Meanwhile, at the Daily Bell……they may have a point about Ms. Brown and OWS
The Daily Bell remains a leading source of Libertarian spin for the conspiracy market. Recently they posted two articles. One rather brazen, the other rather worrying. They wrongly attack Lincoln, but how about their critique of Ms. Brown’s alignment with OWS?
They remain an interesting challenge. They never stop and why would they, they are well paid. More importantly, they are good at what they do. It’s useful to keep an eye on them, if only to know in what direction the spin is developing. And, good disinformation can be quite instructive.
Interestingly, as pointed out independently by two allies, lately they are featured often at Alex Jones’s. This is surprising to my mind, as it seems that Alex Jones may be end of life as a propagandist since David Taylor is on his case. With the heavy intellectual investment made in the Daily Bell it is surprising they would risk damaging this asset by associating it with him. On the other hand: the MSM still exists, so perhaps the expectation of Jones’s demise is premature.
Lincoln
Well, according to the elves Lincoln was a Money Power agent!
The elves are obviously right when saying the Civil War had nothing to do with Emancipation. Only the ultra naive would suggest otherwise, nowadays. Which does not mean the notion is not still widespread, of course.
They are also right to call Lincoln a ruthless statist. He was. He wrought havoc on the nation and most certainly did not feel bound by many rules of either a humanitarian or constitutional nature.
The questions are: did he have much choice, and does this make him a Money Power agent?
The fact is that the Money Power managed to entice the Southerners to rebel.This to the Daily Bell was no reason to go to war. The elves as extremist libertarians despise Nation almost as much as the State itself. Just another collectivist item, probably.
Had Lincoln let the South walk away, the Union would have been left divided and therefore very vulnerable to outside interference and outright control. The North would have remained a Great Power as it was industrializing, but the South probably not and the North would eventually have faced real competition on its own continent, as the South would have been subverted by competing Great Powers from Europe.
The Daily Bell makes the point that Lincoln fought the war and this is what the Money Power wanted: “The power elite has NEVER started a war, or not for the past 300 years or so, without controlling BOTH sides of the conflict…..Why on Earth are we to believe that Lincoln − above all − was somehow immune to this formula? Most likely he was not…….It really doesn’t matter whether Lincoln was pro- or anti-Greenbacks. First of all, Greenbackerism doesn’t work in the long run. Governments always print too much money when they have the chance and thus debase the currency.”
It’s a fair point, although not necessarily true. However, ‘it really doesn’t matter whether Lincoln was pro- or anti Greenback’?
Really?
As usually they ignore interest. Rothschild offered Gold based credit at 30%. This is what Lincoln refused. Hence the Greenback, hence his premature death. What, from the Money Power’s perspective, is the point of creating war if the Nation is not left indebted afterwards?
Here’s a famous quote everybody should know (thanks for the reminder Memehunter):
“If this mischievous financial policy (the Greenback), which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” — Times of London
Conclusion:
First, Lincoln was a statist. I agree that once we get rid of the Money Power we should not forget to devolve as much power from the Fed Govt as possible, because otherwise it will ruthlessly fill the power vacuum that the Money Power’s demise would leave behind.
As can be read below, I have been further educated on Lincoln. It seems likely he was either an outright Money Power agent, or a useful idiot.
Secondly, for the time being the Money Power Spin Masters at the Daily Bell cannot come up with a narrative co-opting interest free money. This does not mean they never will find a formula, but for the time being they cannot.
It’s strange they would try to damage the ‘Lincoln Cult’ while ignoring the main reason he’s admired: his refusal to become Rothschild’s Interest Slave.
Public Banking and Occupy Wall Street
Here is a far more serious issue. In an article criticizing both OWS and Public Banking, The Daily Bell makes the following point:
“We’ve already charted the backing of Occupy Wall Street – which is apparently partially provided by George Soros, from a funding standpoint. This has been widely reported. The OWS movement is surely one that seeks to reclaim the state on behalf of “the people.”
The public banking movement seeks to reclaim commercial banking and lending for “the people.” The convergence of these two movements in Philadelphia is hardly coincidental, in our view.”
This is indeed a fair point.
In the past I have endorsed Ellen Brown’s Public Banking and I still believe it’s a viable and promising approach.
But the risk of co-optation is quite real. There are a few major problems, which, combined, could become quite risky.
The main problems are these:
1. Public Banking is not interest free
Now, I’ve ignored this in the past, because I reckoned the interest would at least not end up with the Money Power. But still, I don’t like it. In the first place, even at a low 3%, a $100k mortgage would easily cost $50k interest over 30 years. That still is an outrageous amount of money for pushing a few buttons and managing a risk free, asset backed loan like a mortgage.
There is also the problem that any interest on the money supply is bound to lead to forced growth of the money supply (or forced bankruptcy). Both Mike Montagne and Marc Gauvin have tried to explain this to Ms. Brown, but she doesn’t accept it. Probably because she wants to spend and not lend the interest back into circulation. I’m not sure that would solve the problem. Gauvin is sure it will not.
The simple fact is: interest is a bad way of pricing credit. Public Banking can do easily without interest. Public Banking with interest is much more easy for the Money Power to co-opt.
2. Public Banking could pave the way for nationalization of the banks
This is yet another grave risk: people will say, if Public Banking is so wonderful, then why not nationalize them all? Well, because they are sitting on multi-trillion black holes that they call their balance sheets and they would just love to dump those on the Commonwealth.
Nationalization of banks can be a viable option, but only under very specific conditions, as worked out here.
