History Of Money - Part 1

THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 1 from Xat.org

Let's Go FORWARD
Tell someone you are going to a convention of accountants and you might get a few yawns, yet money and how it works is probably one of the most interesting things on earth.

It is fascinating and almost magical how money appeared on our planet. Unlike most developments we enjoy, which can be traced back to a source, civilisation or inventor, money appeared in places then unconnected all over the world in a remarkably simular way.

Consider the American Indians using Wampum, West Africans trading in decorative metallic objects called Manillas and the Fijians economy based on whales teeth, some of which are still legal tender; add to that shells, amber, ivory, decorative feathers, cattle including oxen & pigs, a large number of stones including jade and quartz which have all been used for trade across the world, and we get a taste of the variety of accepted currency.

There is something charming and childlike imagining primitive societies, our ancestors, using all these colourful forms of money. As long as everyone concerned can agree on a value, this is a sensible thing for a community to do.

After all, the person who has what you need might not need what you have to trade. Money solves that problem neatly. Real value with each exchange, and everyone gaining from the convenience. The idea is really inspired which might explain why so many diverse minds came up with it.


BUT ALL IS NOT WELL


"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."
President James Madison

Money, money, money, it's always just been there, right? Wrong.

Obviously it's issued by the government to make it easy for us to exchange things. Wrong again!

Truth is most people don't realise that the issuing of money is essentially a private business, and that the privilege of issuing money has been a major bone of contention throughout history.

Wars have been fought and depressions have been caused in the battle over who issues the money; however the majority of us are not aware of this, and this is largely due to the fact that the winning side became and increasingly continues to be a vital and respected member of our global society, having an influence over large aspects of our lives including our education, our media and our governments.

While we might feel powerless in trying to stop the manipulation of money for private profit at our expense, it is easy to forget that we collectively give money its value. We have been taught to believe printed pieces of paper have special value, and because we know others believe this too, we are willing to work all our lives to get what we are convinced others will want.

An honest look at history will show us how our innocent trust has been misused.

Let's start our exploration of money with:


JESUS FLIPS (many coins) 33 A.D.


Jesus was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple, he waded in and started to tip over the tables and drive them out with a whip, this being the one and only time we ever hear of him using force during his entire ministry.

So what caused the ultimate pacifist to become so aggressive?

For a long time the Jews had been called upon to pay their temple tax with a special coin called the half shekelshekel. It was a measured half ounce of pure silver with no image of a pagan emperor on it.

It was to them the only coin acceptable to God.

But because there was only a limited number of these coins in circulation, the money changers were in a buyers market and like with anything else in short supply, they were able to raise the price to what the market would bear.

They made huge profits with their monopoly on these coins and turned this time of devotion into a mockery for profit. Jesus saw this as stealing from the people and proclaimed the whole setup to be. "A den of thieves". ¹

Once money is accepted as a form of exchange, those who produce, loan out and manipulate the quantity of money are obviously in a very strong position. They are the "Money Changers".


1. King James NT, Mt 21:13, Mr 11:17, Lu 19:46


MEDIEVAL ENGLAND (1000 - 1100 A.D.)


Here we find goldsmith's offering to keep other people's gold and silver safe in their vaults, and in return people walking away with a receipt for what they have left there.

These paper receipts soon became popular for trade as they were less heavy to carry around than gold and silver coins.

After a while, the goldsmith's must have noticed that only a small percentage of their depositor's ever came in to demand their gold at any one time. So cleverly the goldsmith's made out some receipts for gold which didn't even exist, and then they loaned it out to earn interest.

A nod and a wink amongst themselves, they incorporated this practice into the banking system. They even gave it a name to make it seem more acceptable, christening the practice 'Fractional Reserve Banking' which translates to mean, lending out many times more money than you have assets on deposit.

Today banks are allowed to loan out at least ten times the amount they actually are holding, so while you wonder how they get rich charging you 11% interest, it's not 11% a year they make on that amount but actually 110%.


THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)


King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.

The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.

Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.

He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.

The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?

Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).

What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.

These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.

It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.

This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.

Here's how they did it.

With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.

The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.

So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.

The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.

With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.

One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.

By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.

As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's.

When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.

Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.

One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of:


THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743)


A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild".

His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes.

Once he got the hang of things he set his sights on the world by training his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centres of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems.

J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies.

"There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild."
19th century French commentator ¹

We will explore a little more about the richest family a little later, after we've had a look at:


1. Niall Ferguson, THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD, Money's Prophets, 1798-1848


THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1764 - 1781)


By the mid 1700's Britain was at its height of power, but was also heavily in debt.

Since the creation of the Bank of England, they had suffered four costly wars and the total debt now stood at £140,000,000, (which in those days was a lot of money).

In order to make their interest payments to the bank, the British government set about a programme to try to raise revenues from their American colonies, largely through an extensive programme of taxation.

There was a shortage of material for minting coins in the colonies, so they began to print their own paper money, which they called Colonial Script. This provided a very successful means of exchange and also gave the colonies a sense of identity. Colonial Script was money provided to help the exchange of goods. It was debt free paper money not backed by gold or silver.

During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.

In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
Benjamin Franklin ¹

America had learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England.

In Response the world's most powerful independent bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764.

This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.

Here is what Franklin said after that.

"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."
Benjamin Franklin

"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. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."
Benjamin Franklin's autobiography

By the time the war began on 19th April 1775 much of the gold and silver had been taken by British taxation. They were left with no other choice but to print money to finance the war.

What is interesting here is that Colonial Script was actually working so well, it became a threat to the established economic system of the time.

The idea of issuing money as Franklin put it "in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry" and not charging any interest, was not causing any problems or inflation. This unfortunately was alien to the Bank of England which only issued money for the sake of making a profit for its shareholder's.


1. Congressman Charles G. Binderup of Nebraska, Unrobing the Ghosts of Wall Street


THE BANK OF NORTH AMERICA (1781-1785) 


If you can't beat them, join them, might well have been his argument when arms dealer, Robert Morris suggested he be allowed to set up a Bank of England style central bank in the USA in 1781.

Desperate for money, the $400,000 he proposed to deposit, to allow him to loan out many times that through fractional reserve banking, must have looked really attractive to the impoverished American Government.

Already spending the money they would be loaned, no one made a fuss when Robert Morris couldn't raise the deposit, and instead suggested he might use some gold, which had been loaned to America from France.

Once in, he simply used fractional reserve banking, and with the banks growing fortune he loaned to himself, and his friends the money to buy up all the remaining shares. The bank then began to loan out money multiplied by this new amount to eager politicians, who were probably too drunk with the new 'power cash' to notice or care how it was done.

The scam lasted five years until in 1785, with the value of American money dropping like a lead balloon. The banks charter didn't get renewed.

The shareholder's walking off with the interest did not go unnoticed by the governor.

"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres."
Governor Morris ¹


1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 7/2


FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (1791-1811)


It worked once, it will work again. It's been six years. There are a lot of new hungry politicians. Let's give it a try. And so there it was, in 1791, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). Not only deceptively named to sound official, but also to take attention away from the real first bank which had been shut down.

Its initials however gave a clear indication that Americans were once again being taken for a ride. And true to its British model, the name of the investors was never revealed.

Having gotten away with it a second time, some of them probably wished Amshall Rothschild had picked a different time to make his pronouncement from his private central bank in Frankfurt.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

Not to worry, no one was listening, the American government borrowed 8.2 million dollars from the bank in the first 5 years and prices rose by 72%. This time round the money changer's had learned their lesson, they had guaranteed a twenty year charter.

The president, who could see an ever increasing debt, with no chance of ever paying back, had this to say.

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."
Thomas Jefferson, 1798

While the independent press, who had not been bought off yet, called the scam "a great swindle, a vulture, a viper, and a cobra."

As with the real first bank, the government had been the only depositor to put up any real money, with the remainder being raised from loans the investors made to each other, using the magic of fractional reserve banking. When time came for renewal of the charter, the bankers were warning of bad times ahead if they didn't get what they wanted. The charter was not renewed.

Five month later Britain had attacked America and started the war of 1812.

Meanwhile a short time earlier, an independent Rothschild business, the Bank of France, was being looked upon with suspicion by none other than:


NAPOLEON (1803 - 1825)


He didn't trust the bank saying:

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815

For both sides of a war to be loaned money from the same privately owned Central Bank is not unusual. Nothing generates debt like war. A Nation will borrow any amount to win. So naturally if the loser is kept going to the last straw in a vain hope of winning, then the more resources will be used up by the winning side before their victory is obtained more resources used, more loans taken out, more money made by the bankers; and even more amazing, the loans are usually given on condition that the victor pays the debts left by the loser.

In 1803, instead of borrowing from the bank, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase.

Three million dollars richer, Napoleon quickly gathered together an army and set about conquering much of Europe.

Each place he went to, Napoleon found his opposition being financed by the Bank of England, making huge profits as Prussia, Austria and finally Russia all went heavily into debt trying to stop him.

Four years later, with the main French army in Russia, Nathan Rothschild took charge of a bold plan to smuggle a shipment of gold through France to finance an attack from Spain by the Duke of Wellington.

Wellington's attack from the south and other defeats eventually forced Napoleon into exile. However in 1815 he escaped from his banishment in Elba, an Island off the coast of Italy, and returned to Paris.

By March of that year Napoleon had equipped an army with the help of borrowed money from the Eubard Banking House of Paris.

With 74,000 French troops led by Napoleon, sizing up to meet 67,000 British and other European Troops 200 miles NE of Paris on June 18th 1815, it was a difficult one to call. Back in London, the real potential winner, Nathan Rothschild, was poised to strike in a bold plan to take control of the British stock market, the bond market, and possibly even the Bank of England.

Nathan, knowing that information is power, stationed his trusted agent named Rothworth near the battle field.

As soon as the battle was over Rothworth quickly returned to London, delivering the news to Rothschild 24 hours ahead of Wellington's courier.

A victory by Napoleon would have devastated Britain's financial system. Nathan stationed himself in his usual place next to an ancient pillar in the stock market.

This powerful man was not without observers as he hung his head, and began openly to sell huge numbers of British Government Bonds.

Reading this to mean that Napoleon must have won, everyone started to sell their British Bonds as well.

The bottom fell out of the market until you couldn't hardly give them away. Meanwhile Rothschild began to secretly buy up all the hugely devalued bonds at a fraction of what they were worth a few hours before.

In this way Nathan Rothschild captured more in one afternoon than the combined forces of Napoleon and Wellington had captured in their entire lifetime.

Bitcoin, Gold, Silver, Fiat and More, Oh My

Where is my money safe? How can I ensure that European and American central bankers do not steal or deflate away my life savings? Should I invest in Bitcoin, gold, silver, savings accounts, CDs, the stock market, real estate, or what?

This article focuses on Bitcoin as a hedge against banker and government theft.  Consider this a single chapter in a very long book on central banking dynasties and their warmongering.

The below article was originally released at theundergroundinvestor.com on 28 March, 2013 and I borrowed it from ZeroHedge.

A lot of people have asked my opinion about bitcoin and I often have given a generic answer similar to the following: “Bitcoin is better than fiat but worse than physical silver or gold”, an answer that seems to make bitcoin fanatics lose their minds as if I am “hating” on bitcoins. However, this is so far from reality that I decided to write a more detailed explanation about what I like about bitcoin but why I don’t consider bitcoin to be sound money, nearly as solid (no pun intended) as owning 100% physical gold or physical silver, and why precious metals still trump bitcoins on a risk/reward analysis enough that I still favor the accumulation of physical gold and physical silver over the accumulation of BTCs. Furthermore, given the recent bitcoin price explosion and the negative media beating gold and silver have taken recently, I wanted to release this article now rather than as a reaction to problems that I feel BTCs will encounter down the road that would lead to accusations of "Monday morning quarterbacking". I think if you are a bitcoin advocate that you will find my logic in this article to be totally rational. Bitcoin is infinitely better than fiat money because unlike fiat currency, in which only a few families in the entire world maintain the power to create this type of money, with bitcoin, those that own infrastructure with enough of the considerable processing power necessary to run the bitcoin network can create new bitcoins. So while there are computer infrastructure limitations on who can create new bitcoins and not everyone has the money to own the type of infrastructure needed to create bitcoins, this is the only limitation one has on being able to create new bitcoins until the maximum pre-designated limit is reached. However, this barrier to entry is a significant barrier as, according to the World Food Program, nearly 1 in 7 people suffer from malnutrition and go to sleep hungry every single night and it is doubtful that any of these people could ever afford a $2,499 50GH/s bitcoin miner. Furthermore, nearly 2/3rds of the world, according to statistics compiled by Nielson Online, the International Telecommunications Union, et al, are not yet connected to the internet, which makes it problematic to create or purchase bitcoins for a large percentage of the world's population. However, it is a myth propagated by the anti-Precious Metals community that gold and silver are beyond the reach of the world's poor. In India, there are prolific anecdotal stories of the poor converting rupees into gold when it is possible for them to do so to guard against the wealth destruction inflicted upon them by Indian bankers.

