Cause and Effects of Money Scarcity
(Left: William Jennings Bryan, a few months after he delivered his famous speech.)
American Populists always focused on scarcity of money. Expanding the money supply was their main goal, not Usury abolition. But Usury is the fundamental cause of money scarcity.
Money scarcity is the phenomenon of insufficient liquidity in the economy to finance all possible trades. This results in (permanently) depressed economies. Money scarcity always has been the key issue that Populist monetary reformers wanted to solve, ever since the Civil War. They proposed to add Greenback-style debt free United States notes to the money supply. But the call to monetize Silver was even more common. That was the background of Bryan’s famous ‘you shall not crucify Labor on a cross of Gold’ speech, for instance.
Gold as money is always scarce. There is never enough of it. This has been the case throughout US history. The economy grows quicker than Gold supplies and, worse, the Money Power has always controlled Gold (and Silver too, of course) and has routinely withheld massive amounts of specie from circulation.
Austrians deny money scarcity, citing Say’s law, which claims free markets will always clear. Prices will go down and suppliers unable to follow suit will just go out of business. In itself this is not untrue, but the destruction before markets clear is uncanny and leads to the premature death of millions, not to speak of the suffering of millions more who survive. Adding some liquidity to the economy is basically a no-brainer, but then the Austrians scare everybody to death with inflation fearmongering. Interestingly, warnings of inflation have always been the banker line in the past, when resisting adding money to the economy.
Money scarcity is pleasant to the Bankers. They prefer depressed economies, because it prevents the poor from becoming middle class. Bankers like cheap labor and people licking their boots for below sustenance job. The industrial revolution, which caused generation after generation to be destroyed in the sweat shops, is a typical example. Austrians will always hail the industrial revolution as that great era of wealth production, but they like to ignore that the wealth production was done by the laborers, while the wealth itself went to those providing the capital. The industrial revolution was the greatest defeat labor ever suffered against capital.
Furthermore, artificial scarcity of money raises the price of it and this obviously is to the monopolist’s liking. In this way money scarcity is as much a cause of usury as the other way around.
Causes of Money Scarcity
Money scarcity is caused by three main issues: deflation, usury and racketeering. Deflation is obvious: if the economy is operating at near max capacity and the money supply starts dwindling, markets will have to clear at a lower price level, causing recessions and depression in the worst case.
Usury is a constant drain on the money supply. Banks spend some of the interest back into the economy, but not all. They relend another part back causing even more debt and associated interest costs and indeed, worsening money scarcity. The rest is siphoned off to the financial economy (the ‘two-loop economy’), where it is used for their financial con games. Like speculating in commodities (raising prices), creating bubbles on the stock market, FOREX and of course the derivative trade, which is currently their favorite exploitative tool.
And racketeering: manipulating the volume of money. Banks routinely stop lending, saying ‘confidence is lacking’ or calling for ‘structural reform’, which unfailingly worsens the conditions of labor. In the days of metal backed currency, they simply stopped circulating their Gold and Silver. They have been at this forever. Here is a nice story about how the Venetians bankers took Silver out of circulation in the middle ages, causing the long term depression of the 14th century.
Money Scarcity and Empire
Money Scarcity is favorable to Capital, as it makes their monetary means more in demand. Labor will sacrifice greatly to avoid starvation.
However, closely associated to money scarcity is a lack of demand in the economy. Demand is lacking when production outstrips consumption. This is the case in every developed economy and has been the norm in Europe and the United States throughout modern history. This is unpleasant to Capital, because it cannot market all the goods it managed to force Labor to produce cheaply. This is what Social Crediters call the Gap. Keynes called a lack of aggregate demand.
Because of this problem, the merchant class seeks foreign markets and this was undoubtedly a key driver in Europe’s expansion during the Age of Discovery and beyond. Corporate interests looking for markets to dump their excess production still drives Empire to a large extent today.
Conclusion
Money scarcity is implicit in a usurious environment. This is something to keep in mind when we promote debt-free money to solve it, something we will discuss in the next article.
