The Public vs. Private Dialectic, or: Money as part of the Commons
It’s a given that State money is better than money provided by private bankers. But ultimately Private Monopoly and the State are competitors for power and both a threat to the individual and the commonwealth. Transcending a dialectic does not mean choosing sides, it means addressing the issues both forces have in common. Like Materialism and the Concentration of Power.
Surely it’s a no-brainer to say that the Government at this stage must urgently retake the monopoly on currency from the Money Power. The US Government pays 450 billion per year in interest payments to international banks and other Governments to service its National Debt. With the BIS now openly calling for higher interest rates it will quickly get much worse. Government money allows for a reasonable financing of the State and is the very least monetary reform should aim for.
But to say something is better is not to say something is ideal. And Government money can be designed in good and bad ways. The good ways decentralize power, the bad ways centralize power. Usurious Public Banking ends interest payments on the National Debt but continues interest-slavery for the many and keeps capital scarce and expensive for small business.
Interest-free Public Banks would be much better as they would completely end the uncanny power centralization through Usury. But it would still mean that technocrats would decide who would be financed and who not. Meaning technocrats would decide the direction in which society develops. It’s also not clear whether Government would really properly manage the volume of money. Both inflation and too scarce money would be risks.
How should Government be organized?
At this point it seems fair to say that there is no known reasonable way of organizing State Power.
Democracy has failed and has been exposed as a pleasant curtain to hide behind for the monied classes. According to the Protocols it has given them ‘the power of appointment’: they just put some of their useful idiots in front of the public to choose between.
They describe how they want to give everyone a vote, both to dilute the vote of those actually knowing what they talk about and to be able to say: ‘you wanted this, you voted for it’.
Voting is not a ‘right’, it’s a sacred responsibility and it should be left to the competent. And who are the competent? God only knows. I’d say, let only 50+ year old heads of households vote. But perhaps 60+ is better.
Because of Democracy’s denouement, some call for more autocratic methods. Monarchy, or even Fascism. But a strong leader is grand, as long as he is strong. A monarchy thrives with a good king but history shows they are far from the norm.
In short: it’s not clear how Government must be run and automatically assuming that Public is better is risky without a clear cut appraisal of the who, what and how of Government.
For sure, a mountain is not built top down and we need models of self-governance.
Selfless Service
Furthermore, behind the public vs. private dialectic there are bigger questions, for instance: what drives people?
Part of the dialectic is the fact that ‘private’ is associated with the profit motive and public with the public interest.
But both are wrong.
It’s a disgrace that economic theory promotes the despicable lie that people are solely driven by ‘self-interest’. By profit. This is an utterly materialistic world view and one of the key lies upon which the whole house of cards is built.
Memehunter’s ‘The Satanic Core of Libertarianism‘ explores how de Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees or Private Vices, Publick Benefits ‘pointed out that self-interest and the desire for material well-being, commonly stigmatized as vices, are in fact the incentives whose operation makes for welfare, prosperity, and civilization.’ (Mises).
Keynes and the Libertarians eulogized it. It provides the rationale to claim ‘greed is good’. Because de Mandeville created the illusion that ultimately society is served when individuals relentlessly seek self-interest.
Public workers, on the other hand, are supposed to serve the public interest. They don’t. They serve the interests of the State. The State is not the Commonwealth! It is not the Sovereign. But historically it has always usurped sovereignty. So the State does not serve the public interest. It serves private interests: its own. That of its workers. And, of course, that of those bribing the politicians and civil servants.
It’s not black and white, the public gets something in return for putting up with the insolence of office. But the point is clear.
Both public and private workers serve other aims than the public interest and these aims and the paradigms associated with these aims are materialistic in nature.
For true liberation for mankind, we need to get rid of this materialistic outlook. The notion that there can be such a thing as ‘private interests’.
There is no permanent happiness in private gain. Private gain creates the fear of loss. The great joy of mankind is in service of both each other and the One. Both within in the family and in the world.
Rudolf Steiner said that a society can only thrive if people are willing to give away the added value of their production to society. Jesus said to give away everything to follow Him. We can own anything that furthers the Kingdom of Heaven, as long as it does so. No more, no longer and not as a goal in itself. The great paradox of this is, of course, that we would all live in far greater abundance and security.
Altruism is truly enlightened selfishness and not that stupid great satanic turn around we are brainwashed with.
Of course, this always was and remains a radical proposition. Many will not agree. Others will say it’s a nice idea, but it’s certainly not what we have now.
And since it certainly is true that our current ways are very different, we must be careful of power centralization in either public or private hands.
All this may sound ‘philosophical’ or ‘idealistic’ or even irrelevant, but ultimately it’s fundamental to the entire equation and we as a species will either have to move on and start living more from this mindset, or continue to put up with the selfishness of Bureaucracy and the cruel banality of the ‘market’.
The Commons
Perhaps the simplest thing to say is that Money is part of the Commons, like Water, Air and Land.
We see how the Transnationals are now attacking Water as part of the Commons. Water is ‘not a human right’. Land has long ago been privatized. But Land and Monetary Reform are in many respects the same fights and we can add Water to the equation too.
Money has never been fully appreciated as an intrinsic part of the Commons. Because so few people actually realized that the nature of Money was something we could think about. And those that did were mostly led astray by the silly ‘theories’ the Money Power keeps inventing.
The rape of the Commons, our Human Heritage, must end and we must reclaim what rightfully belongs to us. Why are we paying rents on Land and Money and soon Water to ancient families, Corporations and Governments?
Instead of benefiting from our fair share we are simply exchanging ever more of our labor for it. The invisible slavery to artificial scarcity.
The Commons by nature should serve the individual, families, tribes and the Commonwealth and no one can own them or exploit them for their own purposes.
The Commons are public and they must be exploited in the public interest. Meaning they provide all commoners equitable access to their fair share.
When we look at monetary reform, we want interest-free, stable money. We need local communities to be able to have a say in where the money is going to. We need equitable individual sovereign access to capital.
This is what it means to optimally exploit Money as part of the Commons in the mutual interest of all individuals.
Relating to the public vs. private issue this means the question is never that private entities can ‘own’ the Commons. That kind of private is not to the point and to be rejected.
The Commons are, or should be owned by none. Not by the Government, nor by private interests. Government perhaps has a mandate to protect the Commons from private usurpation. But that is not ownership.
Exploitation of the Commons in the interest of the commoners can be done by both private and public entities. Private entities don’t automatically serve private interests, nor do public entities automatically serve public interests. They should have a clear charter explaining their goals: low cost Water, Land or Money services to the commoner.
Both can have their place and have their own problems. Bureaucrats love rules, Businessmen love cutting costs, hurting quality. They like rents. Both will continue to try to grab control beyond their needs.
Ultimately the commoner needs to know his rights and duties and the Money Power’s mind controllers have a great grip on our collective consciousness. It remains a great challenge coming to terms with all of this.
Conclusion
Money is part of the Commons. This is what I suggest is behind the Public vs. Private dialectic.
There is a great struggle going on in which the Money Power is privatizing more and more of the Commons. Land was robbed from the commoner long ago and nowadays they’re after Water.
But in reality the Commons cannot be really be privatized. For instance: Land should be reasonably made available to the commoner. This is the basis of Henry George’s work.
Money never was a conscious part of the Commons as most people didn’t realize it was possible to even consider its nature, let alone come to sound conclusions. But its crucial importance, the very fact that it depends on the agreement of those using it for its existence, makes it so.
The question is how to manage the Commons. Practice shows that having the Government do it leads to problems. The Government takes rents, centralizes power and is usually just a big &^%$%^&$# to deal with, especially for the less credulous.
It’s usually certainly better than private ownership of the Commons or control for profit. But to firmly entrench Money Power in the Commons, we need to look beyond Government and rationally look at what role private market players have to play in providing the necessary services to the commoner.
Because everything that centralizes power in the hands of the State will simply empower Leviathan. And Leviathan will always look to turn against its master.
Related:
The Daily Bell: Usurious Commercial Banking is Good, Interest-Free Government Money is Tyranny
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- The Public vs. Private Dialectic, or: Money as part … – Real Currencies - Let You Know Everything
- How to manage the Volume of Money in Mutual Credit | Real Currencies
- J. M. Keynes: Un Economista Folle ed Antisemita | Rischio Calcolato
- KEYNES, UN ECONOMISTA FOLLE ED ANTISEMITA | Movimento Libertario
- The Public vs. Private Dialectic, or: Money as ...
- Hitler’s Finances, a Response to my Critics | Real Currencies
- The Public vs. Private Dialectic, or: Money as ...
- Brother Nathanael Calls for National Convention on Monetary Reform! | Real Currencies
- How Usury Encloses The Commons | Real Currencies
- Hitler’s Finances | Justice4Poland
The shifting rationales of P3s has always been highly dubious.P3s had been used by politicians as a form of off-book accounting to make it appear as if public spending and deficits were lower than they actually were — but then public auditors forced governments to include these obligations on their books.P3 proponents then claimed that their projects could be less expensive, more innovative, speedier, and more accountable than public service delivery — but a string of failures, delays, little transparency, and secretive deals proved these claims wrong.Most recently, P3 advocates have acknowledged that they cost more, but they try to justify these deals by claiming that P3s transfer massive amounts of “risk” from the public sector to the private sector. By using highly questionable “value for money” accounting, they claim that the higher costs of P3s, particularly on the financing side, are offset by transferring colossal amounts of risk to the private sector.
Good Morning Anthony,
Bashing Austrians is good sport, eh?
Looks like Murray Rothbard, AGAIN, explains what the STATE is and isn’t. Try it!!!
Anatomy of the State
What the State Is Not
The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact………
cont at
http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp
I think Rothbard is denouncing the putative notion of a democracy or tyranny of mob rule and not a republic governed by laws. Anarchists like to confound these important distinctions.
“Money never was a conscious part of the Commons as most people didn’t realize it was possible to even consider its nature, let alone come to sound conclusions. But it’s crucial importance, the very fact that it depends on the agreement of those using it for its existence, makes it so.”
Gold and silver arose as market money without ANY coercion of the state until kings began putting their mugs on it and using it to inflate away their people’s wealth by debasement.
Today they just stroke a computer.
EG why the State is NOT EVER to be trusted with money creation, whereas production has produced the ONLY millennially proven real money in existence.
Gold and silver will again be the last man standing when the world afloat in quads of derivative PAPER leveraged to the moon hiccups anytime now.
BTW the WHOLE of humanity TRUSTED gold and silver until shylock via the govts they control STOLE it for themselves. And WE [humanity] should reappropriate it along with repudiating their illegal debt.
This is simply not true Marx Bites. Money Changers were able to get the market for specie based units by fooling people into abandoning their ancient fiat ways, because they were made to believe money needs to be wealth to be a good means of exchange.
They then immediately started deflating the money supply to keep rents (usury) high when lending coin into circulation. Coin they dug up in the mines they owned.
