From the June 2003 Idaho Observer:

Reforming the money system

Perhaps the most important factor of monetary reform is social control. Whatever reform we choose, society must provide the proper inducements to prevent opportunists from abusing our money.

Most IO readers realize the Federal Reserve System has nearly accomplished in 90 years what it was designed to do: Bankrupt the American people and seize control of their national assets.

What are we going to do about it? What can we do about it when a small, silent, elite cabal is destroying our country by design and there is no clear consensus on what to replace the Federal Reserve with when the opportunity arises?

In his book, “The Lost Science of Money: The Mythology of Money -- The Story of Power,” Stephen Zarlenga dedicates a chapter to “Reforming the U.S. Monetary System.”

This chapter begins on page 658 of the 725-page book. By the time you get to the question of reform, you have become quite familiar with the history and science of money: You have been taken back in time to when cattle and grain were first “monetized” circa 1500 BC; you have been exposed to the monetary policies of ancient Orientals, Greeks and Romans through the Dark Ages and the Renaissance when the money power became centered in western Europe. By the time Zarlenga prompts you to consider contemporary monetary reform, you have revisited the world's economic disasters and have a solid understanding as to the mechanical and human nature components of their failures.

By the time you get to page 658 you will know enough about the science and history of money and will have had a chance to reflect upon your own experiences with money, you will have enough information under your belt to enter the great debate: After we defeat the central bankers (again) how will goods and services be conveyed to consumers?

It seems that all basic monetary systems -- Commodity-backed, private free-banking (fiat), local currencies and government provided -- could work if human tendencies toward greed were not a factor. But it is. It always has been -- will it always be?