Interest-free money will not only see sufficient liquidity, it will also solve the basic cause of money scarcity, preventing its return.
Related:
Babylon = Usury! We want Interest-Free Money!
Ten Atrocities that would not exist without Usury
On Interest
Is there enough money to pay off debt plus interest? A closer look
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Cause and Effects of Money Scarcity | The Money...
- Cause and Effects of Money Scarcity | elentari98
- The Difference between Debt-Free Money and Interest-Free Credit | Real Currencies
- Banisher – Scarcity | Metal Is Power
- Effects on Austria: Cause and Effects of Money Scarcity Real Currencies | Euro Economy
- Bitcoin: Paving the Way for a Global Cashless Society | Real Currencies
- Money Scarcity | rudahangarwa
- Can We Do Without Money? | Real Currencies
In Canada we had our Prime Minister Mulroney offer Reagan a 35% discount on our money to have NAFTA passed, but it went as high as 53%, and our banking interest rate was 23%. Our LAW stated that interest over 5.5% was Usury, so they enacted a change of moving the decimal point over, so since then there is no pesky Usury if it is less than 55%. This is why we are so well off today. Ernest Wiebe
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 22:04:34 +0000 To: ehwiebe@mts.net
A quote from Douglas:
http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/Part%203%20Mairet.pdf
“Every article which is produced has a price attached to it, and somewhere on the opposite side of the account there should be a sum of money capable of moving each and every article out of the production system into the consuming system. Since money is the mechanism by which the consumer gives orders; no money, no order; no order, no delivery; and ultimately, no delivery, no production. Having this conception firmly fixed in your minds, you will see at once that if the total amount of money available on one side of the account is less than the total amount of prices on the other side of the account there must be something remaining unsold always.”
And so, labor must reduce the price of their output to attract insufficient money residing in the lower loop. Or perhaps upper loop usurious stagnant capital will decide to outwait producers, hoping to buy lower loop’s labor output for cheap. Note that stagnant usury capital has its debt associations removed; hence the upper loop has a money type similar to gold – it has little imperative to move other than seeking out deals. Even taxation is removed as velocity movement force; usury capital has altered the law to benefit itself. (The top 1% doesn’t pay taxes on wages – they don’t have wages, they make their wealth on capital gains. Only the little people i.e. wage earners, pay taxes.)
Owners of factories and the means of production can always raise prices ahead of labor. Prices always exceed purchasing power of labor. In other words, labor is forced to sell their output for cheap due to usury, and as well due to the gap. Even in an inflation environment, prices rise at a rate faster than labor’s purchasing power.
Mercantilism is a way to dump the excess goods overseas in exchange for needed money to add purchasing power. But, ultimately that leads to war, as one country becomes a debtor and another a creditor.
Money is scarce because credit is restricted because wages are too low. Think of the “richest” country in the world allowing waitresses to be paid $2.30 an hour. What next from this giant?
Money scarcity is not caused by the amount of money. If there was only one euro, we could split it up into nano-euros or pico-euros and the economy would still operate. A game of monopoly of 60 years ago is the same as a more recent game, despite the number being multiplied by 100. Prices will adapt to the amount of money available.
It is lack of circulation that causes scarcity. If someone withholds money from circulation then the amount in circulation reduces (or velocity reduces) and prices drop (or the value of money rises). Of course charging interest contributes to the problem, but on the shorter term this is less relevant. A demurrage will be helpful to improve circulation.
I have to add to this that changes in money supply or velocity are disruptive. If velocity drops, more money is needed to keep the economy afloat, otherwise equilibrium will be achieved at a lower level. If velocity rises, it creates price inflation.
exactly, we agree.
God Is a Woman And Jesus Was Her Husband
and Migchels says: exactly, we agree
=========
A little reading of the Record, of course, would show anyone, on whose side Mr. Garfield was, throughout his Congressional career: Mr. Garfield was spokeman of bond interests. A little reading will also show that Mr. garfield was shot July 2, 1881, and died September 19, 1881.