Secondly, all fiat currency is created as debt. Every dollar, Euro, Yen and Pound Sterling is created with an interest component that must be paid off, which means that devaluation, or more simply put, “banker theft of your wealth held in fiat currencies”, is an inevitable fact of “modern” fiat currency. Bitcoins are created without this debt component. If government treasuries worldwide directly created money instead of bowing down to the private banking families that own Central Banks and surrendering this power, then fiat currencies could be created without a debt component as well. Thus, this distinction between bitcoins and fiat currency is merely one of power. If government treasury departments worldwide were more powerful than the private banking cartels, or had not already been co-opted by these families a long time ago, they could feasibly seize control over the creation of fiat money, and voila, fiat money would no longer be created with a built-in debt component that enslaves humanity. US President John F. Kennedy tried to remove the power of money creation from these families many decades ago and failed. Bankers were furious of Kennedy’s attempt to free humanity from their immoral control and it has been widely speculated that they played a significant role in his execution. (Google JFK's Executive Order 11110 as well as Lincoln's "greenbacks".)

Thirdly, bitcoins are capped at a supply of 20,999,999.9769 BTC, whereas the private banking families that own a monopoly on fiat money creation can push a button and create as much, unlimited digital Euros, Yen, Pound Sterling, and US dollars as they want. Another resounding checkmark for bitcoins over fiat currency.

According to BitCoin’s FAQ page, BTCs are “based on the cryptography that is an integral part of its structure, and that is readily available for any and all to see. Instead of one entity keeping track of transactions, the entire network does. Though the developers of BitCoin aver that it would be extremely difficult to create BTCs that escape detection due to its security infrastructure, they also admit that this task is not foolproof and “it can be cheated.” Perhaps some brilliant genius will figure out a way to expand the bitcoin supply more than 20,999,999,999.9769 BTCs, but I concede the point that this will be extremely difficult to execute. To the contrary, all private bankers that run the world’s Central Banks are currently actively counterfeiting dollars, yen, pound sterling and Euros right now (just refer to this article). Again, yet another win for BTCs over fiat currency.

So yes, I do agree with all BTC advocates that the above discussion points are very solid points for holding BTCs over fiat. But I disagree strongly with the BTC fanatics that are so blinded by BTCs’ recent run higher on the back of the Cyprus fiasco that they cannot see the dangers that are also associated with BTCs over the long run. So here is why physical gold and silver still trumps BTCs as the best form of sound money, hands down. With all the positives of BTCs I discussed above, why do I still vehemently stand firm to my position that BTCs are infinitely better than fiat currency yet still does not fit the definition of sound money? The answer is actually a quite simple and logical one. The private banking families that have a stranglehold on all monetary creation today in wide distribution view any competitive currency to their counterfeit fiat currency as a currency to be crushed with an iron fist. These private banking cartels that own and run Central Banks will not tolerate any type of serious competition and will seek to either strip all owners of bitcoins of their BTCs or to destroy the BTC network as they definitely view BTCs as a threat to their criminal system even if they haven’t yet expressly voiced this opinion. The theft in Cyprus should illustrate how quickly bankers can turn people’s lives upside down at a moment’s notice. The founder of bitcoin states that the BTC network remains secure “as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any group of attacking nodes…If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains…If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins…We proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power."

