) is equivalent to the physical gold or silver in the supply. This always leads to depression cycles, harvesting, war, and eventually to oligarchy as the wealth concentrates.

      The Austrians always cherry pick history to make their case. They take a narrow slice of the free banking period, but ignore other great swaths of history. Austrianism is a-priori thinking – since they think it, and they are the greatest thinkers, it must be so. Ergo, anybody who doesn’t agree with Austrianism and all of their erroneous presumptions, must be an idiot.

      • apollonian permalink

        This by Ross is the usual ignorant babbling consisting of assertions without substantiation, question-begging. Just ask oneself HOW money emerged fm the original barter conditions? And note money doesn’t at all change the basic barter nature of the exchange economy–one trades one value for another. Hence money, which is exchanged for whatever, must have intrinsic value–obviously.

        Note also, “sovereignty” begins w. the individual which is properly safe-guarded w. commodity money. Ross N. wants to strip sovereignty fm the individual and give it to a dictatorship. For money PRECEDES the state, and the state only properly protects the individuals and their property, including money.

        Austrianism of Ludwig V. Mises is indeed a-priori by design, economics being basically a logical construct which can be applied, at least for the basic principles. But if u say Austrians “cherry-pick,” then u should give the instances whence they do this. If there’s “erroneous presumptions,” then u need to specify–this is just basic honesty and courtesy for any random reader of this blog-site.

        Get it straight folks: the enemies of commodity money are simply enemies of freedom and free society. Commodity money is the only real money; it’s the original thing, and Anthony and his buddies here can’t bring themselves to admit the simple truth.

      • I couldn’t agree more Ross.

    • Dark Dirk permalink

      Apollonian, you still owe me an answer to my questions: Are you ready to carry gold with you to pay ? or you what me to pay with counterfeit notes “backed” with gold ? And how your are going to force me to use gold ? you are going to declare a gold standard ? isn’t that a dictatorship of the gold owners ?

      • apollonian permalink

        Dirk: I am and always was perfectly willing to reply to ur posts, when they make sense, but Anthony blocked my further replies in the last article/thread–didn’t u notice the abrupt end to my replies in that thread?–it wasn’t because I wasn’t trying to post. Why is such censorship necessary?–is it because Anthony cannot stand dissent and opposing expo?

        Dirk: u gotta understand what money is and how it works–it first developed out of strict barter, so theorists believe (as it was before writing came about, so we have to re-create within our minds how it happened). Money HAD to have been commodity–tell me if u agree w. this and why or why not.

        “Banks” then began as warehouses for gold, the real money–or whatever commodity was used–and the bank issued a RECEIPT for the commodity stored. So now the people could use these receipts as substitute for the real thing–all perfectly legitimate. But of course, humans are sinners, and unscrupulous bankers would issue phony receipts for non-existent commodity stored in the warehouse–these phony receipts are what’s “COUNTERFEIT”–just like present-day Federal Reserve “notes.”

        Of course I can’t force u to use gold in a “free” market–BUT then the burden is on u for what u’d use as exchange for what u were looking for, eh? I hope this answers ur questions.

  4. Brian permalink

    Dear Anthony and/or fellow readers;
    this statement “Please remember the Federal Reserve Bank pays back to the Government the usury it makes on Sovereign debt it holds…” caught a few of us off-guard and a little vulnerable.
    When did the Fed start reimbursing interest/usury; and ii) was this “voluntary” or were there some legislative changes. thanks for any help, wearing a little egg on our fae

    • apollonian permalink

      Brian: as I understand the process, as the Fed just makes the money up–either by printing or digitalizing–it’s absurd to demand interest be paid–SO, the gov. is exempted fm paying interest to the fed for the money it gets. G. Edward Griffin explains the process in his great book, “The Creature From Jekyll Island.”

      BUT not to worry, as that money still gets out into the economy, and when the commercial banks (who are the people behind the Fed, don’t forget) get hold of it, u can be sure they charge interest on it–and this is aside fm the fact that the money is totally made-up and concocted out of nothing in the first place–it’s literally legalized COUNTERFEITING. So I guess they consider it would be tooooooo much chutzpah to charge interest on such legalized COUNTERFEITING.

    • REN permalink

      Look up Wright Pattman. He is the one that forced the FED to reimburse to the Treasury. But, the FED only reimburses after they take out their profits. They also guarantee profits to the top commercial banks within their system. The Federal Reserve system is banking corporations, where the original stock holder families hold control over the system as oligarchy.

      Debts as money (deficit spending from new TBills) that are never redeemed, convert and become floating money. They convert to money because they no longer return to the ledger to disappear – the government recycles its rebate money back into the economy. Some money needs to be in the system, because disappearing credit along with usury means the system must collapse – it is inherently unstable. The deficit spend money pays the usury which then flows into the banking system, and paretos to the top oligarchs.

      • thanks so much REN!
        “Look up Wright Pattman. He is the one that forced the FED to reimburse to the Treasury.”
        I/we had missed that chunk which Anthony brought to our attention and you then specified the “when/how” ; appreciate, big fans of Wright Pattman and quote him a lot but must have had a “brain burp” on the reimbursement. sure appreciate such a direct hit response to my concern/question

    • Here’s some additional input on the public/private duality of CB’s and their real role in the banking Syndicate Brian. Like Ross said: the real money is made by the banks and the Fed’s job is to make sure that that continues.

      Oops, forgot the link, here it is:

    • Regarding the inquiry from the astute commenter asking about the Fed having to kick back interest to the U.S. Gov.

      Excellent point. Originally I was under the impression that a congressman later on (1930’s or so) forced that on the Fed. Then one day, I went searching to confirm that and spend and hour in vain.
      Couldn’t find anything definitive about wither that was in the original Fed act or a subsequent act of Congress.

      I see someone above me here claims Rep Wright Pattman forced it thru. Perhaps, but I couldn’t find it. Do realize though, the Feds power isn’t so much the money it pays to its owners and minions …. oh no. The real power lies in that the Fed is in control of who gets money credit and who DOESN’T get it.

      Grasp that?
      Feed your family and starve others not in your circle. That is what it comes down to.
      As George Carlin once stated, “it’s a club, and you ain’t in it”

  5. First off, thank you for offering commenting without registering.
    In this age of spying that at least, is a small comfort.

    Another thanks for your website. I discovered it not long ago and have perused the archives.
    I would say that you are in the vanguard in bringing a most important issue to the forefront.

    Now, let’s discuss some of the issues.
    First off, regarding gold, I believe the consensus is that of the worldwide estimate of 170,000 tons: 1/4 is in central banks, 1/4 private owners,1/4 jewelry, 1/4 industry.

    To be honest, I find it dismaying you keep finding issue with the austrians and pro PM crowd. It would seem they should be approximate allies against money power.

    I now definitely agree the heart of the issue is usury and I commend you for bringing this out into the open. Your site has opened my eyes in this regard. Any PM introduction and/or full reserve banking adoption might stem the rate of credit creation (thus restricting usury), but as you have pointed out, it wouldn’t solve the usury problem and we want readily available credit for legitimate business activities

    The problem I see with any greenbacker/ellen brown/social credit scheme is the bureaucrats that oversee the money credit creation. Existing money power would move quickly to compromise that process. As we’ve seen, they’re masters of compromising people and organizations.

    Another issue I have is that I am not convinced you really believe in freedom of choice in regards to which forms of money society uses. From what I’ve read on this site and it’s comments, it seems “your” crowd has a vision of what’s proper and will essentially “obamacare” any competing forms of banking/moneycredit.

    Why not simply advocate freedom of choice, abolition of monopolies in regards to banking and money credit. For example, go back into the 1800s and the so called era of ‘free banking’. It wasn’t any such thing. A prospective bank needed a charter from the state. Most often this meant it was required to buy government debt from the outset. Hardly ‘free banking’ when a bank is in league with the establishment from its inception.

    If banking was totally free tend we’d have a world where full reserve banking could be offered, fractional reserve (at various levels of fractional) bankingcould be offered. Private bank fiat could exist alongside with PM backed notes (or even,gasp, physical coins/bullion) for the real diehards.
    Bitcoin would be free to attract its adherents.

    To my mind, that is what true freedom entails.
    And just so you know, I wouldn’t have an issue with social credit if it was first introduced on a local/regional scale and found viable. My issue with social credit is that it seems to require the support of government. Stated another way, government would be reaching into MY pocket for funds to run a Social Credit scheme. If I refused to pay, then force would be used against me.
    If I resisted that force, I’d be killed. Anyone dispute that?

    • Thanks for this d. I appreciate this!

      Let me address a few issues:
      – About the Austrians: did you also read the articles about how the Money Power created Austrian Economics and Libertarianism? The point is that Austrians defend usury and deflation and Gold as currency. These are all crucial issues that are at the heart of the monetary matter. Austrianism was invented for exactly this. Also: Austrians blame the State. I’m no friend of the State, but it must be clear that the Money Power owns the State and that that is the real problem.

      – Yes, I agree with your statement that we don’t want technocrats managing credit. Mind you: if you let banks do it, as Austrianism proposes, you can rest assured it’s not just technocrats, but real vampires doing it.
      Interest-free credit facilities should come with a clear charter and this should involved the very clear understanding that it is NOT the credit of the facility, but that the facility is just keeping the books for the people, who rightfully own the credit. You should not be facing stern looking mediocre people following orders, grilling you to the max for a few dollars to buy a house for your family.

      – Freedom of choice:
      Well, I promote regional currencies and free market units as a way of subverting the bankster monopoly. Also, when there is good national money, which we need, I still believe free market currencies have a right to exist, so I’m not really sure why you doubt I respect choice?