Public Banking could be used as an excuse for the Plutocracy to saddle the taxpayer with immense liabilities. This risk is growing with OWS involvement, since these people expect far too much from Government interference (see next point).
Also, Ms. Brown is far more sanguine about the State as Banker than I am. Certainly it is much better to have the State do it than a private cartel, but still it is far from ideal. As a stopgap I’m all with her, but when going along with OWS, it will end up as a more permanent approach.
3. OWS does look for unreal ‘statist’ solutions.
The Daily Bell is quite right about that.
I never believed in OWS for a very simple reason: what is to be expected from people who go complaining, sign petitions and actually take to the streets while voting for Obama (or whatever other idiot) shopping at Wal Mart and parking their money at Bank of America?
The Money Power cannot exist without our cooperation. It does not care about demonstrations. It worries about non-compliance, boycott and real alternative solutions.
Ms. Brown is indeed aligning herself with people who do not understand that they are a major part of the problem. The Money Power has co-opted OWS and is quite willing to facilitate the ‘solutions’ OWS is promoting, which basically come down to redistributing wealth from the fairly rich to the many. But most certainly not from the ultra rich to the many. And it is the ultra rich that are the problem, not your average millionaires. The problem is not with the people with the $200k salaries, but with the people with the multi billion, even multi trillion asset positions.
OWS is attacking the wrong people with the wrong solutions based on the wrong analysis, while not ending their own complicity with the System. They can therefore not be considered real opposition and it is amazing that Brown is giving away her promising approach so easily.
It’s not all bad, they learned a lot while camping together, but they still have a long way to go before they can be considered a real force.
I’m worried Public Banking is giving away too much, too soon. It is better than OWS and OWS needs Public Banking far more than the other way around. In the hands of OWS Public Banking can easily become a liability.
Public Banking is being co-opted by and through this movement and Ms. Brown’s enemies at the Daily Bell are happily and unfortunately probably correctly pointing this out.
As things stand now, Ms. Brown’s Public Banking is ending up on one side of yet another Money Power dialectic, facing the Austrians on the other side. This is not where she should want to find herself. Interest free currency, if handled correctly, cannot be controlled with a dialectic.
Interest bearing Public Banks in the hands of a State that is completely subverted by the Money Power is perhaps not the Adversary’s best case scenario, it is most definitely not a real threat to it either.
The fact that Public Banking is being manoeuvred into this situation is worrying and a clear sign something is going terribly wrong with it.
Conclusion:
I just hope and pray the elves are wrong. But I’m not holding my breath.
Related:
Ellen Brown’s Public Banking
The Problem with Transnationals and what to do about them
Why Transnationals Thrive
Financial Warfare 2012: Boycott All Banks
The Wolfson Prize, I win!
Thank you for your considerations on Abraham Lincoln, a historical character who is still quite a riddle to me.
I do not know what to say of President Lincoln because I could not yet decide if the war for the Union was warranted or what, considering, on the one side, the gore and destruction it wrought, and, on the other side, the doubtful designs of those behind secession.
Although the Union was a voluntary compact, or it was not a Union at all (cf. John Remington Graham´s The Constitutional History of Secession), it seems pretty clear that the Rothschild Syndicate fomented secession (cf. John Remington Graham´s Blood Money – The Civil War and the Federal Reserve) through various devices ans schemes on both sides of the Mason-Dixie line.
Lest we forget, the Southern elites were most interested in keeping slavery alive and kicking, whereas Lincoln could have kept the Union without abolishing slavery, and yet he dealt slavery a mortal blow (cf. Allen C. Guelzo´s Lincoln´s Emancipation Proclamation). [I am not going to accept the argument that black slaves were better off in America than, say, free-white miners back in Britain. This is misleading, since two wrongs don´t make a right.]
You see !? Can any body out there make sense out of so many (seemingly) contradictory facts?
Then again, thank you very much Mr. Migchels. Keep up the good work.
I’ll even add to the confusion: the brilliant Michael Hoffman recently penned a plausible essay saying poor white people were worse off during the age of Slavery in the South than the enslaved Negro……..
I think the DB was right to say slavery was dying already and would have ended of natural causes within a few decades. The issue itself probably did not warrant the war. It most certainly was not the cause of the war.
At the end of your interesting journey you will end up with Mathematically Perfected Economy 🙂
lol!
What do you people need more from me than my wholehearted endorsement!
Express it via an article on your blog that only MPE deals with all the categoric faults imposed upon us 🙂 Cheers buddy
First my compliments to Mike’s latest video explaining the inherent problem with interest.
I was introduced to the problem by Turmel’s electrical engineering thesis. My work in this field has led to producing a formal stability analysis and to deduce from that work that money can
only be rational if is defined as a unit of measure. In this respect I do not consider money a
medium of exchange but simply a record of value. Money will never physically replace the value exchanged in transactions it can only serve as an estimated abstract measure as a reference. The value viewing the problem in terms of formal stabilty theory is that it makes it absolutely clear that money can only function as a unit of measure and it proves in absolute terms that the only requirements for a stable money system is that:
1) Money as a unit of measure is automatically invoked as a function of the transaction of wealth
2) All transactions that constitute the “system” must be Passive BIBO stable (positive and negative entries must be equal in magnitude to that of the price of transacted wealth).
3) Our basic human rights guaranty our freedom to exchange our legitimate value embodied in our capacity of provide value either through labour both skilled and unskilled and any other legitimately obtained patrimony.
These are literally the only requirements the masses need to understand to be true, in order for them to be assured of stability in economic exchanges and subsequent accounting over time.
I believe that there is no more succinct a message possible that can be so certified by the authority of all the science known to man.