How can you make a true distinction between the public and private sector when none exists? It’s like trying to argue who the establishment conservative is: republicans, libertarians or wall street democrats. The banks own the government through debt. The transnationals and wall street constantly have lobbyists/former employees write and rewrite the laws to suit their grand theft scheme du jour. The markets are rigged, the food/medicine/environment is poisoned and the government oversight agencies do nothing for fear of harming corporate profits. Groups like ALEC are doing the same on the local state level. This isn’t government, or how they should operate , but how a corporation’s middle management operates! And that’s what they really are. Your notion of government is just a strawman and would be welcomed by libertarians everywhere.
Profits corrupts and unlimited profits corrupts absolutely.
Who is strong enough to stand up to the sociopaths of the private sector that hold profits as their god? Only Government elected by the people, divested of any private sector debt or dependence, and bound by law to maintaining the unalienable rights of the people to healthcare, jobs with a livable wage, freedom from monopolies, clean nutritious food/water, education, social security, etc., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights you know, the sorts of things that the business people would have you believe is a privilege you deserve based upon your economic materialistic status. That’s a sketch of a true public government. And like true capitalism, It doesn’t exist yet.
I know pm, we don’t disagree, you yourself say this Government of yours does not exist, I’m just describing the problems of Govt today. Is Government the only protection to the sociopaths or equally vulnerable to sociopathic rule as private monopoly?
I tend to think the latter is the case. The masses are clearly not capable of discerning it, that’s why it seems Democracy is busted.
I’m not trying to defame Government, there are real problems and real challenges in making it work.
You should consider the possibility that money is the result of a hopelessly corrupt society. In other words, if we were all nice, there would be no money. Trying to come up with a nice monetary system is being that Greek guy who’s always pushing the bolder up the hill(can’t think of his name) in my opinion. The only thing money is good for is in exposing how deluded people are by exposing how money exists.
I guess you’re right philo……….I’m pretty sure you are……….
I remember now – Sisyphus
Soren Kierkegaard saw the myth as pertaining to anything a person loves too much: “It is comic that a mentally disordered man picks up any piece of granite and carries it around because he thinks it is money, and in the same way it is comic that Don Juan has 1,003 mistresses, for the number simply indicates that they have no value. Therefore, one should stay within one’s means in the use of the word “love.”
That’s an interesting analysis.
Indeed philo and also Anthony – Money in your proposal should be plentiful, interest-free and de-centralized. However your definition of the Commons comes pretty close to a society in which mankind starts asking: “Why do we need money at all?”
Even if you have your perfect money reform created, concentration of wealth now (nevermind the likely REAL technological development out there) reached such a level, that it is very unlikely that they will not fight back with all they have in order to regain their position. It would be a constant struggle.
Is it not better to make plans for letting go of the whole concept of money altogether?
Imagine a world without money – many professions would cease to exist and it would become obvious, how ridiculous they are in the first place: “I hide rich people’s money, I make other people richer or at least I make them believe so, I walk around the catwalk and present clothes, I look pretty on pictures, I sleep with men for money so I can pay for me and my kid, I suppress all technologies that can wipe out our main business, I kill people for money (no soldier would do it really for free unless his family or friends were in real danger) etc.” All those job descriptions would be seen for what they are – foolish occupations without any real substance.
Good thing that life is about other things than that. Even you Anthony – fighting for the world to become better – that is not the meaning of life either…..
Absolutely Bourchakoun. My strategy has always been to get rid of usury and scarcity of money as a means of getting rid of the love of money, being the root of all evil.
Getting rid of the love of money will mean that money will become a whole lot less important. Perhaps it can even go entirely, who knows.
I’m all for ‘love in, commerce out’. Because that’s the trade off we face.
You might be interested in the videos I’ve posted, click my name. I talk about the only reason money exists is to ultimately form a hugely stratified society. And that it can only exist if the vast majority of people in the monetary system can’t know how it comes into existence.
“Transcending a dialectic does not mean choosing sides, it means addressing the issues both forces have in common. Like Materialism and the Concentration of Power.”
That was great. Exactly my feeling. I think we are now really moving beyond Austrianism, and you can see it from the dialogue in the comments (“why do we need money at all”, etc…). Maybe this whole episode with the Daily Bell was useful in the end…
We need money so we can develop technology and private property for the few and sequester the many to poverty. Otherwise we’d be living in a very primitive world with no borders.
Money in its true form is little more than a record of entitlement, a record of the transaction and representation. So long as man is inherently sinful we’ll need an honest means of recording our transactions with each other.
Any solution(s) must have as a primary focus the alleviation of suffering for the greatest number of people. Financial hardship and the stress that goes along with it are real occurrences. Those who suffer such hardship are unfortunately those who have the least amount of support form their fellow brothers and sisters in the family of man. It is easy for people to look down upon, or turn away from, those who are suffering. In the meantime those who have accumulated riches beyond imagination are perceived as a separate, higher species of human being and respected for advertising service to self, and all things having to do with the ego. Good thoughts, words, and actions come about through the destruction of the ego. Call it philosophy, idealism, spirituality. The answers must come from within.
Thank you,
Jerry
Of course national debt is a result of the people’s willful ignorance of money creation & what money truly represents.
Now If we allow any seated government to “ take over “ the bankers monopoly on currency & then pretend to loan or allow that currency to be ” allegedly “ loaned by themselves or any other entity such as a bank public or private it can only then mean it’s a further obfuscation or purposed misrepresentation of our universal right & ability to issue a promissory obligation to someone who actually gives up property.
What most don’t or completely refuse to comprehend today is that its we the people, who already act in a ” private capacity ” as a ” private individual (s) “, have the monopoly on all wealth creation because its we the people who give up the only consideration of value in all money & property, only we have ignorantly given it to thieves & criminals over the centuries, who as a result purposely intervene on all our business & commerce only to then steal what all currency represents by merely pretending, they, the thieves, either a bank, or any seated government who works for thieves, gives up in consideration of value of their very own in either their “ alleged creation “ of currency, or in any “ alleged loan “ they may impose on one of us as a result .
It is a logical fact banks simply can not exist if they didn’t impose interest, & to infer or suggest we can have an interest free bank is only a suggestion to preserve the banks very ” first crime ” in my opinion, where the bank or mere publisher , public or private, who merely publishes a further representation of our promissory obligations merely then pretends to loan a sum of principal giving up no consideration of value themselves to that principal representation.
The banks first two crimes:
1) The local bank steals & launders a sum of principal an * alleged borrower * creates by purposefully obfuscating the obligors promissory obligation, * before the banking book entry *, pretending, then, to loan principal only as if it was the banks principal value to loan out in the beginning.
2) As a result of the banks first crime the bank, then commits its second crime by stealing & laundering a further sum of principal by charging unwarranted interest on what is a *falsified debt* only as if the bank gave up or risked consideration of its own commensurable or equal to the *alleged loan* or debt it falsifies to itself.
I’m all for having a seated government, limited in power by united public mandate, law, dictated by the people to print or publish a further representation of our promissory obligations on behalf of the people at cost only, which is non profit accounting at the end of the day not a bank .
However as soon as a seated government starts “ allegedly loaning “ or giving that or rather our representation away, which is not theirs to either loan or give away much like a bank does today, that is where any seated government has stepped directly into the shoes of the exploiter, or the banker, whether you put a public or private stamp on it regardless.
Banks are committing no crime. There has to be the illusion they’re loaning and they’re the only ones who can loan. If the impoverished knew how to create money, they would do it themselves. Then the structure of society would collapse. You have access to a computer, what are you complaining about?
Unless you can prove & demonstrate exactly what consideration of value a bank risks or gives up of their own in their purported creation of money or in any purported loan to one of us * before any banks book entry * or before , upon or thereafter an alleged borrower issues a promissory obligation you then have no legitimate claim or evidence to prove & demonstrate its a fact a monumental crime of theft has not taken place in the form of a purported loan from any bank ,public or private, there is no loan, its a theft & nor is there any borrower Philo .
By the very definition of the word * debt * does not define a theft, but rather the assumption pertaining to the legal definition of debt which implies a bank or creditor gives up lawful consideration of value of its own in a would be loan which may be commensurable or equal to a debt that would may otherwise justify any sum of interest ? Which is not the case at all today, rather there is: NO BORROWER , NO LOAN & most certainly there is NO DEBT owed to any bank or mere publisher who only publishes a further representation of our promissory obligations.
The crime is where the bank is pretending to loan consideration of value that it the bank themselves pretends to give up & then as a result the bank imposes its second crime by charging unwarranted interest to an unwitting individual or purported borrower for the privilege of being robbed, who in turn only believes they’re legitimately borrowing money from a bank.
Sadly Its really the logic of a kindergarten child that we at MPE have already proved you don’t even possess Philo .
http://www.ftp.perfectedeconomy.org/ftp/mike-montagne-on-tns-radio–BROADCAST-ARCHIVE/individual-programs/20120324-mike-montagne-of-pfmpe-on-tnsradio-051-roger-hayes-lawful-bank-philo-negation-MONO.mp3
” Contradiction is ones very own worst enemy philo , one who strives to eradicate contradiction is one who not only strives for sanity but order of consciousness itself.”
Moreover I will not be replying or entertaining anymore of your absurd irrational logic after this Philo. I mean anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see you’re a rather bad pretender who only replied to my original comment in self contradiction to seek the attention of others, which would not only be wasting further of my time here with you, but the time of others also who have to read or likewise entertain your preposterous assertions as you have clearly demonstrated many times in the past already.
Since australia4mpe won’t be responding to this comment, I will take the opportunity to give an analysis of our dialectic:
1: He can’t even see the part where I agree with him and reiterates “Unless you can prove & demonstrate exactly what consideration of value a bank risks or gives up of their own.” Mpeists chant this mantra even to those who don’t dispute banks don’t risk anything.
2: He doesn’t address the second part of my premise implying that bankers have a necessary role in the structure of civilization and he’s a utopianist.
Philo,
So we have to be lied and exploited..and it must be the ‘banks’ that do so. What bizarre reasoning you have. I’m not drinking the cool aid..
I have reasoning, and you’re drinking Kool Aid™. We lie to ourselves and exploit each other.
That’s cute. Good luck with your worldview, I’m sure it will get you far.
If you think a sound monetary system requires lies and exploitation your beyond help.
No wait! You can save me yet! Write a detailed explanation of how the CMI handles people of different strata when dolling out the dough. Give hypothetical examples. If it proves you don’t have some idealistic religious utopian agenda like Karl Marx, I will become your greatest advocate.
Basically I go along with this a long way, but there are two issues, one of them is a problem.
The first issue is that even under MPE there must a credit facility. So the question is: who’s going to run it: a private foundation kind of outfit or a Government institution?
It is this question I had in mind when writing the article.
The problematic issue is: MPE mistakenly assumes that volume will not have to be managed if all the credit is properly asset backed. This is a mistake: it will fuel asset bubbles.
