HOA KỲ ĐỔI TIỀN ?

Member Tổng số bài gửi : 87 Join date : 10/12/2009

HOA K? ??I TI?N ?

THE AMERO vs. THE DOLLAR

Jason Kirby

There has been some discussion in the media lately about a North American Union to replace the USA.

Or you can google "North American Union."
Associated with such an alleged agenda is the plan to replace the Dollar with the 'Amero.'

Google "The Amero."
Predictably, certain individuals are alarmed by the prospect of replacing the Dollar with another currency called the Amero.

As a line in the above National Ledger article reads, "Our currency will be replaced with the "Amero." And, we'll be one giant step closer to the U.N.'s perverse dream of a one-world government."
Whether or not there is any truth that some individuals or groups would like to economically or politically unify Canada, Mexico, and the United States, the peripheral alarm regarding the replacement of the Dollar with a currency named the "Amero" is worth exploring.
The first thing that jumps out at me is the expression, "Our currency...." That is an interesting choice of words. This phrase implies that the currency of the Federal Reserve System is ours, yet, somehow the Amero currency of the North American Union would not be ours and therefore be objectionable.
The second thing that jumps out at me is the expression, "...will be replaced...;" My choice of words would have been, "has been replaced."
Let's hypothesize that Federal Reserve System currency is already not ours.
Let's hypothesize that our currency has long since been replaced.
Here is how it was done.
THIS WAS OUR CURRENCY. Figure 1 is a picture of what certainly used to be our currency, our current coin, before it was switched with Federal Reserve debt. Below is ONE DOLLAR of silver.

Figure 1.
The coin pictured above is exactly what the U.S. Constitution mandates we citizens of the United States of America use as money. The laws, and the code, of the United States of America at that time sustained the circulation and use of this piece and others like it as money. Does anyone bother to respect the Constitution anymore? Our money was not debt. It was wealth. It was born of nature and worked by the National mint into what it is. It was an asset which was not simultaneously someone else's liability. Debt freedom, once achieved, was much closer to absolute under such a money system. It bore no interest except when its owner consented to lend it to a borrower for a rate of return. When it was spent, it was considered at common law that a debt was paid. And it respected the tradition from time immemorial that in exchange, value would be exchanged for value; it was equitable. When it was saved, instead of spent, it preserved the wealth of the saver, who could reasonably expect prices to be within reasonable range of what they were when the coin was saved.
"As banker Vince Rossiter has pointed out, 'from 1814 to 1913, the U.S. fought four wars, enjoyed greater increases in population than any other nation in the world, suffered significant short-term inflation and deflation at intervals, and still it was possible to buy substantially the same basket of food in 1913 for approximately the same price that it cost in 1814, 100 years earlier.' " (1.)
Try and do that now, with the base year of 1974, for example. You'll find it takes multiples the money to buy the same item.
Our currency enjoyed the protection of the law and counterfeiters faced capital punishment. Coin clipping, shaving, sweating, mixing with base metals, all being ways in which kings and princes cheated the public, even our own government was prohibited from such activities.
And Figure 2 is another picture of what used to be our currency, our current coin. Below is one dollar of gold.

Figure 2.
Paper money was in use and that was acceptable as long at the paper promised to pay gold or silver coin on demand. If the paper circulated, then the coin it represented was on deposit; if the coin was circulating, then the paper was not circulating. The silver and gold certificate was a token, but a lawful claim on the real coin. See Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3.
It is not easy to see but it reads, "This Certifies That There Has Been Deposited In The Treasury Of The United States Of America Payable To The Bearer On Demand One Silver Dollar." This was our money. And so was the following. It is accurate enough to call this a "promise to pay" because it does indeed promise to pay something, dollars in coin. It was an evidence of debt only in the sense that the Treasury owed the bearer the specified coin, on demand. See Figure 3.

Figure 4.
Again, it is not easy to see but it reads, "This Certifies That There Has Been Deposited In The Treasury Of The United States Of America Payable To The Bearer On Demand Twenty Dollars In Gold Coin." This was our money. It is indeed a promise to pay. Spending a silver or gold certificate was acceptable because, although it was a money substitute, it was a reliable and dependable proxy for coin. See Figure 4.
By law, the SUBSTANCE of OUR money was gold and silver bullion, and the LAWS of money in the United States made gold and silver coin LAWFUL MONEY.
Where do you find such specimens of money today? In coin shops and personal collections.
What we had then (gold, silver coin) was replaced with what is today in your pocket and your bank account. Today, we use THEIR money. You cannot tell me that Federal Reserve Notes are our money. The Constitution does not contemplate them. The First Money Act of April 2, 1792 does not contemplate them. The code of the United States for most of our history does not contemplate them. It is not our money. It doesn't matter that it has been around since granddad was a young man. Crime has been around for a long time too. The long lived perpetration of a wrong does not lend it legitimacy. It is alien to the Constitution, and our money is effectively in exile. Their money resembles ours, more or less, if you need glasses or don't read; there are pictures of our dead Presidents on it. Many Americans simply believe it is our currency because that is the way it has been since their birth, and they don't know what they are looking at. Or they do and do not distinguish between real value and debt. We, including those of us who know better, begrudgingly use it mainly because our own government refuses to follow the Constitution on the money issue. And we must use something so we use this. Our government has long since bought into central banking with debt-based irredeemable paper. If you want to read why, look up Alan Greenspan's essay, "Gold and Economic Freedom," which gives as good an explanation as any: it is the easiest way to set up and maintain a socialist welfare state.
There is no SUBSTANCE associated with their money. It may read X Dollars on the face, but dollars of what? Above you saw a dollar of gold and a dollar of silver. Above you saw gold and silver certificates that promised on demand to pay a dollar of silver or ten dollars of gold. A Dollar was a unit of value that related precious metal to a weight measured in grains.
"The central idea of the American money system is the 'dollar.' What is a dollar? This question has been the subject of volumes of discussion. The answer to the question has become involved in a wilderness of theory---lost in a maze of abstractions---as a result of which the reader is led to believe that there is great difficulty in understanding just what a dollar is. Fortunately, we do not have to read all this literature and wrestle with all the hypothetical problems propounded. The whole matter is settled by one section of the United States statutes. The Act of February 12, 1873 (Sec. 14), establishes "25.8 grains of gold" 900/1000 fine (or 23.22 grains of fine gold), which bears the required stamp and impress. The statute says that this is a dollar---not that it resembles a dollar, or that, for the purposes of discussion, it may be considered a dollar, but that it is a dollar. Furthermore, the statute again cuts off all controversy regarding the worth of a dollar; for it says that the dollar (the printed piece of gold containing 25.8 grains of gold 900/1000 fine) 'shall be the unit of value' in our money system." (2.) This is our money.
But a Federal Reserve Note is not that which was just described; it doesn't even come close. It is not a dollar. It is not any number of dollars. It is a mere slip of paper signifying nothing more than a way by which to discharge your tax liabilities, with the right to spend your surplus slips of paper on other things as if they were lawful money of gold and silver. So the One Dollar Federal Reserve Note, for example, is not one dollar, but claims to be on its face. Is that a lie? In my world it is. Thou shall not bear false witness. Even if the Act of February 12, 1873 wasn't perfect, and needed revising or fine tuning, who can imagine how we in this nation went from a dollar of the above description, to throwing it all out and then adopting the current fiat paper dollar of no legal description other than the vague, "it is an obligation of the United States," as the new central idea in the American money system?
The Federal Reserve Note, which is their money is not even a promise to pay. It makes no promise at all. Read any bill, you will not find any promise. What is in your pocket or your bank account is debt. As a nation, we have borrowed our own tax coupons and in commerce we accept and use them as if they were money. You do not own your currency free and clear. Borrowed first by the national government, it automatically arrives to the American people with interest due. It is a fiduciary asset which is absolutely simultaneously someone else's interest-bearing liability. It bears interest for the benefit of its issuer and creator, the central banks and their stockholders, the instant it goes into circulation. The central bank, which supplanted the existing system---which was unique and American---was modeled after the Bank of England. "The Creature From Jekyll Island," by E. G. Griffin, explains how that happened. Does that