Mathematically, the problem of interest has been in many theses prior to Mike’s, Turmel’s and mine and professor Dominguez’s (Mary Hobbart, Gessell and Sody just to mention a few) this is not to diminish the value of any further rational treatment of the nature of interest but to emphasise that the practical problem is now communicating to the majority of the people unable to arrive at such certainty on their own.
People who have the training can arrive at the same conclusions with confidence, but most that do not have such training are subject to doubt. If added to this doubt is the constant confusion wrought by fear in a context of systematically perpetuated ignorance, then getting the solution to the masses is no longer subject to rational deduction, but rather to manipulation of the frightened and hence highly malleable public opinion an option we don’t have lest we undermine our otherwise impeccable arguments prior to being assumed.
This is the challenge and for which I suggest that we emphasise on coalescing around such simple criteria as mentioned above, emphasise the science behind such a message and avoid all other collateral issues that can only distract from the common objective. Of course we need to emphasise the fundamental right to exercise the fulfilment of such requirements.
Marc, would you feel for a debate with Mike over Skype. Irrespectfull of who discovered what and when it could be a good visit. Instead of division we should unite.
hahahaha, I would if I believed it Jake! But even MPE is not THAT great. There is for instance the issue of convertibility in an environment of competing units.
What’s MPE’s take on that?
Competing for what Michael?
marketshare!
We´ll if that is what currencies should compete for then explain to us which other currency then MPC solves monetary inflation, deflation, systematic manipulation of money and property, and inherent, irreversable and therefore terminal multiplication of debt by interest. In that sense I agree with Mark that a currency is an accounting tool (unit of measure) and nothing more.
And in MPE it doesn´t matter how many units are being created if collateralized and in check with credit worthiness.
It’s really very simple Jake:
Every unit that is created on a mutual credit basis and is not raped and abused by total idiots.
Mike did not invent mutual credit, he did not invent interest free credit. WIR was in operation since 1934 and that’s the basic model for everybody.
It’s really that blindingly simple.
What we need is competing units, so that the market can decide which is best designed and managed. Units cannot be allowed to be either monopolies or too big. For instance: the US is much too big an area, far too many people for one unit. Even under a perfectly implemented MPE system some area’s would be depressed because they are less competitive.
Then there is the power issue: if too many people are dependent on the unit, if they don’t have alternatives, they will be abused and nasty people will try to subvert the unit. Everybody should have access to several units always.
Thus: you see? There are issues MPE does not address, convertibility and power decentralization in a free market environment being one of them.
Sorry Michael but I really lost you here. Why would some area´s be depressed? Why is a country like the USA to big for one currency unit? Isn´t this the case now under these obfuscated FED notes? I also don´t understand why MPC could become corrupted or as you say abused by power? What power? If software handles the math (the bookkeeping) of the units in circulation equating to remaining value of the property, and remaning obligations then what other outcome can there be? Which nasty people would be able to subvert the untis and how? You mean hackers for instance? You mention power decentralisation. You start sounding like an Austrian now 🙂 Why would we even need power decentralisation if the equation/math´s for our units of measurement are correct. As if there can be another outcome for a mathematical formula embedded in a software environment!?
Therefore MPE is a free market concept (the only actual free market, because it’s the only market free of exploitation [involuntary servitude]). A country/people *could* fix prices (perhaps as a means of protection from exploitation), and …they *could* do that and comply still with the remainder of the principles of MPE. But MPE is really the necessary companion to free enterprise (which cannot exist otherwise).
There’s an article Mike wrote about which explains how the value of money or property are determined under MPE (here’s the URL: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-determining-the-value-of-money-propert…). The gist of this article is this (on the contrary), that it is not the responsibility of a monetary system to impose prices; on the contrary, it is the system’s responsibility to sustain the integrity of the currency, promissory obligations, and so forth, *whatever* the value of production determined by the parties concerned. How do we determine the value of our production then? In truth we attempt to do so now. But what we attempt to charge and to collect is siphoned away from us by the obfuscation of the currency. All the while ever escalated sums of falsified, artificial debt are imposed upon us. What we have to charge under the present system is largely predicated by unearned takings from us, while at the same time, what we need to charge (to maintain margins of solubility) is denied to us by the same multiplication of debt, which dedicates ever more of the circulation to servicing falsified indebtedness. Thus we cannot determine price under the present obfuscation as we need to. Another thing to think about then, is that we cannot really know how well competition and truly free markets will prove to determine price until those propositions have the only environment in which they can truly be exercised. Still, if a person charges excessively for their work, this opens the way for competition to take over their market.
My parents call me Anthony Jake.
Yes, text disappears on the right after a number of nestings of the comments. it’s a wordpress bug, nasty.
Hm…it seems we have found yet another limitation in Mathematically Perfected Economy (TM).
All else being equal, less competitive regions will suffer from deflationary pressures, as the working capital required for regional trade is insufficient, because of a negative balance of payments with other regions. This is one of the key drivers in the Euro crisis. It would happen with interest free credit based units too.
It also happens in the US. Arkansas is poor not because it is uncompetitive, but because of capital scarcity as result of the mentioned process.
It has nothing to do with prices. Prices are a result of demand and supply AND the money supply. That’s a no brainer, even though Mainstream economists even get THAT wrong.
Convertibility?
Anyone trading in the representations of different currencies would prefer to trade with a MPC. Otherwise, you devalue the non-MPC currency according to its depreciation.
“Not THAT great,” is equivocal. WHAT fails to address or resolve a vital issue?
This must be why Anthony has ceased responding to email about the rest of his interview. He’s out of bullets, and he hasn’t even fired any yet.
“Not THAT great.”
🙂
That´s coming from m
Anthony, All
Ellen Brown is either a fool with lots of initiative or a mole. She invited me to her private list precisely because of my purely technical arguments against interest. Then, she argued for interest on the basis that the government would re-spend the interest back. When I pointed out to her that where interest income goes is irrelevant to stability because it does not resolve the growth by interest issue which is what precisely what defines the instability of the system according to control systems engineering. She then tried to side tack and contend that the issue of interest was really not that important and would prefer to agree not to agree or each to their opinion!
This is precisely the problem between technical approaches versus other approaches. In a technical world the judge IS the math not any individual’s personal assessment and only problems that CAN be measured are dealt with, there is no room for opinion unless a decision has to be made without the means to obtain the necessary data to calculate a reasoned response. The use of “opinion”, is therefore reserved for choosing ice cream flavours or deciding what might be a better route to a destination when one has no map.
But the interest issue, is 100% knowable, all the data is there the only thing preventing a clear decision on the matter is the will to know. It seems that both the victims and the perpetrators don’t want to know, leading to the conclusion that truth about money is somehow truly inconvenient. And indeed it is, because as I have said before, we are all inextricably guilty through our complicity and no one wants to claim ignorance (play the fool) or compliance (play the villain) both feeding off the other and leading us to distruction.
The only solution is that just as every human understands the notion of standard measure (meter, kilo, etc..) all should understand that money is simply a standard unit of measure that all are free to deploy as they can in the context of the transactions they are capable of undertaking with other parties. The Stable Currency Unit Theorem (http://www.bibocurrency.org/English/stable%20money.htm) wraps it up:
“A Passive BIBO Stable Money System by definition implies that all of the system’s component Transactions are also necessarily Passive BIBO Stable. Therefore, it directly follows that if every Transaction is a Passive BIBO Stable process and all money created is necessarily a product of such Stable Transactions, then all such money maintains a Bounded ratio with all system inputs. By definition! ”
This theorem says that the only issue relevant to currency unit stability, is that the transactions be Passive BIBO stable. Literally nothing else is materially relevant to money system stability…
· It matters not who performs the Transactions that generate the Currency
· It matters not when the Transactions are performed
· It matters not what Wealth is Transacted
· It matters not why we Transact the Wealth
· It matters not how many units are generated
ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS THAT GENERATE UNITS ARE PASSIVE BIBO TRANSACTIONS. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!
When every man, woman and child knows this, the problem will be solved for ever. The only thing that stands in the way of this universal understanding and emancipation is the rote credence awarded to the current false belief system and pseudo science of money, finance and economics. This false belief system is maintained by keeping the discussion emotional and irrational, hence my emphasis on the need for us to keep the discussion technical and to limit our social arguments to simply demanding everyone’s indisputable right to represent their value (labour included) with the most mathematically stable measure of value known to science (BIBO Currency).
For this, I strongly suggest the following for people to understand the inherent absurdity of the current technical money system spec: http://www.bibocurrency.org/English/The%20Scam%20short%20form.htm
Essentially, for the money system to be fixed and in order to liberate all human potential so that we can all prosper in freedom, the notion of money must be trivialised. When money is truly understood from a technical perspective it becomes a mere unit of measure and nothing more. The false creed is founded on the ontologically absurdity that money can be both a unit of measure and a scarce commodity. But as shown here: http://www.bibocurrency.org/English/Free%20Liquidity%20Revolution%20v3.1.htm such a notion simply cannot hold as it is in defiance of the math of measure, stability and addition. When money has been properly trivialised humanity will rise up from its current slumber and a completely new age will emerge.
HOWEVER ANY DELAY IN THIS EMANCIPATION MAY BE WHAT CONDEMS HUMANITY TO A FUTURE OF UNTOLD DARKNESS, HELL AND SUFFERING BEYOND ANYTHING IMAGINABLE EVEN TODAY. IN FACT, MOST WILL HAVE NOTICED HOW ALARMINGLY WE ARE REGRESSING TO EVERMORE BARBARIC AND INSANE STATES. THIS IS PRECISELY ACHIEVED THROUGH CONFOUNDING THE ISSUE BY TAKING THE DISCUSSION FROM A PURELY TECHNICAL ONE WHERE ALL FACTS ARE KNOWN TO ONE INVOLVING A VAST ARRAY OF INCONCLUSIVE DOMAINS OF HUMAN CONFLICT, RACISM, CLASSISM, RELIGION ETC…
Well, it may be fully knowable Marc, but I must admit I’m not there yet either…….
I’m also worried about this:
– · It matters not how many units are generated
Is this really true? I see asset bubbles coming if people can borrow all they want. The money supply would grow faster than the economy because people would have deep pockets and bid on real estate, for instance.
Also, I’m not really sure spending the interest back into circulation is not sufficient, but I’m not arguing, I just cannot get my head around it yet. All the side effects of it are really very elusive. To my mind, anyway, I’m happy people like you and Mike with a more mathematical/engineering outlook spend time here to educate both me and the others!
Lincoln was not justified in making war on the South, period. Even if one concedes all the facts concerning Money Power, slavery, etc. It was a war of imperial conquest.
Another really provocative and thoughtful post, Anthony. This site is becoming indespensable.
Some editorial comments: “They never stop and why would they?” is what you wanted to say.
It makes no sense to say “happily and unfortunately” without a clear specification of in what sense you mean each of these contradictory adverbs. Perhaps you point to the whole effort of your essay as doing this, but as it stands the sentence is a bit confusing.
