The Money Changers

From a video called (link missing) "Money Masters" video no longer ava (DOCUMENTARY EXPLAINS HOW THE BANKERS RUN UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD) on You-tube. I hope it inspires you to watch the entire video (several hours) as it is full of pertinent information that could very well be crucial to our way of life.

10/10/17 Due to you tubes political editing this may no longer be available, it may well be on another less liberally biased WEB site, however. I copied it, you should too if still there.

The Money Changers

Jesus drove the money changers from the temple in the only time Jesus used force during his ministry. What were money changers doing in the temple? When Jews came to Jerusalem to pay their temple tax, they could only pay it with a special coin the half shackle, of the century. (A half oz of silver) it was the only coin at that time of assured weight, pure silver and without the image of a pagan emperor on it. Therefore to the Jews the half shackle was the only coin acceptable to God. But the coins were not plentiful, the money changers had cornered the market on them than they raised the price just like any other commodity to what ever the market would bear. In other words, money changers were making exorbitant profits because they had a virtual monopoly on the money. The Jews had to pay whatever they demanded. To Jesus this totally violated the sanctity of gods house.

 

Roman Empire

200 years before Christ, Rome was having trouble with money changers. Two early Roman emperors tried to diminish the power of the money changers by reforming usury laws and limiting land ownership to 500 acres. They were both assassinated. In 48 BC Julius Cesar took back the power to coin money from the money changers and minted coins for the benefit of all. With this new plentiful supply of money he built great public works projects. By making money plentiful he won the love of the c ommon man but the money changers hated him. Some believe this was an important factor in Caesar assassination. One thing for sure, with the death of Cesar came the demise of plentiful money in Rome. Taxes increased as did corruption. Just as in the case of the US today usury and debased coin became the rule. Eventually the roman money supply was reduced by 90% and as a result, common people lost their lands and their homes just as is about to happen soon in America. With the demise of plentiful money the roman people lost confidence in the roman government and refused to support it. Rome plunged into the gloom of the dark ages.

The Goldsmiths

A thousand years after the death of Christ money changers, those who lone out and manipulate the quantity of money, were active in medieval England. In fact they were so active that acting together they could manipulate the entire English economy. These were not bankers per se, they were the goldsmiths. They were the bankers because they were the people who started keeping peoples gold for safe keeping in their vaults. The first paper money was merely a receipt for gold left at the goldsmiths. Paper money caught on because it was more convenient and easier than carrying around a lot of gold and silver coins. Eventually the goldsmiths noticed that only a small percentage of the depositors came in and asked for their gold at one time. Goldsmiths started cheating on the system. They discovered they could print more money than gold and nobody would be the wiser. Than they could loan out this ‘extra’ money and collect interest on it. This was the birth of fractional reserve banking, that is loaning out many more times the money than for which you have assets.
    So if they had a thousand dollars in gold on deposit they could loan out about ten thousand dollars, collect the interest and nobody would be the wiser. By this means is goldsmiths used this practice to accumulate more and more wealth and used this wealth to accumulate even more wealth. Today, every bank in the US is allowed to loan out 10 times as much money as they actually have, this is know as fractional reserve banking. That is why they get rich at charging 8% interest on a loan because it is not 8% they are charging, it is 80%. That is why bank building are always the largest in town.  16:22

    In the middle ages cannon law, the law of the Catholic Church forbade charging interest on loans. This concept was taught by Aristotle & St Thomas that the purpose of money was to serve the members of society, to facilitate the exchange of goods needed to lead a virtuous life. Interest, in their belief, hindered this purpose by putting an unnecessary burden on the use of money. In other words interest was contrary to reason and justice.
    Reflecting church law in the middle ages Europe forbade charging interest on loans and made it a crime called usury. As commerce grew and therefore the opportunities for investment arose in the late middle ages it came to be recognized that to loan money had a cost for the lender both in risk and lost opportunity, so some charges were allowed but not interest per se. But all moralists, no mater what religion, condemned fraud, oppression of the poor, and injustice as clearly immoral. As we sill see fractional reserve lending is rooted in a fraud, results in widespread poverty, and reduces the value of everyone else’s money.
The ancient goldsmiths discovered that extra profits could be made by rowing the economy between easy money and tight money. When they made money easier to borrow than the amount of money in circulation expanded, money was plentiful, people took out more loans to expand their business, but then the money changer would tighten the money supply, make it more difficult to get loans. What would happen is just what happens today. A certain percentage of people could not repay their previous loans, and could not take out new loans to repay the old ones. Therefore they went bankrupt and had to sell their assets to the goldsmiths for pennies on the dollar.