sound like our system? Yet when you lend your own money today, as a private lender, you are lending someone else's debt. And when you spend it, you are discharging your immediate debt. When you accept it someone else's immediate debt to you is discharged. But our collective perpetual debt remains. All debts become relative with our government being a first-level debtor, and we citizens being second-level; third-level debtors depending on how our borrowing is structured. The game we play is to cleverly move debts around until we have what we want and hopefully don't find ourselves insolvent at some point. Even if you are technically debt free, all mortgages paid off and car loans too, you are responsible, in the eyes of the government, for your share of the national debt. Your debt freedom is relative, not absolute. How do you know they won't come to you at any time to call for the principal, or principal and remaining interest? Do you have that guarantee? And being on the hook for a share of the national debt; and knowing that your children will also be so burdened; and knowing that all the currency that we use is borrowed, how could anyone refer to the currency we use today as our currency?
You may not be directly paying interest on the national debt, but you are, now, indirectly paying interest on our unpayable perpetual national debt to our creditors by way of your taxes. And you will continue to pay, to an even greater degree, to the one world government if and when it gets here. One final observation about their money, it has the tendency to lose its purchasing power relatively fast. Not as fast as some inflations, to be fair. However, nickel's worth of American money in 1913 could buy approximately what a paper fiat dollar buys today. And next year, the inflation calculators on the internet will have even worse to report about the purchasing power of their money. Savers who save in terms of their dollars lose more wealth over time. This loss of wealth to savers is a continuation, as of 1913, of the tradition of coin clipping and shaving.
"....Henry VIII debased the coins. In those days they didn't have computers, so the rascal prince simply shaved the coins when he wanted to cheat the public. Nowadays we punch a few figures into a giant computer at Culpepper, Virginia and create federal notes, bills, and bonds, and float these out into the financial community so reserves can follow a certain formula, and money can be created via the creation of loans. When you create money this way you inflate to the extent this money isn't answered by earned income. This is our modern method of shaving coins." (3.)
It is difficult to imagine the level of intrigue that must have gone on as they, the early central bankers, the financiers to the world, persuaded our government to incrementally dismantle the Constitutional monetary system that was working as it should have, and replace it with a system entirely based on debt.
What we have today (their money) is exactly what the Amero would be except it would have different printing on the paper and it would be intended to circulate among three nations, or substates, whereas the paper of the Federal Reserve System is more or less designed for the United States. The printing, "The United States of America," the portraits of the dead presidents, at worst makes Mexicans and Canadians who handle US Dollars feel they are handling another nation's or central bank's currency, and they are. Yet, changing the name to the "Amero" and putting other faces than our dead presidents or, emulating the Euro, no face at all on the bills would only allow our neighbors to believe the currency is of their nation, or Union if that is what is coming. Nothing will have changed in the nature of the money. It will still signify a debt to the central bank monopoly. And, should such a Union succeed, you might imagine that it would be even harder to repair the damage done and return to a Constitutional money system, if such a thing were not already impossible.
In the final analysis, no one should be worried about our money being replaced with the Amero, because (A) the coin money of the Constitution as already been replaced and we have been using their irredeemable debt-based money for a long, long time. We are using exactly the money that the bankers, not the founding fathers, would have us use. The move from the above shown coin money of the Constitution, to that of the Federal Reserve System was unimaginably VAST in terms of its legal, financial, and sovereignty implications. And (B) we are not really being threatened with a second replacement, but only a cosmetic alteration to make it psychologically acceptable to this so-called "Union."
To rephrase substantially the line in the National Register article that started all this inquiry: The plan to replace gold and silver coin with central bank debt was the necessary giant step closer to socialism's perverse dream of a one-world government. Socialism is not new. It goes back to the mid 1800's. They've had since their beginning, their agenda for the supremacy of the state and the limitation of individual property rights and individual liberties. A depreciated paper currency and State control of credit has always been part of their agenda. It is pointless to be alarmed about the Amero today with no way to go back to the gold and silver coin of the U.S. Constitution as the national money. It is as insignificant as changing the designs that appear on our copper quarters.

Jason Kirby
[url=mailto://kirbyjason@hotmail.com]kirbyjason@hotmail.com[/url]
June 20, 2006

References:
1. Parity. ACRES, USA, by Charles Walters, Jr. Page 14.
2. Funds And Their Uses, by F. A. Cleveland, Ph.D., Wharton School of Finance and Economy, University of Pennsylvania, D. Appleton and Co. Publishers, 1916.
3. Parity. ACRES, USA, by Charles Walters, Jr. page 16

THE AMERO vs Dollar THE

Jason Kirby

Ho?c b?n có th? google "North American Union."

Hi?n ?ã ???c m?t s? cu?c th?o lu?n trong các ph??ng ti?n thông tin g?n ?ây v? m?t Liên minh B?c M? ?? thay th? cho Hoa K?.

Google "The Amero."

K?t h?p v?i ch??ng trình ngh? s? các b? cáo bu?c là m?t k? ho?ch ?? thay th? Dollar v?i các Amero '.'

Predictably, cá nhân nh?t ??nh ???c báo ??ng b?i các khách hàng ti?m n?ng thay th? Dollar v?i lo?i ti?n t? khác ???c g?i là Amero.

Nh? m?t dây chuy?n ? trên Ledger l?n ??c bài báo qu?c gia, "ti?n c?a chúng tôi s? ???c thay th? b?ng Amero" "And., Chúng tôi s? là m?t b??c kh?ng l? g?n g?i h?n v?i gi?c m? x?u c?a LHQ v? m?t th? gi?i c?a chính ph?."

Có ho?c không có b?t k? s? th?t r?ng m?t s? cá nhân ho?c nhóm mu?n v? kinh t? ho?c chính tr? th?ng nh?t Canada, Mexico, và Hoa K?, các báo ngo?i vi liên quan ??n vi?c thay th? các Dollar v?i m?t lo?i ti?n t? ???c ??t tên là "Amero" là giá tr? khám phá.

Vi?c ??u tiên mà nh?y ra lúc tôi là s? bi?u hi?n, "ti?n c?a chúng tôi ...." ?ó là m?t s? l?a ch?n thú v? c?a t?. C?m t? này ng? ý r?ng lo?i ti?n t? c?a C?c D? tr? Liên bang H? th?ng là chúng ta, nh?ng, b?ng cách nào ?ó ti?n t? Amero c?a B?c M? Liên minh s? không ???c chúng ta và do ?ó ???c ??i.

?i?u th? hai mà nh?y ra lúc tôi là s? bi?u hi?n, "... s? ???c thay th? ...;" s? l?a ch?n c?a tôi các t? s? ???c," ?ã ???c thay th?. "

Hãy ??a ra gi? thuy?t r?ng d? tr? liên bang H? th?ng ti?n t? là ?ã không ph?i chúng ta.

Hãy ??a ra gi? thuy?t r?ng lo?i ti?n t? c?a chúng tôi ?ã t? lâu ???c thay th?.

?ây là cách nó ?ã ???c th?c hi?n.

Hình 1.

NÀY WS TI?N T? CHÚNG TÔI. Hình 1 là m?t hình ?nh c?a nh?ng gì ???c s? d?ng ?? ch?c ch?n có ???c ti?n c?a chúng tôi, ??ng xu hi?n t?i c?a chúng tôi, tr??c khi nó ???c chuy?n sang n? v?i d? tr? liên bang. D??i ?ây là ONE Dollar b?c.

Các ??ng xu hình trên là chính xác nh?ng gì Hi?n pháp Hoa K?, chúng tôi nhi?m v? công dân c?a Hoa K? s? d?ng nh? ti?n b?c. Lu?t pháp, và mã s?, c?a Hoa K? t?i th?i ?i?m ?ó duy trì s? l?u thông và s? d?ng các m?nh này và nh?ng ng??i khác nh? nó nh? là ti?n b?c. Có ai b?n tâm ??n s? tôn tr?ng Hi?n pháp n?a? Ti?n c?a chúng tôi ?ã không ???c n?. ?ó là s? giàu có. Nó ???c sinh ra c?a thiên nhiên và làm vi?c c?a các qu?c gia ?úc vào nh?ng gì nó ???c. Nó là m?t tài s?n ?ó ?ã không ???c ??ng th?i trách nhi?m c?a ng??i khác. N? t? do, m?t khi ?ã ??t ???c, ?ã ???c nhi?u g?n tuy?t ??i theo m?t h? th?ng nh? ti?n b?c. It bore không quan tâm, tr? khi ch? nhân c?a nó ??ng ý ?? cho vay cho vay m?t cho m?t t? l? tr? l?i. Khi nó ?ã ???c b? ra, nó ???c coi là theo pháp lu?t ph? bi?n mà m?t món n? ?ã ???c tr? ti?n. Và nó ???c tôn tr?ng truy?n th?ng t? th?i x?a mà ??i l?i, giá tr? s? ???c trao ??i cho các giá tr?, nó ?ã ???c công b?ng. Khi nó ?ã ???c l?u l?i, thay vì b? ra, nó b?o t?n s? giàu có c?a ti?t ki?m, nh?ng ng??i ?ã hy v?ng giá c? h?p lý có th? ???c trong ph?m vi h?p lý c?a nh?ng gì h? ???c khi xu ?ã ???c l?u.