Meaning we will need some kind of Monetary Authority to manage the volume.
The Master Debater(M. Montagne) himself told me in the above mentioned podcast that I would be issued $400,000 by The Foundry to buy a clock radio if I wanted. Do not question the Mpeist how that’s going to work out for everybody. They have secrets.
Sadly what many fail to comprehend in regards to the sum volume of circulation in MPE™ is that not all property or not all our production has representation or not all our production will be represented by a promissory obligation so there is no mistake but a misunderstanding if you will .
Logically what is spent & earned from the outset of another’s promissory obligation, earned profit or savings can also purchase unrepresented property that’s likewise been produced from another’s earned profit or savings, but that’s not to say all our production has representation & nor does it infer our labour is not included in our production if anyone was to look up the definition of the word ” production” that is. The volume of circulation in MPE™ simply circulates so long as there is remaining consumption left on * represented property *.
Either way money is created by the obligor for representation regardless, when its needed, without any intervention or regulation whatsoever, so in other words MPE simply regulates itself at the end of the day.
Let me be clear MPE™ does not claim it can perfect man, it would be absurd to infer or suggest such a thing & this is exactly why we have a united peoples mandate if any one was to read it , however believe it or not MPE™ can indeed perfect any purported economy today with a simple 1.1.1 Second grade * EQUAL * math ratio, where (1) All OBLIGATIONS are equal or no more than all remaining money in (1) CIRCULATION & equal to no more than all remaining depreciating (1) * REPRESENTED PROPERTY * VALUE.
The solution is therefore an obligatory schedule of payment retiring principal at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property & a complete eradication of interest.
See the mathematics .
http://australia4mpe.wordpress.com/the-mathematics/
Mathematics can determine people’s behavior in certain respects & don’t get me wrong here, MPEs Mathematics does not claim it can determine what color underwear you are going to wear every day . Now how this 2nd grade math ratio insulates (a volume of circulation) against any ones outside adverse behavior or decision is quite simple if we are capable of using logic really, because all promissory obligations are paid down & retired at the rate of consumption of the related or represented property where any remaining circulation is *fully redeemable* in remaining property value, so in other words one cant issue a promissory obligation that represents nothing ,or above the remaining consumption value left on property in MPE™ & what further representation or money you may give away from your savings by ignorance or otherwise for example is your loss & your loss alone, buyer beware still applies in MPE where what you give away simply circulates further unimpeded as its consequently spent or earned by others so it can be rightfully retired on someones promissory obligation , either now or in 100 years.
So as for asset bubbles people will soon learn if they decide to pay above the remaining consumption left on property they take the risk of not redeeming what they gave away in the first place above remaining consumption on any subsequent sale thereafter, again you can give your money away in MPE if you want however as I have explained it wont effect that 1.1.1 ratio.
There is NO FREE LUNCH in MPE™, we pay just so much ( principal only ) for what we consume, so in the unlikely case someone defaults or dies for example before they fulfill an obligation, that remaining unconsumed property value in question is again * fully redeemable * so someone else can buy the remaining value of that property, & likewise pay down the remaining property value at the rate of their consumption, so the remaining money still circulating that represents the property in question can be rightfully retired ( not stolen by a mere publisher who pretends to loan us money )
We don’t really have a credit facility in MPE™ as such , we have a Common Monetary Infrastructure ( CMI ), we are not imposing a loan or borrowing money/credit off a mere publisher who gives up no consideration, but we do have a savings facility ( CMI ) which also checks your ” issue worthiness ” so as to know you can pay down & rightfully retire your principal creation or retire your intended issuance of a promissory obligation, ” Issue worthiness ” like ” credit worthiness ” is much the same process where it could be for example demonstrating you have an income, savings or unrepresented property you already own that maybe used as collateral.
The ” Non Profit ” Common monetary infrastructure or ( CMI ) in MPE™ is merely accounting nothing more really ,its * NOT A BANK * that pretends to loan the value of our production back to us for the mere cost of publication & charges us interest for the privilege of being robbed then irreverently multiplying artificial debt , the practice of banking therefore will cease to exist & will be considered an act of treason in MPE .
Nevertheless the CMI will be administered by public servants on the peoples behalf sure, however I must stress politicians have absolutely NO ability or power whatsoever to intervene or regulate the CMI outlined in the mandate, to do so in a manner without transparency or without the approval of the people first by a transparent referendum for example would be considered political betrayal by an act of treason & treated as such by law outlined in the united peoples mandate, which is to secure Absolute Consensual Representation ACR™ of the sovereign rights of just individuals within any nation who actually choose to adopt MPE™.
I mean we need someone to do the administration don’t we, so putting it simply as I can, under ACR™ it will be the people who will be holding all the purse strings. The hands of politicians will be tied well & truly when it comes to administering a nations affairs which includes restrictions on spending, building infrastructure etc, simply because the people have to recommend public spending first, thereafter its affirmed or consented by the people by a referendum or vote for example within the area where that infrastructure is built & if money is needed to go to war on a national level for example, or anything spent for the nation on a whole the nation therefore votes.
See the beauty of ACR™ is even if you vote no for some public infrastructure you don’t want in your area & your in the minority vote , your not going to use that infrastructure right?, so your not going to be taxed to pay down that infrastructure as you would consume of it if you did vote yes, likewise if you vote no to go to war for example & in the minority vote you don’t pay any further taxes to fund war you didn’t vote for, there are no other taxes in MPE™ other than what you pay to use or consume infrastructure of course.
There is more in the mandate regarding media & the like, I do suggest anyone reads it , its in audio on my blog so you can just listen to it at your own leisure, the audio is likewise in 12 sections so one can even listen & or read a section a day if they wish.
ACR is what true sovereignty should be in my opinion, where the people govern themselves holding all the purse strings for its the people who give up the only consideration of value.
Lastly I might add there are no bureaucrats who dictate the value of your labour & production you give up & receive from each other, not the CMI , not any politician & most certainly not any thieving bank who artificially inflates prices by imposing unwarranted interest on what have always been falsified debts since the very conception of banking , you only pay for what you consume in MPE & that is rightfully retired at your choice of consumption.
To learn more I suggest you likewise read my blog or go directly to a post called ” MPE for dummies.”
http://australia4mpe.wordpress.com/category/mpe-for-dummies/
Thank You
David Ardron
Long story short: MPE assumes money will be paid down & retired at the rate of consumption.
What I’m saying is that this will mean that the total amount of credit in circulation will grow and grow, leading to higher prices, because there will be no limit on new credit and new credit will be taken on before the old is paid off.
This will lead to rising prices. Asset bubbles.
People will take on ever more debt, underwriting it with assets which are rising in price because more credit is pumped in.
So while all the credit will be fully backed (until the bubble bursts, which it must eventually), it will be at inflated prices. This is the problem.
In fairness: I’ve been struggling with this issue for years. Hoping it would result in the understanding prices would be stabilized by market functions, but it will not. Mutual Credit will inflate if volume is not properly managed.
If you or anyone cares to look at the mathematics link on my previous reply you will clearly see MPE proves & demonstrates with elementary logic & 2nd grade mathematics that so long as we are issuing promissory obligations for new represented property the circulation will always increase in respect to that equal 1.1.1 ratio as we increase our production, which is logically greater than our consumption which is retired, where logically a house for example may take only months to produce & represent right ? but to retire the value of that house may take 100 years right?, so of course the circulation will increase but its not an abnormal increase in relation to representation. Hypothetically even if we all stopped issuing promissory obligations for new represented property we still wouldn’t suffer inflation or deflation & there would be a sufficient volume of circulation per representation to pay down our remaining consumption .
Please let me be clear there is no circulatory inflation or deflation per representation in MPE, nor is there any price inflation on a whole, its a total eradication of inflation & deflation thus we are solving what is an inherent fault in this lie of economy will currently live in, which is on the most part only the evidence of a monumental theft of circulation today.
Now the premise & mere assumption, or LIE rather, taught in most if not all economics schools & universities today, assumes without a shred of poof or qualification that price inflation is solely caused by circulatory inflation or too much money printed , published or issued within any nations monetary circulation per goods & services , however what is completely overlooked is not only elementary logic & 2nd grade mathematics, but as a result of this intellectual disability taught in universities & schools ( WHICH IS NOT EVEN ECONOMY BY ITS VERY DEFINITION ) the volumetric impropriety imposed by unwarranted interest on a falsified debt is completely overlooked & totally ignored, which is the very interest we the people all pay out of a general circulation on our very own falsified debts to all the local banks, which indeed perpetually depletes a general circulation that only ever consists of some remaining principal at the very most? ( NO ONE ON THIS PLANET CAN PROVE & DEMONSTRATE HOW ANY SUM OF INTEREST IS * FIRST CREATED * & ISSUED INTO CIRCULATION ABOVE ANY SUM OF PRINCIPAL ? ) ,clearly indicating, then, price inflation most certainly can not be caused by circulatory inflation at all today?, that’s if one has the intellectual capability of using elementary logic, they can clearly see circulatory inflation or even hyperinflation is indeed a mathematical impossibility under any interest based monetary system ? , concluding, then, using * elementary logic a five year old could demonstrate with a bag of marbles * that price inflation can only be caused by a further imposition of unwarranted interest on a blatant theft of principal which is a theft of ” principal & interest ” or often a sum of 2X the principal, that’s in fact, directly imposed on all our industry & commerce today, which is consequently passed on to the consumer in the price of goods & services.
There are only 2 types of inflation .
1) Circulatory Inflation or hyper inflation : Never happens, simply because the rate of circulatory deflation or should I write a rate of a perpetual theft of circulation by a banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations, always, always, always exceeds the rate of any prior reflation by national debt, clearly evident by perpetually increasing sums of national debt upon further cycles of reflation which is indeed necessary today to service the prior sum of debt.
( your not in a wash of money by increasing national debt are you , & WHY is this ?, THINK > simply because national debt or a irreversible multiplication of artificial debt perpetually reflates a general circulation over & over that’s also perpetually deflating over & over at a greater rate than any prior rate of reflation due to a never ending continuous ground floor theft of principal + interest by a banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations or upon MONEY CREATION itself.
2) Price Inflation: On a whole, is primarily caused by unwarranted interest imposed on all our industry & commerce, where businesses has no choice in most cases to raise their prices to meet their own debt obligations to a bank, therefore price inflation on a whole today is almost entirely artificial in nature, which is passed on to the consumer in the price of goods & services.
” Please note there are exceptions to price inflation in isolated cases if a particular product is in short supply, the price of that product only will rise, as opposed to a product that is abundant in supply that products price will fall ,however these isolated cases are not the cause of all or the majority of price inflation on a whole today & nor will they under a mathematically Perfected Economy™ “
See the root cause of all inflation?
http://australia4mpe.wordpress.com/category/what-is-the-root-cause-of-all-inflation/
The proof of one & one only Mathematically Perfected Economy™ is a singular integral solution for 3 categoric faults.
