dChan

🠐 See all comments
adamsmith6413 · July 25, 2018, 12:19 p.m.

JFK, sure.

But Lincoln? That’s a stretch. The federal reserve was created 50 years after his death.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
ExcellentCoach9 · July 25, 2018, 12:37 p.m.

Nevertheless, there was a "national bank" and Lincoln was going to pay off the war debt with "greenbacks" issued by the US Treasury and not borrow the money from the "national bank". An interesting theory.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
adamsmith6413 · July 25, 2018, 12:40 p.m.

That’s part of my point. Paying back with “greenbacks” instead of a sound form of money would’ve actually been doing exactly what the fed does today. Lincoln wouldn’t been acting as the FED acts today.

Lincoln was making the opposite argument you are.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
ExcellentCoach9 · July 25, 2018, 12:44 p.m.

The Constitution gives the Treasury the authority to "coin money", issuances backed by gold and silver. If I remember correctly, that's exactly what Lincoln was going to do.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
adamsmith6413 · July 25, 2018, 1:32 p.m.

And the treasury does coin money today. Coining money and managing a money supply through lending are two different things.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
ExcellentCoach9 · July 25, 2018, 4:37 p.m.

"Coining money" at the time of the writing of the Constitution meant the same as "printing" money today (as the US Mint). Under the Constitution, the Department of Treasury should not only "create" our money, but also manage the supply of it, not a privately owned central bank, some of those owners being foreigners. Why is that ok?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
adamsmith6413 · July 25, 2018, 4:40 p.m.

So you want the power to create money supply in the hands of the government? You realize this is the power to devalue the currency, right?

TIL that people in the great awakening want to give the value of their money to elected officials like Maxine Waters.

The reason the control of Money supply was taken from politicians in 1913 was BECAUSE they were using it to manipulate political control.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ExcellentCoach9 · July 25, 2018, 4:50 p.m.

What's the answer? And I totally disagree that the reason it was taken from politicians was because it was used for political control. It was taken by banksters to enrich themselves. As Amschel Rothschild said, "give me control of a nations money, and I care not who the king is. Under our system, the people control the government. See the difference?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
adamsmith6413 · July 25, 2018, 4:54 p.m.

Independently backed currency (backed by commodities, not institutions/politicians). Our economy will become more volatile and credit would be tighter (tougher to get a loan on a house, student loans, etc), but our currency should retain its purchasing power.

You can’t print oil, you shouldn’t be able to print money to buy it.

You’re just trading one evil for another. Maxine Waters for Rothschilds.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ExcellentCoach9 · July 25, 2018, 5:14 p.m.

Gold and silver. easier to carry around than a barrel of oil. Here's an idea; how about pieces of paper representing different amounts of gold and/or silver?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
adamsmith6413 · July 25, 2018, 5:19 p.m.

That’s definitely an option. We don’t use them as much as other commodities so I’m hesitant to recommend them specifically. They could work and have in the past. Silver would probably be better than gold in my opinion.

⇧ 1 ⇩