Inspiring to see you take on the Daily Bell, with the help of the redoubtable Memehunter. We need to learn from whatever sources can improve out understanding, and the efforts at careful and just appraisal help us to grow.
Your take on Ellen Brown and OWS is very valuable. We live in interesting times.
You might be interested to know that E. Michael Jones in his Culture Wars magazine has defined “capitalism” as “state-sponsored usury”. So another significnt analyst is working somewhat in tandem with you on the importance of usury in our overall plight. As a Roman Catholic, Jones should be interested in the Vatican for its role in the development of the Money Power, but so far (to my knowledge) he has not focussed steadily on this issue, even though he deplores the influence of Jewish power on contemporary Catholic doctrine. I urge you to read and consider Jones’ views. He is the author of The Revolutionary Jew and Monsters of the ID–both fascinating and provocative works.
thanks coinherence, also for the editorial feedback. Memehunter also corrected a few minor mistakes. It was late last night when I posted, next time I’ll leave till the morning so I can have a final check with fresh eyes……..
btw, here’s my take on capitalism, if you’ve not seen it yet and if you’re interested coinherence!
What is Capitalism?
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/what-is-capitalism/
Michael, for some reason the text dissapears on the right hand side of the reply so let me post this again.
Sorry Michael but I really lost you here. Why would some area´s be depressed? Why is a country like the USA to big for one currency unit? Isn´t this the case now under these obfuscated FED notes? I also don´t understand why MPC could become corrupted or as you say abused by power? What power? If software handles the math (the bookkeeping) of the units in circulation equating to remaining value of the property, and remaning obligations then what other outcome can there be? Which nasty people would be able to subvert the untis and how? You mean hackers for instance? You mention power decentralisation. You start sounding like an Austrian now Why would we even need power decentralisation if the equation/math´s for our units of measurement are correct. As if there can be another outcome for a mathematical formula embedded in a software environment!?
Therefore MPE is a free market concept (the only actual free market, because it’s the only market free of exploitation [involuntary servitude]). A country/people *could* fix prices (perhaps as a means of protection from exploitation), and …they *could* do that and comply still with the remainder of the principles of MPE. But MPE is really the necessary companion to free enterprise (which cannot exist otherwise).
There’s an article Mike wrote about which explains how the value of money or property are determined under MPE (here’s the URL: http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-determining-the-value-of-money-propert…). The gist of this article is this (on the contrary), that it is not the responsibility of a monetary system to impose prices; on the contrary, it is the system’s responsibility to sustain the integrity of the currency, promissory obligations, and so forth, *whatever* the value of production determined by the parties concerned. How do we determine the value of our production then? In truth we attempt to do so now. But what we attempt to charge and to collect is siphoned away from us by the obfuscation of the currency. All the while ever escalated sums of falsified, artificial debt are imposed upon us. What we have to charge under the present system is largely predicated by unearned takings from us, while at the same time, what we need to charge (to maintain margins of solubility) is denied to us by the same multiplication of debt, which dedicates ever more of the circulation to servicing falsified indebtedness. Thus we cannot determine price under the present obfuscation as we need to. Another thing to think about then, is that we cannot really know how well competition and truly free markets will prove to determine price until those propositions have the only environment in which they can truly be exercised. Still, if a person charges excessively for their work, this opens the way for competition to take over their market.
My parents call me Anthony Jake.
Yes, text disappears on the right after a number of nestings of the comments. it’s a wordpress bug, nasty.
Hm…it seems we have found yet another limitation in Mathematically Perfected Economy (TM).
All else being equal, less competitive regions will suffer from deflationary pressures, as the working capital required for regional trade is insufficient, because of a negative balance of payments with other regions. This is one of the key drivers in the Euro crisis. It would happen with interest free credit based units too.
It also happens in the US. Arkansas is poor not because it is uncompetitive, but because of capital scarcity as result of the mentioned process.
It has nothing to do with prices. Prices are a result of demand and supply AND the money supply. That’s a no brainer, even though Mainstream economists even get THAT wrong.
Goshh, I even can´t get your name right! Srry. Anthony from the Migchels Family would be better I guess 🙂
We´ll there will always be differences between regions/people. This however has more to do with how we implement MPE instead of the currency itself. These are issues we as a people need to decide on. Are natural resources of a country private property as they are now in most cases? Or should it be the property of the people? Same with land. We can allow ourselves a maximum amount of land. I mean how much do you need for a house and a garden. These are all implementation issues and not directly related to our unit of measurement.
np at all Jake!
These are indeed other issues. But what I am referring to is a clear, purely monetary issue. The area covered by a unit is of material importance and if MPE (TM) does not cover that, than that is a limitation that needs to be addressed.
Until it is, I’ll maintain we are still looking for the holy grail of the Grand Unified Theory of Money, which will NOT be trademarked, but which will be the product and the property of mankind, not a man.
Oh I´m sure Mike will hand it over to the people when the time comes. He´s just protecting us from division by about 25 million monetary reformers and building 🙂 If you want I have him declare that in writing…Are you going to finish your discussion with that man? Cheers
I intend to!
And that’s a good point. The Protocols too state the plan may be known, but not discussed, hahaha
{
As usually they ignore interest. Rothschild offered Gold based credit at 30%. This is what Lincoln refused. Hence the Greenback, hence his premature death. What, from the Money Power’s perspective, is the point of creating war if the Nation is not left indebted afterwards?
Here’s a famous quote everybody should know (thanks for the reminder Memehunter):
“If this mischievous financial policy (the Greenback), which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” –Times of London
}
This famous “quote” which no conspiracist ever had the courage to read in the Times of London. The Times of London is online, would you dare to tell on what day did Times publish this fabricated article ?
