Banking History & Effects

The Money Masters--video
Quotes of Presidents & others who opposed banking
The Money Masters--video
Basel I, II, III Scheme
Currency Act, the cause of Revolutionary War
Western Banking and the Soviet Union, the connection
Profs Quigley and Sutton on history of secret global agenda
2nd National Bank
Taking back the money power--Hodgson
Capitalism 101, a satire on media economics
Shock Doctrine, Neolliberal economics exposed by Naomi Klein

The Money Masters is available free at Freedom Documentaries at  Many of the quotes on the previous page were taken from that movie.  It is also available through youtube (22 parts), and can be purchased from Amazon.    

Many things are asserted in this film that are quite different than the history I was taught.  Thus I questioned its accuracy.  I have spent over 8 hours checking several of the major assertions and find them of merit.  Moreover, over the last 40 years I have looked at economics independently, free of both standard American (cold war) university spin and corporate media spin.   I have published on the web ( over 2-hundred articles concerning economics and government, of which about 20 I have written. I find the underlying themes in the Money Masters concerning the hidden power behind government and that of the financial community supported by the evidence. 

Something is very wrong about the direction of our government and the move by the financial community to world governance.  The Money Masters exposes its fundamental cause:  the relationship between financial community and governments.  No less of a source than Wikipedia finds the documentary accurate (though its failure to criticize) and listing of favorable reviews.  Four independent reviews are listed by Wikipedia below; they all accept the film’s themes.  A second indication of its overall merits is that a number of PBS affiliates have aired The Money Masters in 2002 & 2008 (but of course not PBS). 

“On the one side there is the party which holds the power because it holds the wealth; which has in its grasp all labor and all trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purpose all the sources of supply, and which is powerfully represented in the councils of State itself.  On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sore and suffering.”--Poe Leo XIII. 1898.

Review of the Money Masters at

The Money Masters is a 1995 documentary, produced by attorney Patrick S. J. Carmack and directed and narrated by William T. Still.[2] It discusses the concepts of money, debt, and taxes, and describes their development from biblical times onward. It covers the history of fractional-reserve banking, central banking, monetary policy, the bond market, and the Federal Reserve System in the United States. The film is widely available online.[3][4][5]


The film makers posit that the profit from issuing money is currently being used in the United States to benefit a few wealthy individuals. It further argues that this situation should be remedied, so that the profit benefits the public good, as during four periods in the history of the United States. Finally it presents a proposed piece of legislation, the Monetary Reform Act, to implement such a remedy. As support, the film provides many quotations from notable figures including economists, members of the financial system, kings of England and United States presidents.

The film criticises fractional-reserve banking and the control aspects of both modern banking regulation and centralized banking systems such as the Federal Reserve System. It describes the history of money and banking, how central banks came to be and how they operate.

The film describes how the U.S. Congress gave the power of money creation to private banks through the Federal Reserve Act and how the banks accumulate large amounts of interest using this power. It asserts that wealth is slowly being drawn into the hands of a small banking elite at the expense of the general population. This can be seen through such events as the 1929 stock market crash when a broker's call was issued, triggering the crash which further solidified the power of the federal reserve.

The film argues that there is no publicly owned gold left in Fort Knox because the gold belongs to private banks as collateral against the U.S. national debt. The film argues that since the gold was accumulated by prohibiting its possession, the public's gold has been stolen by private banks. The film also asserts that this gold was used as collateral against government loans used to escape the Great Depression and that the majority went to overseas banks who used it to fund Nazi Germany.

The film also asserts that the Federal Reserve System enables private banks to force recessions at will by refusing to offer new loans while simultaneously demanding payment on existing loans. It asserts that this power has been used a number of times since the 1913 creation of the Federal Reserve.

The film asserts that by the end of World War I, private banks owned and controlled much of the United States' newspaper, news magazine, and film outlets and that they achieved this using consolidated wealth generated by fractional-reserve banking. It argues that these banks have influence over the mainstream media through their ownership and that this influence is used to prevent criticism of the financial monopoly from entering the general public's consciousness.

The film argues that placing our economy back on a gold standard will not solve the economic crisis. The scarcity of gold means it is one of the easiest commodities to manipulate. Attempts have been made to outlaw silver, such as the Coinage Act of 1873, which caused outrage and was termed the crime of 1873.

By way of conclusion, the film advocates a Monetary Reform Act and suggests that fractional-reserve banking and the Federal Reserve System be abolished in favor of 100% reserve banking, also known as warehouse banking. These reserves would come from the U.S. Treasury, which would issue non-interest generating money to repay the public debt to the banks. This would happen over a period of one year. As the government repaid its debt, the banks would be required to hold the government's new money as reserves and the reserve rate would slowly be increased to 100%. It is claimed that thus, there would be no inflation or imbalance in the amount of money in circulation. The issuing of new money would then be controlled. In order to prevent inflation, issuance would be according to population statistics. After the public debt was repaid, money that would previously have been interest on the debt would be distributed by the government as a tax refund, leading to the abolition of the Federal income tax.

Distribution, reception, and longevity

According to the producer, 50,000 units of The Money Masters were sold between 1995 and 2001.[6] An article containing the basic ideas presented in the documentary has appeared in Nexus magazine in several languages.[7] Even 15 years after its release, the film still has considerable popularity, gaining interest from an audience first introduce to this subject through other documentaries such as Zeitgeist. As of February, 2010, the film ranked #18,629 of the more than 240,000 movies on DVD and tape cataloged by, and it has a 4.5-star rating.[8] The film was aired in its entirety by PBS affiliate stations in 2002 and 2008.

In a 2004 review, a VUE Weekly editor wrote: "The fruit of Carmack and Still’s labour is The Money Masters, their notoriously lengthy but captivating 1995 documentary about the history of money and the people who have sought to control it over the past 300 years."[9] In a 2006 critique, G. Edward Griffin stated that he found the film worthwhile, but called William's Still's approach to monetary reform "naive."[10] In a 2009 review, Nomi Prins writing in Cineaste magazine described the documentary as : "...[doing] a superb job of revealing the truth behind the Fed and the powerful global financiers whose self-interest has dictated our banking system from the beginning. One gets the feeling that, had there been a larger budget for this film, the rather drab and grainy production values might have been improved. But if you can get past the low-budget style, you’ll find the content extremely compelling."[11][12] (Prins has been very critical of the banking establishment and the Federal Reserve.)[13] In 2008, the film was profiled in a review at the conservative WorldNetDaily news site.[14] ( a very positive review),  As of February, 2010, the film is ranked #15 in the "Top 50 Documentaries" listed at the Movies Found Online web site.[15] As recently as 2009, a review of the film was presented at an international monetary conference.[16]  ) The film has also been cited by conservative commentators including Patrick J. Buchanan

Enter supporting content here

These International bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and use the columns of these papers to club into submission or rive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government -- Theodore Roosevelt, New York Times, March 27, 1922