Now, when exactly did Mr. Garfield say what some people claim he said ? oh dear, on April 5, 1880, Mr. garfield stood up before God and house of reps, and did not say what people claim he said. But he did say this:
” There are three things in this resolution to which I wish to call the attention of the House before they vote. The first is a proposition of the largest possible proportion, that all money, whether of coin or paper, that is to circulate in this country ought to be manufactured and issued directly by the government. I stop there. I want to say on that proposition to the majority in this House, who are so strongly opposed to what they call centralization, that never was there a measure offered to the Congress of so vast and far-reaching centralism. It would convert the Treasury of the United States into a manufactory of paper money. It makes the House of Representatives and the Senate, or the caucus of the party which happens to be in the majority, the absolute dictator of the financial and business affairs of this country. This scheme surpasses all the centralism and all the Cæsarism that were ever charged upon the Republican party in the wildest days of the war or in the events growing out of the war.”
and why did Mr. Garfield say this? he responded to Greenback party leader, James Weaver’s proposal that
” that all currency, whether metallic or paper, necessary for the use, and convenience of the people should be issued and its volume controlled by the government, and not by or through the bank corporations of the country ; and when so issued should be a full legal-tender in payment of all debts, public and private.”
please read the whole discussion—
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/brice/brice_09.html
so who said what regurgitators claim Garfield said?
S.M. Brice, in a speech, March 30, 1882:
“Whoever controls the volume of the currency of a country controls its financial and commercial destiny.
This proposition was clearly and forcibly expressed by Hon. James A. Garfield in the House of Representatives of the United States on the 5th day of April, 1880″
Please read the whole speech; it is pretty good
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/brice/brice_10.html
—[some regurgitator repeated what S.M. Brice said, and thereby hangs the figment]
okokok Name……….this is a blog on money, so I tend to overlook the rest, but if you insist on checking my spiritual credentials: it seems quite clear to me that the Divine precedes the duality He expresses himself with. Surely he’s not female, nor masculine. We are female in our relationship to him, though, because we are the receivers, the passive, compared to him. The reason why He’s called a He, is not because he’s masculine, but because the masculine principle precedes the feminine, so He is less inaccurate than She.
Happy now?
and you acquired this in which Bible school?
Is the city of Münster part of Holland? does it still exist?
hahahaha, Bible school, hahaha!
no, I don’t do ‘bible school’. I respect the Bible, but I don’t respect the idea it’s ‘the word of God’ (Christ is the Word), let alone it’s infallible, not to speak of the notion everything is in there.
No, it’s not, it’s part of Westphalia, Germany, it’s still there. The 1648 peace of Munster destroyed the Holy Roman Empire and, more importantly, left the Republic of Holland as the supreme power on the continent. But that’s the only relation between Munster and Holland I know of. Why?
I feel a little stupid about laughing at Bible School. I respect the Bible and surely I respect people studying it and going to Bible School to learn more.
School and me just never really matched and I’m not too sure about ‘teachers’ either, is all. To each his/her own. Whatever works to get closer to the Spirit, which basically is what it is all about.
A long time ago there was a Toronto Blessing style revival in that city –after the government put an end to it, Mr. Meno learned from the experience and changed his ways; but perhaps the descendant of some unrepentent one laid hands on you and tranferred some of his annoyting
“Money scarcity is not caused by the amount of money.” True, it’s not the absolute amount that really matters. But when an economy is settled on a certain amount, a decline in volume most certainly WILL lead to money scarcity, until the economy has resettled (at the cost of the problems as described).
The same is true for circulation, however: if an economy is balanced at velocity x, whatever velocity is, there will not be money scarcity. Until velocity goes down.
It is true that enhancing velocity can offset a decline in volume and demurrage certainly is a powerful tool for that.
Can you expand on this? Which populist monetary reformers wanted to add debt free money to the money supply?
If they did, I don’t think “greenback-style” would be accurate. As far as I know, no greenbacks were every created “debt free.” In fact, I don’t think any were issued interest free for that matter.