If you knew anything about the greenback, you would know that anyone with good credit could borrow at 6% in February 1862.
Lincoln was a monkey on the rope, and he accomplished everything for the money power –strong central government, (permanent) national indebtedness, national banking system, national currency based on this indebtedness; everything that Henry Clay in 1841 couldn’t
Whence the sudden interest of book-peddler Brown’s in the subject ? in the ’80s, ’90s she couldn’t care less, now she is ‘expert’ and selling a book that is full of fake quotes, fabrications
“If you knew anything about the greenback, you would know that anyone with good credit could borrow at 6% in February 1862.”
In a debt free money system there are still banks for commercial credit. It’s just the Government that prints it debt free.
The quote I first heard in the Money Masters, in 2003. I didn’t check Bill Stills’ sources.
Are you one of those Gary North fans? North likes to ‘debunk’ quotes by simply saying they don’t exist. I can understand you won’t believe me, that’s a professional attitude. But please also don’t believe him, haha. Here’s one of his silly examples.
I do accept, though, that there are many bogus quotes out there and would not bet the house on it.
Whether it’s in the Times’ archives, I don’t know. But I hope you realize that the Times is a Money Power operation and they rewrite history to control it.
Please note that I called Lincoln a statist in the article, in the best Daily Bell traditions. The American State is a competitor of the Money Power. Even today it is still somewhat independent of it, unlike the European States who completely controlled. That’s why ‘they’ want a World Government, to get rid of National Governments which they have difficulty controlling.
I’m quite sympathetic to the many people who decry Lincoln’s war. That’s something else than saying he was a Money Power agent. The simple fact is that the North financed the to a large extent debt free. The Money Power got its war, that’s true, but mainly by enticing the South to break lose.
If you are impressed with Austrian Economics, I’ll refer you to Faux Economics if you care for some serious analysis of that mind control operation.
“Are you one of those”
Oh, so something is wrong with me if i ask for the source of an invented quote…..
No, i am no fan of Gary the Y2k North, he is of the same cloth as Bill Still, Ed Griffin, Henry Makow, Allen Brown, Jim Mars, Alex Jones, Glen Beck and the rest who peddle books, videos, dvds. Not one of them studied the the story of banking and central banking in the U.S.; not one of them read the story of greenbacks (well, Gary Y2K looked into it a bit); they just hack their ware to the woefully ignorants; if there was no money in it, they would try to sell you something on martians, or lemurians, or Y2K, or 2012……….
Bill Still simply regurgitated an old fake quote which had been popular staple of conspiracy industry
“In a debt free money system”
The reference was to the statement of your unlearned friend that interest was 30%………..
Your own statement indicates that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about; if you want banks you got them, so be happy with them (they won’t change their spots). If you actually want change, then pull your head out of Brown’s rectum and smell reality:– as lons as banks exist, they will regulate you, not you them….
“Whether it is in the Times archives”
Are you trying to say that the particular issue is missing ? on what date was this invented quote published ? how could you know that ? the inventor did not bother to invent a date
If you ever had the courage to walk into the archive or the library you would be impressed that the catalogue contains more information than 150 years worth of conspiracy books put together; you would also know that the information is sitting in archives and libraries, but none of the greenbackers dare to go near it…
None of you read the story of greenbacks. Any one who read the story –which is and has been for 150 years available to anyone who is brave enough to avail himself to it– knows that Lincoln was, at best, an instrument, as Mr. Hollis put it, giving Lincoln way to much the benefit:–
{
“Legend, skillfully directed for somewhat obvious purposes, has sought to make of Lincoln an almost superhuman figure. For there have been many to whom it was convenient that the origins of the Republican Party should be enveloped in a mist of almost Arthurian romance. It is therefore hard to say anything moderate or balanced about him without appearing to be engaged in an exercise of the odious art of debunking. But, while much can be said in praise of his engaging, colourful, and humorous personality, while he proved himself a great master of the diplomacy of war, the sane verdict on his political career cannot be other than this. He was put forward by the moneyed interest as an “available” candidate who would attract the votes of the West but who was never for an instant intended to be the master of his own policy. It was the stalest and most regular trick of American politics. He was put forward exactly in the spirit in which the Whigs had put forward General Harrison and General Taylor. Whether he would have been pliable to his master’s voice or whether he would have turned and fought the money-power, as Andrew Jackson, that other great leader from the western frontiers, fought it, can never be known, for he was killed before he had the chance to show.”
}
Lincoln signed into law everything the money power could ask for, including this gem:–
{
“The bill, in all its essential features, is like the free banking law of the State of New York, which has been in successful operation in that State since 1838. The free banking law is proposed by the Executive for the purpose of combining private capital with the credit of the Government in the issue of bank bills, similar in all respects to legal tender notes. Bank notes, under this bill, would be loaned to the Government and the people at six and seven per cent. interest. We give to the banking associations the interest on the national currency issued by them, as an inducement to them to form these associations and become liable for its redemption. Instead of the Government issuing this national currency direct to the soldiers and other creditors without interest, it sells its own six per cent. bonds to the banking associations, and takes its pay in legal tender notes
}
Thaddeus and Pig Iron Kelly also voted for it.
“The American State is a competitor of the Money Power.”
You must have learned this from some book peddler. Evil empire UK and evil Empire US is the Money Power.
