14 October, 2008

STEELE: Why Do You Think They Call It Fiat Money, Anyway?

Posted by Socrates in economics, economy, Edgar Steele, money, Socrates at 7:22 pm | Permanent Link

by Edgar J. Steele.

“I’m getting a lot of emails from list members wanting market updates; wanting to know what to do in the face of the momentous events now taking place internationally. At the risk of sounding trite, I’ve said it all before: get out of dollar-denominated assets and into physical silver and gold. Preferably silver, because I foresee the government confiscating gold once again.”

The rest is [Here].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 03/18/07 STEELE: Like a Rock 44% similar
  3. 02/28/07 STEELE: I Love the Smell of Stock Markets in Mourning 40% similar
  4. 11/23/06 STEELE: Are We There Yet? 40% similar
  5. 04/20/07 STEELE: So Much for Business as Usual 36% similar
  6. 06/06/09 Liberty Dollar Drama 29% similar
  7. 33 Responses to “STEELE: Why Do You Think They Call It Fiat Money, Anyway?”

    1. Old_Dutch Says:

      Most of the bailout crisis cabal are either lawyers, or graduates of big name schools. When the penalty phase of the bailout crisis starts, if it ever does, will these over-educated lawyers, MBAs, and other financial geniuses, plead ignorance or stupidity.

      I think Steele is selling snake oil too. In some ways he’s no better than the greasy ivy league educated jews on Wall Street. LOL.

    2. Howdy Doody Says:

      How so ?

    3. Tina Carter Says:

      I have to agree with you Dutch. The easy way to check if a white person is on our side or jewish is by asking him one question. Who controls media, and entertainment industry.

      On more then one occasion I asked Mr. Steele if he’d write an article about Jewish control of media. He was back-fliping on that issue. I think it’s safe to say that Dr. William Pierce was the best leader our movement ever had, he NEVER back down with them. He always remined everyone who control our way of life and though what means.

      Todays’ society is not controll by Pope, or even by government. Our society is run by media & entertainment industry. 99% of the people do what they b/c they see it on media, read it on newspaper.

      Mr. Steele refuse to talk about this issue. Also these days he has not written any article exposing Jews. Compare that with Dr. William Pierce, he’d write an article every week or so exposing Jewish for to see. Also, he idea that we should go out and vote — that’s as stupid as you are going to get. VOTING DOESN’T SOVLE OUR PROBLEM. DEMOCRACY IS DESTORYING OUR RACE!!!!!!!

    4. Olde Douche Sucks Says:

      Ed Steele begins his rant by quoting Sheldon Emry to bolster his anti-fiat argument but never mentions the fact that Emry advocated a fiat-type money system.

      In his book, Billions for the Bankers Debts for the People, Sheldon Emry correctly identified usury as being the real root of our nation’s financial woes and shredded the idea that fiat money was to blame.

      The fiat money thing is merely a distraction.

      But it’s much easier to blather on about gold and silver than it is to explain how the usurers have sabotaged our nation’s economy, isn’t it Ed?

    5. Zarathustra Says:

      You’re right again, Olde Douche. Well stated.

      The problem with Dr. Pierce was that he created a leader-oriented organization, one that was not designed to outlive him. When he died, the National Allieance died with him. No more Cult of Personalities, please. We need a White Power movement that is about doing, not following. Thank you.

    6. Silversurfer Says:

      Money is always money through a fiat. The only interesting question is, which group is allowed to enact such a fiat. I would not have a problem, if a benevolent group would own the fed.

      I have to correct Olde douch in one point. Some kind of ursury is actually needed in order to motivate the people, who have aquired money to circulate it. Otherwise the economy would come to a stillstand.

      Sorry for my bad English.

    7. Olde Douche Sucks Says:

      Some kind of ursury [sic] is actually needed in order to motivate the people, who have aquired [sic] money to circulate it.

      Usurers are parasites.

      What we really need is a publicly owned usury-free banking system.

