The Founding Fathers' Vision of Prosperity Has Been Destroyed

George Washington's picture

Washington’s Blog

Paintings by Anthony Freda:

Founding Fathers not only fought for liberty and justice, they also
fought for a sound economy and freedom from the tyranny of big banks:

was] the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on
the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English
and . . . the Revolutionary War."
- Benjamin Franklin

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt."
- John Adams

the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their
currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and
corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all
property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent
their fathers occupied”.
— Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that
banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing
armies...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored
to the Government, to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson

Founding Fathers of this great land had no difficulty whatsoever
understanding the agenda of bankers, and they frequently referred to
them and their kind as, quote, ‘friends of paper money. They hated the
Bank of England, in particular, and felt that even were we successful in
winning our independence from England and King George, we could never
truly be a nation of freemen, unless we had an honest money system. ”
-Peter Kershaw, author of the 1994 booklet “Economic Solutions”

As I noted last year:

knows that the American colonists revolted largely because of taxation
without representation and related forms of oppression by the British.
See this and this.


- according to Benjamin Franklin and others in the thick of the action
- a little-known factor was actually the main reason for the


To give some background on the issue, when Benjamin Franklin went to London in 1764, this is what he observed:

he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty
among the British working classes… Franklin was then asked how the
American colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor
houses. He reportedly replied:


“We have no poor houses in the
Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them,
since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither
beggars nor tramps.”


In 1764, the Bank of England used its
influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed that made it
illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists
were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.
Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest
from the banks.


Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets
of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were
in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half,
leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods and services these
workers could have provided. He maintained that it was "the poverty
caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament
which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the
Revolutionary War." This, he said,
was the real reason for the Revolution: "the colonies would gladly
have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that
England took away from the colonies their money, which created
unemployment and dissatisfaction."

(for more on the Currency Act, see this.)

Alexander Hamilton echoed similar sentiments:

Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first treasury secretary, said that paper money had
composed three-fourths of the total money supply before the American
Revolution. When the colonists could not issue their own currency, the
money supply had suddenly shrunk, leaving widespread unemployment,
hunger and poverty in its wake. Unlike the Great Depression of the
1930s, people in the 1770s were keenly aware of who was responsible for
their distress.

As historian Alexander Del Mar wrote in 1895:

creation and circulation of bills of credit by revolutionary
assemblies...coming as they did upon the heels of the strenuous efforts
made by the Crown to suppress paper money in America [were] acts of
defiance so contemptuous and insulting to the Crown that forgiveness was
thereafter impossible . . . [T]here was but one course for the crown
to pursue and that was to suppress and punish these acts of
rebellion...Thus the Bills of Credit of this era, which ignorance and
prejudice have attempted to belittle into the mere instruments of a
reckless financial policy were really the standards of the Revolution.
they were more than this: they were the Revolution itself!

And British historian John Twells said the same thing:

British Parliament took away from America its representative money,
forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be
legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in coins ...
Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies . . . discontent
became desperation, and reached a point . . . when human nature rises up
and asserts itself.

In fact, the Americans ignored the British ban on American currency, and:

in financing a war against a major power, with virtually no 'hard'
currency of their own, without taxing the people."

Indeed, the first act of the New Continental Congress was to issue its own paper scrip, popularly called the Continental.


and Thomas Paine later praised the local currency as a "corner stone"
of the Revolution. And Franklin consistently wrote that the American
ability to create its own credit led to prosperity, as it allowed the
creation of ample credit, with low interest rates to borrowers, and no
interest to pay to private or foreign bankers .


Is this just ancient history?




ability for America and the 50 states to create its own credit has
largely been lost to private bankers. The lion's share of new credit
creation is done by private banks, so - instead of being able to itself
create money without owing interest - the government owes unfathomable
trillions in interest to private banks.


America may have won the
Revolutionary War, but it has since lost one of the main things it
fought for: the freedom to create its own credit instead of having to beg for credit from private banks at a usurious cost.


As economic writer and attorney Ellen Brown has tried to teach to Obama, Schwarzenegger,
and anyone else who will listen, the way out of the economic crisis is
to stop paying interest to private banks for the creation of credit,
and to return to the system of government-issued credit used by the
Founding Fathers to create prosperity for the people and to gain
independence from their oppressors.

(And see this).

As I wrote in July:

The U.S. has become a a kleptocracy, an oligarchy, a banana republic, a socialist or fascist state ... which acts without the consent of the governed.

This essay focuses on economics, but - obviously - the other ideals of the Founding Fathers have been abandoned as well. See this and this, for example.

Note: If we can't implement public banking, let's at least return to a gold standard.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
CitizenPete's picture


Krugman v. Murphy DEBATE

"Since I am a libertarian, I spend 7 hours a day on the computer in my parents basement, and yet I have never heard of "The Point"..."

"and for the record I don't smoke crack."

Murphy-Krugman Debate - @The Point

twittering as stocktradr's picture

Benjamin Franklin : “We have no poor houses in the Colonies”

due to the current economic crisis.

the “poor houses” has been foreclosed on and are now closed.

please find shelter elsewhere.

thank you for your cooperation.

twittering as stocktradr

Reese Bobby's picture

Big Picture: all countries should end up with the same standard of living, adjusted for natural resources and relative military strength.  And getting too excited about that fact is not "of Christ."  Junk away...I am at peace...

KillTheFed's picture

Great article, George!  I have read many books on the subject and you have succintly summarized the conclusion of them all.  I do believe in a sound money system but wonder how it could be backed by gold with the international private banking cartel controlling the gold supply and prices?

RingToneDeaf's picture

Lots a bullshit here, can I have some for my garden?

Like Zimbabwe after the local currency failed, free market chaos.

Golly gee, Mr. Wizard, it works great.

scatterbrains's picture

like a crack thug cashing granny's  s.s.i. check while she withers in the corner of the tv room neglected and unable to reason. 

Miles Kendig's picture


Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

And we find ourselves right back at the one dollar, one vote discussion .. like that one is in any way new

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

It is not always a fatal flaw - man has also used his brain to create technology that reduces work.

The weakness of slave states was the lack of incentive to create new technology.

The Romans seemed to create playthings yet their applied science with the exception of aqueduct engineering and some weaponry was backward.

FDR's picture

Every other comment is about the specter of runaway inflation and bubbles created by fiat currency.  If such disasters can't exist under the gold standard, what created the panics/market collapses of 1837, 1857, 1871, 1893, 1907, and 1929?  Aliens?

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

The Gold standard is not perfect by a wide margin but the monetory inflation over the last 40 years is off the scale.

Although at least in the 70s the inflation was driven by higher wages via strong unions that chased monetory inflation.

Volcker and Greenspan created a system where monetory inflation bypassed all labour and went directly into markets to increase the price of EVERYTHING while suppressing wages to create a false impression of low inflation in the minds of the proles.

FDR's picture

That's why I keep harping on the superiority of the 1944-71 Bretton Woods system - it takes off the shackles of the gold standard but maintains a discipline regarding the international balance of payments.  Greenspan's wall of money, continued by Helicopter Ben, can only function in the post-1971 environment where neither persistent current accounts deficits nor promiscuous hot money dollar investments create any risk of unredeemability in gold or catastrophic devaluation (although we may end up with the second result anyway.)

moneymutt's picture

if Nixon had not done what he did, would not the dollar greatly devalued, like by half? Would that ending make 40-71 look so great?

FDR's picture

As I posted in another comment above, the "overhang" of dollars (large proportion of foreign-held dollars relative to U.S. gold reserves), that grew substantial in the 1965-71 period is due to two facts: 1) What I consider the one major flaw of the Bretton Woods system - that the dollar was the one currency directly convertible to gold, making it a reserve on par with gold.  2) In 1958 the Americans and Brits opened the capital account (a major revision of the 1944 system), allowing for dollars not involved in current transactions to be sent abroad, resulting in the Eurodollar market. 

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

I would settle for Gold used only to settle balance of payments between different currencies with multiple reserve status.

