"The Secret Of Oz" - The Truth Behind The Modern Financial System,... (Free link to movie)

Zero Hedge ^ | 11/14/10 | Tyler Durden

[Daisyjane69]

While America is entertained by a rather realistic cartoon of what happens when the Fed (semantics aside) prints money with which to buy up whatever assets it so chooses, and launders the cash for the Primary Dealers (a topic discussed ad nauseam on Zero Hedge), we present a rather more somber and serious look at the modern financial system, courtesy of Bill Still, creator of the movie: "The Secret of Oz" which explains in a far more nuanced manner the interconnectedness in the vicious square of power, politics, money creation and debt formation, and Wall Street, the Fed, and the Political forces in DC are intertwined to a degree that essentially makes the whole concept of democracy moot (a topic touched upon earlier by Bill Buckler). As Still says: "The world economy is doomed to spiral downwards until we do 2 things: outlaw government borrowing; 2. outlaw fractional reserve lending. Banks should only be allowed to lend out money they actually have and nations do not have to run up a "National Debt". Remember: It's not what backs the money, it's who controls its quantity." As more and more Americans are finally expressing an interest in what is really happening behind the scenes, but seem to not have the patience for simple algebra, we hope the following movie answers most of the pent up questions.

[Daisyjane69]

I didn't realize this movie was finally available online on You Tube. I'd looked for it many times before, without success, but it's out there now.

[screaminsunshine]

Maybe America will wake up in time to stop the New World Order from taking complete control of us. At least we can put up a fight.

[preacher]

“It’s not what backs the money, it’s who controls its quantity.”

The problem with the system as advocated in the movie is that enentually a Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, or Ben Bernanke will get controll of the printing press.

[Rumplemeyer]

Save

[DeaconBenjamin]

The history presented is a joke. The conflation of centuries of Roman and English economic history into a single cause and effect is ridiculous.

I did not watch long enough to see the discussion of Benjamin Franklin's view of paper money, but colonial Pennsylvania's experience with the issuance of paper money was far from universal -- which is why the fight to prohibit paper money was led by delegates from New England and New York. The disastrous paper money issuances from colonial Massachusetts created a hostile view of unbacked paper money for nearly a century afterward, which is why in the various early 19th century panics, Boston banks did not suspend payment of specie.

[Whenifhow]

FYI

[Daisyjane69]

I haven’t watched it yet. But I’d always heard it was interesting.

Glad to read your remarks, I’ll keep them in mind as I watch it.

[phockthis]

sfl

[SatinDoll]

I found aspects of Still’s historical accounts questionable.

The monarchs of Europe couldn’t fight their wars without being able to pay their armies. In the middle ages, for example during the time of King Henry I of England as mentioned in the video, the barons and soldiers would only accept their payments in gold, silver, or land.

Using money sticks to keep accounts was clever and would work for internal money accounting — one yeoman traded three chickens for two cords of split wood, for example — but when it comes to a higher form or enterprise a wood stick will not suffice.

England was the source for sheep’s wool in northern Europe, and supplied the looms of Flanders which produced the finest woolens in Europe (this was true until the much finer Merino wool from Spain became available). It was impossible to conduct business using sticks in such instances of cross national commerce. Gold was the standard.

Since Christians were unable by Church law to lend money, Jews established the first banks in order to lend money. (Right there you have a primary reason Jews were hated in Europe!) Goldsmiths, jewelers, and money lenders were usually Jews and the few who had enough money to lend to Kings, either to fight wars and cover debts during shortfalls in taxation.

[Betis70]

bookmark

[Quix]

THX THX

[DeaconBenjamin]

Since Christians were unable by Church law to lend money, Jews established the first banks in order to lend money. (Right there you have a primary reason Jews were hated in Europe!) Goldsmiths, jewelers, and money lenders were usually Jews and the few who had enough money to lend to Kings, either to fight wars and cover debts during shortfalls in taxation.

Then, when Edward I of England forced the Jews to emigrate, banking was taken over by Northern Italians ("Lombards"). IIRC, Edward III repudiated his debts, and the Italian banks were hit hard.