"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
~ Thomas Jefferson
In the last article, we briefly discussed the profound control money exerts over our lives, and explored how the Federal Reserve System makes it necessary that there are always some people who fail to pay back their loans. Also mentioned was the inflation inherent in this system. Today we're going to discuss the political effects of this system, the way it is similar and differs to chattel slavery and feudalism, and explore some of the detrimental effects it has for those who aren't benefiting from it.
Now, as I mentioned, when all the money that exists is created for loans that must be paid back at interest, it's automatically going to happen that some people will default. One of the major divides of political outlook in America between the 'Left' and the 'Right,' particularly among the middle and upper classes, involves how downtrodden people are viewed. Rightists tend to hold the perspective that these people's station in society is reflective of their ineptitude and unfitness, as well as perhaps their laziness, while leftists see them as being 'down on their luck' or trapped in a cycle of poverty. Both sides in American politics see their situation as a natural consequence of human nature playing out, however.
What if it's not human nature, though? What if their situation is something that results automatically from the monetary system? Well, we should do something about that, right?
If you ask the right, we need to make things easier for businesses so that they can employ more people. This won't solve the fundamental problem, because someone's still going to have to pay their loans, and some people still won't be able to. Employment rates would rise, but wages would ultimately go down as the money would have to be spread out if held at a constant supply to avoid inflation. The left's view tends to be that we need to have more government funding for social programs. This does solve the problem in a way - essentially, the government assumes the debt of defaulters, but it creates inflation, and with the same system in place people are going to need even more funding social programs later. In the meantime, the national debt figure (currently rising over $14 trillion) erodes our nation's international reputation, making it so that we have to make more and more money to get the same amount of goods in trade.
Neither of these parties solve the problem at its root by re-asserting the constitutional power of Congress itself to issue currency and regulate its value. To understand this, we have to see who benefits from the system being the way it is.