    8. Silversurfer Says:

      “What we really need is a publicly owned usury-free banking system”.

      You haven´t responded to my argument. Instead you have chosen to parrot mindless slogans. An economy needs the fast circulation of money. People won´t lend their money for free, because they take a risk when they do so.

      You can of course abolish private property, or at least private industry. But communistic economies don´t work either, because people are not motivated enough to work.

      Even the Nazis, who liked to blame the money system for Germany´s ills weren´t able to change the system. Hey, they even took over Hjalmar Schacht as the strong man of their economy, who was in the same position in Weimar.

      Ok, the Nazis changed a few things (Mefo, banter trade with foreign country etc.), but they had not abolished usury, which is not our problem.

      I think the problem is not the money system (of course there are problems, but in every system there are problems). Our problem is, that the money system is owned by a malevolent group (the jews, of course), who has an sadistic attitude toward us.

    9. Silversurfer Says:

      By the way, it is always a cheap polemic to say that the people, who direct the economy, are parasites, because they don´t work with their hands (the funny thing is, that the people who use that polemic don´t work with their hands either). The economy needs direction by specialists. I admit that it would be better when the specialists would be motivated by benevolence not by greed, but I am not that opitmistic that such an ideal is very realistic.

      Steele, the old buffon, is clearly wrong when he blame fiat money. Even silver coins were money through a fiat by the governments. But even the blaming usury is not so easy as it might appear.

    10. Silversurfer Says:

      By the way, it is always a cheap polemic to say that the people, who direct the economy, are parasites, because they don´t work with their hands (the funny thing is, that the people who use that polemic don´t work with their hands either). The economy needs direction by specialists. I admit that it would be better when the specialists would be motivated by benevolence not by greed, but I am not that opitmistic that such an ideal is very realistic.

      Steele is clearly wrong when he blame fiat

    11. Olde Douche Sucks Says:

      Instead you have chosen to parrot mindless slogans.

      You mean mindless slogans like “communistic economies don’t work”?

      You’re obviously new to this site and, unfortunately, you’re speaking in fractured English which makes it difficult to understand you.

      I’ve already discussed all the things you mentioned in your post on other threads and I really don’t feel like rehashing stuff I’ve already commented on, so why don’t you check out VNN’s archives and update yourself, okay?

    12. Zarathustra Says:

      If all the Jews could be instantly removed from all positions of authority in the financial system, you can bet your ass that their places would be instantly taken by greedy, son of a bitch White Capitalists who care no more for other Whites than the Jews did. I’m no financial expert, but it seems to me that all this Wall Street/Central Bank crap has got to go. Anything reminiscent of how the Jews ran things would have to be destroyed.

    13. Silversurfer Says:

      @Zarathustra

      Although I can understand your fear, I think it is baseless, when you get your priorities right. First we would have to win a power struggle with the jews. And because the jews have so much power now, we would need real good white men to win that fight (i admit my fantasy leaves me at this point). And when these white men would take over our financial system and reform it (not abolish it), it would work better. This more or less was the case in Nazi Germany.

      I think all whining about fiat money and usury is not logical, because the alternatives are not there. And in the end this armchair financial philosophy is contra-productive, because it disturbs our priorities. We must first gain power.

      Precious metals advocates like Steele and Ron Paul are a distraction, not a solution. Why advokate gold as “real money” (instead of cattle or something else) when you have no gold? The jews own the greatest part of the gold and the mining industry. Steele is a fraud, when he never mentions this fact and tries to lure white men in investing in those things.

      First we must win. Then we can reform the money system. Economic slogans don´t help us. I don´t see any alternative to fiat money and usury.

    14. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      Free Banking FAQ
      © 2003, 2004, 2005 by Daniel Ust. All Rights Reserved.

      (Non-government money; competing moneys!)