"Là ngân hàng Vince Rossiter ?ã ch? ra, '1814-1913, M? ?ã chi?n ??u b?n cu?c chi?n tranh, r?t thích t?ng l?n h?n trong dân s? h?n b?t k? qu?c gia khác trên th? gi?i, b? quan tr?ng ng?n h?n l?m phát và gi?m phát t?i các kho?ng, và v?n có th? nó ?ã ???c mua ?áng k? trong cùng m?t gi? th?c ?n vào n?m 1913 v?i giá kho?ng cùng r?ng chi phí n?m 1814, 100 n?m tr??c ?ó. ' "(1.)

Hãy th? làm ?i?u ?ó và bây gi?, v?i c? s? c?a n?m 1974, ví d?. B?n s? tìm th?y ph?i m?t b?i ti?n ?? mua món hàng t??ng t?.

Và hình 2 là m?t hình ?nh c?a nh?ng gì ???c s? d?ng ?? ???c ti?n c?a chúng tôi, xu hi?n t?i c?a chúng tôi. D??i ?ây là m?t trong nh?ng ??ng ?ô la c?a vàng.

Ti?n t? c?a chúng tôi ???c h??ng s? b?o v? c?a lu?t pháp và sao chép l?u ph?i ??i m?t v?i hình ph?t t? hình. Coin clipping, c?o râu, ?? m? hôi, pha tr?n v?i các kim lo?i c? b?n, t?t c? nh?ng cách ?ang ???c trong ?ó vua và hoàng t? l?a công chúng, ngay c? khi chính ph? c?a riêng c?a chúng tôi ?ã b? c?m ho?t ??ng nh? v?y.

Hình 2.

Hình 3.

Ti?n gi?y ?ã ???c s? d?ng và ?ã ???c ch?p nh?n nh? dài t?i gi?y h?a s? tr? ti?n vàng hay b?c xu theo yêu c?u. N?u gi?y l?u hành, sau ?ó là xu nó ??i di?n ???c ký thác; n?u xu ?ã ???c l?u hành, sau ?ó là gi?y ?ã không ???c l?u hành. Các b?c và gi?y ch?ng nh?n ???c m?t th? vàng, nh?ng là m?t yêu c?u h?p pháp v? các xu th?t. Xem hình 3 và 4.

Hình 4.

Th?t không d? ?? xem nh?ng nó ??c, "?i?u này ??t ch?ng nh?n ?ó có bi? g?i t?i Kho b?c Of The United States of America Payable To The Bearer On Demand M?t Silver Dollar." ?ây là ti?n c?a chúng tôi. Và nh? v?y là sao . Nó là chính xác, ?? ?? g?i ?ây là m?t l?i h?a "tr? ti?n" vì nó th?c s? h?a h?n ?? tr? cái gì, ?ô la trong ??ng xu. ?ây là m?t b?ng ch?ng v? n? ch? theo ngh?a là Kho b?c n? các bearer các ??ng xu ch? ??nh, theo yêu c?u. Xem hình 3.

M?t l?n n?a, nó không ph?i là d? dàng ?? xem nh?ng nó ??c, "?i?u này ??t ch?ng nh?n ?ó có ?a bi? g?i t?i Kho b?c Of The United States of America Payable To The Bearer On Demand Hai m??i ?ô la Trong Gold Coin." ?ây là ti?n c?a chúng tôi. Nó th?c s? là m?t l?i h?a ?? tr? ti?n. Chi tiêu m?t ho?c Gi?y ch?ng nh?n vàng b?c ?ã ???c ch?p nh?n ???c b?i vì, m?c dù nó ?ã ???c thay th? ti?n, nó ?ã là m?t proxy ?áng tin c?y và ?áng tin c?y cho xu. Xem hình 4.