1) Inflation & deflation.
2) Systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money & property.
3) Inherent irreversible multiplication of falsified indebtedness by unwarranted interest.
Once again the solution is therefore an obligatory schedule of payment ( see the mathematics ) retiring principal at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property & a complete eradication of interest.
THERE IS NO INFLATION OR DEFLATION IN MPE: ( properly managed? )
The meaning of ” inflation ” is to increase but its an abnormal or distorted increase, so there is NO such thing as inflation & deflation in MPE because there is no distortion or abnormality ,even circulatory in nature neither a increase or decrease of circulation is abnormal or distorts the availability of the remaining volume of circulation that it was intended to represent in relation to remaining property value & remaining principal debt /obligation which are balanced or always equal at all times .
With the total eradication of interest In MPE we have no price inflation on a whole because the interest imposed on all our business & commerce today that’s likewise passed onto the consumer is non existent in MPE .
Circulatory Inflation & deflation therefore just doesn’t happen from the get go in MPE even when an obligor issues a promissory obligation for new represented property that issues new money into circulation simply because this increase of circulation is immediately equal to the remaining principal debt & remaining value of the property that the obligor purchased so long as the obligor retires principal at the rate of their consumption there is NO inflation or deflation.
Deflation is to reduce or a reduction in the availability of circulation resulting in a deficient circulation . so in MPE we don’t even have deflation or an insufficient volume of circulation simply because we will always have exactly the required amount of money per representation available left in circulation to pay down & retire the remaining principal from circulation in servicing any outstanding obligation , balancing then circulation equal to the remaining obligation & equal to the remaining property value .
Circulatory Inflation & Circulatory deflation therefore means there is an adverse volumetric impropriety that exists in the remaining availability or volume of circulation for what it was intended to represent which is a volume of circulation that’s abnormally above or below its intended representation, therefore the remaining volume of circulation is not balanced or not equal to the remaining property value & not equal to the remaining obligation or principal debt.
The underlying assumption is that the credit is financing our consumption. But once we have paid for our consumption (up front, like we do when buying a house) the credit starts to circulate in the wider economy. It does not magically stick to the asset that is underwriting the credit.
MPE looks at money purely as credit, but once the credit is created and used to pay with, it becomes money and follows the laws of money, including that of inflation and asset bubbles.
It matters not whether the money is printed debt-free, or as interest-free credit. What matters is its volume in circulation and MPE will see growing volume with rising prices as a result of circular inflation resulting from eternally growing credit as money.
There is no mathematical proof: there is a mistaken axiom and upon this a wrongful formula was devised.
Not so, I guess one has to know how money is created & what money truly represents first don’t they ?, However promissory obligations are financing our consumption, the assumption is fact even today only banks misrepresent our promissory obligations pretending to be the real creditor who actually gives up a house or risking consideration of value of their own commensurable or equal to the value of the house.
MPE sees money as a promissory obligation, promissory note, contractual obligation which has consideration of value… anything else is a further representation only its a purposed misrepresentation today , its not credit as such in MPE, which is why we call credit worthiness issue worthiness simply because credit is the ability to obtain goods or services before payment which is based on a lie we loan money from a bank when we actually create it , even in MPE without exploitation , even today we create a sum of principal by signing a promissory note disguised as an alleged loan contract when we only allegedly borrow money from a bank which is the banks first crime really & the second is unwarranted interest is a result of its first crime only pretending to give up consideration of value.
See the origin of money ?
http://australia4mpe.wordpress.com/category/the-origin-of-money/
Now if you actually take the time to read what I’m pointing you at you will see we are paying the real creditor in full from the outset of our issuance of a promissory obligation , its money creation, money is NOT created as a debt in MPE™, simply because we as the obligor ( NOT BORROWER ) creates money ( principal only ) free of exploitation or purposed obfuscation to first pay the true creditor in full who gives up property & then the obligor likewise earns, & rightfully retires money, ( principal only ), with their future production at the rate of depreciation or their choice of consumption of the related property they purchased in fulfilling a obligation.
What is consumed logically no longer represents value so logically what has been consumed has to be paid down & retired out of circulation to solve the otherwise circulatory inflation if we didn’t rightfully retire what we consume.
I mean is a principal debt a crime or paying for one house for receiving one house or is it a crime paying the value of 2 house’s to a thieving bank for only receiving the value of one house off a real creditor?
It is true in MPE one owes a true creditor ( someone who actually gives up property ) a like equal measure of ones own production over time for what production the true creditor gave up (EG: A house ) , however one is merely paying down out of circulation what one has paid in full to the true creditor from the outset of ones very own promissory obligation ( money creation ).
No one is paying back as such because one merely pays with a like equal measure of ones own production for what one consumes of another’s production, which is rightfully retired, deleted, extinguished that guarantees the very integrity of the money circulating for its intended representation, which is most certainly not anyone’s to keep in fulfilling a promissory obligation, we give up & receive an equal representation of wealth to each other upon money creation, which also consists of the earned profit or entitlement from our labour & production we give up & receive from each other, without banks or government representatives intervening on our business & commerce stealing from us in the process.
Today’s purposefully obfuscated debt is NOT created as a debt at all, rather its * falsified debt * subject to banking exploitation or a purposed obfuscation. which equates to a * MONUMENTAL THEFT * & *ONE BIG MONEY LAUNDERING RACKET * nothing more.
Moreover Its preposterous even to entertain the idea of debt free currency because logically even barter itself or the act of exchanging property or goods ( which otherwise money represents ) is the very act of fulfilling a debt or obligation.
By the very definition of the word * debt * does not define a theft but rather the assumption pertaining to the legal definition of debt which implies a bank gives up lawful consideration of its own in a would be loan which is commensurable or equal to a debt that would otherwise justify interest ? Which is not the case at all today rather there is: NO BORROWER , NO LOAN & most certainly there is NO DEBT owed to any bank.
Money in MPE™ is debt instrument not a debt itself because the evidence of our production that one earns is entitlement of wealth which is not a debt at all in MPE & nor is it today because the debt is really a theft , therefore money only becomes a * principal debt * in MPE when we use it in the exchange of property or services, unlike today where money only becomes a * principal debt subject to interest * when we use it in the exchange of property or services, however unlike MPE, today’s money is stolen on conception creation by thieving banks who are purposely falsifying a debt to themselves by intervention upon our contracts with each other which is the core obfuscation & first crime a bank commits where the bank is neither risking or giving up consideration of its own commensurable or equal to the falsified debt it imposes, essentially stealing principal representation on conception creation of money , so in effect we are really exchanging our labour & production that the banks have already falsely claimed as their very own today by merely pretending to loan a sum of principal to the ” alleged borrower “ which is a sum of principal the ” alleged borrower “ actually created upon signing & issuing a promissory obligation * before any banking book entry *, thereafter the 2nd crime of unwarranted interest is imposed ONLY AS IF the bank risked or gave up commensurable consideration of its own.
As for your assumption that there is no mathematical proof in MPE pertaining to a mistake or being not accepted somehow when you haven’t even articulated why yourself , even after I have shown it to you is really an absurd unqualified assumption in my opinion.
There is not one mathematician or alleged economist on this earth who can formally disprove MPE or the mathematics , not in over 45 years.
Sure there are those who propagate assumptions pretending to find fault in MPE by a misunderstanding or willful ignorance such as Victor J Aguilar, aka charlatan who cant disprove MPE so he character assassinates MIKE with blatant LIES, but in most, if not in every case these individuals are just spouting unqualified assumptions based on further lies they only believe to be fact that MPE indeed proves to be lies at the end of the day anyhow, that’s what one sees if one genuinely takes the time & effort to study MPE asking genuine questions of logic before making their final conclusions or assumptions.
Hit reply to read squashed text.
I’m not trying to refute MPE, Austrialia4MPE. I consider myself an interest-free crediter and a colleague of you and Mike.
Having said that: considering the crucial nature of this debate, I’m not going to settle for anything I don’t understand, let alone simply disagree with. And I disagree with Mike on the way he thinks volume is under control in MPE. Vehemently.
I understand what money is and how it is created. I also understand the difference between a promissory note and interest-free credit.
For all facts and purposes in terms of volume and prices, there is none.
This is where you and Mike go wrong. This is the core issue:
“What is consumed logically no longer represents value so logically what has been consumed has to be paid down & retired out of circulation to solve the otherwise circulatory inflation if we didn’t rightfully retire what we consume.”
What this says is that you believe that money in circulation derivees its value from the assets that is backing it. If it is consumed, it must therefore be retired.
This is WRONG.
The value of money is a function of volume, not the assets backing it.
Here, I’ll give you a little example.
You, I and X start up MPE.
I take out a credit line of 200k to buy your house and I will start downpaying on my promissory note next month.
I will require a 1000 MPE ‘dollars’ per month to downpay the mortgage. I need to get these from you. But where are you going to with your money? Who can handle 200k MPE based credit in this economy?
X will come work for you, but you’ll have to pay him some pretty stiff wages. There is too much MPE in circulation.
It is true money today is just a volume of circulation that has volumetric improprieties without banking representation as such, but every alleged debt today is collateralized to some degree is it not ? well logic tells us if you foreclose on your mortgage the bank gets the house do they not ?, so they are pretending to redeem the property only as if they risked or gave up consideration of value that represents that house, do they not ?, but it wasn’t their house to begin with, nor did they give up consideration of their own that represents the value of that house in any alleged loan to one of us, not even in their alleged creation of money, which is not only a monumental theft here, because its we the people who give up the only consideration , but an inherent fault mind you ,which is a volume of circulation today that’s disproportionate in volume to the price or value of goods & services , at the end of the day you fail, or sadly refuse to see as the very cause of inflation & deflation circulatory in nature , moreover you fail, or refuse to see that logic tells us its mathematically impossible for circulatory inflation to exist under any interest based economy, simply because the cause of price inflation today is the very interest that all our industry & commerce pays out of circulation to a bank which is logically passed onto the consumer in the price of goods & services,therefore price inflation is definitely not caused by increasing sums of circulation per goods & services or per representation today ,but that is not to say circulatory inflation will not cause price inflation , but this is not the case at all today rather price inflation is caused by the very interest we pay out of circulation .
As a consequence of your misinterpretation of the cause of inflation & deflation or a refusal to come to terms you maybe mistaken here , and you are , you fail to see the banks are neither risking or giving up consideration of value, which is what backs a contracts value, or one of our promissory obligations. Banks are essentially misrepresenting the contract on their paper falsifying a debt to themselves giving up nothing of their own , giving the contract no backing whatsoever themselves but pretending they do.
All banks are committing contract fraud since their very conception ( no exceptions public or private ) that every law profession on this earth makes an exception, or turns a blind eye when it comes to the contract essentials in purported loan contracts or mortgages from banks.
Basically my only conclusion here is that you still fail or refuse to see the banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations or refuse to come to terms you may be mistaken in your interpretations after I have articulated it all in much depth already, not only here, but on my blog in triplicate .
