Paul Fromm Alison Chabloz interview

Advertisements

England, Money, and The Revolutionary War the Bankruptcy of America

 

By the mid-1700s, the British Empire was approaching its
height of power around the world. Britain had fought four wars in
Europe since the creation of its privately-owned central bank, the
Bank of England. The cost had been high. To finance these wars,
the British Parliament, rather than issuing its own debt-free currency,
had borrowed heavily from the Bank. By the mid-1700s,
the government’s debt was £140,000,000—a staggering sum for
those days.

Consequently, the British government embarked on a program
of trying to raise revenues from its American colonies in order
to make the interest payments to the Bank. But in America, it was
a different story. The scourge of a privately-owned central bank had
not yet landed in America, though the Bank of England exerted its
baneful influence over the American colonies after 1694. Benjamin
Franklin was a big supporter of the colonies printing their own
money . . . . In 1757, Franklin was sent to London to fight for colonial
paper money. Called Colonial Scrip, the endeavor was successful,
with notable exceptions. . . . Officials of the Bank of England
asked Franklin how he would account for the new-found prosperity
of the colonies. Without hesitation he replied: “That is simple.
In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip.
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. (The Money Masters, video transcript)
As a result, Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of
1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own
money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver
coins. Writing in his autobiography, Franklin said: “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.” Franklin claims that this
was even the basic cause for the American Revolution. As Franklin
put it in his autobiography: “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.”

By the time the first shots were fired in Concord and Lexington,
Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, the colonies had been
drained of gold and silver coin by British taxation. As result, the
Continental government had no choice but to print its own paper
money to finance the war. At the start of the Revolution, the U.S.
(colonial) money supply stood at $12 million. By the end of the
war, it was nearly $500 million. This was partly a result of massive
British counterfeiting. As a result, the currency was virtually worthless.
Shoes sold for $5,000 a pair. GeorgeWashington lamented, “A
wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon of provisions.”
(ibid.)

Earlier, Colonial scrip had worked because just enough was
issued to facilitate trade and counterfeiting was minimal. Toward
the end of the Revolution, the Continental Congress grew desperate
for money. In 1781, they allowed Robert Morris, their Financial
Superintendent, to open a privately owned central bank in hopes
that would help. Called the Bank of North America, the new bank
was closely modeled after the Bank of England. It was allowed to
practice (or rather, it was not prohibited from) fractional reserve
banking—that is, it could lend out money it didn’t have, then
charge interest on it. Few understood this practice at the time, which
was, of course, concealed from the public as much as possible. Further,
the bank was given a monopoly on issuing bank notes, acceptable
in payment of taxes. The value of American currency
continued to plummet, so, four years later, in 1785, the Bank’s char-
ter was not renewed, effectively ending the threat of the Bank’s
power.

Thus the second American Bank War quickly ended in defeat
for the Money Changers. The leader of the successful effort to
kill the Bank, a patriot named William Findley, of Pennsylvania, explained
the problem this way: “This institution, having no principle
but that of avarice, will never be varied in its object . . . to engross
all the wealth, power and influence of the state.” (ibid.)
As Jefferson later put it: “If the American people ever allow
private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation,
then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow
up around them will deprive the people of all property until their
children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
(ibid.)

Hate Crime Laws not working

The Negative Ramifications of Hate Crime Legislation: It’s Time to Reevaluate Whether Hate Crime Laws are Beneficial to Society

 

… Hate crime laws may actually be accomplishing the opposite effect of tolerance and equality because they encourage U.S. citizens to view themselves, not as members of our society, but as members of a protected group. The enactment of hate crime legislation at the federal and state levels has led to unintended consequences and unfair practices … The misconception that hate groups, which include skinheads, neo-Nazis, white nationalists and black separatists groups, cause hate crimes is unfounded … In reality, these laws promote inequality and exacerbate societal divisions and identity politics. Hate crime legislation pits protected and unprotected groups against each other by declaring that certain groups of people are more deserving of legal protection than others.