…as to Constitutional money, since you ask, that’s money backed by gold and silver – sound money, as stipulated by the US Constitution. It also stipulates that no central bank should have such an authority – that the issuance of currency is in the hands of Congress.

Ciccio – the comments are sporadically approved – perhaps it’s Daphne’s way to stop this tit-a-tat. I don’t know.

You I say I go personal when my back is against the wall. Far from it. You are so off the mark I hardly know where to start. For example you mention gold reserves. What gold reserves? Today’s currencies are not backed by any gold. We are talking about fiat currencies here. You also say you don’t see how this relates to commercial banks – now really, have you or have you not watched Griffin’s video? Watch the video for dummies – Money as Debt – that should teach you something.

I have gone through much of this in past posts and I haven’t that much patience to go through it again. And again, you are so off the mark, it kills my motivation to explain.

You say the banking system is based on trust. Well yes, when you give such financial entities the power to create money out of thin air, trust is all that’s left. So am I being personal if I told you how naive I think you are?

Let me just tell you this: in less than two years the US financial system, together with its economy, will collapse. Collapse as in TOTAL collapse. The European financial system is not far from collapse, but they will do everything within their power to safeguard the euro because that is tied to the political project that the EU is. The global bankers in charge of the Federal Reserve, to which Obama has given extensive powers over the US economy (not just its financial system), are global bankers, many of whom are based in Europe, mostly London. But I will again have to stop here because you would not be able to fathom the truth.

You WILL some day come back to these posts – you’ll see.

Ok, Kev, let me try this way. You need to drink a lot of water because we are in the middle of a heatwave. At least 2 litres a day.

Thank you for the lesson, ciccio2010 – and for reminding me that you can lead a donkey to water, but you can’t make it drink.

Kev, I think your post of 0024am was published AFTER I posted my reply above of 1259hours, maybe Daphne could confirm. Unfortunately, I had only seen the post of 0107am at the time of my reply.
I see that, as usual, you resort to personal remarks when your back is to the wall. It does not stop me.
I know very well what quantitative easing is (e.g. the Bank of England’s buying of high quality private sector bonds from the banks, so that it lends money to bankers and takes off assets from their balance sheets in exchange for cash during the crises) and what fractional reserve is (i.e. the issuing of money in circulation in excess of gold reserves held), thank you very much – all off the cuff, of course, not from a conspiracy video.
But unless you have a sound basis in Economics, those videos, and complex terms like quantitative easing and fractional reserve banking are going to confuse you badly. And you should not try to confuse others.
To be frank to you, what I do not know is what Constitutional Money is (referred-to by Mr. G.E. Griffin). So you may teach me the meaning of that – I do not think that an explanation was in any of your videos.
Go on, tell us how you would make the world richer with Constitutional Money – we are all ears. At least you should parrot to us how Ron Paul will go about it. Is that some form of Government-control of our money, from the Libertarians?
Kev, the banking system is based on TRUST. But so is the family (hence the original subject of divorce), your relationship with your professional advisors, and so is your trust in government, airline pilots, taxi drivers etc. If you loose all that trust, then you should live alone in a cave, not in Brussels.
So it is better to be called an apologista than to behave like a hypocrite (no offence intended).
But I still did not get the answer to my questions.

Kev, I see you have preferred to avoid my questions. But maybe because it is still Sunday morning. I will check here later for your answer.
And since you did not deny, I still think you did not study basic Economics.
In the meantime, here is a short economics lesson in the comfort of your home (you can call it “home economics” if you like) to keep you away from those videos:
I think everyone knows that a dollar bill is a “promise to pay” instrument by the Fed Reserve. And we all know that the banking system is about debt. But against all that debt, there is, in the conservative of cases, unencumbered asset securities, or, in the other cases, a probable future flow of income (be that personal income, business income etc.) When things go wrong, and debt is created against no security, as happened in the US in the housing bubble up to 2 years ago, or as happened at the time of the .com bubble, the system has been applied wrongly. With consequent losses. But this is the wrong use of a system, and you cannot simply write-off the system.
Kev, when debt is extended properly, it goes into factories, business, aircraft, ships, home building etc, rather than in holidays, consumption and the rest. When applied properly, it creates most of the wealth you see around you, whether in Malta, Brussels, or anywhere else. End of lesson.

Here is another one – for dummies – Money as Debt: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#

Ciccio, I don’t want to be mean, but my sincere reaction is: Tal-biki!

If you don’t know what fractional reserve banking is and you don’t know what quantitative easing is, then perhaps you should look them up. Had you bothered to watch the entire video, G. Edward Griffin explains it well enough. Otherwise, your €100 example is a load of codswallop. It’s not the way it works, caro. Not even close. I mean, really, if this is what ciccio2010 can come up with, then we are in a worse shape than I ever imagined, because I had the impression that you’re no fool. But I am the one who’s at fault here, because, as my Soviet experience has taught me, the illusion has a stronger grip over the educated – of course the West calls it ‘brainwashing’. But brainwashing seems to be everywhere except in the spotless West.

Just, please, don’t be a bankers’ apologista. Smarten up. Forget the crap they taught you at school and start afresh. There’s Murray N. Rothbard’s classic – I believe I had told you about this book – “What has government done to our money” – it’s great for beginners. Here’s the link again for anyone who’s interested: http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

But if you’re into the illusion, read the Fed’s shill: Niall Fergusson. He’s well rated, of course, just like his Soviet counterparts used to be. And with that I’ll leave you all in peace.

Thanks for the reply. It reveals an ‘anti-marriage’ bias in British law, doesn’t it? So marriage requires the consent of two adults, while divorce requires the consent (or co-operation) of only one!

[Daphne – It’s actually quite logical. If people cannot be forced into marriage against their will, then they cannot be kept in that marriage against their will. As you said, marriage requires the consent of both parties.]

“It is the idea that there should be no divorce, and not the idea that there should be divorce, that feeds in directly to the notion of romantic love” – yes and no.

Socrates suggested becoming a philosopher not divorcing… even though divorce was available (to men) in Ancient Greece, and Socrates was not a product of the 19th century.