I have watched the money masters. I understand redeemable notes. I do not think the timing of events that he proposes is correct.

Redeemable notes are not fiat currency (legally prescribed currency which (at least since the invention of paper money) has no intrinsic value). Redeemable notes are also not paper currency. Paper currency means that paper is the thing that is exchanged, not real assets. Carrying a note of deposit from a bank in Rome to a bank in Venice is not "paper currency." It doesn't become paper currency until it is the actual thing that exchanges hands on a regular basis. Fractional reserve lending and paper as a currency came about at the exact same time, from the same people, for the purpose of both. It wasn't just to increase their money. It was to change the way we perceive money.

All of these "historical expositions" always rely on the concept of greed as the motivator. My research suggests it was never about "greed" as we understand the term. It was always about control. It has always, from day one, been about controlling the entirety of society, which is accomplished by controlling everyone's daily decisions, which is done by control of the economy, which is done by creating the concept of paper money, which only works if there is a fluid money supply, which is why they created fractional reserves and took all value out of the intermediary of exchange for barter.

The illusion that it still had value, because you could ostensibly go to a bank and exchange "paper currency" for gold was exactly that, an illusion. Yes, some people could do it, but by the time paper had become a currency, there was never a moment when everyone could do it. The little they passed out to those who demanded it was only to keep up the illusion. This was a society wide illusion, designed specifically for control of society.

The difference between my version and the Money masters version is that Money masters thinks it was an organic development based on greed. I think it was planned out to progress exactly as it did from the beginning for the purposes of control of society. That is what my investigation has shown me. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it was a mix of both, but the exact same people have had control of the money supply, doing the same sort of things for at a minimum of 3500 years. I don't know where in there it became "the plan" to transition to fiat currency, but every attempt to create fiat currency can be traced back to the same people, and they have been trying it for a very long time.

I have watched the money masters. I understand redeemable notes. I do not think the timing of events that he proposes is correct.

Redeemable notes are not fiat currency (legally prescribed currency which (at least since the invention of paper money) has no intrinsic value). Redeemable notes are also not paper currency. Paper currency means that paper is the thing that is exchanged, not real assets. Carrying a note of deposit from a bank in Rome to a bank in Venice is not "paper currency." It doesn't become paper currency until it is the actual thing that exchanges hands on a regular basis. Fractional reserve lending and paper as a currency came about at the exact same time, from the same people, for the purpose of both. It wasn't just to increase their money. It was to change the way we perceive money.

All of these "historical expositions" always rely on the concept of greed as the motivator. My research suggests it was never about "greed" as we understand the term. It was always about control. It was always, from day one, been about controlling the entirety of society, which is accomplished by controlling everyone's daily decisions, which is done by control of the economy, which is done by creating the concept of paper money, which only works if there is a fluid money supply, which is why they created fractional reserves and took all value out of the intermediary of exchange for barter.

The illusion that it still had value, because you could ostensibly go to a bank and exchange "paper currency" for gold was exactly that, an illusion. Yes, some people could do it, but by the time paper had become a currency, there was never a moment when everyone could do it. The little they passed out to those who demanded it was only to keep up the illusion. This was a society wide illusion, designed specifically for control of society.

The difference between my version and the Money masters version is that Money masters thinks it was an organic development based on greed. I think it was planned out to progress exactly as it did from the beginning for the purposes of control of society. That is what my investigation has shown me. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it was a mix of both, but the exact same people have had control of the money supply, doing the same sort of things for at a minimum of 3500 years. I don't know where in there it became "the plan" to transition to fiat currency, but every attempt to create fiat currency can be traced back to the same people, and they have been trying it for a very long time.

I have watched the money masters. I understand redeemable notes. I do not think the timing of events that he proposes is correct.

Redeemable notes are not fiat currency (legally prescribed currency which (at least since the invention of paper money) has no intrinsic value). Redeemable notes are also not paper currency. Paper currency means that paper is the thing that is exchanged, not real assets. Carrying a note of deposit from a bank in Rome to a bank in Venice is not "paper currency." It doesn't become paper currency until it is the actual thing that exchanges hands on a regular basis. Fractional reserve lending and paper as a currency came about at the exact same time, from the same people, for the purpose of both. It wasn't just to increase their money. It was to change the way we perceive money.

All of these "historical expositions" always rely on the concept of greed as the motivator. My research suggests it was never about "greed" as we understand the term. It was always about control. It was always, from day one, about controlling the entirety of society, which is accomplished by controlling everyone's daily decisions, which is done by control of the economy, which is done by creating the concept of paper money, which only works if there is a fluid money supply, which is why they created fractional reserves and took all value out of the intermediary of exchange for barter.

The illusion that it still had value, because you could ostensibly go to a bank and exchange "paper currency" for gold was exactly that, an illusion. Yes, some people could do it, but by the time paper had become a currency, there was never a moment when everyone could do it. The little they passed out to those who demanded it was only to keep up the illusion. This was a society wide illusion, designed specifically for control of society.

The difference between my version and the Money masters version is that Money masters thinks it was an organic development based on greed. I think it was planned out to progress exactly as it did from the beginning for the purposes of control of society. That is what my investigation has shown me. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it was a mix of both, but the exact same people have had control of the money supply, doing the same sort of things for at a minimum of 3500 years. I don't know where in there it became "the plan" to transition to fiat currency, but every attempt to create fiat currency can be traced back to the same people, and they have been trying it for a very long time.