      A whole other thing is this: which choice do you prefer: to have the option borrowing at two Gold banks, one offering at 4,9% and one at 5,1% OR no choice, but only a public bank which gives you 0%?

      You see: choice means nothing if we don’t look at the quality of the choices. It’s better not to choose and get a good thing or to have the choice between a rock and a hard place, which is what Austrianism is really offering.

      – The problem with the ‘free market’ for currencies idea is simple: Gold banks and other usurious outlets will get massive funding by the Money Power, they will buy lovely offices, all the ‘news’ they can, all the politicians they can, all the professors, explaining how wonderful it is you can save at compound interest at their banks.

      There will be zero funding for interest-free credit facilities. Hence: the ‘free market’ does not exist.

      We as a society have every right to organize and there is some role for the State in that. If you have decentralized economy, without usury and land monopoly, we can have REAL free markets, where normal people have access to good credit too, which is absolutely vital for a level playing field.

      Furthermore: the State too, can organize money in a decentralized way, where the credit facilities cater to local needs.

      – Banking IS Totally free. That’s exactly the problem. They use this freedom to monopolize everything. There is only one solution for banking: kill it. It was conceived in sin and born in iniquity. They will always conspire to keep money scarce. They will kill competition, literally. The Trillionaires will use their resources to regain market control and they will succeed.

      – About Social Credit (I’m not really in favor of it, although I’m sympathetic): it’s just printed money, it costs nothing. On the other hand, the ‘free market’ costs you 5% per year. So what do you ‘choose’? What is Freedom?

      It has nothing to do with public vs. private, which is just another dialectic. It has everything to do with a clear cut analysis of whom is paying what to who.

      People must organize. They do so partly publicly, partly privately. But everywhere there is ego and thus corruption. The State is not more corrupt than the Market. They are both terminally ill, because they are run by the Money Power, that’s the real issue.
      The issue that has swept through the centuries is the people vs. the banks (Lord Acton) and there can be no compromise.

      • Imagine the bankers lost their government franchise on money credit.
        Say the present banking is still present (well, at least those survive lost of government and Central Banks support) however …. there are now no impediments to alternative banking/monies/money credit.

        Let’s mostly just leave aside the issue of what the government then uses other than to say it operates on one system but a multiple of clearinghouses spring up to allow conversions between money/credit systems.

        So Anthony, in this new world, you naturally rush forward and say “we need social credit”.
        Are you going to ask for government support? A government mandate,franchise,monopoly? Remember, “government’ means to a small degree ME. What if I don’t like the idea of demurrage. Assume I wish for a store of value in addition to a means of exchange.

        What if once a social credit scheme is instituted, that loans are made but collections fall short.
        After all, isn’t that human nature … “oh yeah, see Sir, I can’t pay back my interest free house loan because I lost my job, the wife got pregnant” etc, etc.

        This is why I am a bit leery of Social Credit and would wish for it to start off on a small scale and prove itself. But aside from that, let’s say I like Bitcoin and wish to a certain degree to base my wealth in it. Let’s also say I wish to hedge and base part of my wealth in a PM anchored money system.

        DO you support competing money/credit systems? Do you wish for governments to keep a hands-off approach and not issue any franchises, and certainly,never,ever give one group a monopoly.

        Face it,the likelihood of winning over everyone to the adoption of a Social Credit system is low. You might have to console yourself with dealing with others who are as fervent to their vision as you are to yours.

        That’s why I believe it counter productive to take folk like Griffin and Wile to task and spend so much energy railing against them when the people behind the banking cartels are our common enemy. When I read Daily Bell or Ron Paul or Edward Griffin, I see that there is the common thread of choice and keeping government from picking winners.

        If Social Credit worked, if it didn’t fall prey to manipulation and proved efficient, then it would win out against any fractional/full banking moneycredit that included usury.

        Choice means a range of options e.g. fractional systems with a much higher ratio of reserves and simple interest on loans versus compound interest. Or perhaps, full reserve banks. Perhaps Bitcoin visionaries have their own solutions to release to the world.

        Again, Choice Please. Always support choice. It would be a shame to leave one tyranny for another. Social Credit seems very,very susceptible to those that would give out loans and be lax on collecting them. That of course would lead to inflation or simply produces unwilling to deal with a Social Credit system.

        Competing systems keep everyone on their toes and efficient.

    • If you look just a little deeper into history, Prior to the sixteenth century, there have been many examples of interest free banking, as usury was condemned by the Catholic Church as a mortal sin. Among the secular rulers that banned usury were Charlemagne, King Alfred the Great (849-899), Saint Louis IX (1214-1270), William the Conqueror, King Henry II, King Henry III, King Edward I, King Edward III, King Henry VII.

      Why were mere laborers able to provide for their families for the entire year by working only 14 weeks ? Usury was outlawed. Fifteen centuries of prosperity should be hard to ignore, but it appears that the MP writes the history books.

  6. The gold standard a scheme to rob the people – always has been. Both history and mathematics prove that the gold standard will destroy any economy.

    • Excellent interview with Byron Dale.

      Commodity money systems are a complete scam – no matter how you put it. At best it would turn out to be some kind of barter system. The only commodity I can think of that any human has enough of is their own feces, but I guess not many people would be willing to accept that kind of commodity for their services or as payment for their houses 🙂

      Anyway – the whole system is a total scam and works at best as a replacement paper money that is supposedly backed by something.

      Austrianism is the ridiculous counter-strike to communism that gets the truth movement worldwide suckered into a final dead-end solution. I see it happening for example in the former communist countries. Whenever you tell them that unfettered capitalism is bollocks they immediately assume that you are a communist as if there is no other way out there.

      The powers that be know very well that physical commodities as money will not work (except for human, but even that is highly inflatable since so many people are so full of it :). They know that the gold standard even in redeemable paper notes would run dry as well. So what will be the solution? Of course the advanced SDRs – the Globo or Illuminato or whatever they will call their bloody one world currency.

      • Actually they would like to implant everyone with their RFID chip so that they can not only control the money but every aspect of your existence. Gold would be just a convenient way to collapse the system to this end. Do or say something they disapprove of and they remotely switch off the credits in your chip. No housing , food or whatever for you!

      • bourchakoun – I agree, Byron Dale does a fantastic job in de-bunkig the lunacy that is presented as “gold money” and the “gold standard.”

        Here’s the second video in the interview:

    • Thanks for posting this Larry. Few people understand the whole picture and get the solutions right. Byron Dale is definitely such a person.

  7. Ashish Mehta permalink

    Dear Anthony,

    The illuminati has leaked all their gold while suppressing it since Nixon.

    The billion banks own very little of it.

    Brgds Ashish (iPhone +251911220890)


  8. eae permalink

    Anthony:this is not about usury, it is about money:MONEY DO NOT EXIST(money is an unit of measure like inches).The notes caled money are in fact slavery contracts,clevery hidden of course,but nothing more.
    We are born and raise as slaves and that its hidden from us.Slave masters do not care what form of the lie we want!they will give it to us:gold,money,bitcoin, they are all the same:tools of the slave masters.

    • I’m not really sure eae: where would be the slavery if I can borrow 200k for a house without usury? The same house with usury costs 500k (usury 150% of principal over thirty years @5%). For the 200k I get a house, for the 300k usury I get nothing.

      I think we need a medium of exchange, a gift economy is not really feasible at this point.

      • eae permalink

        Anthony:if the money do not exist,AND THEY DO NOT EXIST,what is that you want to borrow???

        • Money exists eae. I realize people are waking up to the ‘thin air’ thing, but money’s essence is the agreement to use this or that as a means of exchange and we have (unconsciously) agreed to use bookkeeping as a means of exchange.

          This is just fine.

          Raping us with 5% per year over this money is not.

          • eae permalink

            Wrong,the LIE called money (this cancer) is the root of all evil in this world,source of hundreds of milions of deaths on this planet and sufering of bilions of humans.
            A proverb in my contry says:the money is the eye of the devil.(all seeing eye?)
            If we:humans, will not wake up on these truths it means that we well deserve our fate.

          • money is just a tool, it’s the love of money that is the issue. And usury is the weaponization of the love of money, as a wise man once said.

            Money, like any other tool, can be created in different ways. Aimed at maximizing exploitation, for instance. Equitable exchange is another use for which it can be made.

          • eae permalink

            Wrong again,the issue is the LIE! the lie that brought some from abstract form to material form
            in our world,and being a lie it rotten humanity from us and make us robots.As long as this lie will not be removed from our world,our destruction will continue.And yes it is an means ,an means to our end.

          • eae please send me an email at I would like to discuss things off line. You are 100% correct that money as understood today is wrong, there is technical case for money as a reference value but not with any intrinsic value in and of itself.

            As the famous economist John Forbes Nash writes: We have money because we are not in Garden of Eden conditions. The question is how to get back to our true origin, one step is to dismantle “The Money PSYOP”:


  9. You are wrong to say that usury is THE problem, it certainly makes things worse but if you insist on combining “object of intrinsic value” + “measure of value” into a single definition, you will never achieve stability of measure. Because when money is an object of value and obligatory standard of trade, even without interest, hoarding it multiplies its value unboundedly and if it is an object of personal property then lending it at interest will take place whether charging interest is sanctioned or not.

    The good news is that math solves the dilemma because it proves that money as a measure cannot be a physical object of intrinsic value, i.e. your ability to defer payment does not depend on money it depends on someone producing wealth in the future that you value. Money as a record says that if and only if there are goods and services in the future, can you cancel existing balances with future purchases. But pretending that annotations of value have commodity value does not increase the probability of that there will be future goods and services of value. But it does mean that commerce can be directed through money but in the process the value of money as a common measure is lost. So at best such a proposition is a fools errand.