The same thing is still going on today, only today we are calling this the rowing of the economy, up and down “the business cycle.”

Tally Sticks

Like Julies Censer king Henry of England tried to take away the power of the money changers about 1100 AD. He could have used anything for money, - - even yak dung as is often in remote Tibetan provinces. But he invented one of the most unique money systems ever invented, it was called the Tally Stick System. This form of money lasted 726 years, until 1826. The Tally system was adopted to avoid the money manipulation of the gold smiths. One of the original bank holders of the bank of England purchased his position in the bank with a tally stick.

It is ironic that after it’s inception in 1694 the Bank of England attacked the Tally Stick system because it was money outside the power of the money changers just as king Henry had wanted it to be. 24 min

The secret is that money is only what people agree on to use for money. The trick was the King demanded that Tally Sticks be used to pay for taxes. And they worked well, as a matter of fact nothing else has worked so well for so long as Tally Sticks.

Finally in the 1500's King Henry the 8th relaxed the laws concerning usury and the money changers wasted no time reasserting themselves. They quickly made their gold and silver money plentiful for a few decades. But when Queen Mary took the thrown and tightened the usury laws again the money changers renewed thehoarding of gold and silver coins, forcing the economy to plummet. 25:48

When queen Mary’s sister queen Elizabeth the 1st took the thrown she was determined to regain control of the her English money. Her solution was to issue gold and silver coins from the public treasury and take away control of the money supply away from the money changers. Although control over money was not the only cause of the English revolution of 1642, religious differences fueled the conflict, monetary policy played a major role.

;Financed by the money changers Oliver Cromwell finally overthrew King Charles, purged the parliament and put the king to death. The money changers were immediately allowed to consolidate their finical power. The result was for the next 50 years the money changers plunged Great Britain into a series of costly wars. They took over a square mile of property in London known as the “City of London.” This area is still known today as one of the three predominant finical centers of the world.

Conflicts with the steward kings led the money changers in England with those in the Netherlands to finance the invasion of William of Orange who overthrew the stewards in 1688 and took the English thrown.

The Bank of England

By the end of the 1600 England was in finical ruin. 50 years of more or less continuous wars with France and Holland had exhausted her. Frantic government officials met with the money changers to beg for the loans necessary to pursue their political purposes. The price was high, a government sanctioned privately owned bank which could issue money created out of nothing. It was to be the modern worlds privately owned central bank, the Bank of England. Although it was deceptively called The Bank of England to make the general population think it was part of the government it was not. Like any other corporation it sold shares to get started. The investors who’s names were never revealed, were supposed to put up one and a quarter million British pounds in gold coin to buy their shares in the ban, but only 750 thousand pounds were ever received. Despite that, the bank was duly chartered in 1694 and started out in the business of loaning several times the money it was supposed to have in reserve all at interest. In exchange the new bank would lend the British politicians as much new money as they wanted as long as they secured the debt by direct taxation of the people.

So legalization of the Bank of England was little more than legal counterfeiting of a national currency for private gain. Unfortunately almost every nation now has a privately owned central bank using the bank of England as the basic model. Such is the power of these central banks that they take over control of a nations economy. It soon amounts to nothing more than a Plutocracy, ruled by the rich. It would be like putting the Army in control of the Mafia, the danger of tyranny would be extreme.

Yes we need central banks. No, we do not need them in private hands.