Now as for your little example , if I’m not mistaken you ask how you as the obligor that pays me in full is going to get the money off me to fulfill your obligation ? Well I have already articulated this haven’t I ? Its quite simple as I spend the money it circulates further so you can go out and earn that money so you can pay down your obligation .
Now if I don’t spend my money straight away it stays in my account as savings or earned profit you wont be necessarily earning the money off me personally, your really earning it from the overall pool of wealth we all create & contribute too, so more than likely your earning the money from the outset of another’s promissory obligation unless your my employee of course, which would be unlikely right, but a dollar is a dollar circulating at the end of the day, which is the evidence of someones promissory obligation regardless.
Hypothetically if you paid me 200k & I keep that as savings for example & didn’t spent it at all & I die , it will be my children spending it as an inheritance more than likely, considering a house will more than often have a proprietary determinate life span of a 100 years or more it doesn’t matter if I horde my earnings , in reality in MPE we would all be self retiree’s where we would be spending our earnings later in life anyhow before we die & whats left in inheritance will be spent also by our siblings either now or in a hundred years.
All the answers you seek are already on my blog really, but will you or anyone apply themselves ?.
Is Savings Deflationary in MPE ?
http://australia4mpe.wordpress.com/category/is-savings-deflationary-in-mpe/
All money circulates unimpeded in a nations pool of wealth so long as there is remaining consumption left on represented property. So long as people are producing, & we always have even though today that production is stolen only to irreversibly multiply artificial debt upon perpetual re-inflation , nevertheless in MPE so long as we are always issuing new volumes of circulation per new represented property when its needed , that one doesn’t otherwise have, without the need for any regulation what so ever, you wont have to earn that money off me personally, which I have already articulated wont cause circulatory inflation anyhow if all remaining circulation is equal to all remaining obligations & equal to all remaining represented property value or remaining consumption value left on represented property.
The idea here is not only an eradication of inflation & deflation its to make sure we are not multiplying the debt to service the former debt like today .
In MPE we have no need for re-inflation or the resulting national debt so its physically possible for at least some us today ( not all ) to actually pay our falsified debts to a thieving bank, However in MPE we will always have the exact amount of money or exact remaining volume of circulation at all times, so we all can pay down our promissory obligations either now or in 100 years ,its that simple mate.
However there is a difference between value & price TODAY which is related to the volume really , so your incorrect there by writing :
” For all facts and purposes in terms of volume and prices, there is none.”
Its not a fact, simply because price inflation is wholly artificial in nature, where the money has really * DEVALUED * due to the banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations , as a result banks are stealing & laundering circulation which is often * 2X above * the represented property value of principal * , stealing the value of two house’s in total for example which is perpetually decreasing * the remaining volume of circulation by * charging interest * on all our falsified debts to all local banks ,where the remaining volume of principal in circulation has actually lost its value (per represented property value) & WHY you may ask ?
Your paying more out of the * existing or remaining * volume of circulation, (per represented property value) , NOT paying more out of an * increasing * volume of circulation (per represented property value) OK mate.
australia4mpe,
Just wanna say you and Mike are absolute leg-ends for spreading this knowledge and truth. No fudging, just an absolute solution for both public and private issuance of money. That is all 🙂
Anthony,
You yourself acknowledged the VAST majority of costing for housing is capitol cost from banking/usury. If we eliminate this the costs of commerce are FAR LESS. MPE allows us to do this at virtually no cost. Not everything is bought on credit just big ticket items homes/cars. Everything else people can pay for as usual. In fact purchasing power is far higher in MPE meaning likely less money being issued compared to today. There is no income tax with MPE.
Bottom line MPE gives us the ability to pay for our homes using interest free currency without banker or state intervention. You say more money in circulation will mean price inflation but we’ve had the opposite. Less and less money circulated and prices absolutely skyrocketing again caused by banker intervention and interest. MPE is simply paying for what we use and that alone.
Your Welcome .
There is only one issuance here really, & its when one of us (acting in a private capacity) who signs & issues a promissory obligation. It wouldn’t matter if a public or private bank was misrepresenting our contracts , they’re still stealing what is not theirs, giving up nothing of their own in any exchange.
Sometimes I call what is a * further representation * a * secondary issuance or secondary representation *, only so the penny drops for people ,its to get a fact into their head that something of value always comes first which is our promissory obligations before the banks book entry & before the bank can publish or allegedly loan any money .
However the banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations here is likewise a purposed misrepresentation of the contract , so what the banks publish is not a secondary anything at all really, simply because all bank money is a further extension of the only issuance if you will , its a * misrepresentation * , thus what is published by the bank has always been a * further representation * & the evidence of our promissory obligations to each other regardless of the banks obfuscation , or precisely putting it, its always been a purposed misrepresentation of a promissory obligation we really have with each other, ever since the conception of banking its been a purposed misrepresentation because the bank is merely pretending to be the creditor giving up no consideration of value of their own at the end of the day.
In my debate challenge I articulate the contract essentials which no one on this planet can refute , it’s ignored mostly & this is what all the pretenders evade .
http://australia4mpe.wordpress.com/category/mpe-debate-challenge/
And people scratch their heads when the bank gets to keep the house on a foreclosure , knowing all too well the bank didn’t give up the house to begin with , which should ring alarm bells to most telling anyone the banks give up no consideration in any alleged loan, but it doesn’t on the most part sadly.
People ignorantly think the dynasty of criminals & thieves who have been stealing from them for centuries will all of a sudden stop stealing from them if we make a central bank or mere publisher public? I mean it makes no difference because its only we the people who give up consideration of value & issue the only thing of value before the banks slight of hand , we always have, & people actually believe a thieving bank or politician will save them, sadly they cant seem to live with out exploitation , Its the battered wife syndrome all over as I see it, they refuse to let the bank go , they ignorantly think we need banks when we all , the whole world would be far better off without them.
Likewise Lawyers & solicitors etc on the most part have sold out humanity holding all this banking fraud to their chest & they damn well know it , just look at how they are rewarded in the courts, off the blood sweat & tear’s of those who have lost everything mind you , do I have to write anymore about these sellout who often become politicians ?
For the last two centuries every representative government on the face of this planet has given a free license to every bank that’s existed to steal all the property & wealth from the people, its that simple really.
Its time people grow up, stop following & leading themselves for a change, & most importantly start rationally thinking for themselves * prioritizing *, doing what is ethically & morally right. If they don’t , how do they expect to take back what they gave away centuries ago & self govern themselves as we were born to do as human beings, as true sovereigns, without big brother, without thieving banks or any representative government making all the important decisions for us.
QUOTE:
Once one removes from their psyche the *illusion of a loan* associated with the word *debt*, one can then remove the *illusion of a bank* associated with the word *money*. Only then do the people restore their rightful ability to promise to pay an *unexploited obligation*, with one’s own *labour and production*, for what one consumes of another’s *labour and production*… where there are no loans, no borrowing, and only as a result, likewise is there no interest.. End Quote :
David Ardron
Anthony, mathematicians have trouble with their assumptions all the time. Then, once they start their proofs, they forget about the assumptions, and allow the math to take them where it will. Economists do the same thing.
But, there are ironclad rules that cannot be denied by any form of logic. At the very moment of transaction, money stands in as a good. It is not a good, but merely a stand in. The volume of money in ciruclation should match the volume of goods and services. The rate of circulation makes money more efficient, therefore the effictive volume of money is really a factor = volume x velocity.
After the moment of transaction, the money goes on to be spent, and hence jump to and mediate another transaction. There must be the “right” amound and right kind of money to operate for transactions.
MPE money starts as credit and then goes on to serve as money i.e. jumping from transaction to transaction. That is undeniable and axiomatic, yet not comprehended apparently. This is the public function of money, i.e. commons, and it cannot be wished away.
Also, any cirular flow of money that is asset derived, will also require the math to have feedback functions. In other words, asset backed money will “push” markets, driving up general prices, allowing more credit.
Somebody, or the MPE function model (math function) does derive its pricing formula from markets. Yet, the markets themselves are pushed by the money creation. Yet, another disconnect in their logical formulations.
I agree Ross, this is at the heart of the matter.
The underlying credit becomes money once it is spent into circulation.
I’ve checked MPE’s website for their take on inflation. Mike (correctly) states that past war price rises were mainly because of systemically ever higher interest charges. This is true, but he’s not mentioning that interest rates keep a lid on credit expansion. This would of course not exist in interest-free credit. Furthermore, Mike more or less seems to ignore that inflation is in fact well documented in for instance the case of the Continental, which was inflated into oblivion simply by overprinting.
Growing credit volume will automatically see escalating volume of money in MPE and this must be solved for it to work.
There seems to be a paradigm here that money is something other than debt denominated in dollars or other names. That a physical bill is something more than a way of transferring debt. The debt can be transferred or “circulated” many times. But, once the debt is extinguished there is no more money. The only reason we can say there’s a somewhat consistent amount of money is because as soon as one person extinguishes his debt, another is borrowing. And to make it clear hopefully, a borrower is issued credit, and a lender is accumulating credit.
Preposterous? you guys don’t even know what credit is because credit in the form of a purported loan from a bank is really theft today, & likewise if you think spending money in MPE is actually spending credit or think MPE is a credit system of some sort that loans interest free credit your completely WRONG .
I have already articulated why credit today is based on a lie banks loan money , unless any of you can prove & demonstrate what a bank gives up in consideration of value , which you cant, there is no banking credit if one was to look up the definition of the word?
The bank gives up no value that represents the credit they allegedly loan which makes the bank a thief …period .
Now If I can prove with logic alone, & I can, only the principal is created by one of us by signing & issuing a promissory obligation / note * before any banking book entry * when we ” allegedly ” borrow principal from a local bank , how can fractional multiplication thereafter ” allegedly ” multiply or expand principal , when either way here from the outset of ones promissory obligation principal is only ever issued into circulation for what it is or once was intended to represent , EG : A house, upon a sale or purchase of property?
INCREASING INTEREST RATES:
By increasing interest rates attempting to slow alleged borrowing doesn’t actually solve price inflation, nor does it keep a lid on purported expansion? , rather increased rates of interest may indeed slow growth but it always increases the rate of circulatory deflation or increases the theft of a vital circulation regardless, accelerating then an adverse volumetric disposition of a general circulation that consequently accelerates the multiplication of falsified debt into terminal sums of falsified debt even faster just to re inflate circulation.
DECREASING INTEREST RATES:
Decreasing or lower rates of interest however is a slower rate of adverse volumetric disposition, or a slower rate of theft of circulation, which can temporally stimulate growth, allowing the banks to artificially inflate circulation by periodically increasing alleged loans to an alleged borrowers only, which is not the cause of price inflation at all today (mathematically impossible) simply because interest at any rate paid out of a general circulation by an alleged borrower always, always, always, depletes a general circulation that only ever consists of some remaining principal at most, where the rate of circulatory deflation is always, always, always at a greater rate than any former rate of re-inflation by means of national debt, which is clearly evident by increasing sums of national debt upon further cycles of reflation , further cycles of reflation, that’s necessary to keep the banking cycles of dispossession going, so its physically possible for a least some of us who are still credit worthy ,or some of us who are lucky enough to have the ability to first earn principal & interest out of a circulation of principal so its physically possible to continue servicing our falsified debts to local banks.
