Firstly, I apologise for the grammatical abomination in my previous post, It occurred because I only half way changed:

"If you incapable of grasping the meaning of these words (and the above-cited Hazard Circular) from the mouths of the private bankers themselves, I expect that other forum users, ... are."

... to the less verbose:

"If you cannot grasp the meaning of these words (and the above-cited Hazard Circular) from the mouths of the private bankers themselves, I expect that other forum users, ... can."

---

Yabby wrote, "so now I should get my knickers in a twist because of what some American banker said in 1863?"

Firstly, Yabby, I was refuting Pericles' claim that Lincoln's policy of printing Greenbacks (US$400,000,000 in all by the end of the war), rather than borrowing an equivalent amount of money conjured up out of nothing by bankers, was a failure.

The quote from the bankers themselves shows conclusively that they understood that the 'tried-and-tested' system that was reintroduced into America by the National Banking Act of 1863 was not in the interests of ordinary Americans.

I would suggest that the mindset of bankers in those days differs little from the mindset of bankers today.

This would appear to be confirmed by the experience of the "Yes Men". They attempted to parody the bankers and other profiteers, but ultimately failed.

They found that they were taken as genuine by those they were attempting to parody on their web site and were actually invited to address business conventions.

At the conventions they attended they failed in their endeavours to get thrown out. No matter how extreme and outrageous was their parody, they were assumed to be genuine and warmly applauded by their audiences.

Check out this video where they explain how today's system of exploiting abysmally paid third world labour is cheaper and more profitable than slavery: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5206347030584294754

If you check out these and other "Yes Men" videos and their web site at http://www.theyesmen.org/ and read their book, you will see that quotes of the 19th century are just as applicable today.

I think that it is entirely appropriate, dagget, that you enlist the support of a group of US satirists to support your views on the finance industry.

>>Check out this video where [the Yes Men] explain how today's system of exploiting abysmally paid third world labour is cheaper and more profitable than slavery<<

And they're not even as accomplished - or even remotely as funny - as The Chaser.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Pericles, it's beside the point, whether you or I subjectively judge the "Yes Men" to be 'funny' or not.

They attended a succession of business conventions and presented views that any thinking, decent and compassionate human being would have found repugnant and found that, instead of being rebuked and thrown out, they were applauded.

The presentation in the above film occurred because someone organising the the "Textiles of the Future" conference in Tampere, Finland in August 2001, took as serious the parody website http:/gatt.org and invited them to give a keynote address.

At the same presentation (it would seem, see http://www.rtmark.com/yesfinland.html):

'Finally, to applause from the highly educated audience, Unruh's business suit was ripped off to reveal a golden leotard with a three-foot-long phallus. The purpose of the "Management Leisure Suit", he explained, was to allow managers, no matter where they were, to monitor their distant, impoverished workforces and to administer shocks to encourage productivity--assuring that no "Gandhi-type situation" develop again.

'"If a group of Ph.D.s cheers at such crudely crazy things, just because it's the WTO saying them, what else can the WTO get away with?" said Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men, the impostors' umbrella group.' (see also http://www.theyesmen.org/hijinks/tampere)

---

That all seems real enough to me.

Anyhow, returning to what, at least, Pericles agrees is part of the 'real world'.

The memorandum cited above, together with other material including Jerome Daly's cross-examination of Ronald Graham, Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, is included in the document "What the banks don't want you to know" at http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol14/research/bank-secrets.shtml.

You will find that Ronald Graham confirms everything stated by myself, Grim, Fickle and one under god.

---

In regard to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, an article in the "American Mercury" magazine in 1924 quotes Woodrow Wilson as having saying "I have unwittingly ruined my country" (cited also in Brown, p123). Given the Great Depression and the situation of 2009 where all credible authorities agree that the debt to the Federal Reserve is unrepayable, this would seem to be right.

This speaks for itself, daggett.

>>'Finally, to applause from the highly educated audience, Unruh's business suit was ripped off to reveal a golden leotard with a three-foot-long phallus.'<<

These are merely the antics of a US version of Elliot Goblet.

>>That all seems real enough to me.<<

Yep, I can see that it does.

>>You will find that Ronald Graham confirms everything stated by myself, Grim, Fickle and one under god.<<

This is why I mentioned 9/11 earlier, daggett.

You are hooked on conspiracy theories.

You invariably produce "evidence" from sites with the same bent as yourself - this, entitled beguilingly "Hidden Mysteries", being a classic example.

Having said that, I genuinely enjoyed reading through the piece you highlighted for us here, even though the court case is fortyone years old.

It provided me with some insight into how, by simply assuming that "they're out to get you", it is possible to manufacture a case of such magnificent improbability, that its very impenetrability becomes its most convincing asset.

How else can you believe that the 1968 findings of a Scott County, Minn. Court proves that the entire Banking system is invalid?

The cross-examination reads like the Chewbacca Defense in the South Park parody where Chef is on trial.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454

And you do like parodies, daggett, we have ascertained that already.

There's little point proclaiming that "it has never been overturned". More significantly, it has never been used in front of a different judge.

Come to think of it, no-one ever used it again in the same courtroom.

There are only limited number of times you can get a court to assist you in fraud.

I'm afraid your other current heroine, Ellen Brown, is also a little suspect.

Here's her first-up "solution" to the current US financial problems.

>>The federal government could issue credit through its own lending facility, leveraging "reserves" into many times their face value in loans just as banks do now.<<

http://model-economy.wikispaces.com/E+Brown+monetary+proposal

She proposes the same medicine, but from a different bottle.

But why trust government to do it better?

After all, they authorized 9/11, didn't they?

Pericles wrote, "This speaks for itself, daggett. ... (blah, blah, rant, blah, rant, ...)"

It seems as if my point has gone right over your head.

---

Pericles, wrote, "You invariably produce 'evidence' from sites with the same bent as yourself."

Pericles, the film footage that forms the basis of those YouTube broadcasts is the same film footage that was captured on the day and has been viewed again and again by hundreds of millions of people.

What they have done is, by measuring the speed and acceleration of the 'collapses' at a number of short intervals, shown that the official explanation of those 'collapses' contradicts Newton's laws of motion.

If you understand year 10 physics and you are right, then you should be able to show that what is said in those videos is wrong.

---

Pericles wrote, "But why trust government to do it better?"

"After all, they authorized 9/11, didn't they?"

That seems to me like a non-sequitur.

I would suggest there's a world of difference between a government which serves the interests of ordinary citizens and the criminal cabal that ruled the US from early 2001 until early 2009.

If you had followed the debate properly, Pericles, you would understand that those of us who favour government, rather than private unaccountable banks, assuming the right to create money, have acknowledged that, on occasions, governments can get it wrong.

In a democracy, a remedy for that is available. We can throw such a government out at the next election.

And if we have the right to recall unsatisfactory elected officials and if the decision-making is more transparent, then we could remedy the problem even sooner.

---

Pericles wrote, "The cross-examination reads like the Chewbacca Defense ...."

Here's some of the cross-examination:

Q. Now, the Federal Reserve Bank actually creates credit on its books, does it not?

A. The only way in which it creates credit is by its discount policy, in which it may credit, by making a temporary loan and credit the reserve account of that individual bank.

(tobecontinued)

This "debate" has gone off the tracks. The title of the article was "Money from nothing: supplying money should be a public service".

Pericles argues that credit money is NOT money from nothing but is money backed by assets and the money "goes away" when it is repaid and if it does repaid then the bank repays it from their reserves - hence there was no real money (by which he means fiat money) created.

Daggert and I and others say that because the bookkeeping says the money goes away is immaterial. Credit money creates money because there clearly is more money in the system before the money is repaid. The distinction between fiat and credit money is a bookkeeping exercise and not substantive.

I argue that we can eliminate the need for credit money and use fiat money provided there is enough fiat money available for loans. Alternatively we can get the same effect by banks issuing zero interest loans as long as the zero interest loans are for productive community infrastructure - such as ways of producing energy that does not emit greenhouse gases

The banks should be allowed to "write off" the zero interest loans and not write off from their reserves if the loans are not repaid.

This approach will satisfy the author of the original article because the increase in the money supply will be created in general areas of the public good. Pericles will be happy because the existing money system remains intact with a market place still doing the allocation of investment funds to the best advantage.

So perhaps everyone can take a look at what I am proposing and if it is OK help me in trying to sell the idea to both banks and government.