    The bad news is that most people even the most vocal in proposing alternative finance, do not have the objective analytical tools to capture simple subtleties that make all the difference. In terms of solving the money problem, all are going to have to get our heads around some objective facts like the one in this link. If you don’t understand ask questions you cannot afford to assume anything or graduate a personal hunch to the level of mathematical fact:

    • No, Usury IS the problem. I can go along with the notion that certain lies are foundational, like the idea that money has value, which is what Ross was also talking about. But the wealth transfer itself is the Usury and you say it too by pointing at hoarding and that leading to the main issue, Usury.

      However, I think you take it too far, for instance by denying the exchanging function of money. This to me is really key. Money is a means of exchange. How do we know this? Because without money there would be no exchange. True, the bookkeeping makes it all ‘abstract’ and we can plausibly maintain it does not really circulate, but the bookkeeping does represent exchange and, crucially, promise. Money itself is worthless and most certainly does not require a ‘commodity’, but it is unavoidable that the agreement to use it to exchange gives it value, mainly the value of the promise that underlies it.

      • Anthony wrote: “No, Usury IS the problem. I can go along with the notion that certain lies are foundational,

        MG: If certain lies are foundational or necessary for usury, then usury is not the root problem, the lies are.

        AM:like the idea that money has value, which is what Ross was also talking about. But the wealth transfer itself is the Usury and you say it too by pointing at hoarding and that leading to the main issue, Usury.

        MG: No hoarding is not usury and is only possible if and only if money is an object of value. Usury is the other means that money as an object loses measure. Again, money as an object of value is the sine qua non requirement for both usury and hoarding therefore it is THE problem. Furthermore, the theory of money being a “medium” of exchange is postulated on money being a transferable object of value, which is a fallacy because it attributes physical properties that do not exist to delimit the logical function.

        AM:However, I think you take it too far, for instance by denying the exchanging function of money. This to me is really key. Money is a means of exchange. How do we know this? Because without money there would be no exchange.”

        MG. No you have not understood, money is not a “medium of exchange” it is a record of value nothing else. The use of the term “medium” is an imprecise allegory that has no physical or logical functional meaning as money does nothing to deliver wealth. The “media” (plural) of exchange are the physical means by which goods and services are delivered, the criteria for deciding the exchanging is also as plural. If wealth can be physically transferred without money it is not “a medium of exchange” i.e. we can barter. The proof is simple and it is here:

        If balances can be simultaneously symmetrically adjusted wrt to the movement of goods and services without requiring any moving tokens then money is not a medium of exchange. Furthermore, the fact that money (the logical entity) necessarily and to be meaningful, can not be an input to transactions, then the system cannot start with everyone at zero balance which is required for the very first transaction.

        Anthony, I am not going to far only as far as the objective logic takes me, I think that you and everyone need to go all the way too. I know this approach is not colloquial but the predicament we are in is precisely due to a lack of rigour of colloquial terminology understandable from trusting concerned individuals but inexcusable from the so called experts.

        I don’t think that anyone in this discussion can afford to ignore our work and not understand it in full, please read the following link and consult the links. If you understand it (and you certainly can) and if you see an error you will be able to point it out and prove your point in similar language.

        • Ross N. permalink


          There is no future activity in a Comet scenario. The comet scenario requires counter spending as demand. The comet blast is related to volume and velocity in that current money is hoarded, new credit dries up, and debts continue to be paid.

          All credit money has the Comet scenario issue as a problem and it must be dealt with. I sympathize with creditors, so don’t get me wrong. We need a good credit system as ammo in our gun to deal with our banker usurped money/political system.

          Credit as money can also change form when it not longer must return to its origin. Again, the base assumptions of credit theory are weak in this regard. If somebody dies or there is bankruptcy, the nature of the credit as money must morph as it is legally released. It then becomes floating money.

          MV=PQ We are only talking about M here, and trying to stabilize it across time. Fearful humans also take their future promises (stored as money = latent demand) and hoard it, hence the V factor is an issue. Prices are lagging indicators and are related to M and V. Prices also are rigged by information outside of the money system, such as hysteria in the markets. Quantity of goods is another lagging indicator which responds to money as demand and prices.

          The Equal sign doesn’t work either, as a bolt of cloth can be divided down, to make useful increments. But, a suit of clothing is ruined if part of it is cut away. The equal sign also does not deal well with time, and hence it is not a true math function when dealing with economics. (As you may surmise, I think most economists are using bad math.)

          So, math is helpful, but cannot solve the equation. It is impossible. The variables all interrelate with each other and with unknowns outside of the system, and also with many non linear functions.

          Only a system with control knobs on it will work. You will need to drain and add demand (purchasing power) as needed to balance against external unknowns, such as war or comets, nuclear blasts, rent seekers, etc. And, make damn sure that people get to own their own credit so they can be free.

          Creditors need to stop fighting and come together and figure out a system that has knobs. It can have some mathematical basis, but that is only part of the answer.

          • Ross,

            The measure of value is independent of the ability to reciprocate transactions, unexpected disaster is a given that all society must deal with but has zilch to do with the stability of measures of value.

            A major error made in economics is to confuse the stability of money with the stability of the economy or management of credit. See:


          • Ross N. permalink

            There are many money types, each behaving differently. Money types also change form. Credit can become money, and escape the system, and hence becomes unbounded.

            Some Greenbacks were still circulating 80 years after issuance, despite the resumption laws. This money type obviously physically moved across distance and time, hence circulation. It also did many transactions in its decades long path trajectory.

            Modeling this money type would be BACK AND FORTH between creditors and debtors, not necessarily in a circular circulation path. This actually is the method you want for BIBO. So, debt free money can either vector into a banker’s ledger, to draw down debts -or to government to be respent. But, most of its trajectory is between private creditors (us) and private debtors (us). It is bounded by the law, and when it is unbounded there should be system knobs (again law).

            Debt free could also satisfy debt money ledgers, such as bank money, so the system would have to be modeled as a mixed system of credit and money.

            I get that creditors want to issue their money. But, creditors need to bend down and admit that money is a creature of the law. That we issue it together for our common benefit. That is its a legal fiat. The best money is non usurious, and that means that creditors can forgive debts or extend loan periods or take part in risk. Sovereign money is a serious system that fully codifies what money is.

            Credit money issued against assets has many problems. BIBO is issued against labor, so it is a superior form of credit. BIBO still requires an issuing agent to insure the @ contract is fair, this is similar to a monetary authority.

          • Sorry Ross,

            You are not using the terms bounded and unbounded as they are used at Also the “different types” of money you mention need to be meticulously described in unambiguous formal logic or math to be meaningful in this kind of exchange. I don’t think that this exchange can be very fruitful otherwise.


          • Ross N. permalink

            Marc, when you say things like money does not have currency, then you need to specify, “in my system.” In other systems money has different properties, and that is unambiguous and proven many times by history.

            MEFO bills paid interest, and circulated only within the military industrial complex. They finally terminated at the bank so they could receive interest.

            Greenbacks were disallowed from paying interest to bankers (they wanted gold for their usury), and to exchange in trade with overseas nations. The bankers tended to put them in their reserve loops, and also using them for short loans to wall street, thus making the private national banking system unstable. (Banker’s used greenbacks to settle imbalances in their system.)

            Guernsey island money had a type that terminated after it had a defined path.

            Therefore, in a sort of tongue and cheek way, I say unbounded or bounded. Because, other systems also have their bounds and laws, and we all should come to that realization. Look at each system and model it, and you will find different behaviors.

            In my opinion we should all take seriously the idea that any overall system has instabilities that cannot be bounded. Money can push prices, and value is determined by the market. Asset money in particular, if too much is created can drive false market dynamics. The human animal is also unstable, and money is his abstract invention.

            I’ve already shown you that economic math is different than real math , as time doesn’t cross over with an equal sign. We will need a new math and the money units themselves do not algebraically as apples to apples, especially when they have changed form.

          • No Ross,

            I never said “money does not have currency” and it is not my system it is science and math that narrows down the real nature of money and money systems. The school that says that money can be anything we decide it to be is nonsense, because once you attribute any logical property then its nature is given by math and science not by the will of anyone. What you don’t comprehend is that unbeknownst to the majority of people in both economics and the alternative money crowd, ALL MONEY SYSTEMS conventional or alternative are NECESSARILY Discrete (sampled) LTI systems and therefore they are all without exception subject to BIBO Stability theory and all related theory and corollaries.

            So, unless you want to prove that money systems are not necessarily Discrete LTI systems then we shall be forever talking past each other. I doubt you can provide such a proof, if you don’t understand see what this means exactly then see:




            then see:


          • Ross N. permalink

            Marc, I’m trying to get you to concede to the point: 1) When Mary loans to Jim who loans to John, and then it comes back to Mary to cancel, that has a time dimension.

            You cannot just use an equal sign and then move on. Your math is wrong; Equal signs don’t work in economics. The time dimension is not codified, therefore your system is NOT BOUNDED. ok. I am not talking past you. I’m talking right at you.

            If a comet strikes, then everybody stops trading their money. The system freezes up.

            Any system needs knobs, especially against the unknown variables. To suggest that everything must balance out is a-priori reasoning, the same failure that Austrian’s fall into. No complex system can be passively bounded. It will need active circuit breakers.

            And, I suggest that complexity is there, because your money is too simple as well. There is floating money in addition to your credit – there must be, as loans are forgiven or there is bankruptcy. There is much more very high non linear complexity in the MV=PQ equation as well, which you just breezed by.