Theo lu?t, các L??NG ti?n c?a chúng tôi là vàng và vàng th?i b?c, và LU?T ti?n t?i Hoa K? th?c hi?n vàng và b?c xu TI?N H?P PHÁP.

N?i nào b?n tìm th?y m?u v?t nh? ti?n hôm nay? Trong ??ng xu c?a hàng và các b? s?u t?p cá nhân.

??NH L??NG, không có liên quan ??n ti?n c?a h?. Nó có th? ??c X la M? trên m?t, nh?ng ?ô la c?a nh?ng gì? ? trên b?n th?y m?t ??ng ?ô la c?a vàng và ?ô la m?t b?c. ? trên b?n th?y vàng và b?c gi?y ch?ng nh?n r?ng ?ã h?a theo yêu c?u ph?i tr? m?t ??ng ?ô la b?c ho?c m??i ?ô la vàng. M?t Dollar là m?t ??n v? giá tr? kim lo?i quý giá mà liên quan ??n m?t tr?ng l??ng ?o b?ng h?t.

"Ý t??ng trung tâm c?a h? th?ng ti?n c?a M? là '?ô la'. M?t ?ô la là gì Câu h?i này ?ã là ch? ?? c?a kh?i c?a các cu?c th?o lu?n ? Câu tr? l?i cho câu h?i có liên quan ??n vi?c tr? thành m?t n?i hoang dã c?a lý thuy?t --- m?t ?i trong m?t mê cung c?a abstractions --- nh? là k?t qu? trong ?ó ??c ???c lãnh ??o ?? tin r?ng có r?t khó kh?n trong s? hi?u bi?t ch? là nh?ng gì ?ô la m?t là May m?n thay, chúng tôi không ph?i ?? ??c bài này v?n h?c và v?t l?n v?i t?t c? các v?n ?? v? gi? thi?t propounded.. Các v?n ?? toàn ???c gi?i quy?t m?t ph?n quy ch? c?a Hoa K?. The ??o lu?t Ngày 12 tháng 2 1873 (Sec. 14), thi?t l?p "25,8 h?t vàng" 900/1000 t?t (ho?c 23,22 h?t vàng m?), mà g?u con tem c?n thi?t và gây ?n t??ng. Các ??o lu?t nói r?ng ?ây là m?t ?ô-la -- -không ph?i là nó gi?ng nh? m?t ??ng ?ô la, hay ?ó, cho các m?c ?ích c?a cu?c th?o lu?n, nó có th? ???c coi là m?t ??ng ?ô la, nh?ng mà nó là m?t ??ng ?ô la H?n n?a, các quy ch? m?t l?n n?a c?t t?t c? các tranh cãi v? giá tr? c?a ??ng ?ô la m?t; cho nó nói r?ng ??ng ?ô la (các m?nh in vàng có ch?a 25,8 h?t vàng ph?t 900/1000) 's? ???c các ??n v? giá tr?' trong h? th?ng ti?n c?a chúng tôi. " (2) ?ây là ti?n c?a chúng tôi..

Nh?ng m?t d? tr? liên bang L?u ý là không có ???c ch? là mô t?; nó không th?m chí ??n g?n. ?ây không ph?i là ??ng ?ô la. Nó không ph?i là b?t k? s? l??ng ?ô la. Nó là m?t phi?u ch? c?a gi?y bi?u hi?n gì khác h?n là m?t cách th?c mà theo ?ó ?? x? n? thu? c?a b?n, v?i quy?n b? phi?u c?a th?ng d? c?a b?n trên gi?y nh?ng th? khác nh? ti?n n?u h? ???c h?p pháp c?a vàng và b?c. Vì v?y, các One dollar d? tr? liên bang L?u ý, ví d?, không ph?i là m?t ?ô-la, nh?ng tuyên b? ???c trên khuôn m?t c?a nó. Là m?t l?i nói d?i? Trong th? gi?i c?a tôi nó ???c. Ng??i không ???c làm ch?ng sai. Ngay c? khi các ??o lu?t ngày 12 tháng hai n?m 1873 ?ã không ???c hoàn h?o, và c?n ?i?u ch?nh s?a ??i ho?c ph?t ti?n, ng??i có th? t??ng t??ng nh? th? nào chúng tôi t?i qu?c gia này ?ã ?i t? m?t ?ô-la c?a các mô t? ? trên, ?? ném nó t?t c? ra ngoài và sau ?ó ch?p nh?n các gi?y fiat hi?n t?i ?ô la không có mô t? pháp lý khác v?i m? h?, "nó là m?t ngh?a v? c?a Hoa K?," nh? ý t??ng trung tâm m?i trong h? th?ng ti?n M??