But under such a system any citizen would be under extreme pressure from his Goverment to surrender his Gold at a Loss to sustain the nation or bloc - while I would accept lets say a 25% capital gains tax or devaluation when surrendering to your local central bank I would be worried that statists would get ambitious with my money especially as I believe central banks have sold the peoples Gold to their friends.

I would like to see a abolition of private central banks completly and the return of the treasuries as the only apparatus for issuing money before I could accept such a system.

FDR's picture

Agreed on abolition of private central banks.  That was a major bone of contention between J.M. Keynes and H.D. White at Bretton Woods.  H.D. White was the #2 man at U.S. Treasury, which thanks to the 1935 Federal Reserve Act had effective control of the Fed (since repealed.)  White pushed for abolition of the BIS, as it was the apex of the central banking system; the new int'l institutions would be the IMF and World Bank, both under control of the soveriegn governments party to the Bretton Woods agreement.  Under the gold reserve standard of that system, the initial gold horde of each treasury would be umimportant compared to its long-term ability to maintain a balance of payments, based on ecnomonic performance; thus, there would be little pressure to scoop together the privately-held gold.  The relative values of currencies (susceptible to adjustment by the IMF in the case of persistent deficits) would come to reflect the ability of each nation to produce goods the world wanted, relative to its own consumption.

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Perhaps , I take anything except bancors over this shit.

But what currency will be the reserve - The Euro ?

My guess the Gold is in the Euro area given the strength of the currency over the dollar for a continued period -  which must have created a flow of Gold from the US to Europe.

tahoe69's picture

end the plutocracy. can we have a dose of "protectionism"?

Unlawful Justice's picture

If our fiat currency is back by debt, and debt is back by the hard working middle class American tax payer. And it is the Federal Reserve that is owed this debt that was mandated by taxes implemented in con-gress, and it is the Federal Reserve that created this debt with both principle and interest.

Who exactly is getting this interest? 

Who defaults on the debt if/when there is no tax to collect?  

Why is con-gress not over thrown for treason?

Why is this private bank aka. Federal Reserve not over thrown for treason?

tired1's picture

Perhaps because the concept that most of us have of the US never existed. If you shift your perception of the government as a subset of international banking concerns, things make more sense.

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

As far as I know the FED gives most of the interest income back to the treasury while keeping a small % supposedly for administrative costs etc - I cannot remember the number but given the size of the debt it must be considerable.

Maybe Bruce could answer your question.

I would like to know where the ECBs interest income goes as apparently they are buying some of my countrys debt both sovergin and banking.

gwar5's picture

I think I read they made 40$ billion last year. Profit. 

But they pay no taxes that I am aware of, you can't be sure, there's been no audit. I guess they have no  overhead, because they print what they need to cover costs, and add it to the interest payment for the US government. They have their own lobbyist, or several, on staff and the new "Consumer Protection Agency." 

The CPA is located inside the Federal Reserve. It is outside the authority of the US government; congress or the executive branch has no oversight or accountability. They are tasked to monitor every single transaction of private individuals, uh, which makes the whole financial system all safe and regulated and stuff.

They are also tasked with making sure individuals do not extend credit to one another --- such that a dentist cannot extend credit to his patients for expensive orthodontic work. This is now against the law.

Hmm, so it seems we are going back to colonial days. They monitor all funds, cut off capital flight,  cut off Swiss banks, outlaw private currency, and private credit. And gold becomes money again?

Uh, somebody tell me again why we pay interest on money to these fools at the Fed, when they don't loan us money, they just create it of thin air?  When we could do that for ourselves and not pay interest?

That is a pretty tight business model.

...Wait, hold it.. black helicopter on my lawn...


BigJim's picture

Black helicopter? Sheesh, that is just SO 20th century.

As our beloved leader put it: "You will never see it coming."

M.B. Drapier's picture

Also divided among the member states iirc.

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

I must ask my local TD for that income stream - I want money for nothing and cailini for free.

