1965 Hart-Cellar Act is up there with yours too.

1. Federal Reserve creation. Along with removing gold as its backer.
   
2. Allowing Corporations to have to much power, and pretend to be actual people.

Allowing the media to be swallowed up by banks and industry.

Creating corporate personhood.

Why do I think these are more important than the two you listed? Because these two go directly to the quality and availability of the very information needed to reverse the Federal Reserve. :)

The Fed

Hart Celler

Reagan's amnesty

Gold standard removal

Banker bailouts or as Obama would call it, "stimulus"

"mistake" is a funny word

I'm just curious how we helped create Israel, the way I understand the history Britain should get most if not all of the credit for creating that mess via the Sykes-picot agreement, the Belfort declaration, the attempt to fix he Belfort Declaration without taking out ambiguous language that caused the problems in the first place, the Peel commission, and the UN resolution after WWII that "officially recognized" Israel as a state.... the only significant involvement I remember the US having in the "creation" would have been partaking in the UN vote.

Granite, we have done nothing significant to help defuse a century of conflict that's for sure, but from how I understand the history I wouldn't say the US helped create Israel, maybe we deserve blame for not doing as much as could have to protect Palestine ..... but even then after WWII no one wanted to do more than politely ask them to stop expanding (except Egypt).

granted - i grant (concede) to you.

Good catch, thank you

You're most welcome. Here's another

Yea which kinda brings me back to my original question, why does the op think the US created Israel when we really didn't at all?

What the OP is referring to, and is correct about, is the role that Harry Truman and the United Nations played in this during '47-'48.

I'm still not seeing the connection here, we were one of 33 nations that voted for the creation, prior to that Palestine was a British territory and they had already all but given Palestine to the Zionist, I get we played an extremely minor role but America did not create Israel

Palestine was a British territory (for lack of a better word) only with the conclusion of World War One, i.e., hardly any time at all.

Israel would not have come into existence without the approval of the USA.

I strongly disagree, the wheels were already in motion prior to that vote, a lot of European nations allowed Jews to leave voluntarily if they agreed to leave everything behind and renounced their citizenship, even if American voted no, most of the European nations would have still voted yes, without our vote Israel would still have been created

Can someone give an ELI5 about this whole gold-backed currency thing?

Gold's value is easily manipulateable as well, I dont see going back to the gold standard as a real solution

Thats probably why the rothschilds left the gold business.

Imagine a small town without paper money. To get apples the shoemaker gives the apple farmer a pair of shoes in exchange for apples. The shoes are worth 100 apples and the shoe guy doesnt need that many apples right this moment. So apple guy gives shoe guy a signed note saying that whenever needed the note is worth 100 apples. Shoe guy then goes to the clothing guy and gives him the 100 apple note in exchange for a new set of clothes for the family.

Cash is debt you see? Its all based on faith. Clothes guy wouldnt take the 100 apple note of he didnt think apple guy was good for it. That note is apple backed l, faith based aka fiat currency.

Us dollars used to be backed by physical gold held by the Dept of Treasury at places like Ft Knox. Our physical cash was at any point we desired able to be cashed in for a specific weight of gold. Its was this faith aka fiat currency that made our economy work.

Then they one day said no more physical gold is backing up the currency. So now our cash i flates in value. Inflation relates to buying power. 1 dollar is always 1 dollar but 1 dollar will not always BUY what yesterdays 1 dollar could have. Thats inflation.

The value of any currency is based on the faith people have on it, or, in more practical terms, how likely we think it is for the average person to want more of that currency. This is true for gold as well as for any fiat currency.

the modern gold standard mania stems from the idea that gold, for it's long history as one of the most valuable metals in the world, is somehow a safer bet, or even that it does possess some intrinsic value. ( it does! for electronic components and such, that doesn't mean it should make a good currency. )

So people look at our economic woes and ascribe it all to the fiat system which allows more and more money to be created and (supposedly) causes inflation. Here's the thing though: Injection of currency into the money supply doesn't necessarily cause inflation, inflation is a mismatch between money and capital, namely that the total worth of everything in the economy is less than the amount of money. In other words, there's an ideal amount of money that ought to be in circulation such that there's just enough money to pay for everything in the market (plus savings, etc. Obviously this is a very complicated matter).

Gold, therefore, is not the solution because, 1) We have a limited amount of it, and the cash supply needs to expand to keep up with population/economic growth, and 2) If we're talking about gold- backed currencies, and not some kind of return to physical gold coins, it doesn't matter anyways: Let's imagine that US dollars were still redeemable for gold, but that the US economy was in shambles. Would you still invest in dollars regardless of the risk just because you might get your gold back? No, there's simpler ways of getting gold. Once again, what's matters for the value of a currency is faith, it's the perceived worth.

CC: /u/Homegrone18 , /u/TryhardPantiesON

Sorry i misexplained fiat and confused the term with currency that is backed.

well, as you can see my comment was in response to someone asking about the gold standard, and that relates to your title where you mention "currency without a real backup" implying currencies should be 'backed' by something. That's all I was talking about.

The important thing to focus on here, isn't gold-standard versus fiat, and fiat is not the bad guy. The fact that the US can create money to move it's own economy without becoming indebted to foreigners is a good thing, surely! If there are Americans willing and able to do work but there's not enough money in circulation to pay them, well that's just an incredibly silly problem!

You need to look at the the story of Lincoln's greenback, the debt-free gov't-issued money he won the civil war with. And I recommend the documentary film The Money Masters, last I checked there were uploads on youtube. It's lengthy, but you can watch in multiple sessions, definitely worth it.

Legalizing propaganda.

Allowing politicians to be exempt from insider trading laws.

Starting a war on drugs, because alcohol prohibition worked so well. /s

Literally spying on everyone via digital means:

1. Creation of the Fed and subsequent involvement in WWI when we shouldn't have been involved (Woodrow Wilson screwed Americans for generations.)

2. Our involvement in WWII.

Taking the confederacy back. Shoulda let them secede

Saving 600,000 lives, less political divide in both countries, people wouldnt be proud to fly the flag of a group of people who tried to make a different country yet call themselves patriots, and I feel that both countries would be freer than our singular United States of America.

Also i feel like that whole racism thing would be a bit more... contained.

Lol the South on its own is still the poorest region of the USA. Had they successfully seceeded theyd be even more poor. And with high population of agricultural based economy. That experiment wouldnt have lasted past the world wars, and in fact they might just have turned into a ultra national state with an elitist agenda a la germany, japan, n korea. I shiver thinking what kind of timeline we'd be on had we all seperated.

Well, maybe certain states. Remember, the civil war was about states rights vs the union. They didn't want another union with some far removed, easily corrupted govt entity calling the shots. Different states would have had drastically different outcomes economically and culturally also.

Sure but id say winning the civil war would lead to an ongoing sense of unity. Even if separated or if evolved in fashions unique to each other, there would come a time inevitably whence the northern union would be used as a scapegoat for increased poverty. That would be exasperated by if nothing else the expanded underground railroad and general surplus of negroes fleeing from the south. Come time of the marxist revolutions or if not the nazism of the 30s id imagine some sort of populist movement.

Think about their economic position. Even during the civil war. It was no match. Union had all manufacturing and logistics. All the naval force for blockades and other things. The only match the south had was in greater generals and more recruiting. That almost made them win it but thats just wasnt good enough. Strangled and poor the southern army succumbed. Ill admit they otherwise should have won and damnit those generals were wasted. They could have won europe if aimed right and supplied proper. Marvelous men with great intelligence and candor. But they lost.

I dont think a southern confederate usa could have survived the current cold war timeline without some fashion of reckoning.

Interesting thoughts but we can really only speculate on the immediate aftermath with any degree of accuracy. The further seperated an event is from the divulgence we're imagining in the timeline, the less likely the event is to be the same.

So, cold war may never have taken place. If the US hadn't played a hard hand in WWI then Hitler may not have risen to power,...etc. Everything would be different.

Creation of Israel was silly, but creating the OSS (later to become the CIA) was a far worse blunder. It cemented the power of the Anglo-American banking establishment.

An interesting side note. Charles Lindbergh`s father was a Congressman and strongly opposed to the establishment of the Federal Reserve. He wrote a book about it and his offices were broken in to and the plates for the book destroyed, but an electronic copy is now available on the Internet https://archive.org/details/BankingAndCurrencyAndTheMoneyTrust-ByCharlesA.Lindbergh .

Why does having gold as a backer mean anything to you? Serious question.

A very big mistake was slavery. Now look how fucked up things are as a result.

Religion

I agree that those are the two biggest mistakes, yes.