 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
+++++++++++
That last sentence will probably remain a point of contention for the moment.
+++++++++++
MrRekoj,
If a contention exists from my view I will speak about it. My contention is over ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ means of accomplishing anything. If the people of this land demand a lessening of compulsory participation we will get it. That is the path to prosperity and it is the only path in that direction. The involuntary path goes the other way.
You can gloss over my proposed fix and ignore it and then suggest by innuendo that one of us is in fantasy land. That is OK by me so long as you acknowledge the consequences of that type of tactic. Now I am interested in reading your viewpoint as it flows through this topic on currency. You are certainly welcome here by me and, as far as I know, everyone else involved.
I will comment as I read; because that is how I work forums.
++++++++
This would restore our constitutional provisions defining our financial system as based upon a CREDIT system, rather than a MONETARY system. *
++++++++
I do not contend with that viewpoint as I see it. I would rewrite the sentence as such:
A system of currency based upon a good credit history will empower honest productive people to be able to produce a much greater prosperity than a system based upon fraud, debt, punishment, and violence.
Which sentence is more contentious to you?
My contention merely intends to point out where the falsehoods appear to surface in your sentence. I do not prescribe to the notion that a piece of paper can dictate the system I support especially when the dictation is ambiguous (rather than precise).
I will read on (and look for the explanation for: *).
+++++++++++
Is Hamilton completely wrong or merely his version of a national bank?
+++++++++++
Much can be invented, tried, and perfected concerning currency production and use. The point is: Who profits from this venture?
If you do not see that point, then, you should.
Stepping from that point to the next point it may become more obvious why the first point is so important to see. The second point is: Who cannot profit from currency production and use.
What those two points manage to accomplish is something called COMPETITION.
Any proponent of a favorite SYSTEM of currency can be asked a very simple question if the person asking really wants to know if the proponent is out to make a killing or, on the other hand, if the proponent is offering something equitable.
Here is where important point number three arrives for anyone to notice or ignore. When one power manages to gain power that power can over-power all other lesser powers at will. Equity in commerce removes that power to gain power at the expense of lesser powers. Is it equitable?
You, or anyone, can ignore that last paragraph at your own cost and if you do I suspect that the cost will become very high the longer it is ignored.
You now have three points to ponder if you so choose.
1. Who profits?
2. Who cannot profit (as a result of the proposed ‘fix’)?
3. Competition (if it is FREE of fraud and violence, it will work) increases production and lowers costs
4. Equity removes the power to exploit the weak
5. DO NOT CONFUSE EQUITY WITH EQUALITY
I added point 5 just in case someone might make that terrible mistake. I do not suggest that you are or can be guilty of making that mistake. There are other readers hitting on this thread.
I have no personal problem with a voluntary National Bank competing with a voluntary STATE BANK equitably. The one who provides the most accurate currency at the lowest cost will gain market share and I suspect that the one who provides a less accurate currency at a higher cost will have it’s share of a much smaller market (where criminals trade). I contend with one excluding the other from the FREE CURRENCY MARKET, by law, on purpose, for profit, for access to the exploited who were formerly free people before the monopoly currency fraud.
I will read on:
++++++++++++
From what I understood him to be saying, the basis for an honest credit system is based around production, or more precisely an agro-industrial-science driven economy void of usury.
++++++++++++
I can offer to you what works very well for me when confronting any confusion: Think in terms of voluntary and involuntary associations. When you do that the whole thing becomes very clear.
Take the term ‘usury’ for example. In an involuntary association the term is merely a false front for crime and specifically the crime of extortion. Set that aside for a moment and see the beauty of how the voluntary association works – for a moment.
“Usury” in a voluntary association could very well be a ‘loan shark’ who intends to make money from people who have a very bad history of credit. This is akin to a long shot at the race track or betting on snake eyes in craps. Why would anyone loan money to a poor credit risk with a very bad credit history?
Answer: To profit.
The ‘interest’ charged to a bad credit risk is based upon an average cost or ‘odds’ of receiving the principle back from that investment. If the borrower has an extremely bad credit history, then, the calculation spits out a very high interest rate.
Now look at the numbers to see what I am trying to impart to you.
INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION:
A 20 percent interest rate in an involuntary association can be enforced upon honest people with good credit ratings (a long history of paying back every single loan plus large interest COSTS) because the market is ‘captive’ and because the competition is out-side the law.
VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION:
A 20 percent interest rate charged only to those who can’t find anyone willing to loan them money BECAUSE they have a long history of failing to return the value borrowed. This is OPPOSITE the JUSTIFICATION used in the involuntary association. The BAD risk EARNS his "USURY" in a voluntary association and in an involuntary association everyone is 'collectively' punished for the actions of the BAD RISKS.
One is right and the other is wrong (not left and right).
See?
The justification to increase interest rates (in modern ‘Austrian Economics’) is such that the supply of currency ‘deflates’ to an amount that reaches scarcity. Less currency means a higher 'price' can be had. The justification for 'inflating' is merely the same coin on a differnt side where the monopoly supplier increases the supply to lower the cost (more and more currency and less and less 'price'). Why be so confused?
Currency is a POWER product. Currency is not a consumable or perishable product (unless it is designed as such and we can discuss ‘stamp script’ if you like).
Look this way:
Anyone can use the power of currency to increase production of valuable things. If those people get currency as needed at the lowest cost (interest) then production of valuable things increases in proportion to how much can be produced by that access to cost-less currency. Why would anyone want to limit that flow of currency?
Answer: Scarcity increases price.
People who monopolize POWER production cannot jack up the price if POWER is abundant.
If this is too difficult to see; I can help. Everyone must use their brain or ask questions.
See if you can find error in the following statement:
As power reaches oversupply the cost reaches zero while purchasing power INCREASES because power lowers the costs of production.
I’ve re-written that sentence many times and so far one person has managed to get it.
If you don’t get it; think electricity, food, gasoline, oxygen, or any other POWER product and try the sentence out.
Like this: As electricity reaches oversupply the cost reaches zero while purchasing power increases because electricity lowers the costs of production.
Use motor fuel next and think about how the cost of everything increases when the flow of motor fuel reaches scarcity (under-abundance). I am merely pointing out the opposite: When motor fuel reaches oversupply the cost reaches zero while PURCHASING POWER INCREASES because motor fuel lowers the costs of production FOR EVERYONE (except the exploited ones excluded from the bonanza).
When that last sentence is thought about, perhaps, the ‘knee-jerk’ reaction (conditioned response) will be to think: GLOBAL WARMING.
Try it and let me know how it goes.
+++++++++
I’m asserting that it is the proper role of men to protect themselves from usury and related economic modes premised around that concept, namely that of “free-trade”, but that is another related concept I will save for another day. What say you?
+++++++++
“Free-Trade” can be a false front disguising crime and it can be real.
When it is real (free) it is important to recognize it for what it really is and avoid mistaking it for something false and destructive. There is no free lunch, of course, and to suggest that honest people can be free from criminal fraud and violence as a result of ‘free-trade’ is as disarming and dangerous as suggesting that honest productive people can be free from criminal fraud and violence as we pretend that fraud and violence doesn’t exist, however there really is no way to gain power over the criminals and defend against them if we do not empower ourselves with a accurate and cost-less currency. It will not happen.
If there is one thing the criminals know and require it is false currency (which costs way more than the accurate stuff). If someone can’t explain this simply (as I have done) then they are either dupes or criminals (accessories or active torturing mass murderers).
Perhaps my perspective is too honest?
If that is the belief being constructed by the reader it may be a good time to look in the mirror.
Try your fix out on anyone (National or State Bank) but ask yourself if someone will be excluded from the issue of currency, at will, and why they are excluded. How much does it cost to borrow the currency? Does the currency do its job accurately?
If you can’t answer the last question (some people absolutely refuse to even consider it) then the cat is out of the bag. Either ignorance or falsehood (inaccurate on purpose) is the cat and the bag is the false front hiding the fact. Only you can find out which of the two options between ignorance and falsehood apply to you.
It is that simple and I say this with the utmost confidence. The proof is proven when anyone complicates currency ON PURPOSE.
Why?
Answer: For PROFIT at the expense of those who are excluded.
Just because I may not write things out in an easy to understand manner does not change liabilities associated with the ignorance and falsehoods existing. It isn’t only me at fault for the confusion.
I have two paths before me. I could try to add more. I am taking a writing course. I could run for congress again (it may be too late). Both paths involve accurate currency at lower costs.
Think about it. Feed back