      “Since this is often a topic of discussion on many lists I participate in, I’ve decided to put together a FAQ on the subject. This is by no means the last word on the subject. I hope those interesting in free banking will read some of the works listed below. (Don’t start with the Cohen book! It’s a bit technical and focuses, as you might guess, on Ancient Athens. In my opinion, the best places to start are Dowd 1993 and Selgin 1988.)

      What is free banking?

      Free banking – also known as laissez-faire banking and fractional reserve free banking – is banking under free market conditions, where governments do not regulate or control the money supply or banking over and above laws against force and fraud. I.e., there are no special laws governing banking, currency, note issues, and the like.

      Current banking systems are mostly central bank systems where a government run bank sets interest rates and reserve requirements. This system is also imbedded in a host of other specific regulations on banking, from portfolio requirements (what a bank can invest in) to minimum capitalization limits (the total assets a bank must have to operate legally), from limits on branching and mergers to legal tender laws (laws specifying what is acceptable as money), and a host of other regulations. These vary from country to country and in certain countries from region to region. (In the US, banking laws vary from state to state.) There are other extant alternatives to central banking – such as currency boards and just plain old heavily regulated systems – but there currently exists no free banking system on the planet.”

      http://mars.superlink.net/~neptune/BankFAQ.html

    15. Olde Douche Sucks Says:

      If all the Jews could be instantly removed from all positions of authority in the financial system, you can bet your ass that their places would be instantly taken by greedy, son of a bitch White Capitalists who care no more for other Whites than the Jews did.

      Yes, exactly.

      Driving a stake through the heart of the jew vampire isn’t enough.

      We must also drive a stake through the heart of the jewntiles who seek to replace him.

      The best way to do this is to nationalize the banking or “financial services” industry which currently serves as the nexus of their usury-fueled global empire.

    16. Silversurfer Says:

      “The best way to do this is to nationalize the banking or “financial services” industry which currently serves as the nexus of their usury-fueled global empire.”

      To get your thinking right, you must realize that nationalization of the banks and abolishment of usury are two different things. Nationalized banks won´t give you money for free, because they take a risk in doing so. So the abolishment of usury is an illusion. And don´t think of the Islamic banks as a counter-examplex. The difference between our system and the islamic system is mainly a semantic one. What we call “interest”, they call “fee”.

      I hope my English was good enough to make me understood. Otherwise: Never mind.

    17. Socrates Says:

      Silversurfer Says: “Nationalized banks won´t give you money for free, because they take a risk in doing so. So the abolishment of usury is an illusion.”

      I disagree. State banks, using real U.S. Treasury dollars, could operate via taxpayer funds merely as a public service. (Maybe a small fee could be charged to help pay for the paperwork).

    18. Olde Douche Sucks Says:

      Nationalized banks won’t give you money for free, because they take a risk in doing so.

      “Money for free”?

      Jesus Christ.

      Another dim bulb like Olde Douche.

      Except this one is barely intelligible.

    19. Silversurfer Says:

      Hello Socrates,

      you wrote: “Maybe a small fee could be charged to help pay for the paperwork.”

      I respond: The “small fee” would have to cover all failed enterprises, wouldn´t it? So I doubt the fee would be small. Otherwise the taxpayer would have to finance the banks. That is a possibility, but I doubt that it would work out in the long-run, because the bankers would act irresponsibly when the taxpayers would cover their wrong decisions. It would be a permanent bailout.

      Don´t get me wrong. I don´t want to defend the status quo, which is of course not desirable. I only want to stress that usury is not bad per se. It is a powerful tool, that has unfortunately always been in the hand of our mortal enemies, who have used it for our enslavement. It goes back to Babylon as Astle pointed out in his book “Babylonian woe”. Every civilisation ever since was storngly influenced at least, perhaps even secretly controlled by the jews. We tend to associate usury with our misery like Pawlov´s dog. But usury solves a problem which must be solved in a civilisation (barter societies are not desirable, although they have their advocates in the `movement´). Usury motivates the people who have gained money to circulate it. Without circulation the economy of a civilisation collapses very fast. So far I haven´t seen a solution to the problem apart from usery. In the hand of responsable white men usery could work out in a beneficial way. And there don´t have to be the boom and bust cycles, which we have in our current system.

