Not so long ago, salt was money. All the market places in the world traded with salt. If you wanted to buy food at a market, you paid for it with salt. If the king or emperor wanted to pay his soldiers, he paid them in salt. Salaria is the Latin word for salt. When John the Baptist told the soldiers to be content with their wages, that meant how much salt they were paid monthly. When slave traders said a slave was worth his salt; that meant the slave was worth the asking price of the slave. When slave owners said a slave wasn't worth his salt; that meant the owner felt he paid too much for that slave... IOW, the slave was not working hard enough. Gold and silver was the money of kings. Large scale operations were paid for in gold. Gold and silver were the national currencies, when kingdoms or empires traded, it took place in gold. Enter the bankers. Kings began paying contractors in bonds, which were redeemable at the Treasury. The king's debt became currency to his subjects. If the king owed you $5000, you could use that debt to purchase $5000 of wood from the tree fellers, and they could redeem the bond at the Treasury... or use it to trade again. The birth of fiat currency. Coupons for gold stock became convenient for trade but another level was executed for distribution within a closed system. The Teutonic Knights ruled lands that Charlemagne conquered in middle europe and simply issued currency by what we would think of as a rationing, except, it was really a fiat currency, the Knights would put a mark on your money stick and that was good for that much value in the markets. The German Mark was purely a fiat currency from day one... a fiat controlled the entire currency and portioned out distribution for work accomplished within the system. When I say that our money system is a distribution model; it is because we have a purely fiat currency; gone is the gold and silver of the Constitution. In America, our entire money supply is created out of thin air when the Treasury creates a bond and sells it at auction. That bond is owed by the Treasury to the holder. Hence, the currency, which consists of the bonds and the trade they produce and the tools that they spawn, is a debt currency. Ultimately, the money is nothing more than a debt created out of thin air by the Treasury; no different than the tally stick produced by the king's exchequer. Since the value and supply of this currency is totally controlled by the fiat, the nature of trade has changed to methods of distribution. Global production and distribution goes forth on faith, and the money is supplied on an as-needed basis. It is all accounting these days, no money changes hands any more. And since the accounting is done on the internet, what we have today is an internet currency. Where does the Treasury get the money to redeem the bonds? How can they pay for something that was created out of thin air? At first, this was done with gold, but soon there wasn't enough gold, so we now use the same fiat currency to redeem the currency. Mostly this is achieved by producing more bonds; the net effect is a snowballing of debt, it never stops growing, so the metrics we use to measure the currency is simply to measure how fast the debt is growing. If the debt is growing faster than the trade it produces, you have a problem. A long forgotten factor of this currency is the method of redemption. Who is paying for the bonds produced out of thin air? Since the bonds are primarily produced to bring forth instruments of war; who is paying for these wars? The new bonds created merely kick the can down the road, and the debt just grows, someone has to redeem the bonds or the castle of cards would collapse in no time. So, here's where I have said, redeem the bonds with Treasury issue, stop taxing our wages to pay for wars. When you close the loop, and redeem the synthetic bond with synthetic Treasury Notes, the system runs on its own merit... if it produces something of value, the money has value, but if it wastes its production on war, the money loses its value; because there's nothing left from war to buy with the money... so when you close the loop, it forces the system to beat its swords into plowshares, capice? This is a very important concept needed to understand where private wealth merges with national wealth; at what point does a private bank become a central bank, and at what point does personal income need to be regarded as corporate income. When banks figured out how to set up accounts for currencies; literally banking whole nations, the holdings of the bank became irrelevant... although the bank may be private held so it's holdings are technically considered private debt; the reality is, a central bank is the clearing house of public debt; the operations of a central bank maintain the currency of the nation; in essence and practice, our Federal Reserve has taken over the Constitutional custody of the currency from Congress. This is why the super rich are no longer private wealth in my mind. Goof balls who try to input public status to mid-sized corporations because of this ("you didn't build that company, you rode the public service of government - roads, trade, banks, etc") have still not grasped any understanding of critical mass, or, the levels at which this happens. Trump is still a private businessman. His wealth was not gained by banking the bonds sold at auction for whole nations. Trump filed bankruptcy however many times because he was not too big to fail. Lehman Brothers, OTOH, was banking on an international level, was caught holding the old USSR bonds after they were defaulted on, and was too big to fail, they can not complete the bankruptcy, after five years of trying to complete the bankruptcy, they gave up, it just isn't possible, because Lehman Brothers is not really a private bank, it is an original stock holder in the central bank, it is part of the infrastructure of the currency. We have had many rich people who got there the old fashioned way; they built industries and made a profit. But there is a huge gulf between the rich and the super rich. The super rich got there banking whole nations and taking over their currencies. There are many rich, there are very few super rich, and the super rich are not competing against the rich, they are providing the playing field for the rich to compete on; the super rich run the entire currency that the rich are fighting to obtain. What the "economists" tend to misunderstand is the difference between getting the super rich to share the wealth and getting the rich to share the wealth. Jesus spoke to the rich, Trump is speaking to the super rich... when we try to get the super rich to share the wealth, what we are doing is trying to get policy changed. It is no longer a matter of taxes, now it becomes the method for redeeming the nation's bonds. Where I agree with the socialists is on the level of the super rich. Chavez' daughter was super rich in a nation as poor as Venezuela, but only because Chavez paid off the national debt. When misfits would point at various debts held by Venezuela, they are not discerning the difference between debt and the national debt; the national debt is part of the currency; it is the money supply; unless you can increase the real money supply to match the money supply lost when you pay off the debt; your nation will become poorer. What people do not understand is the difference between a real money supply and a debt currency. In America, our only money supply is our debt; if we ended the FED, the currency would collapse, and it would be Armageddon. In Venezuela, they tried to go back to real money, they paid off the national debt and closed down their central bank; in the USSR they defaulted on the national debt, started a new republic and named it for the old land of the Czars, and went to real money; when the globalists see real money (like what Libya was starting to do) they see competition. Not competition like the rich compete with each other within various industries, but competition of a different system of money. So the globalists will attempt to shut the competing system down before it replaces the system they are running. When I agree with the socialists it is on this level, I want to see the debt system of currency modified so it becomes a better model of wealth distribution; currently, it mostly works to rob the masses and give to the super rich, with a few crumbs going to the rich... I want to see the system tweaked to redistribute more evenly back to the masses. Going as far as Venezuela, Libya, or Russia is not necessary; they are trying to replace the entire system (along with END THE FED nuts) ... I want to bring back both systems and let them work side by side without destroying each other and I want to tweak the debt currency so it no longer taxes the masses to pay for the wars; once the super rich have to pay for their own wars (you don't do that through taxation, you do it through redemption of the bonds) ... when we reach that point and we return the silver dollar into circulation; hey, that's a huge social change, that's a revolution in itself.