I agree Larry, but we’re living with the fact that debt-free money is usually called ‘Greenbacks’. Continentals would be better.
Here’s some background on the Greenback party that ran in three presidential elections after the Civil War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_Party
Why not just “debt free money”?
Continentals too were debt money that were to be redeemed in silver. Of course, the new country had no silver and everyone knew that if they did, they would have simply spent it rather than borrowing.
The subject of money is complicated enough without all these blabbering terms.
Because debt-free money can be spent into circulation by either Govt or the people (Social Credit) and I’m looking for a name for the former.
Anthony – issuing debt free money is the prerogative of a sovereign state. And, a sovereign may also decide how to get the debt free money into circulation (e.g. “social credit” or through infrastructure projects). Or, a sovereign may chose to use the debt free money to cancel sovereign debt with banks or bond holders.
Regardless, I think it is still “debt free money” and the other details are separate functions.
Sovereign debt free money is a new concept to most and in my opinion, it just confuses the issue to call it something that it is not. I don’t mean to be argumentative but I think clarity is needed.
Was the Continental redeemable? In theory? Then why was it accepted when it started inflating?
I find nothing about that in the wiki entry on the Continental Larry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_%28currency%29#Continental_currency
The “Continentals” were first issued in 1775 to help pay for the war effort. The Continental Congress promised to redeem the notes with Spanish milled silver dollar coins. They lost their purchasing power for several reasons. First, it became obvious to more and more people that all of the notes would never be redeemed. Second, the British counterfeited many facsimile notes. And lastly, the British began an advertising campaign against them which was effective.
And you two experts on greenbacks and greenback party acquired your vast knowledge from where? the garbage Ellen Brown or Bill Still compiled ?
here are Greenback Party platforms which none of ye would know from the charlatans
http://www.yamaguchy.com/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
>>>>>>Was the Continental redeemable? In theory? Then why was it accepted when it started inflating?
they promised to pay silver, and eventually they were redeemed in silver; just as the United States notes were redeemed in gold (didn’t Brown tell you that?)
why did they circulate even after going down to 200:1? because that is the nature of money, the least valuable circulate the fastest
http://www.yamaguchy.com
the (only) source of your finagled wisdom
Money is a medium of exchange. Nothing new to anyone here. The purpose of backing specie with a given commodity is to stabilize its value-in-trade. The benefit is that the specie is pegged to a standard that by common agreement (i.e. the “market”) has value. The detriment is that the specie is pegged to a standard that by common agreement (i.e. the “market”) has value. The no-brainer problem is that if manipulation can occur in the specie market, if can occur in the commodity one. Anyone here own a gold mine? Me neither. The rest of us need a specie originated by the ultimate in temporal authorities, i.e. national governments. The perfect template is article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution which has the standing law, stating “The Congress shall have power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin…” Perfect! The quantity of money is not the prob, usury is. We could have a quadrillion clams in circulation or a million. The difference would be that the settling “price” for a gallon of milk would vary nominally, but not in terms of substance. Money is simple; what is complex is the huge assembly of myriad fabrications which are disseminated and propagated by the “power that be” to propagate what is, in the final analysis, a brute scam. The field of finance is arbitrary. What it is is the 1,001 ways to conceive of obtaining 1.5 units of a given specie for 1 unit, that is all. Currently, in the US for instance, all “money” released into circulation requires interest payments to the banking syndicate, visible to us as the “Fed” puppet show, via their collection box, the US Treasury and collections enforcement goons, the IRS. Gotta love these people! The audacity makes you, as they say, LOL! At least when you aren’t too hungry, anyway. No, mefreinds, the solution is to have serialized specie that the government spends into circulation doing those natural-monopoly things that governments ought to do, like providing the for the common defense (but not particular offence!), taking care of everyone’s environment, and building and maintaining roads and such that are used by everyone. The cure-all solution to achieving our Utopian dreams is not the labyrinthine contortions of money theory and finance which is really the script of the “Fed” puppet show, but simply the dissemination of adequate amounts of debt-free currency having a regulated quantity and a regulated market value. And how we make sure corrupt people are not manipulating the gov’t and printing too much? Put serial numbers on the damn things! You can be smart or you can be stupid. Right now you are being stupid, America. Real stupid. You are being pissed on your face by these “international bankers” and told it is raining. Or do you enjoy your illusion? Maybe you just don’t realize how much better things could be. Does ten times better sound worth it? A million? How much is reality worth anyway? There are some of us who think it is priceless to live outside of a matrix.
The argument boils down to currency theory vs banking theory.
http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Huber-Modern-Money-Paper.pdf
Natural monopolies are the same thing as inelastic markets. Inelastic markets need to be government regulated or owned. For example: ports, roads, infrastructure, etc. Anything that would be inefficient to have more than one of. Do we need two Air Forces? A natural land mass precludes having two ports.
Does the government do a good job of defining its natural monopolies? I would say no, especially as rentiers want to privatize the public commons and take rents from them. The government doesn’t defend its natural monopolies,as the already paid for commons are becoming toll booths, and hence wealth transfer vehicles for oligarchy. Greece is a good example of this effect, where islands are demanded in exchange for erasing debts.
The medical field is a mixed market, but to hear government spokesmen, they claim it is all inelastic, and hence their natural monopoly. Obamacare is a claim that the medical market is inelastic, and must be turned over to an Oligopoly of insurance providers.
Whenever you hear these poor definitions, for sure there is rent taking happening.
Specie is a terrible form of money, and besides the C (coin) vs little c (coin metal) in the constitution was settled by the supreme court. The government can Coin (strike) paper and hence make money. The material is irrelevant, and to say so ignores what money is. It is simply an accounting identity that allows us to exchange, and for some to also be a store of value. (I may have my C’s reversed.)
Money Stock (M) x Velocity (V) = Prices (P) x Quantity (Q).
Rentiers also take with prices, hence gap theory. If prices go up, the money stock or velocity should go up too. (How can that happen easily with specie?) Specie by its nature goes off and hides as M2 money savings, thus also affecting price.
An example of price rigging abounds today, where people bid up the price of housing. Since land is fixed and inelastic, more money chasing it makes its price go up. If the interest rate on credit money is lowered, people bid against each other for the rental value of land. The extra rents are then pledged to the banker in the form of loans and usury.
In other words, fiscal policy (taxation) is also closely linked with money. They are flip sides of the same effect. To keep prices low means rents (unearned income) need to be found and excised – and usury is the worst of the rents. Specie obscures reality and becomes a fire in man’s mind. He then thinks that money is metal. Money is abstract and intangible, an invention of man’s mind – like mathematics.
Most money today is intangible numbers exiting as ink or computer bits (current accounts) at banks. The material is totally irrelevant, and moving toward specie would be moving backwards.
americanalliance – I really enjoyed your post.
It is beyond bizarre that a nation cannot add to its national wealth without first adding a larger amount to its national debt. Try the math on that conundrum!
>>>>>>>Causes of Money Scarcity
Money scarcity is caused by three main issues: deflation, usury and racketeering. Deflation is obvious: if the economy is operating at near max capacity and the money supply starts dwindling, markets will have to clear at a lower price level, causing recessions and depression in the worst case.
As we observed before, lack of knowledge, lack of logic, lack of ability to think/reason/ponder/contemplate, is pre-requisite of a groupie…….
just for the sake:
if money and currency is silver coin alone; there can be no deflation (coin may leave the country, but that is not de-flation)
here is one example of coin leaving the continent; which Larry the leech liked so much that he copied it and pasted it on another forum as if his own (as if he had know of Mr. Jones)
http://www.dailypaul.com/123696/what-happens-when-your-money-is-based-on-gold-and-silver-but-there-is-no-gold
de-flation can only be in a credit system, when notes based on the good name and credit is issued; the bubble is burst………
If only monetary units are used, economy operates and nothing happens [not to speak of the constant improvement in production which reduces the price of goods, hence reducing the need….]
recession depression is only possible in a credit system (the system which in your ignorance, you highly desire)
and stop lying that you (and your mentor, heroes, and cohorts) promote interest free money; your article on Gesell’s idea is still here to speak for yourself
and where did you get your new fanigled notion about stable money ?……………..