            Otherwise, nice work. I don’t want to discourage you, but want you to expand your thinking.

        • ¨even without interest, hoarding it multiplies its value unboundedly”

          No it does not, because there is not scarcity. So long as a person can service a promissory obligation — so long then as they can merely pay for the property as they consume of it… *as represented in the relative value already decided by existent currency* — then neither is there *ever* any scarcity of money, or undermining of a perpetual 1:1:1 ratio between remaining circulation, remaining value *of represented property* (including immutable representation of entitlement), and remaining obligation *to pay* *the* remaining circulation ***for*** ***the*** remaining value ***of*** represented property.

          No scarcity. No undermining of the immutable linkage/representation between money (necessarily immutable representation of entitlement) and remaining value of represented property.


          (MPE™ does not make money an object of *separate*/*independent* value. MPE™ makes “money” immutable representation of entitlement, drawing its “value” from the commitment of the obligor to redeem the money in a like volume of production or possession, *as mutually decided* *with the possessors of money*.)

          Another eleventh hour plagiarist. You prove you never realized the fundaments of all this when you say:

          “It is clear that money cannot be both the agreement to use a medium as well as the medium being used.”

          REALLY? A PROMISSORY OBLIGATION *represents value* in the obligor’s enforceable obligation to redeem the promissory obligation in their own production. It IS the agreement; and AS SUCH, IT ***DOES*** represent the very value it agrees to redeem!!!

          • You missed understood what was said. What I said is was, if money is a scarce object of value AND it is the obligatory means of exchange than by hoarding it even without interest, the value of money grows unboudedly i.e. the unit value is unstable, To understand my use of the word unbounded see:


            Your own argument is predicated on money not being scarce which proves my point. But if money is not scarce as you say then that implies no restriction of supply which means that money cannot be an object of commerce, which is my point. What is more, math of measure and stability proves that money is not even an object that circulates, circulation of money is a scientifically false model, money has no necessary physical properties therefore it is not subject to any physical phenomenon such as circulation.

            Science and logic dismantles the false paradigm of money as an object of value in what I call “The Money PSYOP”.


            Unfortunately the majority of people in the alternative money movement are not scientists and cannot support their views vis existing science.

            For example, interest is certainly not advisable but it is not the root problem, interest is a consequence of attributing physical like properties, functions and limitations to what is a purely logical (non physical) entity. Money is a mere record of value it is not value itself, the moment we attribute it object like value, then it becomes limited which leads to scarcity and to hoarding then you lose it’s bounded nature. You don’t need to charge interest for that to happen all you need is for money to be the object of transactions and be in demand. However and in light of the fact that money systems are necessarily Discrete (sampled) LTI systems, the stability of money becomes trivial as is the model of the system as a sum of processes (transactions) as described here:


            The only possible model for transactions is that of price being the input signal proportional to goods being transacted and annotations of value “money” being the output signal. Since money is an output it cannot ever be the object of transactions. That is, the big lie of money is that we are programmed into viewing money as an object of trade rather than what it can only be i.e. an abstract representation of the measure of value of what is being traded. It is that that underlies the argument for interest which is consistent with any idea of money being an object of value that can belong to one. Only when we prove that money is CANNOT be an object of value does the argument for interest disappear. Thus we cannot use money as a measure and load it with the function of credit allocation and economic control, these other functions are entirely of a different and separate scope. This confusion is explained here:


          • Sorry, the third link I meant to provide should be the following:


      • Ross wrote: “Credit can become money, and escape the system, and hence becomes unbounded.”

        Ross, I agree and think that economies leak money. For example, the U.S. trade deficit was around $540 billion last year – money lost to the national economy/circulation. This taxes circulation as the debts that created that money must be repaid with the remaining money.

        Ross wrote: “Some Greenbacks were still circulating 80 years after issuance, despite the resumption laws.”

        Unfortunately, only the first issue of greenbacks were debt free (I think) as the rest were debt money which self extinguished within 10 years (some went further). The need for some permanent money was met by the ever growing national debt – the debt has always been rolled over since the early 1800’s.
        The sad reality is that we simply cannot repay the national debt because to do so, would quickly eliminate the money supply and collapse the economy way before the debt could be repaid. M1 is around $2.6 trillion while the national debt is over $17 trillion.
        The government should supply some debt free money to eliminate national debt, repay social security and to provide enough money in circulation to facilitate trade and commerce. Fill the economic pipeline so that flow may commence.

        Ross wrote: “Debt free could also satisfy debt money ledgers, such as bank money, so the system would have to be modeled as a mixed system of credit and money.
        “I get that creditors want to issue their money. But, creditors need to bend down and admit that money is a creature of the law. That we issue it together for our common benefit… Sovereign money is a serious system that fully codifies what money is.”

        As it stands now, any growth in the national wealth is accompanied by an at least equal growth of the national debt. It is worse than a zero sum game as taxpayers pay monetary rental fees through income taxes and higher prices for goods and services.
        Creditors benefit as the credit ability of their customers is enhanced as more money is available. The economy should be as frictionless as possible and there should always be ample money in circulation.

      • Kevin Moore permalink

        In the sense of the word, “Exchange” is an equal word meaning that something is
        given for something else of same value creating no taxable gain.

    • The concern with “hoarding” (saving money) is valid with any all debt money system (with or with-out interest charge) as such systems will contract as the temporary money disappears. Proponents justify punishing “hoarders” (savers) with cruel demurrage taxes.

      The scheme would move usury from the borrower to the saver (hoarder).

      This trait is an inherent problem with all debt (temporary) money systems – a mathematical certainty. They simply cannot be sustained and need a good infusion of “wealth” money (unlike debt money; wealth money does not self extinguish).

      All debt money systems force society to borrow in order to have a medium-of-exchange – pushing society into debt servitude.

      • Ross N. permalink

        Fair point Larry. I figure it is ok to charge demurrage on Savings in a money system, as in Sovereign money or Greenbacks. This type of floating money can only be recalled with taxes, and demurrage tax is the lightest tax of all that will also push the interest rate toward zero. The tax money is re-spent, so the overall effect is low. It is mostly a psychological effect on the money user, subtly convincing them not to hoard in great amounts. Other assets can be stored as value, and then converted to money (general purchasing power), especially if the money supply is full..

        But, for credit as money, the demurrage is on a money type that is disappearing. I also have trouble with that. Some credit in the money supply is useful and necessary as a drain knob.

        • Ross, I think that instead of charging a demurrage on savers, we should address the problem by adding more money. Today we see high unemployment and low wages while people are working harder than ever. I contend that these are symptoms of an economy that is short on money.

          Your point that a drain and fill valve may be needed is well taken though I strongly suspect the fill valve will be needed much more than a drain, at least for the foreseeable future.

          Marc wrote: “…debt free money is an oxymoron, the only purpose of money is to measure wealth, if money is introduced without being a measure then it is nonsensical but if money is a measure then it must represent real value which means debt is unavoidable.”

          Marc, why do you assume that money must be a measure of debt? Surely, money may be a measure of wealth.

          For example, much of the national infrastructure can be rebuilt with debt free money. This can benefit everyone while protecting the environment and ultimately adding to the common wealth.

          From an economic viewpoint, debt free money brings stability as the money is not self extinguishing.

          • Ross N. permalink

            Larry, sorry to interject between you and Marc. If banker debt money is good for taxes, then Money pays Debt, but not the reverse. Therefore, sovereign debt free money is accepted into the ledger of private “Credit” issuers, and draws down the Credit ledger. Lots of debt free money will be needed in a world where the debt instruments are making obscene demands, this in order to pay off debts.

            Therefore, Credit issuers will maintain that all money is credit, etc. in order to maintain their systems. These obvious monetary laws are ignored or knocked down in straw man arguments.

            The reality is the people don’t give a damn where their money comes from, it is a faith agreement along with their fellow man. In the same way, they trust that their fellow man won’t veer their car off the highway and smash them to bits.

            Here in Texas we want to openly carry sidearms, and many of us conceal carry. That is fully trusting our fellow man to not pull his weapon and shoot us dead. And, by the way, no conceal carry citizen has gone on a shooting spree.

            Gold hoarders and I suspect many private credit issuers, think that man cannot govern his own affairs. That we cannot come together in faith agreement, or have the wisdom to prevent vertical pyramids administration states combined with money power e.g. tyranny. The Austrians will always scream about the Government abusing money power. Many private creditors are equally vocal, but it is their primitive fears giving voice.

      • Larry,

        You are missing the key point, debt free money is an oxymoron, the only purpose of money is to measure wealth, if money is introduced without being a measure then it is nonsensical but if money is a measure then it must represent real value which means debt is unavoidable.

        Demurrage is wrong because it assumes that money needs to circulate when it doesn’t. We don’t need to force people to spend, the value they have earned does not expire. Money is a measure of value not of goods and services. If I bring you a glass of water in the desert it has a different value than if I bring you a glass of water next to a spring. Money measures the value of unique instances of transactions of goods and services, therefore it is absurd to make the measure of the value expire as a function of the depreciation of goods and services. If the value is saving your life by bringing you water in the desert, that value doesn’t expire when the water evaporates from your body once you are out of the desert.

        Demurrage is an example of the confused reasoning that arises from believing the nonsense that money is a circulating object when in reality and in essence, money is nothing more than an annotation of value.


      • I don’t realy agree with this Larry: in the first place, because of very much higher ciruculation, the money supply tends to be very much smaller. Meaning that the demurrage cost as percentage of the money supply is very much smaller than usury. Secondly, if the money is SPENT back into circulation (as opposed to LENT back, like with usurious money), there is no problem getting the demurrage paid. There is no deflationary effect.