Moreover to suggest there could be ” interest free credit ” is simply irrational & absurd because credit is the ability to obtain goods or services * before payment * which is based on a lie we loan money from a bank ,when we actually create & give value to it Anthony , & the bank steals that value on conception Anthony, which is the banks first crime where the local bank or an ” alleged creditor ” steals & launders a sum of principal an * alleged borrower * creates by purposefully obfuscating or misrepresenting the obligors or * alleged borrowers * promissory obligation, * before the banking book entry *, * before expansion * , * before publication * pretending, then, to loan principal only as if it was the banks principal value to loan out in the beginning.
And to likewise suggest MPE ignores inflation & deflation when it actually solves inflation & deflation is likewise based on Anthony’s failure to see price inflation is caused by the very interest all industry & all commerce pays to a bank , it always has, since the conception of banking , which is logically an added cost passed onto the consumer in all sales or the price of goods & services . Its mathematically impossible for price inflation to be caused by circulatory inflation today simply because any sum of interest paid to a thieving bank above any sum of principal perpetually depletes circulation that’s only ever comprised of some remaining principal, even upon perpetual cycles of reflation, or a irreversible multiplication of artificial debt the circulation is only ever comprised of some remaining principal, unless of course any of you can prove & demonstrate how any sum of interest is first created & issued into circulation above any sum of principal that’s allegedly loaned by a bank, which you cant ?.
Its not mathematicians having trouble with their assumptions all the time because the mathematician will often use logic in extending their equations , if you fail to apply logic in extending any mathematical equation you get an incorrect answer or solution, thus to assume or infer mathematicians don’t use logic here is sacrilege to any mathematician, it goes against the very grain of maths & science. Mathematicians more often don’t bend the facts or bend what is rudimentary logic to suit a theory or suit a proven thesis that no one has formally disproved in over 45 years , but economists & pretenders most certainly do, they do it every day to suit a LIE that we borrow money or borrow credit from a thieving bank, even to suggest we can have ” interest free credit ” , ignoring the very reason why interest is imposed in the first place, or ignoring the banks very first crime, where the bank * allegedly loans principal credit * to an *alleged borrower * so an *alleged borrower *can obtain goods or services before payment?, which is not the case at all today or in MPE because the person who is giving up property of commensurable value is paid in full from the outset of the obligors or the * alleged borrowers * promissory note or obligation regardless.
MPE most certainly doesn’t ignore the velocity of money because it identifies the velocity of money we pay out of circulation ( principal & interest ) on our falsified debts to local banks terminally depletes a circulation that only ever consists of some remaining principal at most , where the rate of circulatory deflation or the theft of circulation by all local banks perpetually depletes circulation at a greater velocity of any former velocity of re-inflation by means of national debt which is irreversibly multiplying debt upon further cycles of reflation , clearly evident by increasing sums of national debt .
Identifying then banks don’t spend what they steal “principal & interest” back into circulation because the velocity rate of a monumental theft of circulation is governed by the rate of interest on our very own falsified debts to local banks, where principal & interest is stolen ,laundered out of circulation over the years & consequently the money banks steal is loaned back into circulation as a terminal multiplication of national debt just to re-inflate circulation, continuing the banking cycles of what is a guaranteed dispossession & consolidation of all our property & wealth public & private in the very end .
Money in MPE simply circulates over & over until the principal debt is fulfilled likewise its retired at the consumption rate of the property one may have purchased from issuing a promissory obligation, however principal is NOT generally retired in full before the debt is due or fulfilled , one can choose to pay their debt off faster however but this does not mean the money paid in advance is retired faster than remaining consumption left on represented property because what is paid above remaining consumption simply remains in the obligors own account , otherwise as savings , its not stolen & laundered out of circulation by a thieving bank to irreversibly multiply an artificial debt.
And finally its NOT difficult to control “Velocity of Circulation” in MPE if one has the ability to use logic because the money we create, earn & pay-down from circulation is * RIGHTFULLY RETIRED * at the rate of consumption or depreciation we decide of the related property , where if someone unfortunately defaults on an obligation the property in question is * fully redeemable * for its remaining value , anyone who merely assumes human nature can adversely effect MPEs simple 1.1.1 Second grade math ratio needs to think again, go back to school repeat 2nd grade mathematics & come back & articulate exactly how & why human nature can disrupt or be adverse in the 1.1.1 ratio ? Because you if you did think again & actually read what I have already written you will clearly see with logic alone that MPEs 1.1.1 ratio insulates a volume of circulation from any outside adverse decisions in commerce.
WHEN THE PERFECT VELOCITY OF REMAINING PRINCIPAL AVAILABLE LEFT IN A VOLUME OF CIRCULATION IN MPE IS ACTUALLY RETIRED AT A PERFECT VELOCITY OR RATE OF OUR CHOICE OF CONSUMPTION ” EXACTLY EQUAL “ ( NOT ABOVE OR BELOW ) BUT ” EXACTLY EQUAL “ TO THE REMAINING VELOCITY OF PRINCIPAL DEBT & ” EXACTLY EQUAL ” TO THE REMAINING VELOCITY OF REPRESENTED PROPERTY VALUE .
It appears that philos grand delusions are rubbing off on you & others Anthony, but this is expected coming from 11th hour pretenders. I have now come to the conclusion I’m only wasting my time here on this blog of yours Anthony , you write that your on the side of MPE but as far as I’m concerned you are indeed not, in fact your adversarial in many respects that can only cause further division & confusion in others, whether its unintentional or on purpose its up to the reader really, but Its my observation like all others who truly comprehend what I’m writing is that the simplest logic completely evades your reasoning regardless Anthony.
Good Day .
Australia4MPE, I’m pretty much aware of the way banks create credit. That’s why I like interest-free Mutual Credit, of which I consider MPE an example. I have no difficulty following your line of reasoning on the money creation, either in Banks or in MPE. I consider discussing it superfluous, because it’s all a given.
What we’re talking about here is that your promissory note is not going to stick to your house when you buy it. The previous owner of the house is going to spend it elsewhere. And his supplier will use it again. That is the way money circulates, also when you create it as an interest-free promissory note. It is not the same note that ‘is retired at the rate of consumption’. Other notes, that the one paying off his obligation has earned with work or other means, are being used for that.
Because MPE creates ever more promissory notes, more and more of these notes circulate in the economy. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the underlying credit is being paid off also. New notes are created to pay off the old ones and asset bubbles are unavoidable.
Nothing of what you are saying disproves the many precedents in history of inflated currencies. The theory that the credit underlying the growing money supply is asset-backed will maintain stable prices is simply unreal, because the inflating credit will be backed at inflating prices! It’s a self feeding spiral that we always see when the banks lower interest rates and housing prices immediately begin to boom.
Don’t rely on logic too much man! We have clear practical examples that we can and must compare. Practical problems to solve!
I understand it’s unpleasant to be grilled on an issue like this, but I think it’s necessary. I believe in interest-free credit, but it must of course be designed well and the management of volume is crucial link in the story!
You have proven already you don’t know how banks create credit Anthony because they don’t create credit at all ? , & if you like “ interest-free Mutual Credit “ that purports to loan credit your advocating a theft regardless if interest is imposed or not Anthony , which most certainly cant be compared to MPE here at all , because there are NO alleged loans in MPE.
What we are talking about is money creation or one of our promissory obligations that represent the property or consideration of value in MPE given up by both parties in a promissory note , if promissory notes didn’t have consideration of value they would NOT be promissory notes Anthony ?
The former owner in MPE who gives up a house or gives up consideration of value in return for what money is published from the outset of our promissory obligations simply circulates further in a pool of wealth that we all contribute too without thieves intervening on our transactions with each other , however promissory notes or our promissory obligations have always been interest free dating back as far as 2000 BC until some centuries ago banks started to intervene on our promissory notes we had & still have with each other, insisting we issue the promise on the banks paper, tricking us so the bank can essentially steal the represented value of that promissory note by pretending to loan its value , often X2 out of a pool of wealth because of the resulting interest.
http://australia4mpe.wordpress.com/category/the-origin-of-money/
Furthermore your absolutely WONG assuming without proof or qualification we are not retiring the same promissory note or obligation for the intended consumption of the related property . Its absurd to even suggest such a thing after I have already articulated we are retiring what represents our promissory obligation which includes any further representation of money published that evidences one of our promissory obligations Anthony.
All money published in MPE is a further representation of one of our promissory notes Anthony ,which are promissory obligations that have consideration of value Anthony , even today the money published from the outset of one of our promissory obligations is a further representation only thing you refuse to comprehend is it’s a purposed misrepresentation of our promissory notes or obligations on the banks paper Anthony, NOT OURS , it’s a purposed obfuscation Anthony, where the bank is pretending to loan a sum of principal Anthony , unless of course you can prove what consideration of value the bank risks or gives up of its own in any alleged loan of credit ? , but we all know no one can, because banks or what is a mere publisher such as a central bank for example likewise give up no consideration of value don’t they Anthony .
If we are paying principal +interest out of a circulation that is only ever comprised of some remaining principal a child with a bag of marbles can prove circulatory inflation is mathematically impossible Anthony , thus your assumption that price inflation is caused by an increasing circulation that equals the value of represented goods & services in MPE is unfounded & completely false .
National debt which perpetually re-inflates circulation is never ever increasing a volume of circulation over & above the value of goods & services today because price inflation on the whole today is artificial. As I have already explained ever since the conception of banking price inflation is actually caused by all the interest all our industry pays to a bank which is logically a cost passed on to the consumer in the price of goods & services .
Blind Freddy can see if an alleged borrower purchases a house for 100K & the bank wants 200K in principal & interest & if the alleged borrower is lucky enough to earn principal & interest out of a circulation of only principal & fulfill a falsified debt to a bank they will then want at least 200K on a subsequent sale thereafter ,which throws your mere unqualified assertion out the door assuming that price inflation is existent in MPE , how can it exist if we eradicate interest completely & most importantly we always keep a volume of circulation equal or no more than remaining obligations & equal or no more than represented property value .
Your basically claiming without a shred of proof that MPE has no system of accounting in regards to a volume of circulation at the end of the day here totally disregarding what is 2nd grade Mathematics in MPE based on further lie derived from Austrian economics assuming maths cant be relied upon in relation to volumes of circulation because maths cant determine peoples decisions ,which is absurd really because MPE proves it can insulate a volume of circulation from peoples adverse decisions , even if they bloody give their entitlement away.