When coin leaves the country, that is deflation in my book Name: the money supply in the country is going down. The way precious metals flee the country with the first sign of trouble is why Pound called Gold a coward. Its a major problem with specie.
Another reason why there will be deflationary pressures (not outright deflation in this case) with coin (S or G) is that they will circulate with a usurious banking system. Because the money supply cannot grow to pay the unpayable debts that are associated with usury, there will be deflationary pressures, instead of the inflation that occurs in usurious credit based systems, where extra money is continuously borrowed to pay the automatically growing debt.
Why are you saying depression is only possible with a credit based system? That’s way over the top, even by your Gold hallowing standards. One word: 1907. But the whole 19th century was a protracted depression. It’s not for nothing the populists were so vociferous about expanding the money supply. The US economy grew, notwithstanding a shortage of money, because of the vast wealth of the country they were plundering from the natives.
You get carried away with your drunken sailor wittyness and start believing your own jokes: Here’s an older article where I explain volume determines price levels:
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/mutual-credit-and-inflation/
Demurrage money is an alternative to interest-free credit. I’d even endorse Gold with demurrage!
Demurrage is probably even better than interest-free credit, but I promote interest-free credit, it’s easier to understand, there is a lot of practical experience with it. It’s guaranteed it would work with correctly managed volume.
There is insufficient experience with demurrage to just run a major country on it.
>>>>Why are you saying depression is only possible with a credit based system?
the whole 19th century was on the credit system; 1907 was made possible by the credit system
gold/silver did not go anywhere in 1907, in 1857, in 1837; every bust was the result of the credit bubble bursting
=====
the drunken sailor money is not wittyness, it is observation (and Clifford Douglas, Frederick Soddy is on my side) the Weimar inflation was a perfect example of hyper velocity and hyper demurrage…… if the whole money supply were Gesell money the result would be the same; and by the way: if the whole money supply is Gesell money, where would the weekly 1% demurrage come from?
ok, then we understand each other. But depressions would also be caused in a full reserve gold standard: the money would simply be withdrawn from circulation by the banks when they thought the time ripe and also temporarily excessive imports and political tensions would lead to depression. ============ nah, Weimar was a matter of volume, not velocity.
Modern demurrage would be about 3 to 12%, closer to 3. And it could be managed: should velocityxvolume lead to excessive money, both volume and demurrage could be lowered.
Demurrage, as opposed to interest, IS spent back into circulation, and quickly too. Mind you: the cost of demurrage is max 1% of interest, as a result of massively increased velocity the money supply is much, much smaller.
(my comment is awaiting moderation)
depressions would also be caused in a full reserve gold standard: the money would simply be withdrawn from circulation by the banks when they thought the time ripe and also temporarily excessive imports and political tensions would lead to depression.
You are making this up that without banks we cannot exists (well you did a few times say that you cannot)
If there is a million coin in the realm, and only coin is allowed to be used in transactions, there can be no inflation bubble, and deflation burst (yes there can be a disaster; smugglers may take coin out, yes an army may conquer….)
question:
who came up with this 100% reserve bullshit ? and how does he explain it?
if a bank was required to keep 100% reserve, no one would go into the note banking business; some people with actual capital would set up a full liability discount house, in which they would pay out 97 coins for a 100 piece of paper (and 60 days later they would collect 100 coins for it); a discount house cannot gain control over the whole coin supply (or playing card supply, if that be what the people decided on for unit/medium/measure of exchange)
the 200 year long bubble-burst chain is the product of the credit system; in which based on their good name and credit (and the credulity and desparation of their clients), enterprising individuals print up and spend/lend into circulation promises to pay, 3 to 50 times more than they have capital to redeem
If the right of paying out their notes, or extending their credit through bank-book entry, is taken away, these chartered credit peddlers would instantly close their doors, and only mortgage brokers and discount houses would remain; lending and paying out existing money (and not credit)
the only 100% banking I understand is what Thomas Benton described here:
http://www.yamaguchy.com/forum/index.php?topic=4.msg65#msg65
that in a network of sub-treasury branches, or postal saving banks, people may deposit their coin and receive for it a promissory note, which is much easier (and just about completely safe) to transport, and may be used in payment to government, therefore would gain currency –it would never inflate and never deflate the money supply
What the hell Name? You’re saying I’m saying we can’t do without the banks?
Are you serious? Closing the banks is key to me man………….
Banking is One. Banking and Usury are One. Banking and Deflation are One. Banking cannot be reformed, nor can it be regulated. Banking was born in iniquity and received in sin. Garlic and Silver daggers are what we need.
Close the banks and replace them with interest-free credit facilities has been my line for quite some time now.
I’m going to have to get over this, before I read the rest of your comment.
Really?!
so which one of us is living without bank account? (and which one of us said that he can’t get by in this world without an account in a Rothschild bank?)
Yes, really name. It’s indeed impossible to run a business in holland without a bankaccount and I’m satisfied I’m doing a lot more damage to them with that account than they gain from my continuously close to zero balance.
Henry Langford Loucks, the father of populism
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/loucks/loucks_index.html
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/loucks/loucks_02.html
Money is a public utility, created, or authorized, by the national legislative unit of each independent, sovereign nation, as a medium of exchange, and to pay lawful obligations.
To be a lawful money, it must be a full legal tender for all debts, public and private.
Its primary function is to facilitate exchange of labor and labor’s products, a medium of exchange. Direct barter is now very limited.
Under our present system we must have the employer, merchant or middleman to whom to take our labor, or the product of our labor, and exchange it for a national order, or medium, that will be readily accepted by the person who may have the thing we need.
Like all other public utilities, it should be administered without private profit, as is our postoffice system.
Any charge for its use, in excess of the cost of administration, is a tax on labor and labor products that must be paid by the producer or consumer, and is the main cause of the present high cost of living.
hear hear! Thanks!
don’t thank me; it just shows how little do you know about Populists
Here are some more Bryan campaign speeches from 1896:—
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/jerolaman/science_13.html
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/weaver/1892_Electoral_Map.png
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/weaver/action_index.html
haha 🙂 That’s why we’re such a good team, you know so little about economics, hahahaha
” it was not until August 29 [1913] that the currency bill [which became the FedRes act] was first introduced. This bill bore the name of the Glass-Owen bill, because in its final shape it was the result of conferences between Mr. Glass, President Wilson, Secretary of the Treasury McAdoo, Secretary of State Bryan and Senator Owen, chairman of the newly organized Banking and Currency Committee of the Senate.”
====
Oh dear, you are suffering under the delusion that copy/paste from Margrit makes you knowledgable
=====
if the sub-humans around book-peddlers had the courage to venture into the library, and read the story of the Federal Reserve Act—
” the Democratic members of the House committee met to consider the bill introduced by Mr. Glass, but the first meeting resulted in almost a riot.”
Hello Anthony,
I’ve heard that you were / are based in the NL? I would love to meet up to get some enlightened feedback from you on a new (interest free) project.
Cheers,
Ken (based in Amsterdam)
Skype: globaldemocrat
i like to spend my money on the spot so i dont try save it i like to spend it all i dont think about trying to spend it i just want whats there so maybe i will try to save my money because my ipod it broken and i havent fixed it for 2 yrs and that is such a shame so iw ill think about saving
thank u for ur cooperation.
We live in such an abundant universe, it’s too bad so many have all these limiting beliefs about money. Old beliefs, handed down beliefs or memories of past financial experiences all go towards keeping us in that same ole prison. Always fascinating to read your inspiring take on money Evelyn.