M.B. Drapier's picture

That kind of attitude won't build the Metro North for us. ;)

THE DORK OF CORK's picture

I would favour a hybrid system of money creation with the Goverment having the ability to create a certain % of overall credit for general utilities and especially energy as it is a strategic resourse and is not unlike having a standing army for independence sake.

This is extremely important in todays age of high energy dependency and I feel the founding fathers of America would have recognized its importance today given its strategic nature.

Also have a Gold backed banking system for industrial experimentation and investment.

And a large place for 100% reserve local banks.

Any ideas about this Hybrid system as my understanding of interactions between such a system would be hazy. - I would favour a model along these lines as I fear absolute power in either the executive or banking arms.

casey13's picture
Later they learned their lesson and made only gold and silver money. NOT WORTH A CONTINENTAL

Treasurer General Thomas P. Curtis relates how the Founding Fathers, with little gold or silver on hand, turned to printing paper money — with disastrous results. The problem worsened when the British cleverly produced counterfeits.

surfsup's picture

Exactly.  And after the Glass Steagall repeal, MBS notes are very much heading for that status as well.    The catch is the corruption is so bad now its actually turning against the banks which for so long had the courts bought off.  Judges pensions are very much composed of MBS notes, down nearly 2/3rd's in value in 2 years, and don't think for a second those who sit on a jury will not go try to find various fraudulence in their notes as well once they sit in on such "discoveries..."  as divergences between Truth in Lending Statements and actual loan docs.  Welcome to the unwind.

And in case some have not caught on yet, its not the "instrument" that is the question, its the level of fraud in relation to the instrument which matters.   This is how synarchists  try to destroy a country...

surfsup's picture


One of the most crucial considerations of history is contained in this snip -- which adds greatly to the above and will round out the "thinker's" view of things as they are now...

All Snip Following:   (url at the bottom to see many pics associated)


Amongst the injustices leading to the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was sent to England in part to demand a relaxation of taxes.

While the colonists' prosperity fell under the recent injustices, they had already become prominent manufacturers and traders. They were skillful and innovative ship builders, and now the vessels they had built even enabled them to become equally skillful evaders of the many excessive duties levied upon them without the familiar requisite they were about to demand — representation. Presently they rose perhaps as no colony had before, to demand a return toward justice.

Franklin was a renown author, publisher, scientist, philosopher and statesman; and there was tremendous anticipation of his arrival in the mother country.

The subjects of each environment grew in opposite directions. The colonists expected independence; their English cousins and their ruling class expected subjugation.

In England, the little news from the colonies was passed largely by disreputable sailors in equally disreputable places. Little was believed of these tales; and so, it was largely assumed that Franklin's reputation was exaggerated. It was anticipated that his visit would prove him relatively uncultured — a woodsman hardly fit to duly represent his peers amongst English dignitaries.

The encounter however would soon prove him far ahead of their time. His answers to their questions would change the world.

Upon his arrival, Franklin was swept to a prominent engagement. There before the ruling class of England, the guest of honor was soon compelled to make a speech. Amidst considerable ado, Franklin walked slowly to the podium, adjusted the curious spectacles the woodsman had invented, and surveyed his audience attentively.

Thinking undecidedly what to speak about, instead he thought it better to ask them, "What's your pleasure?"

They of course beseeched him to tell about the colonies.

He knew well of their affairs, and particularly that even prominent lawyers spent a good part of the year behind on their rent; that they often went hungry; that few non-aristocrats owned property; that many suffered from poor diet; that common citizens spent their lives hoping to pay imposing debt.

The British people were largely ever hopeful of meaningful employment, and in constant, dire need.

He was naturally inclined therefore to convey the relative state of the colonies; and so he began his answer with what in retrospect is readily understood to be a remarkable report. He began saying, "You can leave your ship with just your baggage, walk beyond the furthest homestead, and become an immediate landowner."

Such disbelief arose upon his first sentence, that Franklin was forced to stop. England's upper class loudly refused to believe him.

Franklin nonetheless simply waited for quiet; and when he could, he continued without responding otherwise to the interruption.