        • Anthony; you’re no doubt right that “the demurrage cost as percentage of the money supply is very much smaller than usury.” But my point is that it is not needed. Instead of punishing savers; we can simply provide some debt free money.

          If MV=PQ is too light on the front side, we can add M.

          • Larry,

            Please explain how money is and input to transactions which is what is implied by your discourse of so called “debt free money”. You can use the following model as a template.


            By the way MV=PQ or V = PQ/M being not a velocity but a rate (i.e. a scalar not a vector value) assumes that the rate of legitimate transactions is determined by money supply which is ludicrous, because money is an output of transactions i.e. wealth begets money (i.e. money is an output) not money begets wealth (i.e. money is not an input).

            Your model is simply wrong and scientifically untenable.

          • Hello Marc,

            I think that MV=PQ can be useful in showing how the variables interact and what might be the outcome of changes. At least in the short run; the velocity of money appears to be inversely correlated with the supply of money.

            I contend that it is folly to think a productive economy and a healthy GDP can occur when MV is tanking as we see today.

          • Larry,

            Fisher’s quantity theory of money is nothing but an unproven supposition, it is not a model of any system in the engineering sense. Also, it doesn’t show any causal relationship, i.e. what causes what to exist, it is assumes a constant dynamic of assumed forces as if we were talking about a physical system we are not. Since we are not talking about a physical system the only causal link must be logical. That is the dependent variable and which the independent variable as in y= f(x) where x is the independent variable and y the dependent variable or y is a function of x.

            The truth is if you get a pile of tokens, they won’t do anything or generate anything, nothing will happen. Only when someone decides to perform a transaction of goods and services that requires remembering a quantity of that value, will anyone consider using the tokens as records of value. In that sense money is an output (measure of value) for which you can use tokens to remember that value. The real economy is not dependent on tokens, it is dependent on production of real wealth the value of which is measured in records of units that can in turn be represented by tokens.

            Input is value (represented by prices) output is money in the form of account entries. Account entries can be represented by tokens for convenience. It is nonsense to contain account entry limits by a model of limited circulating tokens, when the limit of account entries must be value.

            So, back to my question, how can the tokens be an input to transactions, please explain in detail as we do here:


          • Excuse the repetition but I didn’t edit the last post for typos so please use this one.

            Fisher’s quantity theory of money is nothing but an unproven supposition, it is not a model of any system in the engineering sense. Also, it doesn’t show any causal relationship, i.e. what causes what to exist, it assumes a constant dynamic of forces as if we were talking about a physical system that doesn’t exist. Since we are not talking about a physical system the only causal link must be logical. That is which is the dependent variable and which the independent variable as in y= f(x) where x is the independent variable and y the dependent variable or y is a function of x.

            The truth is if you get a pile of tokens, they won’t do anything or generate anything, nothing will happen. Only when someone decides to perform a transaction of goods and services that requires remembering a quantity of that value, will anyone consider using the tokens as records of value. In that sense money is an output (measure of value) for which you can use tokens to remember that value. The real economy is not dependent on tokens, it is dependent on production of real wealth the value of which is measured in records of units that can in turn be represented by tokens.

            Input is value (represented by prices) output is money in the form of account entries. Account entries can be represented by tokens for convenience. It is nonsense to contain account entry limits by a model of limited circulating tokens, when the limit of account entries must be value.

            So, back to my question, how can the tokens be an input to transactions, please explain in detail as we do here:


        • Anthony,

          It is not wise to continue arguing the model of money as a circulating object when someone presents you with a proof that such is a false model. You are required to either accept the claim or disprove it, otherwise your discourse will smack of subjective self serving opinion. We all have to make the effort to adhere to the most rigorous standards of objective discourse, otherwise our claims risk being no better than what we aim to correct.

          Demurrage is nice sounding but it is ultimately incoherent and introduces an arbitrary centralised control over peoples freedom on the basis of money being a circulating object that others need. Money is an annotation of a measure with no supply limit, each transaction generates its own unique account entries that are resolved against existing balances. Demurrage confuses the requirement for payment schedules to follow depreciation with the measure of value being a measure of goods and services given when it is a measure of the value of those goods and services in accordance with unique circumstances of each transaction. As I said in a previous post, if I save your life bringing you water in the desert the value of that service doesn’t disappear at the rate that the water evaporates once you are out the desert.

          Another way of looking at this, is to realise that if people’s balances are arbitrarily cancelled without having consumed then what ever value they gave in the past to generate those balances will not have been reciprocated which is simply not acceptable, or is it to you?

          You have to do your homework, practically all economic theory (conventional and alternative) is sorely lacking the requisite scientific rigour so unless we play out all the permutations implied we risk falling out of one false paradigm only to end up in another. That is why the analysis of money as Discrete LTI system is so powerful because it brings money into an indisputable proven scientific domain where a solution to the problem is already given.

  10. Kevin Moore permalink

    Is usury the only issue?

    The law of nature says that –

    “For Every Action There Is An Equal And Opposite Reaction”

    But the sweat that creates the promissory note we give to the bank is not reciprocated by the banks who do no work and as parasites exchange and consume our energy for which we accept a piece of paper with a number on it and which piece of paper has the same value no matter what the number is on it.

    If I give the bank my credit [promissory note] then the banks debit [debt] to me has to be of equal value. The bank has a debt to me and the equation must = zero. But we silly people sell ourselves to the usurers at no cost to the bank and then slave away trying to rid ourselves of a fraudulent and unrepayable debt, ceding the bank ownership of the whole world.

  11. Griffin touches on something very interesting in the interview:

    G. Edward Griffin said: “There is a growing awareness of the problem. Not all of the people who are aware of the problem really understand what to do about it, as I mentioned a moment ago about people calling for the wrong solutions.

    “I’m afraid, though, that this awareness could be redirected into a stampede of support for an international currency or regional currencies. I can just see these people saying, “Well, our currency’s falling apart. This is terrible. It’s because of all the greedy capitalists. Now what we need is a new regional currency… an amero or a new international currency such as a bancor.” With all of the trustworthy politicians in charge and your wise bankers” (who, by the way, messed up everything previously) “will make it right this time and so won’t you support a new regional or international currency to solve all these problems?” That’s where they’re headed with all this and I have a feeling that right now the average American would probably say, “Yeah. That sounds like a good idea.”

    He accurately predicts what may occur but he neglects to define what we really need as a solution. The solution is for nation states to have their own currencies instead of renting their money. As it stands now, we rent all of our money – and back it with our credit!

    This is insane when one considers that we have the option of creating it ourselves for free.

    Griffin says: “They’re rightly concerned about what the banks are doing, which is legalized plunder. They’re actually right about that. So they go and demonstrate against the banks, and what do they want? They’re calling for more government regulations of the banks. They want nationalization of the banks, more government involvement, etc. and they don’t realize the reason the banks are in the position to do all of these bad things they’re doing now is because they’re already in bed with the government and they have a partnership with the government.”

    Griffin is dead wrong – there is no partnership – the international banking cartel totally owns and controls their money system. They can collapse the economy any time they want – and they will. When we gave away our sovereign right to create money, we gave away our sovereignty. There can be no independent nations without independent national currencies.

    Mackenzie King explained: “Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talks of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

    Graham Towers (Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1951) was asked the following question, before the Canadian Committee on Banking and Commerce, in the spring of 1939:

    Question: “Will you tell me why a government with the power to create money should give that power away to a private monopoly and then borrow that which Parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?”

    Towers’ answer: “Now, if Parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, that is certainly within the power of Parliament.”

    That is exactly what needs to be done. The answer isn’t really complicated but inexplicably, people like Griffin will try to make it as complicated as possible.

    Take a look at the balance sheet of the privately owned and operated Federal Reserve central bank and you will find something amazing. They have no debt – none! How can this be when they are creating trillions of dollars with credit???

    They have no debt because we solely back up every penny that they create. Our national balance sheet should be the one showing no debt!

  12. Ross N. permalink

    A robust system can have a competing local currencies and a good national currency. It cannot have international money,which is outside of the nation’s law. Gold is international.

    All good lies have half-truths to them, which helps ensnare the unwary. This is the modus operandi of Austrian mind control. Once the person is mind controlled it is hard to break their hypnotic trance. The $5-7T in usury flow can fund a lot of propaganda. We know the Austrian’s are funded from usury flows via bankers.

    A non-money economy has credits and debts. Tribes of about 75 people or less, simply remember who owes who what. If credits and debts get too complicated, they write it down, which is called a talley.

    The talley is evidence of debt, it is not money. Money requires a high legal system and high agreement among a “like minded” population – usually a population much larger than 75 people.
    A talley can become an IOU if it is issued by the individual. If Anthony makes a Talley stick and issues it, it then circulates from John to Mary, etc. and eventually comes back to Anthony to be redeemed; upon redemption it vanishes from existence. This is not money, it is an IOU related to Anthony, yet others use it. Its ultimate power is Anthony, and some agreement by the population to use Anthony’s IOU.

    When bankers hypothecate a person to make bank credit money, they are really making IOU’s and assuming the persons credit. When Anthony goes to the “gold” banker to get a loan, the “gold” banker will make paper, but the paper is Anthony’s credit. It is Anthony’s IOU really, but the banker will assume the Social Credit and the Money power. This is what the AUSTRIANS really want. The really want to OWN the money power and the associated USURY. The Austrians want to HOLD the debt instruments on society. Always as yourself the question, “Who holds the debt instrument?” By pumping and dumping (withholding credit) the economy, physical GOLD will flow into the vaults of the banker. The abstract banker ledgers will demand physical gold to pay the usury, thus vacuuming up all of the mined physical gold. The Gold Austrian banker will hold the Gold and the debt instruments. Instead of making real goods and services, people will be reduced to debt peonage and drone-like mindless mining activities.