Thus, a huge assumption is necessary at this point to trust that the BTC network will not, and has not been hacked or infiltrated by agents unfriendly to the interests of BTC holders. That assumption is that bankers have ignored BTC up to this point and have not infiltrated the network as agent provocateurs that are posing as honest people that support the BTC model. If bankers have already infiltrated the BTC network, then BTCs have counterparty risk just like fiat currency because bankers can now defraud people. In addition, if assessing the above statement, “if a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes”, who is greedier and has more resources than bankers? No one. Who is best known for pumping commodities sky high very quickly, only to deliberately crash them to make money on both the upside and downside? The bankers. These are all real possibilities BTC owners must consider as BTCs have soared but have not experienced any significant correction as of yet. However, the only way bankers can introduce counterparty risk to physical gold and silver owners is by producing fake tungsten filled bars or impure bars and selling them as four nine fine bars (99.99%). However, sophisticated but simple ultrasound testing can easily spot this banker fraud with gold and silver so the counterparty risk is non-existent as long as all bullion is tested. I think it is naïve to not assume that bankers have had their eye on BTCs since the day they were first introduced several years ago.

Again, many may say it is a stretch to state that bankers have already infiltrated the nodes that control the majority of CPU power, but the reality is that no one can really accurately assess the likelihood of this possibility having already occurred, as if bankers were to have infiltrated the bitcoin network, they would not be as stupid as to reveal their identity. I do believe it is inevitable that bankers will attack the BTC network. It is just a matter of how they will do it. Just research how the private bankers went after Bernard von NotHaus, stole his silver and gold from his warehouse, imprisoned him, and used their control of the legal system to have US Attorney Anne M. Tompkins, in her own words, say that NotHaus’s “attempts to undermine the legitimate currency (USD) of the [United States of America]” were an “act of domestic terrorism.” This ruling alone should serve notice to BTC users that all banker–controlled governments (which is every government in the world) clearly view all BTC holders as terrorists as well and will eventually seek to destroy all BTCs. The only point of contention is whether or not they will have success in their efforts. In fact, two years after his arrest, von NotHaus has still not been sentenced, and just this week he filed for a re-trial or dismissal of his case as the "Justice" department has had great difficulty indicting von NotHaus of clear "intent to counterfeit money." Of course we report this with great irony as Anne Tompkins has taken great care to uphold the illegitimate currency of the Federal Reserve and the US Justice Department could convict the Feds and all commercial banks of clear intent to counterfeit money beyond a shadow of a doubt within five minutes of testimony from any competent person that understands the mechanisms of our modern day banking system.

“@maxkeiser: If everyone in America had sold their guns last year and bought Bitcoins; the avg. American family would be $90,000 richer.”
— NewsBitcoin (@NewsBitcoin) April 9, 2013

That said, I’m not here to debate whether the agents of these bankers could possibly corrupt the BTC system, counterfeit BTCs deliberately, or deliberately cause frequent flash crashes in the BTC valuation that discredits its use as money. I know that BTC's founders state that all of the aforementioned are nearly impossible to accomplish, but I sincerely believe that nothing is ever impossible. Extremely difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. BTC has already suffered a couple of flash crashes due to its digital nature. Yes, I am aware that governments could choose to come after not only BTC owners but all physical gold and silver owners as all pro-BTC, anti-gold people state. However, since probably over 90% of gold and silver owners are also gun owners, I believe it would be more difficult for bankers to send cops, soldiers, etc into people’s homes to steal their physical gold and silver without suffering major casualties versus finding some way to confiscate digital bytes of air. Again, confiscating digital money and physical assets are both possible, but the mechanism for confiscation of something that is digital will always be easier than confiscating something in someone’s physical possession.

So let’s now look at why I believe that gold and silver are superior to BTCs as sound money. It is absolutely a lie propagated by bankers that deflation leads to recession and no economic growth. Bankers hate deflation because people’s wealth grows under deflation and they lose control over the people as the people’s wealth grows. This is the number one reason why we have had continuous inflation in every country after private banking families and cartels established a unified system of control, otherwise known as the Central Banking system. During the 1800s in the US, there was steady consistent economic growth for nearly an entire century in which deflation persisted for most of this time. The only reason the price index was nearly the same in the early 1900s as it was in the early 1800s, despite this prolonged period of consistent deflation and economic growth, was the massive inflation and economic instability that accompanied the abandonment of the gold standard during the Civil War. Though people may love a scenario in which their money’s purchasing power increases sharply over time, continued steep deflation over long periods of time is not a desirable quality for sound money as such a scenario will eventually lead to a period of steep inflation. I believe that sound money should exhibit price stability over time. Price stability over extended periods of time is a necessary quality for money to possess to grant people confidence in being able to assess and plan for the longevity of their savings. For example, because bankers have destroyed the purchasing power of the Euro, the Pound Sterling, the USD in recent decades, 75-year old retirees that thought their savings were adequate to last the rest of their lives are now seeking employment again (Just read this article "The Greatest Retirement Crisis In American History" in which millions of elderly Americans are described as "too frail to work, too poor to retire"). Since one gold coin could buy you about the equivalent amount of goods today as it could several thousand years ago during the Roman empire, we already know that gold exhibits price stability over a huge duration of time.

BTCs' common trait with all fiat currencies ultimately precludes it from ever serving as sound money. BTCs have zero intrinsic worth as it is a 100% digital currency backed by nothing but air. On BTC’s own website, the founders of BTC state the BTCs have value “because they are scarce.”While true, scarcity is only one of many fundamental traits that all sound money must possess, including durability, being easily divisible, consistency, and having intrinsic value. BTCs are easily divisible, even more so than gold, are consistent, but unfortunately lack durability (as they are backed by air) and intrinsic value. In my opinion, the most significant characteristic of all the prerequisites of sound money, and the one most vital to protecting the interests of the people that own this form of money, is the possession of intrinsic value. Though a BTC’s valuation originates primarily from its scarcity, divisibility and growing acceptance, it is still a digital currency backed by the commodity of air, and this presents a huge problem for BTCs serving as a stable store of value over long periods of time. Of course, since BTCs have only been in existence for a little over four years, we do not have a large enough sample at the present time to fully understand how BTCs will serve as a store of value over time. However, bitcoins’ founders admit that BTCs are “vulnerable to price manipulation. It doesn't take significant amounts of money to move the market price up or down and thus bitcoin remains a volatile asset.” Gold and silver owners also realize that gold and silver prices are vulnerable to immense price manipulation as well, as we have seen over the past decade, so vulnerability to price manipulation alone does not exclude a money from qualifying as sound money.

The billion dollar question (inflated from the standard million dollar question, which is now not worth nearly as much today), is the “escapability” factor from price manipulation.

And this is where intrinsic value comes into play. Currently, millions upon millions of paper ounces of gold and silver backed by nothing but air are sold into the market by large players like HSBC, JP Morgan, Scottia Mocatta, et al for the sole purpose of suppressing the price and introducing volatility into the price. People that don’t understand this banker manipulation will be shocked in the future when gold moves higher by several hundred dollars an ounce and silver by five dollars an ounce in a single day. These immoral bankers have wreaked havoc on the price stability of gold and silver as bankers have committed reverse alchemy and have turned hard assets into air through their invention of paper derivative products that have fooled the masses into believing they are as good as physical when clearly they are not. However, as REAL PHYSICAL demand for gold and silver keeps increasing and REAL PHYSICAL supplies of gold and silver simultaneously keeps dwindling, the reality of the physical markets will eventually trump the banker shenanigans in the paper markets and eventually lead to the collapse of gold and silver futures contracts in New York and London. The fact that people can opt out of these “fake” gold and silver markets by purchasing the hard assets of physical gold and silver will eventually trump all the scams bankers have executed to manipulate gold and silver prices.

However, with BTCs, demand and supply for air/digital bytes provide no manipulation “escapability” for BTCs. In the event that BTCs are not manipulated but banker-controlled governments resort to shutting down BTCs or threatening jail time for anyone caught making transactions with BTCs, then one can escape to another country and use BTCs. Bankers can of course, resort to the same threats with those holding gold and silver. However, nearly every informed gold and silver owner also holds physical gold/silver outside of their country of residence. Since physical gold and silver are universally accepted as money in all 193 countries in this world, gold and silver not only provide better “escapability” from manipulation but also from banker confiscation. 

I have mentioned that price stability is necessary for a commodity to be determined to be sound money. However, once the physical gold and silver markets escape the bankers’ manipulation throes, we are likely to not see very much stability but huge volatile swings in price with the direction of these swings, both up and down, eventually bringing forth much higher prices. However, this temporary instability will only exist because there has never been a free market price for gold and silver since any of us have been alive. Once gold and silver prices are no longer suppressed by bankers and allowed to settle into a free-market price, then mild, instead of massive, volatility would become the norm and perhaps like the bulk of the period between 1800 and 1900 we would experience a steady slow period of mild deflation and relative price stability.

A medium of money that has intrinsic value is ALWAYS better than money that lacks intrinsic value because it allows the owner of that money to punish the creators of that money should they ever commit fraud.

If those in control of the gold standard commit fraud by creating more money without buying the gold to back the creation of additional money, this fraud will always be evident through inflation of the currency, and the loss of purchasing power. When people note this, under a gold standard, people bring their devalued notes to bankers and convert them into gold at a higher rate than the true valuation of the notes. Consequently, bankers are forced to return an asset of intrinsic value, gold, to the people, while they receive devalued and counterfeited notes in return. Yes, money with intrinsic value allows the people to have power over the bankers and call their bluff. History has proven this point. People called the bankers’ bluff and demanded gold for their devalued notes with the gold-backed Pound Sterling after WWI and again, with the gold-backed USD in the early 1970s, even though neither system used an ideal 100% fully gold-backed currency. So even a pseudo-gold standard allows people to call a banker’s bluff.

The problem with all fiat currency in widespread use today all over the world is that all fiat currencies have zero intrinsic valuation. Thus under this current fraudulent fiat monetary system, one cannot call the bluff of the bankers when they commit the fraud. Since all fiat money has an intrinsic value of zero, all one can do is trade one currency backed by air for another currency backed by air. This is a huge inherent problem with BTCs as well, as the founders of BTCs state that they have “no inherent value.” In conclusion, BTCs are great as a medium of exchange in the short-term, and still far better than fiat money for purchasing power. Thus they should be used as such but viewed with skepticism in being able to provide a stable store of value over extended periods of time due to the limitations I have discussed in this article. If you want to buy money to pass on to your children, you should definitely be buying physical gold and physical silver and not BTCs. BTCs are great for use as money in every positive capacity that I outlined in this article, but they undeniably have flaws that preclude their use as sound money that gold and silver do not have. Am I saying BTCs don't have any utility? Of course not. Just re-read the beginning of this article again where I discussed why BTCs are much better than all fiat currencies. But please understand what BTCs are, and what they are not. In the end, I support the continued existence of BTCs as a competitive form of currency, even if the world eventually defeats our current immoral fractional reserve banking system and returns to sound money 100% backed by gold. In the end, whatever form of money proves to contribute to price stability and serves as a store of value over time the best will be the one that comes out on top. For this very reason, competition, even when it applies to money, is beneficial to the people. Bitcoins versus gold (and silver) is much like the parable of the tortoise versus the hare. Gold has proven itself to be a steady reliable tortoise over thousands of years. Thus far BTCs have proven themselves to be the hare up to this point. In the end, if we let the people decide what is the best form of money in a competitive monetary environment, I am quite sure that gold and silver would come out of the battle as the victors. Stay tuned next week for Part II.

About the author: JS Kim is the Founder & Managing Director of SmartKnowledgeU, a fiercely independent research & consulting firm with a mission of helping Main Street avoid the deceit and chicanery of Wall Street and of triggering a wave of global economic freedom only possible through one pathway - the end of all global fiat currency and a return to sound money.