He thus spoke slowly, and perhaps even somewhat defiantly, saying, "Furthermore, the forests are vast; and you can cut down all the trees you can imagine, and build whatever kind of home you please. The soil is rich and fertile; and you can clear all the land you want, and plant practically any crop you desire, and it will grow with vitality. Unspoiled streams are everywhere. The water is pure and good, and may be diverted to irrigate your fields. The wilderness is so rich in game that there is no possible shortage of meat. The people are happy and busy, and prosperous."


Valley Forge cabin.

No sooner did he finish his brief continued answer, than outright disclaim once again erupted.

A particularly angry man stood to take charge, shouting above the rest, "How can youpossibly account for prosperity in the colonies?"

The audience so celebrated this denunciation that again for some while it was impossible to speak. Franklin patiently blinked back at them, disbelieving himself they could prescribe such unreasonable limits to the truth. When they finally quieted, he told them exactly how he could account for prosperity in the colonies.

"It's quite simple," he said. "We have created our own currency."

Again, a great uproar erupted.

Who were the colonists to create their own currency? How could a currency possibly account for prosperity?

The former is no longer understood to be a right and responsibility; and the latter is doubted in this very style, even today.

Franklin explained that "If for instance a first man raises fowl, and a second raises feed, and the first intends in the next season to double his production, he may approach the second, wanting him to produce the additional feed required. They agree how much of the production of each will be traded to the other, and their eventual contracts are evidence of their promises to deliver to each other."

"Their notes may then be circulated as currency."

"The cultivator of the feed for instance may write a note against the fowl to be delivered to him, to pay for a doctor to take care of his family. The doctor may pay for goods with the same note at the local store. The store then will ultimately collect the fowl originally promised to the cultivator. When the production is delivered, the respective notes are fulfilled, and the money passes from circulation."

"Without even a need for administration, the circulation is perpetually regulated according to need. There is no inflation or deflation because the circulation always arises and passes with the life and consumption of the production."

"Neither therefore do we suffer multiplication of debt by interest. In fact, the very ability of the people to issue their promises to pay itself makes it possible to sustain whatever prosperity we are capable of."

So far had his English cousins deviated from this natural pattern, that the rectitude of a populace issuing a just currency was even an affront to them.

The very quests of his audience for unearned profit too deprived the general population not only of their production, but of the very opportunity to produce. In fact, this very audience enjoyed undeserved advantages which they presumed would disappear if the people were allowed to prosper in rectitude.

The transparent facts of their existence could prove no match for the arguments of demonstrable solution. They even intended to remain a cause of the very problems the colonists' solution addressed.

Lacking any basis whatever for refutation, and wanting yet to denounce Franklin, they were at first relieved when finally the same angry man shouted above the murmuring everywhere.

"That's preposterous!" he yelled, "How could you levy taxes or fund government with this mere scrip?"

Laughter and sarcasm erupted. Franklin was now openly ridiculed.


Franklin simply waited again to explain.

"That's quite simple as well," he said finally.

He stood, letting the next while pass that they could ruminate their repeated mistake of presuming he might not answer capably.

"Suppose we have a township on one side of a river which is unnavigable and unfordable, and an opposing township on the other."

"One of these townships might build a lumber mill. The other builds a grist mill. Foreseeing the eventual need to support activity above initial demands, each builds their mill to greater capacities than first required."

"As each township needs the services of the other township's mills, eventually it is proposed to build a bridge across the river."

"A group of men then agree to build the bridge to agreed standards; and when we agree on a fee to pay them for this service, likewise we simply create the necessary notes, and pay them."

"As the increased commerce requires the increased circulation to sustain it, there is no inflation; and therefore we have provided in all ways to sustain the desired commerce."

"To fund the proper services of government — such as the creation of this bridge — we have no need to levy taxes or to subject our people to eternal multiplication of debt. We have provided the real service of government without cost."

Blood would be shed for his excellent explanation.


Franklin's heckler was an officer of the Bank of England seated with several officers of Parliament.

Common sense tells the rest of the story.

The very following day, the Bank "of" England's Parliament passed a resolution outlawing "colonial scrip" as currency.

