Documentary Movie Review – Secret of OZ (with Special commentary on the currency debate)
Click Here for the Guide to navigating my reviews
Anyone who has seen the expose “The Money Masters” is familiar with the educated knowledge filmmaker Bill Still has in regards to our monetary system. In this follow-up we learn of the possibility that Frank L. Baum's “Wonderful Wizard of Oz” may have been a warning to future generations about the political struggle of monetary policy.
This film disappointed me greatly. While a potentially decent tool to get someone new interested in the concerns of monetary reform, it is really less about the ties to “The Wizard of Oz” and more about the history of politics and money in the United States.
I'm all for a history lesson, especially in our culture where people frequently forget the important things in a very short time span, with the exception of the things our controlled media would rather direct our focus on. This movie provides a great history lesson as to the debates and balance of power between banking interests and government.
I usually have a few issues with films I review, and I'm not sure how to take away how I feel about the message of this film. Mr. Still absolutely demonizes the idea of a gold backed currency in favor of a government fiat currency. However, I would hope that he understands that his narration of support for fiat currency is not the message the film would actually send out. At the end of all of the evidence he puts forth, and the warnings of “The Wizard of Oz” you come away (and even Bill himself summarizes this) thinking that the answer to monetary woes in this nation is a Silver standard.
The monetary argument is that of a currency based on one of the following principals: Fiat (fictionally inflatable value relation) vs. Creatable (physically inflatable consumable resource) vs. Scarce (limited consumable resource) vs. Precious (rare limited in-consumable resource) vs. Finite (abundant,but limited in-consumable resource). I will mention a sixth below that is rarely discussed in these types of debates.
The difference between a fiat currency and the rest is an issue of quantity. Mr. Still argues that the problems with our monetary supply are A. Who controls scarcity?, and B. Who controls quantity?.
The only difference is that Bill, and several other economists believe that the two are one in the same. However, the difference between Silver (in the Finite category above) and Gold (precious) are their ability to be controlled through scarcity. I'm not going to disagree here, because I believe that as the population of the world expands, a system based on Silver could perhaps push even a more abundant resource like Silver into the precious category. As we see with the Diamond trade, (and even in our own fiat currencies) that perception of use and value can increase perceived demand, or perceived supply decrease, which creates real demand in an effort to get a piece of a rising investment.
I will now discuss the sixth principal of value that economies are based upon. I like to group it with Fiat into a bigger category known as “ethereal” and the other valued resources are “physical.” The Sixth one is Labor. You see just as a Federal Reserve Note is not limited in quantity if you are the Federal Reserve, Labor to a large degree is not limited in “quantity” only ability and capability, which are the whole basis for the use of Labor as a resource. Just as a Fiat currency is only a service of having an inflatable means of exchange that is limited only in ability and capability. Availability do not determine value in these two methods, unless a skill of labor is in such demand that it is treated like a precious resource, but even then it is a product of ability, since most are able to be educated to perform most tasks. These are ethereal because their physical properties do not determine value. One can decide that a piece of paper with ink or an hour of labor is worth $1 or $1000 by simply assigning what it needs to be worth using supply side thinking.
Physical resources on the other hand are demand side thinking. Their physical properties and quantity determine their value. An ounce of Silver will always be worth an ounce of Silver, only the demand for silver can change that price.
The other part of Bill's rejection of the Gold Standard for Fiat is that Government is supposed to be an institution of the people, and that a government controlled fiat system that eliminates banker influence allows the people through government to control the value of their currency.
He acknowledges that politicians do have the incentive to improperly hyperinflate or deflate the currency under that system, but pledges that it would be better than a gold system where deflation is controlled by monied interests who are already in control of resources. And that only the way in which banking money is created affects the system.
I feel that if they are already in control of resources, then their influence is still there even if they do not have the official powers. I think that is an argument that this film even supports. If we've went through this debate several times in this nation already, then why has it not went away? Because banks still have influence over the market and over the scarcity and the value of goods. With that power, you have leverage politically against any politician's effort to protect a system of freedom. I argue that the politicians in Washington are too “modernized” into being a tool of the corporatocracy, and lack the political fortitude to put their political advancement in jeopardy for the sake of values. My answer? State currencies. This is why all of these “Democrats” are afraid to make a real decision about the war on terror, because they are afraid the political implications that doing the right thing will make them appear politically “soft” against the “evil people.” This is why “Tea Partiers” are afraid to purposefully alienate “Republicans” and “neo-cons” because they falsely believe that their independent movement is being accepted by a mainstream system, when a real examination can see the mechanisms at work.
My argument is that you need competing, decentralized currencies, ethereal and physical, supply side and demand side, for in order for a tyrannical institution to control both supply and demand side of a sector of the economy, it also needs a mechanism for driving demand, such as the Diamond or Oil cartels. For example, Texas can have a Gold or Silver backed currency, Alaska an Oil backed currency, Missouri a food backed dollar, Kansas a Fiat currency, all to be legal tender of the United States Union trade-able to banks across state lines, but the control will be in different sectors of the economy. This, however would be unconstitutional due to the Gold/Silver States' clause of the Constitution. (that is also not followed under the FRN system) However, we can still advocate for decentralization and competition between currencies which are the important factors here.
You see to control an economy, you must control both supply and demand. The reason bankers have such great power is that they have controlled demand of the Federal Reserve Note through Legal Tender laws. If a business owner is able to mandate that his store will only accept gold coins, then the power of a Fiat currency supplier is taken away. Much of the Demand side is perception. This is why economies are becoming global. The labor movement of the 20th century had power because they controlled the demand for their skill, and therefore had leverage to negotiate the value of that labor. Much of demand-side economics is disappearing in our global economy because of our ability and willingness to do business with unregulated markets. To the average American, it begins to matter less and less the standards by which goods are made in comparison to their ability to acquire it. Chinese goods are made with practically slave labor, in very poor quality, but we refuse to pay twice the price for morally and quality made goods. This is a 100% perception issue.
Just as over-regulation on smoking became popular, while many complained of the price increases, the prices have actually stayed quite sane in comparison to the regulations. Why is this? Because of decreased demand due to the majority of the public turning their back on smoking as a desirable habit. The reason I mention this, is the fact that the bankers have the power and wealth, so they have the influence. You can take the ability to create money, but they've never had the power to create wealth, only to steal it through fiat. Well, as even this movie admits several times, that once you take the power from the bankers, if they still maintain their assets, then they maintain their influence on the Military Industrial Complex, the media, the politicians, and it's only a matter of time before they are in control again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result. Lets break the cycle of Government and Banks trading bureaucracies over fiat and cartel-controlled currency systems, and repeal these damn Legal Tender laws.
Information: A Jam packed history lesson on all of the currency fights of our lands dating back to the colonist era. Great history of Monetary policy without using “big words”. - 3 Stars
Source Documentation: Experts in finance discussing these issues, although most seem bias against a gold standard - 2 Stars
Presentation Method: History Lesson - 3 Stars
Visuals / Sound: Nothing Flashy, Just the facts, Ma'am - 3 Stars
Political & Social Spectrum: Only slant is the continuous use of the phrase “The gold bugs believe...”- 4 Stars
Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: Constitution. While I may not agree with his ideas, it's a start and a step in the right direction. Only thing missing is steps to take to affect change.- 4 Stars
Overall Wake-Up-Ability: People might be upset that this is more about History than about the hidden symbolism within a pop culture icon that this is advertised to expose. Very unfortunate that Legal Tender laws are not exposed. - 2 Stars
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment