Ongoing monetary and banking reform communication with ~2,000 AP Econ teachers

Since 2009 I’ve been a Socratic voice for monetary and banking reforms to ~2,000 Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion listserve. The status over the last six years is an occasional positive response, with a total of perhaps ten teachers in at least mild agreement, and occasional negative responses that I end with a few polite yet direct Socratic questions that demonstrate no substantiation to the negative argument. None of the negative ones or other colleagues follow-up with good questions to learn, only two have communicated to me privately in partnership, and zero colleagues have joined my voice on the listserve in any way pointing to reforms or admonishing colleagues to look at the game-changing data.

This experience mirrors my 18 years of work with ending poverty: we ended all arguments that poverty is somehow necessary, created enough force to have two UN summits for heads of state, and then ongoingly receive corporate media/government lies of omission and commission from “official leaders” as the current system continues. The general public is mired in disinformation.

My current philosophy is my role is simply to provide choice, at least for this part of our work for Earth to become the lovely place we all know it can be.

My respectful conclusion from my own experience for your consideration: no progress is possible until the current system is recognized as literally criminal, and ended with public demand for arrests in OBVIOUS crimes centering in war and money, and OBVIOUS lies to yearly kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions (four-part article series with videos on arrests as the obvious citizen response).

8-minute video from PuppetGov: Why resistance is essential:

I think it’s helpful to communicate this ongoing reality check of public receptivity among people with academic training and professional experience in a key area for reform; in this case for monetary and banking reform (last update from February, 2015). I was previously removed from the AP US Government listserve in 2012 for contrasting the US Constitution with US policies in wars, torture, extrajudicial assassinations, and removal of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

My latest attempt to my AP Econ colleagues in response to discussion on Greece, with hyperlinks to them for full documentation. I’ll write more if I receive any discussion worthy of public attention:


Nobel Prize-winning physicist Frederick Soddy became motivated to understand the mechanics of our “modern” monetary system from such outrageous problems such as (name omitted) and colleagues point-to with Greece. Soddy wrote books to explain money structure that I won’t get to in this lifetime; and his conclusion of the physical structure of our “modern” system:

“I thought that, as a scientific man, I ought to know something about economics. So I studied the money system for two years and could make nothing of it. Then, one day, the truth dawned on me. What I was studying was not a system, but a confidence trick.”

“Confidence trick” is what our  debt-based monetary system is; devised in the US Robber-Baron age to benefit its owners (economist Tim Canova expertly documents this ownership and bank-profit priority). Soddy allied himself with leading economists of his day for monetary reform (86% of econ professors in agreement), and failure to overcome the lobbyists of the big banks (history documented here in my student assignment).

That’s the big picture: creating what we use for money as debt in a system created by and for the oligarch banks will mechanically and certainly cause increasing and tragic-comic debt. The solution is to create debt-free money for direct payment of public goods and services, with at-cost public credit (like a 5% mortgage and credit card from a state-owned bank that abundantly replaces all state taxes and abundantly funds all schools).

Back to Greece, I recommend this analysis by Ellen Brown that the system owners prefer austerity and the system’s continuance rather than Emperor’s New Clothes OBVIOUS conclusion of Soddy, the 86% of econ professors who were directly asked, Thomas Edison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and I hope YOU, dear colleagues. Excerpt from Ellen Brown:

“The European Central Bank threatened to turn off the liquidity that all banks – even solvent ones – need to maintain their day-to-day accounting balances. That threat was made good in the run-up to the Greek referendum, when the ECB did turn off the liquidity tap and Greek banks had to close their doors. Businesses were left without supplies and pensioners without food. How was that apparently criminal act justified?”

… First there was the derivatives scheme sold to Greece by Goldman Sachs in 2001, which nearly doubled the nation’s debt by 2005.

Then there was the bank-induced credit crisis of 2008, when the ECB coerced Greece to bail out its insolvent private banks, throwing the country itself into bankruptcy.

This was followed in late 2009 by the intentional overstatement of Greece’s debt by a Eurostat agent who was later tried criminally for it, triggering the first bailout and accompanying austerity measures.

The Greek prime minister was later replaced with an unelected technocrat, former governor of the Bank of Greece and later vice president of the ECB, who refused a debt restructuring and instead oversaw a second massive bailout and further austerity measures. An estimated 90% of the bailout money went right back into the coffers of the banks.

In December 2014, Goldman Sachs warned the Greek Parliament that central bank liquidity could be cut off if the Syriza Party were elected. When it was elected in January, the ECB made good on the threat, cutting bank liquidity to a trickle.

When Prime Minister Tsipras called a public referendum in July at which the voters rejected the brutal austerity being imposed on them, the ECB shuttered the banks.

The Greek government was thus broken Mafia-style at the knees, until it was forced to abandon its national sovereignty and watch its public treasures sold off piece by piece. Suspicious minds might infer that this was a calculated plot designed from the beginning to throw Greece’s prized assets onto the auction block, a hostile takeover and asset stripping for the benefit of those well-heeled entities in a position to purchase them, including the very banks, hedge funds and speculators instrumental in driving up Greek debt and destroying the economy.”

Carl Herman


Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.


Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at

Note: has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here).

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Michael Meyer

    It is shocking to read that”….zero colleagues have joined….”.
    It seems to me that your AP teacher colleagues do not feel free to speak but do feel free to choose to censor historical facts and constipate their heartfelt opinions[to turn off ones own intellectual liquidity] and thus teach lies,AP lying and criminally deceptive capitol behaviors and TV Cloud/virtual reality….to imbue with serf-ologism and- royal,star,savior- worshipful waiting,obedient patience and how to stand in line for a long time starring at a personal $electronic device FIRE of pure true LOVE.
    ANAL RETENTIVE DARK SARCASM TEACHERS;You would have done better to ‘leave those kids alone’….in the forests of Nature’s God.

    Carl,You are one of the best teachers ever.[highly relevant course content,affordable and no term papers!]

    XOX and football huddle break buttocks slap,
    I Love you.[prepare to be ostracized from heaven forever]

    • Carl_Herman

      Thanks, Bro. I don’t ask for term papers, but Life always has exams of one type or another. We’ll keep doing our best and discover what develops 🙂

      • diogenes

        That you were banned from a discussion group by the “educators” who operate it speaks loud and clear about the respect for truth and open discussion to be found in American education: zilch. Teachers in America — with rare exception — are either cowed rabbits or ex-teachers. This is true from kindergarten to grad school.

        • Carl_Herman

          From my experience in education, the owned propagandists are at the top and depend upon limited critical thinking skills among the general public to punch through the propaganda.

          The history teacher part of me is fine with this: people will have what they deserve.

          That said, there is hidden history that points to unfair manipulation of human development that makes necessary critical thinking rare among humans.

          • diogenes

            The “owned propagandists” are at the top but they depend on the obedience of their hireling lieutenants — and it’s these hirelings who do things like maintain blacklists, write stories excusing and concealing killings by police and horrific rates of incarceration and “justifying” the gross maldistribution of wealth, etc. etc. etc. America’s hired liars — in all fields — education, media, “science,” “medicine” (psychiatrists collaborating in torture, e.g.) — these and their like are the normative inhabitants of this 10%.

  • Wait there is one video I would like to add to this very fine article Mr.Herman.

    June 9, 2015 Housing Crisis 2.0 – Mike Maloney’s Daily News Brief

    Mike wanted to share this private report publicly as it contains some very important data. This report is collated daily by our news team, and sent out to GoldSilver com Management and Insiders early each morning.

    • Carl_Herman

      Thanks, MOLON LABE. Yes, the data tell the story; people just need to be willing to look (and arrest the liars for fraud).

    • diogenes

      I’m going to copy here my three queries posted in Comments of Charles Hugh Smith’s “Rent Bubble” article because they pertain here also:

      Generally statistics about “home ownership in America” say that over 60% of Americans “own their own homes,” but in fact on the order of half of these homes are really owned by the banks to whom their inhabitants are paying mortgages, so that the real proportion of Americans who actually do own their own homes must be around 30%. My first question is, what is it in fact? My second question is, what proportion of these people, who really do own their own homes, own them only after paying off mortgages — that is, only after the banks extracted their pound of flesh? And third, on average, when a mortgaged home in America has been completely paid off, what portion of the total money spent for it goes to the people who built it, what proportion to the people who supplied the materials, and what proportion to mortgage investors? Need I point out that these are basic questions and that the fact that they are never raised, are always glossed over, suggests that the answers reveal an entirely predatory system fastened on our basic need for human shelter?

  • jo6pac

    Thanks CH

  • diogenes

    Thank you Carl Herman, for your continuing exposure of facts and solutions. The question remains, how?

    • Carl_Herman

      As I state in the article:

      “My respectful conclusion from my own experience for your consideration: no progress is possible until the current system is recognized as literally criminal, and ended with public demand for arrests in OBVIOUS crimes centering in war and money, and OBVIOUS lies to yearly kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions (four-part article series with videos on arrests as the obvious citizen response).”

      • nick quinlan

        There is zero faith in a “justice” system that is non existent in America. Even police officers can murder innocent, unarmed citizens for no reason whatsoever and face no charges.
        How then, to go after the REAL criminals of whom you speak? They act, and appear untouchable, and so far, they are. The one world, fascist, authoritarian “government” is locking down the globe.
        It’s the United Banks and Corporations vs Humanity and the Earth

        • Carl_Herman

          The evil ones, those who freely choose evil, are clearly less than 10% of humanity. The 90%+ would choose justice if given free choice. The game is for humanity to awaken, then it’s over; we win.

          If I had to bet, the most motivated group to end the criminal Orwellian US regime is our military because they are the ones most harmed by criminal war policy.

          We’ll see. All we can do is our part; humans are guests on Earth, not management.

          • diogenes

            Actually I think what we confront are a very small inner elite circle of prime movers — 1%-3% of the population — and about 10% of the population who serve them and their purposes for hire. This coincides with the distribution of wealth in America — with about 70% of the wealth in the hands of 2% and another 20% in the hands of another 10% — i90% of the wealth in the hands of 10% of the population, but the controlling interest in the hands of 0.1-0.01%, whose hirelings the other 10% are.

            One reason the era from 1890-1915 in America was genuinely progressive was that a sizeable portion of this 10% chose to work for the general interest of all Americans rather than for the oligarchy, before they were forced back in line by the police state which accompanied American entry in the first world war. It is notable that as the distribution of wealth in America has grown less and less egalitarian over the past 30 years, the paychecks of these hireling enforcers have grown along with the wealth of the oligarchy (though not as much or as fast) while the wealth of the 90% has shrunk dramatically.

      • diogenes

        So how do we bring about and make effective this “public demand”? Plainly the two-party system is successfully designed to prevent such a thing, and plainly third parties quickly get trapped in the organizational and funding corruptions that riddle the “two” parties. Where and how have Americans managed to work around the two party roadblock? Robert LaFollette’s Autobiography has some useful ideas.

        • Carl_Herman

          This is a path made by the walking, Bro. So far, it may be similar to the historical Diogenes finding honesty and virtue difficult. That said, public recognition of “Emperor’s New Clothes” facts will win the contest. How to achieve public recognition is the challenge.

          • diogenes

            Well, we can’t do it by the standard methods — the two parties, the media, or any medium where money talks. Citizen to citizen and voter to voter is the only way of going outside the money trap. That much is clear. But what then? That’s where LaFollette’s example has something to show us.

  • diogenes

    The article by Tim Canova to which you link tells us a little about who is currently “running” the Fed and nothing about who, specifically, owns it. Moreover, it maintains the pretense that the 12 regional Fed members are significant players at the top, whereas the truth is, and has been, since the foundation of the Fed 102 years ago, that 90% of the actual money, and therefore of the power and control, is centered in NYC. Whose money this is, and how much of it is even American and how much isn’t, remains an extremely difficult question to answer. So my — friendly — question for you, CH, is where can we find the answer to this question?

    • Carl_Herman

      diogenes! Thanks for reading Tim’s article, first of all. Second, nice catch! Tim documents the beneficiaries of Fed policy are the large financial businesses, starting with the NYC-centered banks. My communications with colleagues and the public is a balance with art and science to achieve the purpose of communication: recreated experience and factual understanding.

      I document Fed ownership in my AP-specific assignment with more detail on how “money” is created as debt:

      • diogenes

        Thanks CH, for this and everything. However, I just re-read your piece linked here, and while you do say that the Fed is “owned by its member banks” that really doesn’t answer my question — or rather, it raises the further question: who owns those member banks — and particularly who owns the “NYC” member banks that dominate the Fed. And my further question: are these owners Americans or is there a substantial foreign ownership of America’s monetary system — which is, according to the Constitution, supposed to be operated by our government — and not to some invisible third parties to whom it was “franchised” 102 years ago. So, the question still stands: who, specifically, owns the Fed?

        • Carl_Herman

          You’re welcome, d. The banks are owned by their shareholders, and the Fed member banks have shares in the Fed system. I haven’t gotten reliable information as to the proportion of Fed share ownership by which banks. I’ve read and imagine that the big NY banks have dominating control; do you have sources for this?

          So, whoever purchases share control of the member banks has that “share” of ownership, which certainly can be from any nationality.

          • diogenes

            Yes, “the banks are owned by their shareholders” — and their shareholders are, precisely, the 0.01% — the core members of the oligarchy which number fewer than 10,000 families in America, among 300 million of us. The controlling interest in these shares does not turn over much. The Warburgs — for example — were almost certainly big holders in 1913 and they very likely still are. Etc. The question is, who are these Dueños del Mundo — what are their names? Where do they live? These are fundamental questions and the fact that the answers are nowhere to be found itself amounts to a smoking gun.

  • Michael Daush

    Carl, could you write an article that describes where our tax money goes…the treasury, the Fed? Pwople write how banks create money with debt but no one talks about where our payments to the IRS go.

    • Carl_Herman

      Hi Michael,
      The US federal government and IRS publish pie charts with their claims that you can look-up to consider their testimony. That said, because they’re serial liars and criminals in war and money (see article’s documentation), that testimony should be rejected as OBVIOUSLY unreliable.

      Until we have arrests, we’ll never have reliable information about what has been done with our resources given in good-faith for public goods and services.

  • AUGUST 4, 2015 US Economic Myths: Stefan Molyneux & Peter Schiff

    Stefan Molyneux interviewed Peter Schiff on Freedomain Radio. In this hour-long conversation, Stefan and Peter cover the gamut of essential economic issues: the gold market, hidden inflation, the so-called US economic “recovery,” and the ultimate death of the US dollar. This is a great video to catch up on nearly every hot-button issue in the media, from China’s economy to Donald Trump’s campaign to Puerto Rico’s default to American’s misunderstanding of high minimum wage.

  • animalogic

    Dear CM, i always enjoy your articles, and rarely find anything i can disagree with. However, in this article, you do not complete the logic of your own argument. You want citizens to “wake up”, you want banksters jailed, and root and branch economic/monetary reform. I agree fully with you. Lets admit it: we want socialist revolution. These are “revolutionary” ideas and acts. If you will the means, you will the end.

    • diogenes

      The indigenous American alternative to state socialism is the concept of the public utility. This was advocated and advanced by the mainline of American progressives from the 1890s through the 1920s and beyond, and was defeated at large expense by Wall Street’s standard methods for manipulating and quashing democratic initiatives. It says a lot that not only was this movement stopped but the history of it and of its stopping has been totally erased from our consciousness. The public utilities approach has the advantage of decentralization and of keeping management in the hands of those engaged in supplying the service (with public oversight) rather than placing it in the hands of an absentee government bureaucracy (or Wall Street).

    • Carl_Herman

      animalogic: do you mean me, CH? If so, when you use loaded terms like “socialist revolution” you must define your terms. What do you mean?

      The type of revolution I mean is what the etymology is: a turning from. In this case I mean turning from obvious crimes centering in war and money, and the means of this lawful restoration from US military and law enforcement to enact their Oaths, do their job, and arrest obvious criminal suspects for the War Crimes and money fraud that so many of us in alternative media document.

      Those of us writing do not use terms that can cause any confusion that we might be advocating violation of law; we wish our most important laws to be enforced.

      • animalogic

        Dr Mr Herman,
        1. Apologies for using your initials, no offence intended.
        2. The point of my post was to suggest that your ideas, with which i am in substantial agreement, are INHERENTLY revolutionary. Revolutionary in both their nature and in any future consequences.
        3. I use “revolution” in the general sense of “radical change”. Examples of such radical change are reccorded in various historical events: India in 1949, the USA in the 1790’s, Russia in 1917, France in the 1780’s, even Rome in the 40 – 30’s BC.
        4. If i understand you correctly, you believe that reform remains a practical possibility in the context of US politics: for example, you suggest that if only the military and police reaffirmed their oaths and did their ” jobs”, then war criminals and various fraudsters etc could be justly convicted of their crimes.
        4. Although sympathetic to your goals, i believe, in the current political circumstances, they neither possible nor practicable.
        5. I believe that democracy in the US has been corrupted and subverted to a point where “reform” will either be iinadequate (ie Dodd-Frank), impossible OR, if effective, then inherently revolutionary.
        6. As to the violation of the Law: this is an old question — when laws are not only subverted, ignored or corrupted by a ruling elite and its executive organs, but are enacted to corrupt, subvert the democratic institutions which they are obstensively designed to serve, then patriotic citizens have the DUTY to question whether they SHOULD be violated in the people’s general and legitimate interests.

        • Carl_Herman

          Well said, animalogic! None of my colleagues are certain of the future. We are fortunate enough to have the rule of Constitutional law on our side, which 90%+ of Americans support. In the case of unjust “laws,” we’re also fortunate enough that these are void:

          That is, we don’t “violate” unconstitutional so-called “law,” we recognize the .01% as criminal liars who are the violators. For example, Martin King and colleagues acted within 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection and rights and DID NOT violate law: Martin pointed to violations of “leaders” to deny lawful freedom.