B?n có th? không ???c tr?c ti?p tr? ti?n lãi n? qu?c gia, nh?ng b?n, bây gi?, gián ti?p tr? lãi unpayable n? qu?c gia c?a chúng tôi v?nh vi?n cho các ch? n? c?a chúng tôi b?ng cách thu? c?a b?n. Và b?n s? ti?p t?c tr? ti?n, th?m chí ??n m?t m?c ?? cao h?n, cho chính quy?n th? gi?i m?t trong khi và khi nó ???c ? ?ây. M?t tr?n chung k?t quan sát v? ti?n b?c c?a h?, nó có xu h??ng ?? m?t s?c mua c?a nó t??ng ??i nhanh. Không nhanh nh? m?t s? inflations, ?? ???c công b?ng. Tuy nhiên, niken giá tr? c?a ti?n M? vào n?m 1913 có th? mua kho?ng ?ô-la theo hi?u l?nh gi?y mua nh?ng gì ngày hôm nay. Và vào n?m sau, các máy tính l?m phát trên internet s? có th?m chí t?i t? h?n ?? báo cáo v? s?c mua c?a ti?n c?a h?. Ng??i ti?t ki?m v? m?t ?ô la c?a h? m?t ?i s? giàu có h?n theo th?i gian. ?i?u này m?t ?i s? giàu có ?? nhi?u ng??i ti?t ki?m ti?p t?c, tính t?i 1913, c?a truy?n th?ng ??ng xu ???c xén ra và ti?t ki?m .

".... Henry VIII debased ??ng xu Trong nh?ng ngày ?ó h? không có máy tính, do ?ó, ch? ??n gi?n là hoàng t? l?a b?p c?o ??ng xu khi ông mu?n l?a g?t công chúng. Ngày nay chúng ta ?ánh m?t vài s? li?u vào m?t máy tính kh?ng l? t?i Culpepper, Virginia và t?o ghi chú liên bang, các hóa ??n, và trái phi?u, và phao này ra vào trong c?ng ??ng tài chính ?? d? tr? có th? làm theo m?t công th?c nh?t ??nh, và ti?n b?c có th? ???c t?o thông qua vi?c t?o ra các kho?n cho vay. Khi b?n t?o ti?n theo cách này b?n làm t?ng ??n m?c này ti?n là không ???c tr? l?i b?ng cách thu nh?p có ???c . ?ây là ph??ng pháp hi?n ??i c?a chúng ta v? xu ti?t ki?m . " (3.)

Nh?ng gì chúng tôi có ngày hôm nay (ti?n c?a h?) là chính xác nh?ng gì các Amero s? ???c tr? nó ?ã có th? in trên gi?y khác nhau và nó s? ???c dùng ?? l?u thông gi?a ba qu?c gia, ho?c ga t?m , trong khi gi?y c?a C?c D? tr? Liên bang H? th?ng ???c nhi?u h?n ho?c ít h?n ???c thi?t k? cho Hoa K?. Các in ?n, "Hoa K?", các b?c chân dung c?a Ch? t?ch ch?t, lúc t?i t? nh?t làm cho ng??i Mexico và Canada g?c x? lý ?ô la M? c?m th?y h? ???c x? lý m?t qu?c gia ho?c ??n v? ti?n t? c?a ngân hàng trung ??ng, và h? ?ang có. Tuy v?y, vi?c thay ??i tên cho "Amero" và ??a khuôn m?t khác h?n là Ch? t?ch c?a chúng tôi ho?c ch?t, thi ?ua v?i Euro, không có m?t ? t?t c? các hoá ??n trên s? ch? cho phép ng??i hàng xóm c?a chúng tôi ?? tin r?ng lo?i ti?n t? này là c?a dân t?c c?a h?, ho?c n?u ?ó là Liên minh nh?ng gì ?ang t?i. Không có gì s? có thay ??i trong b?n ch?t c?a ti?n. Nó v?n s? bi?u hi?n m?t kho?n n? cho ngân hàng trung ??ng ??c quy?n. Và, nh? m?t ?oàn nên thành công, b?n có th? t??ng t??ng r?ng nó s? khó kh?n h?n th?m chí ?? s?a ch?a nh?ng thi?t h?i th?c hi?n và tr? v? m?t h? th?ng ti?n hi?n, n?u ?ó là m?t ?i?u không ?ã không th?.

