The After-the-Fed Solutions Debate Begins: Greenbackers vs. Goldbugs

Eric Blair

The battle to expose the Federal Reserve has been long and arduous. It finally appears that after nearly 100 years of absolute economic control and near complete debasement of the dollar, the Fed’s reign may be coming to an end. Its eventual demise is certain according to Black Swan author Nassim Taleb and others. With all the recent mainstream talk and speculation about the end of the Fed, it is time to debate solutions for the future of America’s currency. This may indeed be the most important discussion of our lifetime.

First, we must be aware that the Federal Reserve, along with other foreign private central banks and the IMF, have long had plans for a global currency.  This is not conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo anymore, but rather cold hard fact.  Lew Rockwell wrote an excellent article summarizing the IMF’s push for a global currency — the Bancor.  The recent international currency war may be the beginning of creating a false demand for something more stable for international trade.  As all major currencies race to the bottom, the private banking cartel will surely offer their global solution.  We know what their solution will be — continued debt slavery with more centralized control — but what will the people’s solution be?

There seems to be another currency war brewing right here in America.  The debate between the two most popular proposed solutions of adopting the Greenback or the Gold Standard has just officially begun. Last week, Gary North, a Goldbug and author of Honest Money, wrote a scathing attack of Web of Debt author Ellen Brown, a Greenbacker.  He took select samples from her book in an attempt to tie her public bank solution to Hitler, but failed to address the “interest-free” philosophy of her policy. Despite that, he does manage to frame the Goldbug’s argument against the Greenback, or public banking, as inferior:

A rebuttal piece was then written by Interest-Free Currency activist Anthony Migchels in defense of Brown and the Greenbackers where he goes after North and claims interest-bearing gold can never work:

Passions already seem to be running high in the opening round of this most critical debate that surely will shape the future of our economy and society.  Notably, both sides of this argument are in agreement that the Fed is a corrupt organization that must be ended.  North acknowledged that Ron Paul and Ellen Brown share this common ground, but says the Tea Party movement (liberty movement) has “no economic understanding” and “They cannot distinguish Ron Paul’s opposition to the FED, based on the gold coin standard, from Ellen Brown’s opposition, based on a fiat money standard. They are intellectually defenseless.”

It seems a bit arrogant of North to suggest that the liberty movement is confused about why Ron Paul and Ellen Brown support ending the Fed, and it’s also disingenuous to say that one side of the growing movement is “intellectually defenseless” because of disagreements about the solution. Especially when Brown’s public banking movement appears to be immediately workable and is gaining ground as the first pragmatic step being to establish state banks — as proven in North Dakota, which has a state-owned bank and boasts the lowest unemployment and the only budget surplus of the United States.

The public banking movement opposes the Federal Reserve, like Paul, because it is unconstitutional, but also for a variety of other intellectually defensible positions, starting with the fact that they are a private monopoly who care not for Americans or the country.  There are very real concerns that this group of banksters may maintain dominance of a gold-based system since they already have possession of most of the world’s gold — including much of the mining as well. Furthermore, if they can continue to create money on a fractional basis — even if backed partially by gold — and can continue to charge and determine interest, they’ll still possess the power to enslave-by-debt people, industry, and entire nations.  Finally, the private profit motive of international banksters, driven by interest, has historically proven to encourage wars as evidenced by their funding of both sides of all wars.  This would also seem to give them dubious power to determine the outcome of those wars.

In turn, it’s a given that the liberty movement supports the restoration of the Constitution which clearly states that the coinage of money shall be in gold and that only the elected Congress is authorized to issue and control it. However, the Constitution says nothing of allowing a fractional reserve gold standard run by private bankers which is promoted by some Goldbugs. Furthermore, some Constitutionalists still maintain the strange notion that the government should belong to the people.  Therefore, if we were able to restore the Constitutional principle for a government of, by and for the people, it would seem that interest-free currency issued and controlled by our elected government would be considered more constitutional than the current system.

It is true that gold has been valued in society for thousands of years and it will likely continue to maintain its terrific investment value for the foreseeable future. Gold clearly has a physical value derived from the incredible energy it requires to mine and refine it.  But gold, as a limited resource, is interest bearing and can be hoarded by those with the wherewithal to do so.  This would seem to suggest that gold could then be manipulated by the few who control vast sums of it.  And that sounds a lot like the economic tyranny we face today with the private Fed.

North attacks Greenbackers because they “are opposed to central banking, unless the central bank is 100% owned and controlled by Congress.”  As if to say, how dare the people demand ownership of their own currency.  It shows a blinding distrust for Constitutional government and obvious preference for private banking interests.  Goldbugs seem caught up on the fact that a unit of exchange must have intrinsic value, either backed by gold or as an instrument of debt, or both. They feel so strongly that fiat currencies are utterly unreliable, but spend little time discussing the motive behind the interest and supply manipulators. Additionally, it is unfair to suggest that fiat currencies are not redeemable in gold, as any widely acceptable unit of exchange can be traded for gold.  Currently, one can buy an ounce of bullion for around 1400 Fed-deflated U.S. fiat Dollars.

I don’t want people to get the wrong impression.  I believe gold is a great investment, especially in these turbulent times.  And I also believe gold has a place in securing America’s currency. However, I worry that those who hold dear that a currency must be backed partially by gold in order to have legitimacy are susceptible to supporting a global currency if it includes gold as part of its currency basket.  Perhaps I’m naive, but I’m not sure why a combination of the two solutions is not feasible, with interest-free paper Greenbacks redeemable in gold or silver, while also producing silver and gold coins for circulation — all tightly controlled by Congress, not a private organization, as per the Constitution.  After all, Fort Knox is supposed to be the people’s gold, right?

Let the debate begin.  Tell us what you think would be the best system to replace the Fed.