Your only attempting to convince others a fact exists basing it on the lie that inflated currencies subject to interest has existed or exists today , which is not the case at all Anthony , ever since the conception of banking currencies have always been permanently deflated due to unwarranted interest Anthony .
If we pay down circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation industry & commerce in MPE™ would also have this extra money to expand business , employ more people , pay more to people , unemployment will be by choice NOT IMPOSED ,employment will flourish , likewise we won’t be wasting vast amounts of natural resources because business will be paying their principal debt down at the rate of depreciation or consumption so naturally things will be built to last longer resulting in lower rates of payment over the lifetime of what is purchased to retire money thus leaving more capital or earned profit to expand business , pay more money to employees , employ more employees, likewise competition will also flourish keeping the price or cost of production competitive in what will be a true free enterprise market based on innovation rather than built in obsolescence & a throw away society .
And lastly if you advocate an absence or a non reliance of logic Anthony ? Well ,what can I say, you are indeed your own worst enemy, & as for any alleged clear practical examples you may have such as your “ interest-free Mutual Credit “, is only advocating a theft at the end of the day , the banks first crime, which is a misrepresentation of our promissory obligations regardless , on the contrary Anthony I’m grilling you, I’m holding you accountable for dividing & confusing others with the lies of economy you cant prove or demonstrate as fact .
This will be my last post on this preposterous blog. I’m only wasting further of my time here with those who can’t even help themselves let alone help others using what are lies of economy pushing them as fact .
a4MPE – I hope that soon you realize you are using fallacious argumentation all the time and ask yourself, “why?”. Long winded comments are an example of an appeal to authority. Some would call it the “Delphi Technique”. The more content doesn’t mean more substance. Then there’s the appeal to ridicule, “second grade math….” Appeal to emotion and so on. The real issue is that you want a technologically advanced society with no stratification. Be a good philosopher and admit it. That’s what you are, a philosopher, but not in the context that you are.
Anthony,
The MPE discussion has been very interesting and I was wondering if it might merit a thread of its own?
I’m very keen on interest free loans but so far; I don’t think that MPE is needed or wanted to get us there. For example, how is MPE different from any other interest free plan that requires full collateralization?
There is no difference. It’s all about replacing the bank without considering the role the bank plays in the structure of society. Monetary reform is a subset of philosophy.
Once you see it, it becomes obvious all the philosophers of the past who knew it. You don’t make a living telling the truth though.
I did an article Larry, in case you haven’t seen it. I’d be interested in your comments!
I’d like to know how the CMI determines who is issued how much money. Do they look at a guy with a huge house and many businesses and say, ” Your rich so here’s another million dollars to buy another business.”
Do they look at a guy who’s struggling to survive and say, “Your poor so here’s 3,000 to buy a trailer.”
And why do you trademark everything?
another figment, produced by stupor
(there is no public–private dialectic, it is a straw man you are inventing)
money is not part of nature –as water, air, land– money is a tangible representative of an abstract idea: value; money has to be earned –not just inhaled, or stand in it; “by the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread” says the punishment on the way out into nature; rain shall equally fall on the good and bad and the ugly, but for money, ye have to work……
some times after Adam & Eve, the hebrews were also told, the mana will cease, and ye will eat and prosper by the work of your hands (and it won’t hurt if ye pray for rain and good harvest, either)
—and by the way, what was the form of government God himself recommended to the hebrews in the promised land? no government at all, libertarianism, (with the commandments as constitution, and God as head of state) which Migchels and his also brainy co-hort considers satanism……
======
as to your brain-less commune concept—-
self-interest, the expectation of revenue, gave you the computer and the internet……. greed and self-interest feeds a good portion of the population of this planet
there is a fairly well recorded experiment of commune and self-interest: in the first year, the pilgrims who survived the first winter, tried the commune concept of future maggot infested hippies; it was a disaster; so captain Standish switched to the biblical method: the land was parcelled out, the tools were divided, and off ye go, by the work (self-interested work) of your hands (on your private property) to eat bread…….
=============
>>>> Jesus said to give away everything to follow Him.
Of course, neither you, nor any of the other groupies, would dare to put to practice this twisted concept of yours, which you blame on Jesus…….
Just some fun facts!
If there’s a dispute between two people over public or private banks, that means there’s a dialectic to be analyzed.
A bill or coin(denominated in dollars for example) is a tangible representative of debt. They can be used to transfer debt. Debt is not tangible. Money is debt that can be transferred electronically, or with a check.
If you have a dollar in your pocket, the bank is collecting compound interest on the debt it represents.
so lovely of you to flaunt your ignorance
There is a dialectic. A clear dialectic. It’s what’s going on between the Populists and the Austrians. The Populists have the better papers here, but not all is clear cut.
I’m not going to say I’m a good follower of Jesus Name789. But do you agree that money grabbing as the basis for human evolution may be a little thin?
How could you be a good follower of Jesus? His doctrine says your hopelessly corrupt and condemned to death if not for the Savior. Money grabbing is the basis for the development of technology. Someone has to own the patent on every technology, with the promise of exploiting others, or it won’t get built.
Really philo? (sorry, I thought it was Name)
All these great inventors lived years or decades to create what they did and they all did it to patent it? Even when there were no patents?
You don’t see how the Money Power monopolizes intellectual content through ‘intellectual property rights’? How knowledge is being monetized to pay off ever higher cost for capital, calling it ‘economic growth’?
The issue is they finance those they own and starve the rest. Patents are about offering an inventor an offer he can’t refuse.
What we’re talking about here decentralizes credit to the commoner, then there will always be enough money to build whatever they fancy.
If the commoner is always allowed credit, there will be no more commoners. Rich, commoner, poor, right? That’s the structure. There is no level structure other than people living primitively. The only way you could have a technologically advanced society without huge disparity is if everyone decided to get up and go to work every day with absolutely no expectation or promise of anything in return.
a commoner is simply someone with a stake in, or rights to the Commons.
He should be pretty much ok, materially speaking, considering the incredible abundance of nature and intellect.
But I understand where you’re coming from with your equation of technology with evil.
It’s the old battle of the Taoist against Confucianists. Nature vs. Culture.
Personally I’m on your side, but perhaps there are ways of integrating technology into a life of the Spirit?
I have absolutely NO problem with technology. I LOVE technology. I have a problem with the fact that the majority of people in a monetary system have to be deluded for it to work and the huge disparity that comes with it.
And yes, I would be totally shooting myself in the foot if I thought there was ever a chance of humanity waking up and realizing that banks don’t loan anything. I have a computer, for now.
there is no such thing as evolution; if you wasn’t a victim of public education and your mentors, you would know that
Huh? Are you talking to me? I don’t understand why you say that?
Of course there is no evolution in a Darwinian sense. But processes evolve, individuals evolve. Everything evolves.
You are right of course as far as the pilgrim’s commune is concerned. Communism was tried in that very early stage of the future United States. It failed, because it would have taken the work ethic of spiritual monks in order to succeed. Mankind is not ready for that.
However given interest free, freely available money – mankind would likely move forward a bit. And Anthony does not wish to give everyone everything – social credit will not provide you with an enormous standard of living. JAK-Bank-like real-estate credit would still have to be repaid, even with zero interest rates or hardly any fees. You would still be able only to take on as much credit as your earnings would allow you.
However some paradigms do change with technological advancement. Even with our current technology – even more so with the suppressed one – we do not need for most of humanity to work at all! And that is also one of the reasons for the rising worldwide unemployment. Sooner or later machines will take the place of most unwanted, repetitive jobs. And what then? What now in fact already for some?
If we do not think ahead, THEY certainly do and their choice for us is not very appealing.
The world of selfish greed and wealth concentration would still be here even with an interest-free, plentiful money supply. Sure – it would become more decentralized and less capital-concentrated, but it would still be basically the same world. It would just be easier to live out a true “American Dream”. What Anthony hinted at here is a world beyond, when the young receive a completely different education. A world where most would behave like spiritual monks. And then with sufficiently high technological development – who knows, we could say good-bye to money itself.
BTW – Name – you are more a historian (and less a money reformer), but you always focus on newspapers, rare books and political speeches. That is mainly the viewpoint of a precious few – most of them well-off or wealthy themselves. Since history was manipulated to such a degree, it is in my opinion necessary to dig historical facts up the David-Irving-way: go for diaries, ask some survivors or their descendents, dig out the real facts left.
How does it apply to the money system? Well – how about starting with Canada and checking out how the people fared there with state-run non-asset-backed-interest-free-government-created money? A visit to Woergl would be highly informative too, since the descendants of the Gesell-era are bound to be around. Heck – you might find some old ones who have been around then and remember it still. Certainly some diaries can be found as well as the buildings (excellent store of wealth), public projects and pure wealth created back then. The people can certainly enlighten any real truth seeker.
And I am sure the viewpoint of the common folk in the US times of strict gold-standard adherence would be highly enlightening – nevermind the blabberings of senators, how did the common man fare? Digging up some rare books and political speeches at libraries just is not good enough for our manipulated history. That does not mean, that you did a bad job – I am not a historian, but if I would hire one, I would tell him to go and dig out the real facts and how the lower 90% fared in a given system instead of relying upon the utterings of the upper 5%.
BTW – that would be good project combined with a documentary in the future, maybe with the participation of Anthony.
[quote]
The purpose was to train, and ultimately control, the teaching profession and religious seminaries, so that the thinking of the nation could be moulded in the manner which the money masters deemed appropriate. In order to control man, it is necessary to control his thinking. This is why the educational foundation was the cornerstone in the building blocks of a Socialist-feudalist society. The results of this mind manipulation are now evident as the progressive education, anti-individualistic mentality emerges from the colleges and government halls, with club in hand ready to destroy western civilization. Our youngsters worship the collective and despise the individual. They have been trained to think in terms of service to others and the good of society.
[/quote]
Our youngsters worship the collective and despise the individual. They have been trained to think in terms of service to others and the good of society.
this is another dialectical proposition. They both call for money getting parading as ultra ‘individualism’ as well as collectivism parading as ‘the good of the whole, the good of society’.
I tried to overcome it with this phrase:
“When we look at monetary reform, we want interest-free, stable money. We need local communities to be able to have a say in where the money is going to. We need equitable individual sovereign access to capital.”
Here the common good is described in clear individual rights. The common good is achieved by empowering the individual, not by having him prey on his brethren a la Ayn Rand, but by providing everybody with his/her fair share.
In this way ALL the Money Power can ultimately decentralized to the individual. No poverty, no money masters, abundance.
no; it is a desciption of your hippie ideas, and their source
before you talk too much about dialectic, keep in mind that you and your mentors are the dialectic; one side of it, the other is the ‘austrians’
No. It’s impossible to create a dialectic with Usury Free. For a good dialectic both poles need to have hidden shared common attributes that are the foundation of the planned synthesis.
I’m not aware of any hidden shared attributes of Interest-Free Economics with Money Power plans. However, should you point them out I will be sure to address them, should they be negative.