R?t khó ?? t??ng t??ng m?c ?? âm m?u ph?i ?ã ?i vào nh? h?, các ngân hàng trung ??ng s?m, các t? ch?c tài chính th? gi?i, ?ã thuy?t ph?c chính ph? c?a chúng tôi ?? t?ng b??c tháo r?i h? th?ng hi?n pháp ti?n t? ?ã ???c làm vi?c nh? nó c?n ph?i có, và thay th? b?ng m?t h? th?ng hoàn toàn d?a trên n?.

Trong phân tích cu?i cùng, không ai ph?i lo l?ng v? ti?n b?c c?a chúng tôi ?ang ???c thay th? b?ng Amero, b?i vì (A) ti?n xu c?a Hi?n pháp nh? ?ã ???c thay th? và chúng tôi ?ã ???c s? d?ng n? công b? c?a h? d?a trên ti?n trong m?t th?i gian lâu dài, . Chúng tôi ?ang s? d?ng chính xác s? ti?n mà các ngân hàng, ch? không ph?i thành l?p t? ph?, chúng tôi ?ã có th? s? d?ng. Vi?c chuy?n t? ti?n xu ???c hi?n th? ? trên c?a Hi?n pháp, cho r?ng C?c D? tr? Liên bang H? th?ng ???c t? cáo VAST v? ý ngh?a c?a pháp lu?t, tài chính, và ch? quy?n. Và (B), chúng tôi không th?c s? ?ang b? ?e d?a v?i m?t s? thay th? th? hai, nh?ng ch? có m?t thay ??i m? ph?m ?? làm cho nó tâm lý ch?p nh?n ???c ?i?u này cái g?i là "Liên minh."

Jason Kirby

?? có s? ?áng k? dòng trong bài vi?t ??ng ký qu?c gia mà b?t ??u t?t c? các yêu c?u thông tin này: B?n k? ho?ch ?? thay th? vàng và b?c xu v?i n? ngân hàng trung ??ng là b??c c?n thi?t kh?ng l? g?n h?n v?i gi?c m? x?u ch? ngh?a xã h?i, c?a m?t th? gi?i ,c?a chính ph?. Ch? ngh?a xã h?i không ph?i là m?i. Nó ?i tr? l?i gi?a n?m 1800's. Chúng tôi ?ã có k? t? khi b?t ??u c?a h?, ch??ng trình ngh? s? c?a h? cho uy quy?n c?a nhà n??c và h?n ch? các quy?n s? h?u cá nhân và t? do cá nhân. M?t s? ph?n ??i ti?n gi?y và ki?m soát tín d?ng Nhà n??c luôn luôn là m?t ph?n c?a ch??ng trình ngh? s? c?a h?. Nó là vô ngh?a ?? ???c báo ??ng v? Amero ngày hôm nay không có cách nào ?? tr? v? xu vàng và b?c c?a Hi?n pháp Hoa K? nh? là ti?n qu?c gia. Nó là nh? không ?áng k? nh? thay ??i thi?t k? xu?t hi?n trên khu ??ng c?a chúng tôi.

kirbyjason@hotmail.com

Tháng Sáu 20, 2006

Tham kh?o:

1. Ch?n l?. ACRES, M?, Charles Walters, Jr Trang 14.

3. Ch?n l?. ACRES, M?, Charles Walters, Jr trang 16

2. Và S? d?ng ti?n c?a h?, b?i FA Cleveland, Ti?n s?, Wharton School Tài chính và Kinh t?, ??i h?c Pennsylvania, D. Appleton and Co Publishers, 1916.

PCnet d?ch thu?t