In a mere guise of propriety, the future Americans were required to turn in their vital scrip for bonds issued by the Bank "of" England. Although they were to be paid some menial interest for the bonds however, the bonds too were outlawed as circulation.

"Lawful" trade was impossible.

To no surprise then, the provision allowed the colonists to turn in the bonds for notes issued by the Bank "of" England. These notes alone could they use as currency; and to their further disadvantage, they were required to pay some thirty-percent annual interest for the usurped circulation.

Thus for explaining the wisdom of true economy, Franklin was forced to take the news of perpetual multiplication of debt back to his people.


As we know today, the colonists rejected this crime against them and prevailed in the ensuing military conflict.

The House of Rothschild, under the guise of a Bank "of" England, would pay for Hessian mercenaries to subdue the colonists. Washington's famous crossing of the Delaware would thus defeat Hessians encamped at Trenton, hired to enforce a plutocracy. Yet even the real nature of the conflict would disappear from history.

Hessian mercenaries surrendering to Washington after the battle of Trenton.

These crimes against the colonists would fail at great cost of life.

But the banks which had been established here would succeed. With interest perpetually multiplying debt upon the new land, political subversion would readily be purchased with illimitable unearned profit.

Attempts to eternalize usury would fail under the illuminated leaders of the young nation, but would finally succeed in 1913 under corruption and ineptitude which prevails to this day; and in the style of all banks which are named what they are not, the eventual private central bank "of" America would be called "The Federal Reserve," even as it is neither federal, nor a reserve of anything.

But these are later chapters of our story, and we are only at its beginning.

The governments of Europe of course were threatened by the infectious ideas and courage of the revolution. Few Europeans therefore dared openly support the colonial efforts. Mere contact put lives in danger. Friendships, however deep, were at least temporarily cut off.

In restoring one such relationship after the war, Franklin explained the real cause of the American Revolution in a conciliatory letter to a friend in France:

"We would have gladly borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that they took from us our moneywhich created great unemployment and dissatisfaction. Within a year, the poor houses were filled. The hungry and homeless walked the streets everywhere."


Franklin's explanation of what I have called taxation by inflation suffers an important imperfection. It engenders inflation, because no means withdraws the currency that finances the bridge whenever and if ever the respective commerce subsides. To eliminate this imperfection over its lifespan, the bridge must be paid for at the rate of depreciation or consumption of the bridge. Whatever further circulation sustains the commerce made possible by the bridge is borrowed and paid likewise.

With that sufficiently significant correction, this then is a parable of mathematically perfected economy™.





surfsup's picture


"There is no mystery to projecting the pattern of failure engendered by any purported economy subject to interest.


As interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, ever more of every existing dollar is dedicated to servicing multiplying debt, and ever less of every existing dollar can be dedicated to sustaining the commerce which is obligated to service the multiplying debt. Everything around you can be understood from the obvious consequences.



Over the finite lifespan of a purported economy subject to interest, a perpetual stimulus to reduce interest rates exists, as the multiplying sum of debt increasingly marginalizes all affected subjects of the system. But only such interest rates as yield periodic sums of interest equal to or less than actual production consumed by so called banks can avert multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation which must service the debt. For a number of reasons, this never happens."


michigan independant's picture

Sophists , originally, itinerant teachers in Greece (5th cent. BC) who provided education through lectures and in return received fees from their audiences. The term was given as a mark of respect. Protagoras was perhaps the first to style himself a Sophist and to receive payment for his instruction. He and Gorgias were respected thinkers, but others after them, notably Thrasymachus and Hippias, and many lesser figures, turned education into the development of skills useful to political careers. Hence, they cared little for the disciplined search for truth (dialectics), teaching in its place the art of persuasion (rhetoric). Although not properly speaking a philosophical school, they appear to have shared a basic skepticism regarding the possibility of knowing truth. The more notorious of them boasted of their ability to "make the worst appear the better reason." They were criticized by Plato and Aristotle for their emphasis on rhetoric rather than on pure knowledge and for their acceptance of money, a judgment that has passed into history and has given the term sophist its present meaning. George Grote's History of Greece (1846) was one of the first defenses of the Sophists. Modern studies have stressed the contributions of Protagoras and Gorgias to a theory of knowledge and to ethics. They are frequently cited today as forerunners of pragmatism.

The colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.

And the war ended since we need trade with our American Cousins...... Pragmatism

My Family as many go back that far. Debt is another issue..

Milestones's picture

Thank you for the interesting and thoughtful post.  MIlestones

Grifter's picture

Hey GW, I only recently found this out myself re: Jefferson's "homeless on the continent" quote, just wanted to pass it along for your consideration.  (Wasn't happy when it was pointed out to me, I really liked the quote!)

BigJim's picture

I've seen that quote attributed to Jefferson in a lot of places; thanks for the heads up.

'course, as Larry points out... whoever first phrased it, it's still true  ;-)

Larry Darrell's picture

Author of the quote is irrelevant to its truthful warning.

Whatta's picture

...I am so confused here...

so, the FED creates money out of thin air and "Buys" UST's. The UST then is supposed to take "real" taxpayer US$'s and give them to the FED to pay them back, and then the FED gives those real dollars to the banksters for being bad. Is that how it works?

Damn, I need to see about getting me my own FED, or at least a failing bank.

George Washington's picture

Not the Fed ... state public banks, like North Dakota's...

Miles Kendig's picture

Working with local banks & thrifts to create true financial alchemy and keep an eye on price discovery.

surfsup's picture

And get rid of interest.  System doesn't need it.  A productive economy doesn't need it.  Formative capital doesn't need it.   Toss the Vig...

CH1's picture

Wouldn't hurt my feelings, but breaking the state monopoly on money is FAR more important.

Why should known liars be handed complete power?

Rasna's picture


Boy, I wish that I could post pictures... They're worth a thousand words.

Larry Darrell's picture

William, as fantastic of a photo as this is, it makes a sombering impression.

Our founding fathers were men of great intellect.  Fortunately, they used their talents for the betterment of all men, and at least gave us a chance in the new country they created.

Unfortunately, they didn't consider that people generations later would be so dumbed down that the inclusion of the language you suggest with your photo would indeed be necessary to prevent the recurrence here of what they fought to escape.

If it doesn't slap John Q. Public in the face, he doesn't notice.

High Plains Drifter's picture

Well I am not so sure you are totally correct on this. The true motives of these men could be called to question on many fronts. To understand this fully, one must understand the influence of the "secret societies" and freemasonry , during these times. It is not so cut and dried. I myself, from what I know, would not say , that these men always has our best interest at heart. There was a war going on during these times. A war for the souls of men, like it is now. The battle waged on and in the end, we got some documents that on the surface look good. Frankly in my opinion, any liberty and freedoms we have enjoyed in this country were merely a unfortunate (to them) byproduct of the overall scheme of things. The founding of this country is steeped in intrigue and to speak in platitudes about how this country was founded on Christian principles and for the betterment of all mankind, is not exactly true, I am sorry to say. That being said, the Constitution is what it is ,  I guess even though President Bush said one time, it was nothing but a G D piece of paper. Maybe he knows more about it, than many of us do. Written papers such as this only have power, when the people enforce it continually without flenching. This , we have not done, ever.  Did the creators and signers know this would happen? I think so. I believe Alexander Hamilton, a agent of the Rothschilds banking syndicate, and a jewish man, who changed his name and was the bastard son of slavers from the West  Indies,  said it would take 200 years to get the country known as the United States under Illuminati control. He was not that far off.  Face it folks. This country has been one big lie since its inception.

tired1's picture

Care to post some references, particularly to freemasonry and illuminati?

Milestones's picture

Me too. I will apologize in advance if wrong--but I think you might have let your mouth overload your ass.

I've read Charles Beard's "An Economic Interpetition of the Constitution" which was hardly a white wash of the founding fathers but I never ran into any allegation such as you have made.            Milestones

williambanzai7's picture

Unfortunately most people have no idea who the founding fathers were, let alone how wise they were.