“enticing the South to break lose”
and phycho killer Lincoln was more than eager to open up a war of extermination
“Divide the Union to-morrow into two nations, secure the independence of each from the other by the most solemn of treaties, and both would be driven to unite again in twelve months to escape from foreign domination. This assertion is not the result of reasoning, it is the result of observation.” –Senator Howe, February 12, 1862, in the Senate, during the greenback debate
I dare you, and double dare you:—
http://www.yamaguchy.com/forum/index.php?topic=2.0
My friend, I don’t know who you are, but your style is much like North’s: just hack away at one liners, without really considering the issues.
I like the Mr. Hollis bit, was not aware of it. Thanks.
The American Empire is NOT the Money Power. Or at any rate: the American People still have some sovereignty left.The British Empire and the Money Power were much closer though.
If you really believe I’m a friend of banks, You clearly have not yet studied my work. My latest article, published at the same time as this comment of yours, ended like this:
” A more permanent solution would be to nationalize all the banks, while repudiating all the nonsense on their balance sheets and quitting all interest payments. Banks are just criminal ‘institutions’. True, this notion is not yet acceptable for 99% of the people out there, but since it is the truth it is worth while to insist on it. A sensible program along these lines can be found here.
….
In short: there is absolutely no reason for all this chaos. The only problems are that both the people and their representatives are being conned by the financial wizards. Our leaders are indeed either useful idiots or willing traitors.
Look how they laugh while they feast on our life blood.”
Be all this as it may, your passion is recommendable and I surely share in much of it!
>>>>”My friend, I don’t know who you are, but your style is much like North’s: just hack away at one liners, without really considering the issues.”
The source of your (ya all’s) finagled wisdom
(in 1988 i translated “The Babylonian Woe”, what were you doing back then? we know Makow was looking for pussy in strange places; where was any of the poster boys of the conspiracy industry then? oh yeah, there was no chance for easy money….)
The style is that of one who studied the subject of banking and central banking; aside from his character and money-making, y2k North was just about right on bookseller Brown. Some time ago “Republicae” told you the same thing, in more restrained language. (had you known the story of greenbacks, you could have pointed out the falsehood in his statement)
I do not see your response to that fabricated quote attributed to Times; and your response as why you would participate in the propagation of it……..
Ye greenbackers (by the way, I am the only true greenbacker you ever met) run around declaring that the Moon is made of swiss cheese, and if some of us has the audacity to say ‘please offer some evidence’ ye consider it an attack, and close rank around your favourite cheerleader (like in the case of Brown) –as opposed to turning from the charlatan in disgust.
If ye are really looking to learn something, everything there is to write about paper money have been written 200 years ago by Jonathan Duncan, Matthew Carey, no need to re-invent some new wheel every decade.
In 1892 the Populist Party (no relation to present day porch-monkies in search of a cheerleader) got 1 million votes and won 26 seats and proposed solutions, Mr. Weaver published a whole entire book….. Future President and invented banker victim, Garfield heartily opposed Mr. Weaver in the House, and did everything he could not to let him speak. But how could ye know that, ye never studied the subject….
Same goes for hard money: in 1833 William Gouge published the best book (to this day the best) on the nature of banks and their paper, and the solution to the problem of banking. In the 1830s there were many, many newspapers and organizations….. read them!
Mr. Hollis was a greenbacker and in 1935 he already knew and wrote that Lincoln and Thaddeus were no heroes; had ye looked for information, instead of garbage from the Lizzard of Oz or the Griffin from Jeckyl Island, ye would have known this
Books that are worth reading:—
“The history of the US Supreme Court” by Gustavus Myers (1912)
“Rise of American Civilization” by Beard (Mr. Beard was not afraid to go inside the archive and dig up the evidence of who among the founders were bankers)
“The true history of the American revolution” by Sidney Fisher (1902) –Mr. Cornwallis did more for ye then Washington
“A short history” by William Gouge (1833)
Niles’ Register
“Shylock as banker” by Gordon Clark (1894)
“The money question” by William Berkey (1876)
The best US history book is the Record of debates of Congress !!! widely available to anyone for the willingness to read it. Every side of the subject of money and banking was debated (it is constitutional, it is not constitutional, it is expedient, it is not expedient, &c.), in eloquent, 2-hour instalments; not by bookpedling wannabees, but by learned men who were there, at the scene
dare you, double dare you, and challange you to expose yourselves to it:–
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/uregina/speeches.html
start with Mr. Clay’s 1811 speech on the Bank, the best ever speech on the question of central bank; then consider why Mr. Clay, Mr. Madison, Mr. Webster, and others changed their minds
then continue all the way to Mr. Bailey’s 1908 speech (what should be the currency and who should issue it)
Lol!
I’m no Greenbacker.
You really believe monetary theory stood still since the 19th century?
I plug interest free credit. The Greenback is totally obsolete and who would give this Government the right to print its own cash? What would it do with it, you think?
Start WW3 asap is my guess, they’re just a bunch of total maniacs.
Dude, you’re just one of those annoying know it alls who believe they invented it all themselves. More of those come here.
None of them got anywhere.
I just laugh and do my own thing.
Thanks for the history lesson though. Since you still live in that age I’ll keep you in mind when I want to know more about it, hahaha
nice of you to acknowledge so openly that you are doing this just to impress the ignorants.
you still have not addressed the original point— what can you offer to support your contention that
Lincoln was NOT an enemy of the people;
was NOT a friend and willing instrument of the money power;
that the alleged Times editorial is NOT a fabrication;
that the Times archives were altered and issues containing this editorial eliminated
do you know if Allen Brown is into goddess worship ?
That’s what I said I though would be a possibility, the Times story.