    A real money economy will allow the population to hold each other’s credits and debts, just like in a gift economy. The only two money systems that allow money to behave similar to a gift economy are Mutual Credit and Sovereign money. Sovereign money is the grandchild of Social Credit and before that Greenbacks. Who holds the debt instruments?
    In a Sovereign money world, the monetary authority is owned by the people, and hence it is their agency. The people own their money. If the government wants money, they have to tax it away from citizens. If the Government usurps the Monetary Authority, it is an act of war on an armed and informed people.

    Ultimately it is good law, our faith communities, and us working together for a high social credit which will lead to high civilization. Good law and institutions are needed to protect us from our predators – not some magical imaginary properties of shiny metal. The shiny metal will lead us backwards, down into the pits of despair.

    • Kevin Moore permalink

      This understanding of the need for money resonates with me –
      “….See how the only reason we have money is to make people work. Here comes the private side of things and where Grace steps into the account. If I am satisfying my obligations to abstain from being a busybody and to work with my hands, from what I read in the scriptures, do I need someone to compel me to work? NO. The reason money exists is not so everybody can have some (Douche Mark) – but to be able to get some, you have to work.
      See how money is for people who wouldn’t work on their own accord. If you can work on your own accord, money is a deterrent (look at what Nikola Tesla could have brought forward for everybody if money wasn’t a deterrent). Money actually inhibits production for those that follow their consciences. Without money it requires the discernment of your conscience and that is why it is still in use today (not very many people use their consciences so they need the complement of bills to pay)….”

      • Kevin Moore permalink

        “……Adolf Hitler prints its two main points in leaded type:
        “Once these two points are achieved, it means a victory of their approaching universalist ordering of society in the true state over the present-day separation of state, nation and economics under the corrupting influence of the individualist theory of society as now constructed.
        The sham state of today, oppressing the working classes and protecting the pirated gains of bankers and stock exchange speculators, is the area for reckless private enrichment and for the lowest political profiteering; it gives no thought to its people, and provides no high moral bond of union.
        The power of money, most ruthless of all powers, holds absolute control, and exercises corrupting, destroying influence on state, nation, society, morals, drama, literature and on all matters of morality, less easy to estimate.(6)
        “Break down the thraldom of interest” is our war cry.(7) What do we mean by thraldom of interest?
        The landowner is under this thraldom, who has to raise loans to finance his farming operations, loans at such high interest as almost to eat up the results of his labour, or who is forced to make debts and to drag the mortgages after him like so much weight of lead.
        So is the worker, producing in shops and factories for a pittance, whilst the shareholder draws dividends and bonuses which he has not worked for. So is the earning middle class, whose work goes almost entirely to pay the interest on bank overdrafts.(8)
        Thraldom of interest is the real expression for the antagonisms, capital versus labour, blood versus money, creative work versus exploitation.
        The necessity of breaking this thraldom is of such vast importance for our nation and our race, that on it alone depends our nation’s hope of rising up from its shame and slavery;
        in fact, the hope of recovering happiness, prosperity and civilization throughout the world. It is the pivot on which everything turns; it is far more than a mere necessity of financial policy….”

  13. Kevin Moore permalink

    Excerpts from –
    Freely Received Freely Given:
    There’s The Freedom We’ve Been Looking For.
    Interpretive Writings Of My UnderstandingsOf Redemption


    Money Is The Biggest Drug
    “…The love/lust of money is the root of all evil and we need to be capacitors of self control. Lets reflect on the Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and HJR-192 (Public Policy). The executive order removed all of the money, being substance, from society.

    Money was tangible and it cast a shadow being gold or silver. Now that it has been removed from society and Public Policy is now in effect with HJR-192, we cannot be obligated to pay because it would take money to pay and because we have no money, we are precluded from achieving that act. What you really have to do is a lot of pondering about is this: Since we have no money in society, what is the purpose of my life, because for all these years, all my time has been exchanged for paper, you need to realize that the value of our economic system is not gold nor silver nor paper, but the nuclear energy in our cells that allows us to produce. Kick the moneychangers out of the temples of your lobes. Understand this: our money is paper; there is no substance other than our willingness to help each other out. If you love money, just go open a paper factory. This process is not about money but about being able to live without the
    social constraints of a limited amount of negotiable paper i.e. Federal Reserve Notes. If you work for paper, you really show how worthless you existence is, find a purpose for your life, work because you like what you do, be productive to help you brother. Operate your existence; don’t execute it by following the orders of a bookkeeper. This process is not about money, it is about being able to get some semblance of control over our lives so we can act on our own accord (providing we use our conscience)……
    …..Credits and Debits are all it amounts too. They are the mirror image of each other but it becomes difficult to understand because they are usually referenced to the one speaking them. When I say “my credit,” it is actually “your debit” and when you say “my debit,” it is actually “your credit,” credits and debits to easily understand them referenced them in first person for your situation, and the mirror image to another party.

    My interest is your expense and my expense is your interest. Credits and Debits are placed on a T-Chart for every person involved in the equation. Everybody involved in a transaction has a T-Chart that must be adjusted to Zero and grounded/charged-back to remove any liability avoiding a levy to the account. Credits and debits must operate fluidly like water, there must be no restriction of the flow or the accounts will be unbalanced. Every debit must have an offsetting credit and every credit must have an offsetting debit…..”

  14. Kevin Moore permalink



    “We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency based on gold of which we had none,


    but for every mark which was issued we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done or goods produced …


    we laugh at the time when our national financiers argued for the value of a currency to be regulated by gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank.” Adolf Hitler, 1937
    “?..and it proved sound. It worked.


    In less than ten years Germany became easily the most powerful state in Europe.


    It worked so magically and magnificently, it sounded the death knell of the entire (Zionist) Jewish money system.


    World Jewry knew they had to destroy Hitler’s system, by whatever means might prove necessary, or their own [system of usury] would necessarily die ?and if it died, with it must die their dream and their hope of making themselves masters of the world.


    The primary issue over which World War II was fought was to determine which money system was to survive.


    At bottom it was not a war between Germany and the so-called allies.


    Primarily it was war to the death between Germany and the International Money Power.”
    — William Gayley Simpson, ‘Which Way Western Man’ (p.642)

  15. Ross N. permalink

    “Bounded input bounded output stability, also known as BIBO stability, is an important and generally desirable system characteristic. A system is BIBO stable if every bounded input signal results in a bounded output signal, where boundedness is the property that the absolute value of a signal does not exceed some finite constant. In terms of time domain features, a discrete time system is BIBO stable if and only if its impulse response is absolutely summable. Equivalently, in terms of z-domain features, a continuous time system is BIBO stable if and only if the region of convergence of the transfer function includes the unit circle.”

    All money systems are not bounded BIBO stable LTI systems. Permacredit, such as that of sovereign money, is a division of the country’s wealth, and exists permanently – if abstractly – in the money supply. It does NOT come into being in order to make a transaction, it already exists.

    Therefore this type of money is a floating entity that can only be recalled with taxes. If there is banker credit in a mixed system, then this floating type can also go on to settle the debt, and then vanish from existence. If we want to we can even make money follow certain trajectories and paths, which is what Schacht did with MEFO bills – therefore we can use system design and the law to constrain money from being a general purchasing (bearer) instrument. We have the power to change the nature of money, and therefore we must define it relative to the system it is in.

    Credit, all credit money, is a debt instrument on an individual. Credit and Debts are formed simultaneously, but the medium used to cancel the credit/debt contract can have different properties. Ultimately, the people doing the transaction must mutually accept the money medium.

    Individual credit money can be formed from assets or labor pledges, making it an IOU. All money systems are not IOUs like LTI systems. Permacredit is also called greenbacks, debt free money, sovereign money, and sometimes is confused with gold. Permacredit comes into being as seigniorage against the money supply, and hence dilutes it. But, once that dilution happens, from then on it transacts settling credits and debts. It becomes a tool that fills the money supply, and does not vanish from existence. Permacredit is a division of the wealth of the entire country, and hence it is a debt instrument on society.

    It is also handled differently on double entry ledgers – it doesn’t follow bounded BIBO or LTI rules. It is permanently on the asset side of the double entry ledger and makes no demands to be canceled.

    • Ross,

      All money systems are made up of transactions that are simple Linear Systems:

      Linear System: A system is considered linear, if it satisfies the property of superposition and scaling. Given a linear operator H {x(t)} with inputs x1(t) and x2(t) and corresponding outputs
      y1(t) = H {x(t1)} and y2(t) = H {x(t2)}, then for any scalars α and β, H {αx1(t) + mβx2(t)} = αy1(t) + βy2(t)}.

      That is for any given transaction and any given set inputs and corresponding outputs, whatever modification of those inputs will yield modifications of outputs in exact same proportions.

      they are time invariant in that:

      A system in which all quantities governing the system’s behaviour remain constant with time, so that the system’s response to a given input does not depend on the time it is applied. If the input signal x(t) produces an output y(t) then any time shifted input, x(t + ∂), results in a time-shifted output
      y(t + ∂).

      Any transaction with a given set of governing parameters behaves the same way at time t as it does at t+∂ with those same parameters.

      All money systems are Discrete (sampled) because values of the continuous function f(t) e.g. debt growth are periodically recorded or sampled.

      None of your comments deny any of these premises. Money systems are really very simple systems and must be LTI for them to have any rational meaning and hence rational utility. Of course if the underlying premises are irrational such as is the case with the current paradigm nothing ever makes much sense, one must assume that such confusion is not intentional but by error or lack of rigour.