I do accept that both Public Banking and the Chicago plan provide favorable issues for dialectics.
If this so called “Money Power” wants money to exist, as opposed to everyone wanting money to exist, when money is the result of a corrupt humanity, then it would behoove the Money Power to have those who would try to find a way of fixing the problems that arise from society with a monetary system by trying to fix the monetary system. Money is the result of a corrupt and deluded society. Therefore, the synthesis should be to try to disclose this fact if there is to ever be a technologically advanced civilization without severe disparity.
Very interesting post to help us out of this dialectic.
One comment:
“Public workers, on the other hand, are supposed to serve the public interest. They don’t”
This can be inerpreted meaning that no public worker ever wants to serve the public interest.
I don’t think this is wat you really think. There are plenty of public workers doing a responsible job (even when this sometimes will get them fired).
Private banks can serve the public by lending money to qualified borrowers and processing the transaction. They do NOT have to charge interest – they can just as easily be compensated through service and processing fees.
In fact, commercial banks are already doing this with most mortgages. They do not hold the mortgages but rather sell them and find profit through origination and service fees.
I think the founding Fathers of the U.S. were wise in designing a Constitutional Republic – to restrain the government and provide protection of the individual. Unfortunately, most have been trained to believe that we live in a democracy. In fact, the media constantly brags that “we” are bringing democracy to others when we attack and destroy nations like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Such a “noble” deed justifies killing millions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
The most important financial decision an independent nation may make – does it use sovereign credit or sovereign debt?
Sovereign Debt – The sovereign debt route typically entails a nation using its credit to issue bonds which act as collateral and a pledge to borrow money. The collateral is the backing of the people and both private and public property. It is an instrument of debt.
Sovereign Credit – Enables nations to directly issue money instead of bonds. Both bonds and money are backed by the SAME collateral, the difference is that sovereign credit is totally debt free.
Thomas Edison elegantly explained the difference in a few paragraphs, that are more succinct and important than a library of economic books:
Under the constitution; Section 8 – Powers of Congress, “To borrow money on the credit of the United States;”
Clearly, Congress has the power to issue a Bill of Credit – a credit instrument that has no defined value beyond the credit ability of the U.S. Nathaniel Gorham explained this at the Constitutional Convention:“The power (to emit promissory – that is, fiat paper), as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.”
Congress has the power to borrow on our credit (not our assets) and thus, they have the power to issue credit notes that can trade and circulate as “currency.” Karl Denninger explained:
Congress needs to exercise their power to issue the nations money! They don’t have to end or audit the Federal Reserve in order to issue money.
Hi Larry, this is very interesting information. You have to wonder why the founding fathers didn’t utilize this method from the very beginning, instead of surrendering to Hamilton’s designs!
According to Bill Still from the Money Masters:
“As it happened, the federal and state governments were widely regarded as prohibited from paper money creation, whereas
private banks were not – it being argued that this power, by not being specifically prohibited, was reserved to the people
(including legal persons, such as incorporated banks).The contrary argument was that bank corporations were instruments or agencies of the states which incorporated them and
so were prohibited from “emitting bills of credit” as were the states themselves. This argument was ignored by the bankers,
who proceeded to issue paper bank notes based on fractional reserves, and it lost all force once the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that even the federal government could charter a bank (the 1st BUS) which could issue paper money.
In the end, only the states were prohibited from issuing paper money, not the federal government, and neither private banks
nor even municipalities were prohibited from issuing paper money (as happened in c. 400 cities during the Great Depression”
Larry posted this before in the trojan penetrators topic:
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/end-the-fed-a-trojan-horse-destroying-the-truth-movement-from-within/
and was answered there
the whole reply is a copy and paste, there is nothing in it from Larry (that is why he is a leech, he likes to present other people’s posts as his own)
>>>>(to emit promissory – that is, fiat paper)
it is simply not true (and they know it), a promissory note is NOT fiat paper ?
Larry is hard at work to discredit the concept of non-legal-tender Treasury notes as currency; what Edison proposed –which Larry the leech in a different topic opposed– is to issue notes based (not on credibility) on the reasonable expectation of future revenue from the project, they were promises to pay; Edison or Calhoun or Jefferson would never have proposed to issue printing-press notes, based on nothing but the good name of the federal government !!!
Not long ago, Larry’s mentor, Ellen Brown, suggested that California should issue 20billion notes, backed by the credibility and good name of the Government of California, for purposes of financing socialist programmes……
The leaders of Detroit borrowed –on the good name and credibility– the city into oblivion….. Larry the leech may be proud of them, these vanguards and pioneers of monetary soundness
>>>>They don’t have to end or audit the Federal Reserve in order to issue money.
Not long ago Larry’s signature was “end the fed….”
>>>>Congress has the power to borrow on our credit (not our assets)
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-constitution-and-paper-money
and the congress of the united states is borrowing itself out of existence on its credit and good name and credibility….. they have been reading the same book Larry just discovered
Deep researcher Liu built a computer model on a false premise, based on a fabricated quote…….
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-greenbackers-fake-quote-industry/
Larry is parotting Liu’s credit system concept, not knowing and not understanding that a credit bubble produced by the government has the same result as a credit bubble produced by a private bank….
On DailyPaul, republicae wiped the floor with Larry (DrKrbyLuv) and his parotting of Liu—
http://www.dailypaul.com/152389#comment-2014642
Larry is a sodomite infiltrator, he hates sound solution and sound currency
the nameless789 wrote:
Can you provide a link for Mr Liu’s computer model? Are you just making stuff up again or do you have a source?
What was the “false premise”? Please state it as I suspect that it is just more of your BS.
You’re so damned anxious to attack people that you don’t even bother making valid points.
You have posted many incorrect quotes on your website – for example, Ezra Pound http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/pound_ezra/pound_cage.html uses many of the quotes that you attack Ellen Brown over. Either fix your own site or shut-up and quit boring us with attacks on others who accidentally use bad quotes.
For years, now, Larry is going around, forum to forum, presenting Lucy Liu’s text as if his own……
>>>>You’re so damned anxious to attack people that you don’t even bother making valid points.
yes, that is exactly what the groupies did when someone(s) made the very valid point that Ellen Brown is a liar; that the whole house of cards presented by charlatans like Bill Still is falsehood and fabrication
I do not attack people, I point out full time liars (of course, for you and your kind, a charlatan is someone to be admired and idolized…..)
The valid point –which is beyond your comprehension– that all these dogmas and figments presented by the charlatans, and the groupies on this blog, are just that: pipe dreams of people suffering from delusion of grandeur (as we established before, not one of ye could run a lemonade stand profitable, but ye are here to save the world, and outbank the banker…..)
ye don’t accidentally use bad quotes, ye fabricate quotes or grab what other book-peddlers fabricated, and build your whole entire concept on these fake quotes
All the silly ideas presented on this blog; I simply point to the contradictions, hypocricy, fatal flaws in them; none of ye has the courage to face these flies in your lubrication
Earlier Larry pointed out the words of Thomas Edison and those words seem to make perfect sense. Wow! This is one tremendous discussion.
Thank you,
Jerry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzmh5yehBdU
thanks, I posted this on Recovering Austrians!
My two cents here. If we returned to the Creator’s ideas for us perhaps that would be a solution.
http://hebrewofyhwh.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/what-is-gods-word-on-lawful-money-what-is-lawful-money-and-why-should-be-we-use-it/
putting a link to your article is not enough; you need to post your views here; let these christians, pagans, gamblers and drunken sailors see what God’s money on Earth is…….
Thank you again mr Anonymous. “name789” you are Anomia to me. NO name
You are such an ignorant dick. God wants NO money fool!
Of course God needs nor wants money. He created everything in the first place, it all belongs to YHWH. The Creator God set up a law on how to operate our finances. The Creator God Wrote good law on Money and if we would pay attention to it Perhaps we would have fewer problems.
>>>>The Creator God Wrote good law on Money and if we would pay attention to it
But, according to your article, gold and silver were what the “good law” ordained as money on this planet
No, sir, you mis-read. Money is Property and property is money. So, corn, wheat, honey, beans, oil are all forms of property and useable as money. The have one thing in common and that is they all have Intrinsic Value.
>>>>>> you mis-read.
I am standing corrected, as we speak. so a bill of exchange, made of clay, representing a measure of barley is lawful money (according to the “honest weight and measures” doctrine) ?
how about a bill of exchange, made of paper, representing tobacco ?
how about a promissory note, promising silver ?
[quote]
Money as Property
Money is an asset. Money is a physical thing that has intrinsic value associated with itself. Money can be neither divested nor deprived of its intrinsic value because money would have a value associated with its creation. In other words how much effort: i.e. time and energy is required to create the value? Thus, the value is related to the energy required to create it.
For instance, with the creation of honey it takes a hive of bees a certain amount of time to create a gallon of honey and it also requires an individual with the expertise to extract that honey from the bee hive. The value of honey has much to do with the time required to create it and to harvest and to package for sale.
The value of Money related to the labor required to create it
Money has value related to the labor required to achieve the creation of it.
For example, if it takes a man one day to go out and dig up 1 ounce of gold out of the ground the value of one ounce of gold is related to the labor of one (1) day. So that would be the wages of one day.
In the Scripture, all items used as money had the characteristic of being property of some sort or another with intrinsic value.
Does man assign the value of money? Would not man’s assigning value to money nullify the intrinsic value rule? Can money be assigned a value? Yes. Money can be assigned value insofar as money is property and must be created by labor. Money can be assigned the value associated with the energy, time and effort required to create it.
Money has intrinsic value.
An item with no intrinsic value can not be considered money.
The opposite of “legal tender” is lawful money. According to Scripture, lawful money has intrinsic value, like gold, silver, corn, wheat, honey, beans, oil.
The Creator of the Universe, the Sovereign of the Universe who set up the laws on money has required that true asset be used in all transactions of property, i.e. that all transactions be made with a true asset. Thus all transactions are final and complete upon the transfer of the asset for the asset.
Another angle on this issue for teaching young adults: an asset would have intrinsic value that is known without having to legislate the value into it. For instance: a Federal reserve note is legislated into existence to be “legal tender”. But on the other hand a dollar silver coin is lawful money because it is money by its very nature because it contains “Intrinsic value”!
The opposite of “legal tender” is lawful money. According to Scripture, lawful money has intrinsic value, like gold, silver, corn, wheat, honey, beans, oil.
The Creator of the Universe, the Sovereign of the Universe who set up the laws on money has required that true asset be used in all transactions of property, i.e. that all transactions be made with a true asset. Thus all transactions are final and complete upon the transfer of the asset for the asset.
Another angle on this issue for teaching young adults: an asset would have intrinsic value that is known without having to legislate the value into it. For instance: a Federal reserve note is legislated into existence to be “legal tender”. But on the other hand a dollar silver coin is lawful money because it is money by its very nature because it contains “Intrinsic value”!
The advantages of using gold and silver as payment
[/quote]