Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve
41 min 25 sec - Jun 1, 1996
Average rating: 


(721 ratings)
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson understood "The Monster". But to most Americans today, Federal Reserve is just a name on the dollar bill.
They have no idea of what the central bank does to the economy, or to their own economic lives; of how and why it was founded and operates; or of the sound money and banking that could end the statism, inflation, and business cycles that the Fed generates.
Dedicated to Murray N. Rothbard, steeped in American history and Austrian economics, and featuring Ron Paul, Joseph Salerno, Hans Hoppe, and Lew Rockwell, this extraordinary new film is the clearest, most compelling explanation ever offered of the Fed, and why curbing it must be our first priority.
Alan Greenspan is not, we're told, happy about this 42-minute blockbuster. Watch it, and you'll understand why. This is economics and history as they are meant to be: fascinating, informative, and motivating.
This movie could change America.
Indeed, this movie could change the whole world – well, at least it will shed some light on the reality of the contemporary monetary system.
Make no mistake, the issues discussed in this documentary are not just relevant to the United States – in fact, all Western countries subscribe to a slight variation of the same model. Therefore, we are all under the same - essentially feudal - system with few people in charge.
The secretive nature of the Reserve Banking System is probably the most disturbing aspect of this whole kabana. We are looking here at essentially non-government entities, with no overseeing body and no known budgets. That no-budget quandary is actually pretty funny considering that Reserve Banks magically create money out of thin air and then lend it to governments at interest.
So if they need cash for something, I guess they can just print some… Crazy world!
Ron Paul makes an interesting appearance in this movie. He is obviously arguing against such tyranny – and "tyranny" is probably a good word here. His contribution to the debate obviously needs to be acknowledged. However, I cannot escape the impression that promoting such views will not be very helpful in his upcoming presidential candidacy of 2008.
Not because it’s a wrong thing to argue – not at all, quite the opposite in fact. Nevertheless, since this whole “imaginary money” thing is so entrenched, with so many extremely powerful stakeholders relying on perpetuating such a state of affairs – he will likely find it difficult to be accepted and promoted as a serious contender.
Although,
stranger things have happened…
Added: 14 April 2008