      • Ross N. permalink

        If I design a servo motor system, then my feedback is time based. If I give a stimulus, it is a certain gain factor and the servo motor will drive till it sees the feedback. The servo may even drive wildly at full power as no feedback is present. If the feedback is a 100 years, say like greenbacks, in effect the feedback is not time based. The time lags cannot be modeled. This pumping action will drive prices in the market. The driving of prices is NON LINEAR.

        The feedback modes are time AND market pricing.. Markets in turn have many non linear responses,, especially since capricious humans are involved. The MV=PQ equation is part of the feedback of money, and within that equation are all kinds of time lags and other impossible inter-relations that cannot be modeled, or be reduced to equations.

        The recent pumping and dumping of the economy, using credit money, had a time lag that lasted years. Most home prices is land locked areas (supply and demand) moved higher relative to those areas which had land available.

        So, now supply and demand must also nest within the MV=PQ equation, adding even more feedback and chaos.

        The math doesn’t work as the baseline assumptions are flawed.

        There is some baseline level of economic activity at all times, something like that of a coal plant or nuclear power. That can be modeled, but the overhead seasonality and other chaos needs knobs and active feedback. The economy can never be a passively compliant system, and nor can the money.

        • Ross N. permalink


          As an aside, the bankers managed to insert themselves in between creditors and debtors (us) precisely because of an additional time lag of demand vs goods as prices. Money as demand has to be present in the supply chain long before it becomes goods manifested as prices. So, bankers would issue credit as money, and then take the usury – just so we can borrow in order to fill the supply chain.

          The real bills doctrine failed because the markets couldn’t price real bills properly. Credit as money assumes the money supply will be full in the future, to pay off the disappearing numbers of the ledger (created in the past).

          Money already exists in the supply at the time of the loan, and is also in the future supply when the loan is paid off. Therefore, money has less of the time lag problems than credit, and must be modeled differently.

          I don’t see the different units being accounted for with different math. Again, the baseline assumptions seem flawed, and don’t express reality. So, the assumptions of superposition and scaling are just that.

        • Your argument is answered in two parts here:

          And with respect to “pumping of money” through imaginary circuits and and the many unfounded allusions to physical forces and properties attributed to money. Ross’ argument is predicated on the false model that money is a circulating object that has to complete a particular circuit, while that is not the case. But that is false as shown here:

          It is production and circulation of goods and services that generate units constantly, those units then resolve against existing balances, there is no requirement for feedback of any single unit through any circuit. The money system is a counter of “value” carried in goods and services as the value of these move between agents and are accounted for in positive and negative directions, there is no need for feed back of money, either positive or negative. But rather, It is value moving into and out of the market that alters accounts not the movement of money. The proof can be found here:

          • Ross N. permalink


            The line of causation: Earth + Labor = tools/ Earth +tools+ labor = Machines/Earth + Machines + Labor = Goods. Goods = Commodities + Services. In truth it is all labor + earth, and labor is trying to find a way to do exchange through the agency of money. This agency of money takes many forms: 1)General Purchasing power (bearer instruments that can be debt based or wealth based) 2) Specific purchasing power such as assets or bonds that have time element encoded.

            Commodities+Services can be expressed as a ratio to other commodities, creating a term called value. Therefore value is a ratio relationship of two or more commodities. Purchasing power, to be neutral, should be in volume equal to the values present in a market. Markets and people do this value ratio subconsciously, by factoring in time or goods scarcity, and other factors present at that moment.

            Kitson explains Exchange, Value, Purchasing Power, and Money here. Note that money is a dependent variable on all things that come before it. Money arises out of a need of barter, where the commodities don’t divide equally during exchange.


            Gessel would say that there is no such thing as value, there is only price. To insure that people could purchase their goods and services in markets, Gessel had a system where prices had to report into the monetary authority, so that purchasing power could be added or drained to buy the goods associated with prices. In this way, money was made neutral as possible to value ratios expressed as prices.

            Further, Douglas noticed that prices never did show proper relationship to labor, as waste and usury would be buried in the price of goods, but not in labor’s wage. He called this the gap, and it created a treadmill of money scarcity.

            So, money is a dependent variable, fairly far down on the line of causation, and scientifically should be neutral to values and prices; hence purchasing power (money) must be a system of knobs and control and cannot be passively compliant.

            We have since developed money exchange media that changes form, i.e. general purchasing power money (bearer instruments good for general exchange in markets) and specific purchasing power (bonds, stocks, personal assets, etc). We also have money types, like today’s bank money, that are debts against futurity, and other money types that are related to existing wealth e.g. sovereign money, mutual banking, Jaks, Savings and Loans.

            In other words, we now have money types that exchange for other money types in addition to goods and services. Each of these types has a specific behavior and often a specific path it takes. To suggest that bonds as money, or debt money, or wealth money all follow the same accounting rules, i.e. path and behavior is nonsense.

            Modeling one type of money and propounding it as the dominant variable is a large assumption to reality. Markets, Value and Prices are part of the feedback loop that must be present in any accurate model. I would add that time needs to be modeled too, especially as it can make money scarce at that given moment, and hence make debts unpayable.

  16. Kevin Moore permalink

    How much is all of this paper really worth?

  17. Ross N. permalink

    The nobility of England were constantly in need of international money, and as a result, they borrowed heavily from Jewish gold moneylenders. William the Conqueror recognized the importance of the Jewish moneylenders to Norman society, and offered them special protection under law. Jews were declared to be direct subjects of the king, not subjects of their local feudal lord. King Henry (William’s son) issued Talley sticks around 1100. By 1190 English were rioting against Jews as usury had combined property to property into Jewish hands. In 1287 King Edwards seized Jewish property and transferred debts to his name. In other words, debts to Jews were now transferred to the King. In 1290 Jews were expelled and they were allowed to take their international money – Gold, with them. But, property and debts were left behind.

    The gold as money left the English economy to be melted down and re-coined elsewhere. This collapsed the English money supply, and the King found himself unable to receive purchasing power due as taxes or debts owed. Talley sticks came into more prominent usage, as they were issued by the King, circulated in the money supply, and then returned to the King in the form of Taxes. The talley stick then was re-spent by the king, making it a circulation path from money supply to government then back to money supply. The government talley sticks did not cancel out – they were respent.

    When Anthony issues a credit IOU in the form of a talley stick, he keeps the stock (longer part) and the debtor keeps the foil. In the case of the King’s talley, he holds the debt instrument on society – which is payable by the entire community. In the case of Anthony, his talley is evidence of his debt. Two similar sticks, but different in their power and circulation path.

    If the King respend’s his tax money into a path that is beneficial to the public, his money benefits the public as it leaves wealth in its wake. If the King issues more sticks than he taxes, and it increases economic activity it is non- inflationary and the people use it as perma-credit. The money does not return to the ledger (stock) to cancel out in the traditional sense. One generation passes down their credit to the next, and so on.

    At Mayfair or some other debt settlement fair- Coins, Script, Personal Talleys, King Talleys and Ledger money would all be present. Banker’s would help people settle their credits and debts with each other using all of these money forms. Specie coins had the potential to circulate internationally hence had high acceptance. King’s talleys had high acceptance value but circulated only in the national economy. Personal IOU talleys were lower in power and previously circulated in local communities. Script and abstract Leger money were created at the fair to help settle differential debts and credits, and were good only for a short time and only at that location.

    Money circulates, and the money type and path predicate effects on society.

    • Imagine… a benevolent king determined to provide the sinews for a prosperous economy/people through Tally Sticks. His plan includes the issuance of sovereign Tally Sticks for the Kingdom (Commonwealth) and to empower individuals by making a stock available for lending in the private sector and for local government jurisdictions.

      The King would charter banks that adhere to clear lending practices, collateral requirements and recognize default risk by holding a percentage of Tally Sticks on hand. The chartered banks would earn profitable fees (in lieu of interest) by facilitating credit transactions and processing the payments.

      Each chartered bank would hold an adequate inventory of Tally Sticks on consignment to press into service as needed for new loans. As loans are repaid, the Tally Sticks would be returned to consignment inventory to issue new loans.

      If a borrower defaulted, the chartered bank would cover the losses from their risk fund and seize the collateral for resale. If a chartered bank became insolvent, all collateral would be returned to the King for a public auction. Upon such an event; the Kingdom would simply write off any losses above the collateral.

      Special sovereign Talley Sticks (debt free) would be spent into circulation by building/repairing bridges, roads and other needed infrastructure projects. Additional debt free Tally Sticks would be made available to co-op (50%) the building of schools and universities. Local government and private groups would pay the other 50% as needed.

      The benevolent King would strive to build a better civilization by spending an adequate amount of sovereign Tally Sticks. In his wisdom and sense of fairness, the King would endeavor to free the people from the need to borrow Tally Sticks simply to have a means for exchange.

      The people would borrow to build equity while the King would provide a much needed monetary base of Tally Sticks as his sacred responsibility.

      As the Kingdom became more prosperous, the amount of debt decreased as the amount of equity increased. The economy would continue to operate at full capacity separate from the amount of new debt that may or may not occur. Both private equity and the common wealth would simultaneously grow in this unique approach.

      • Ross N. permalink

        Larry, that would work.

        Separate fiscal policy and taxation and you have a sovereign money system.

        In other words, all money creation is done separate from government in a monetary authority or a special branch of the treasury.

        The government runs on taxation and is thus constrained. This is important in case there is the odd bad king.

        Add in demurrage on savings, which funds the monetary authority, and you end up with Social Credit with Demurrage system.

        To fund the public commons, the people would gladly allow themselves to be taxed on the money just given them. If need be, there can be a vote, and money specially earmarked and labeled to the people can be designated to be spent only on public works project X, etc.