But yes. I concede that Lincoln was an enemy of the people and probably a money power agent, or at any rate useful idiot.
thank you for insisting. You are a pompous ass and I can’t blame myself for not immediately recognizing that you know what you’re talking about.
On the other hand: considering what is at stake, I respect that you don’t have time for tender hearts.
Hit reply to read squashed text.
Oh, and by the way, in !988 I was just discovering that yanking my own dick felt good, ok?
You’re probably 20 years if not older then I am.
But if you’re so great, why did I never hear from you?
Come back here and discuss the issues. Don’t make the point you know so well, I don’t care jack about that.
I wanna know what you propose though.
hit reply to read squashed text
PS: that’s indeed an interesting discussion of Lincoln, thanks. I put a link to it on my resource page.
p.s.
Senator Chandler
in the Senate
February 13th 1862, during the greenback debate
” I simply wish to say to the chairman of the Committee on Finance [Mr. Fessenden] that any merchant in the United States with good securities can to-day borrow $1,000,000 at six per cent. I can, with good securities; and so can my friend from Maine.”
–so much for the silliness about the 30% interest rate
The average rate of interest determines the maximum lifespan of an interest based (private) monetary system. But any rate of interest is terminal.
good. Although 6% would still have cost the taxpayer massive amounts of money.
Why do call yourself a ‘REAL greenbacker? What are the vital issues?
name789/Yamaguchy
Why was Lincoln murdered?
>>>>good. Although 6% would still have cost the taxpayer massive amounts of money.
>>>>Why do call yourself a ‘REAL greenbacker’? What are the vital issues?
My point –which you do not want to see– was that anyone who talks about 24-30%, knows not the story of greenbacks and the reality in 1862; so should keep quiet
here is how it stood—
there were $450million non-interest-bearing US notes, backed by $500million bonds bearing 6% interest (the 5/20s)
and there were ~$1,000million Treasury notes bearing 6-7.3% interest
this was the package, so the average interest rate was how much ?
of course, this was not the problem; $1,100million bonds could have been paid off without much hardship, one weeks’ pay from each family; the currency obligations could have been exchanged for non-interest-bearing currency obligations –as Pig Iron Kelly proposed:
“The first section authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay and fully liquidate the principal and interest of all the compound-interest notes of the United States when the same may become due, and to issue legal-tender notes, bearing no interest, for the purpose of paying and liquidating such compound-interest notes, provided that the amount of legal-tender notes to be so issued shall not exceed the amount of compound-interest notes paid and liquidated.”
the problem was that Lincoln’s hand-picked Secretary of the Treasury and the whig crew in Congress wasn’t finished; the people who gave ye greenbacks intended to give ye permanent national debt; so, 1,000million currency obligations were turned into 40-year gold bonds. Unfortunately President Johnson was in the bondage of his religion and did not veto the reduction act
_____________
>>>>I concede
Perhaps, then, you have already written to Daily Bell about your having learned from constructive criticism…… and, also, to the book-peddlers that you would like your money back (no need to write to y2k North, he is bad)
________________
greenback==government-issued currency
“Resolved, That it is the sense of this House that all currency, whether metallic or paper, necessary for the use, and convenience of the people should be issued and its volume controlled by the government, and not by or through the bank corporations of the country; and when so issued should be a full legal-tender in payment of all debts, public and private.” –said Mr. Weaver in the House, on April 5, 1880. Mr. Garfield vehemently dis-agreed……
If currency is needed (and I think it is), it must be issued by the government, and this currency alone must be used in transactions –no credit card, no financing, banknote, eletronic entry; a plastic-less, pay-as-you-go society, purchase what you have money for; if discount houses are needed they must discount using money or this currency
________________
some more from the old days:
this was written in 1867; this is what Lincoln and crew brought to you; it could have been written 2 days ago:–
{
The financial system of the Radicals embraces three points:
(1) A most oppressive and ill-adjusted system of taxation bearing exclusively upon the productive industry of the country; which enhances the cost of production, with a corresponding increase of the prices of all articles in our markets, requiring an increased amount of currency to carry on the business of the country.
(2) An immense inflation of the currency, in order to lighten the pressure of taxation, and create a temporary factitious prosperity; but which still further enhances the cost of production, and inflates the price of labor and all articles of consumption.
(3) The encouragement of the continued exportation of our national debt, as the only means of averting a crisis that would involve national bankruptcy and the paralisys of our country
}
http://www.yamaguchy.com/forum/index.php?topic=3.0
How easy it would have been for those who live in the United States to walk into the library and read the Record and the books and the newspapers:
http://catalog.gpo.gov/fdlpdir/FDLPdir.jsp
Elihu Root– the ruler of the State [New York] during the greater part of the forty years of my acquaintance with the State Government has not been any man authorized by the constitution or by law, it was Mr. Platt, a usurer.
I answered too quickly without seeing the rest of your answer.
“My point –which you do not want to see– was that anyone who talks about 24-30%, knows not the story of greenbacks and the reality in 1862; so should keep quiet”
That’s the point with most people who think they know anything: they just have to swing their dick in everybody’s face, instead of moving on with the war.
“Perhaps, then, you have already written to Daily Bell about your having learned from constructive criticism…… ”
I don’t have to let the Daily Bell know anything, the article, including all these comments is here, not there. They conceded nothing when I deconstructed their Austrian nonsense.
“If currency is needed (and I think it is), it must be issued by the government, ”
I don’t agree. Government has shown to be run by a total bunch of unreliable assholes. It is high time we stop being dependent on them and organize free market interest free currencies.
But indeed: it would be very much better than what we have now, that’s clear. Now go tell that to the Daily Bell and see how far you’ll get.