      Another point I wish to make is the following: All those whining about fiat money and usery is contra-productive when it is a distraction from our real problem, namely our enslavement by a malevolent group. White men love discussions about abstract principles. I ask myself wheter this is a sign of cowardice. They don´t have the guts to name the jews, so they name fiat money or usery. Even people who name the jew tend to get entagled in those discussions and normally don´t even get the logic of their argument right.

      As I stressed above. First we would have to win a power struggle. The we could discuss economics.

      Best wishes.

    20. Silversurfer Says:

      Old Douche, everyone can see that you have no arguments, so all you can offer is cheap shots. Shame on you, you silly troll.

    21. Zarathustra Says:

      In an ideal White homeland, I think the banks, the power companies and the oil companies would all have to be nationalized to make sure that no greedy, scheming speculators or other private interests hostile to the welfare of the White Race could take us over again. Never mind all that laissez-faire, free-market crap. Those are manifestations of “Jewthink”.

    22. Olde Douche Sucks Says:

      …everyone can see that you have no arguments…

      If you want arguments why don’t you do what I said and check out VNN’s archives, huh?

      http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?cat=524

      Probably because you’re a troll yourself.

    23. Z.O.G. Says:

      Silversurfer,

      Did you know that our entire money supply is created by commercial banks? I’ll bet that you didn’t know that.

      Please explain to us why private corporations called “commercial banks” should create our money? Why shouldn’t our money be created by the national government? Did you know that all national sovereign governments have the right to create money? Then why should national sovereign governments give away the right to create money to private corporations called “commercial banks”? Why should national government give a legal privilege to private corporations called “commercial banks” to create our money out of thin air when the national governments can just do that themselves and bypass the commercial bank Jewish middlemen? Can you answer those questions?

    24. Z.O.G. Says:

      Silversurfer,

      Do you understand how the charging of interest on loaned money is a scam? Did you know that it is a form of contract fraud? If you do not understand this, then please watch this educational and entertaining video of Eddie Rothschild the pig explaining how the charging of interest on loaned money is a trick. You will learn a great deal from this very short video.

      Swindling the Goyim
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2kfUNo4_r8

    25. Z.O.G. Says:

      What Socrates wrote is exactly correct. Government run banks issuing the money supply(currency) is a model which was used with great success by the American colonies during the 18th century and is what was partly responsible for the explosive economic growth in the colonies during that period.

    26. Zarathustra Says:

      ZOG, are you talking about the Bank of the United States, the very same Bank whose Charter President Jackson heroically refused to renew?

    27. Silversurfer Says:

      Hi Z.O.G.!

      Ok, my English is bad, since I am from Europe, but I am not that uneducated, as you assume. I know that our money by and large is created by private banks through loans to the government. But the subtleties of fractional reserve banking were not the subject of our discussion. The subject was, whether usury is always bad. I contended that statement by @Old Douche and so far I haven´t receiveded convincing arguments that show that usury is bad per se. You saíd that charging interest is a “scam”. But I can´t understand why. The banker takes a risk, namely the risk, that the loaner doen´t gives him the money back, because his enterprise fails. Nobody with the will to survive would lend his money without interest or a big fee. Whether the bank is private or public makes no big difference (ok, there are some differences, but their discussion would complicate my argument to the point of complete confusion, so I didn´t mention them). And so there would no circulation of money without usery. And so there would be no higher civilisation. When the interest rate is moderate, I would assume that usury isn´t a bad thing. And so I can´t see why white nationalists shouldn´t use this instrument, when they would have the power to install a money system according to their wishes (ok, that´s pure fantasy at this point, since I haven´t seen a convincing strategy to get the power so far and our time is running out, as you probably know).

      Then you said, that I would claim private banks should be in the position to create money. I never claimed that. In fact I personally would prefer nationalized banks, but this was not the subject of our discussion. And I might add, that nationalized banks are not good per se. As far as I unstand it, the SU had nationalized banks, but you wouldn´t call it a paradise for the white man, would you? And as far as I understand the intenational trends in finance, more intermingling beetween the private banks and the government is on the way, as was not only shown by the “bailout” in the last weaks. I wouldn´t be suprised when Obama would walk in the footsteps of FDR´s “New Deal” and install some sort of communism with nationalized banks. But this perspective, which is quite similar here in Europe doesn´t make me happy. As I said above: The all important question is not which is the structure of the financial system but which is the group with its innate moral and aesthetic instincts, which controls the systems. (And btw., there will always be a ruling class and a working class, you might call it a “scam”, but it is a necessity in every higher civilisation).

      To come back to our subject. I want to make a new point. The condemnation of usury is a subject of the Bible and the Quuran. I assume the WN´s who claim that usury is the root of all evil are influenced by that, even if they claim to be atheists or agnostics. But I ask myself wheter the Jews have not written these “holy” books for the consumption of non-jews only in order to get a monopoly of usury that would allow them to get all the wealth of the earth in the long run. The catholic church defended that monopoly in the middle ages in declaring: usury is bad, so only jews are allowed to use it. Revilo Oliver supposed that the catholic church was secredly controlled by the jews, because the jews profited immensly from this position.

      Finally I want to stress there might be a much better money system, which doesn´t has usery as an istrument, but so far I haven´t seen it. But as I said above. Before we could install such a imaginary system there would have to be a victory first.

      @Olde douche

      You are an impostor. The comments of yours, you linked to, give no hint to an argument, why usury is bad per se. And they show no alternative to usury to keep the circulation of money going. Shame on you.

    28. Z.O.G. Says:

      Silversurfer,

      If you don’t understand how the charging of interest on loans is a trick, then you obviously didn’t watch the video I posted for you. Please watch it. It’s only 9 minutes long.

      Swindling the Goyim

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2kfUNo4_r8

    29. Z.O.G. Says:

      Silversurfer,

      Money circulates because of SPENDING, not because of loans.

      FYI.

    30. Z.O.G. Says:

      Silversurfer,

      Our money supply is NOT created by private banks through loans to the government. It is created by private banks through loans to INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES.

      Every time a person or a business takes out a “loan” from a bank, that is new money being created, on the spot.

    31. Silversurver Says:

      Hi Z.O.G,

      I´ve read that the bulwark of money is created through loans to the government. And that the central bank, which is a governmental institution (although it is ownd by private banks) distributes the loaned money to other banks. I have read several books about finance which seemed to be more serious than the video you linked to. But let´t not nitpick about the details. I believe anyway that there are secrets in high finance no autor has uncovered so far, since no author was a member of the inner circle of power. Each book about finance was contradictory to another concerning important questions. And no book was a thoroughly satisfying read since important questions which popped up in my mind were not adressed.

      Best wishes.

    32. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      The fed creates money when “buying” a government bond. They write a bad check which doesn’t bounce. This check goes to the treasury where it can be spent. Other moneys are created by commercial banks, via the usual fractional reserve loans. Both involve loans from nothing- from luft (air), as jews put it.

    33. Silversurfer Says:

      Yes, shabbos, that´s what I´ve read as well. Do you know the relation between the money created by government loans and the money created by commercial banks through fracional reserve loans? I have read that the bulk of money is created through government bonds. I think there must be a coordination between both processes of creating money. Otherwise a super-inflations seems very probable. I assume that the central bank of the centrale bank of international settlement in Geneva (?) has some kind of coordination role. And probably there is a secret council which is far more important for the coordination than this central bank for the central banks. There are so many open question regarding the money system and so few answers!