        Sovereign credit is a pile of talley sticks, or numbers, which attach to private assets. That way credit is in the economy, so there is a drain knob. Sovereign money is floating money stored in peoples savings accounts. The people then have incentive to loan money, and are in competition with credit.

        In this way, the economy can flex, and interest rates can be driven toward zero.

        • Kevin Moore permalink

          Calendar Year & Fiscal Year
          The calendar year is a 365-day year. The time it takes for the earth to circle the sun one full rotation is 365 days. Men and women operate their existence on a 365-day year, and to be completely precise, it is actually 365 and ¼ days for one full rotation around the sun. The mirror image operates on a 360-day fiscal year, one is real, and the other is fiction. What has happened is the fiction/fiscal claims to completely rotate around the earth in their fiscal year but their year has only 360-days. Because the time
          for a day being 24 hours is identical for both the calendar year and the fiscal year, why does it only take 360-days to get around the earth on a fiscal year and 365-days to rotate once around the sun on a calendar year?

        • Ross; et al,

          We find agreement on many issues including the need and opportunity for sovereign credit but I’m going to focus on an area where we disagree – demurrage on savings.

          1) It is not needed

          2) It is unfair – and from my perspective; it looks like usury on savers instead of borrowers

          Demurrage on savings is not needed

          If you agree that sovereign credit should be used to spend debt free money into the economy, then a demurrage on savings is not needed. The money supply would be maintained through M which means that V (velocity) does not need controlled.

          Demurrage on savings is unfair

          Why punish savers just because the money supply is inadequate? Don’t people have the right and the duty; to save some money?

          The old argument goes that people can avoid the demurrage tax by investing their savings doesn’t hold water as it is prudent for businesses and people to keep some money in reserve in addition to investments. And, depending on how markets are doing, many prefer to keep a strong cash position and they should be free to do so.

          I’m against progressive taxes, including income tax and a demurrage is just that – the more you save the more you pay.

          • Why focus on ‘the right to save’ Larry? Is not saving withholding money from circulation?
            Keep in mind that demurrage money circulates many, many (up to a hundred times) faster than usurious money. Meaning that the money supply will be much, much smaller than usurious money. Meaning that the cost of demurrage will be a very, very small fraction of usury.

          • Top of the New Year to you Anthony!

            I focused on the right to save; free from additional taxes, to explore how an interest free (no usury) monetary system might/should work. We agree on the big stuff and I think it is both worthwhile and enjoyable to explore the details and to share/challenge in the process.

            My big point is that a demurrage tax isn’t needed – provided you agree that some amount of sovereign money (debt free and spent into the economy) should be an integral part of a national (public) monetary system. Maybe we disagree here?

            I do think that people should pay to have their money kept in a bank where it can be kept safe and ready for quick conversion to currency, checks, credit cards, etc. – via a service charge.

            As it stands now, deposits are liabilities to the bank and available to more senior creditors (depositors are at the bottom) upon default. Banks should not use the assets of others to leverage loans to others and to secure bank investments.

          • Woops… instead of “As it stands now, deposits are liabilities to the bank” I meant that deposits are considered assets to the bank.

          • Ross N. permalink

            Demurrage on savings encourages savers to loan out their money. Think of it as push pull. Floating money (sovereign money) has no drain pressure on it, so it can sit in a savings account and stagnate. In fact, today’s usury flows are stagnating capital.

            People will be encouraged to loan out their money only if they get positive interest on it (pull as enticement). That means that loans will always be a positive number, and a positive number, if compounded (due to refinancing of interest) becomes exponential.

            Demurrage on savings drives the interest rate toward zero (push with taxes), and it does it in a non punitive way, especially as the tax is being respent. It should be a very minor tax amount to get humans to modify behavior. And yes, humans are creatures of habit, and they do respond to their environment. We swim in our money environment as information feedback. That feedback needs to be neutral as possible to mimic a gift economy.

            Demurrage will also encourage people to hold wealth in assets, not money. Assets like paintings and nice homes, good clothing, etc. will give people jobs. With a proper economy those assets can always be converted to money, most likely without loss of value. People work to make goods and services, and to trade with each other. Money is only the tool we use for trade. Money should only be a neutral veil, like our current brain dead Chicago school economists maintain.

            Demurrage on savings is an essential ingredient, especially with floating money. With credit money – that type is already in motion and is earmarked for destruction, so that is a harder demurrage sell. It would be a double taxation for credit especially if it had positive interest at its birth.

            Without some negative taxation on floating money, the number line will never go to zero and low interest rates will never be accomplished. The other alternative is to have inflation. Demurrage or inflation is the choice, and with inflation the rates cannot be zero.

            Without demurrage much more vigilance will have to be around to insure all loans are non usurious. For example that the principle doesn’t double and the creditor takes risk, etc, That means a lot of legal oversight of government watching our contracts.. Demurrage is easier, it pushes the rates toward zero, and is a lighter load due to its leverage effect..

          • Anthony,

            You don’t need money to circulate in order to represent transactions. Money is already created and extinguished by representing the value of transactions with credit money. Businesses have been operating on this basis for ever. Business A represents its goods and services by creating a credit balance that is cancelled as B creates its own credit balance AS A FUNCTION OF THE TRANSFER OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES NOT THE TRANSFER OF TOKENS.

            “Savings” or simply positive balances are a record of value given in the past, they are not a record of a quantity of existing stock. Money does not measure stock it measures value given to different levels of stock at different moments in time and in different circumstances. That is the whole point of money. Again, is the value of saving your life by bringing you water in the desert and saving your life as durable as the rate at which the water evaporates? Is the value of bringing the same amount of water to you next to a pristine spring equal? Is the value of either case a function of the the different rates of evaporation of water in each case? If your answer is no to these, then your argument that outstanding balances must be proportional to existing stocks of goods and services is also wrong.

            Now, the only question is how to make the common expressions of value once stable and a function of providing goods and services not providing the means to measure them, which is what is all about.


  18. Ross wrote: “Demurrage on savings encourages savers to loan out their money. Think of it as push pull…

    There is no need for people to lend their money to others as banks create the money that they lend on the spot as account entries. You are taking two steps backwards as first, you would have people rely on others to lend them money and you would be adding a tax on savers.

    If borrowers must coax those with extra money to make loans, the cost of borrowing will greatly increase. People will rightfully expect a healthy return to take lending risk and be denied the use of their money for 20 years or more in the case of mortgages.

    We should continue the practice of creating money for loans but we simply need to eliminate the interest. And, there is no reason to add special taxes to punish savers.

    The current system looks better than the one you are proposing.

    • Ross N. permalink


      Everything in proportion. Gravity is normally useful, except when we are hurtling toward earth at terminal velocity. Credit has its uses and floating money has its uses. Used wrong, they are both harmful.

      Credit is always disappearing and it depends on futurity to pay off the past. Therefore, if there is no credit as money in the future, then past loans cannot be paid.

      Credit comes into being as a specific purchasing power (assets) being converted to general purchasing power (money that pays the bearer upon demand). The delta between general and specific is the usury that bankers charge. The interest rate is the valve used to keep volume in check. All credit as money fails the comet scenario, where people do not take out loans in future.

      Another problem with Credit as money is who holds the debt instrument. Typically, the banker who creates the credit is the one who holds the debt instrument. A state bank if it creates credit, transfers the debt instruments of the people to the state. To be fair, mutual credit does distribute the debt instruments among those who create the money as credit.

      There will always be usury if the debt instrument is held by a bureaucratic unfeeling institution. They will use blanket laws that are unable to be nuanced and adjust to the situation.

      Sovereign money (floating money) on the other hand is held by savers. They loan out their money, and hence the people hold each others debts and credits. This is as it should be. The people can also share in risk, as the creditor can take a position in the venture. The creditor can also forgive loans or do whatever they want – we become non usurious. The creditors are our friends and neighbors, who happen to have enough savings because the economy is designed to insure there is enough money. Money is directly injected into lower loop of households as demand, until there is too much as evidenced by inflation.

      Also, money does not depend on futurity, nor does it domino fail like credit. Credit as money is usually countersigned against other credit, and if something goes wrong, there is systemic failure. Money already is, and stands on its own power. Money cannot domino fail and cause collapse.

      However, too much money, and you cannot drain it easily out of the economy. So, you need some drain.

      I would estimate that an economy should be about 30 percent credit and about 70 percent money. The units matter, as their behavior is drastically different.

      Creditors need to seriously think about how they would manage their systems.

  19. Anthony,

    You write above: ” Please remember the Federal Reserve Bank pays back to the Government the usury it makes on Sovereign debt it holds. And that commercial banking creates up to 97% of all money in the economy, not central banks.”

    I’m still learning so forgive what may sound like a pedestrian question, but can you point me to an article in your archives that further explains the Fed’s act of ‘paying back’ to the US Govt all the interest it ‘earns’ on sovereign debt?

    Thanks Much,


  20. Reblogged this on Jana Murray and commented:
    The top bankers are interested in it for the usury but their partners in politics are interested in it for control and it’s hard to say which is which, between the two of them, because it’s a revolving door now. I would say central banks, or the big banks that comprise the central banks, and governments now are welded together into one sold piece. It’s hard to distinguish or pull them apart. So the answer to that question is both usury and control.”

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. 99th Monkey News December 19, 2013 | Pearls of Liberty
  2. 99th Monkey News December 19, 2013 | 99th Monkey News
  3. Ed Griffin admits the Bankers own all the Gold ...
  4. Let’s forget about Ron Paul. It’s time to move on. | Real Currencies

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *