Amschel Rothchild said:
Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it's laws
I feel sure there must have been a debate about this film before, even though I'm not sure how many have sat through all three hours of it. However a search for that phrase, unsurprisingly, brings back many results.
I watched this fairly recently (link), and thought it excellent, and I came away with the following thoughts:
1. The film does not directly do this, but it makes the suggestion that The Money Masters were the cause, directly, or indirectly, of many wars. While there's doubtless more than a grain of truth in that (viz. "The Vietnam war wasn't meant to be won, it was meant to be sustained" - forget who said that - same for Iraq, I presume, given the antics of the US) it's not the whole picture by a long way;
2. We need to know who the shareholders of the Bank of England are if we are to even begin to call the UK some kind of real democracy (I note its Nationalisation, but also, that the names of same are protected under the Official Secrets Act - the UK Government AKA the population is certainly not the 100% shareholder);
3. "This rowing of the economy" (expansion and contraction of the money supply) is a deliberate act of sabotage aimed at gaining further control and/or assets which we now call the "business cycle" - in the current climate, yes, lending has been curtailed. However - chicken and egg - when the entire economy is going down the toilet, nobody in their right mind is going to extend or offer new lending to an enterprise which is dubious, a doubtful start-up with risk, or an existing business on the verge anyway;
4. "The greenback needs to be reintroduced" - AKA we need to print our own money. This is the big one and I've have thought, the most relevant topic today and the conclusion of the film. I have some questions on this:
a-> If Central Banking were universally flawed and evil, and history shows it to be so, and prior attempts at having one ended in disaster - and many Great Men could see the folly of it: why did the US keep on reintroducing Central Bankers? Is this, as I interpret, because the Government of the day ran out of money and the Central Bank was formed because some clever bankers (cleverer than the politicians anyway) came up with the easy ticket solution for the day provided the power to print money was vested in them?
b-> Who should print money? I've heard the current system described as the "least worst option". Thinking of all Governments, but most especially Brown and Blair's tenure, if we could have printed our own money we'd be close on having 100% of the population working in the public sector and no economy to speak of. If Central Banks should not have control of the money suppy, and nor should Governments, who should? The film asserts that this could be done by an independent body with a mandate to link the amount in circulation to the population level, but I cannot seem to reconcile that in my own mind, because I don't see that there is a direct connection.
Detailed stuff maybe but all very pertinent to where we are now and the film was made well before the most recent "crisis". How did others find this film, and, is there a "counter argument film" that I could watch to balance it? (Some counter argument and analysis is what I was looking for)