 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
+++++++
Ellen Brown is a lawyer. She is anti-Federal Reserve. So, she gets a hearing in conservative circles. This is unfortunate. There is nothing conservative about her. She is an apologist for statism and the United States Treasury (a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs).
Her article is about the hyperinflation of Germany, 1921–23. She has no understanding of what happened or why, but she talks as if she does.
If you want the real story on the German hyperinflation, you can get it on the Mises.org site. All of these are available for free.
+++++++
Good morning people,
The above link and quote sparks and interest in me to convey questions and possible answers concerning current human events where the forces of evil continue to overpower innocent humans and happy life on Earth.
Gary North wrote the article and again half of the truth is better than none, unless the mind perceiving half the truth assumes a false second half.
The article is a warning to anyone who may fall into a trap of deception whereby the listener is misinformed about money. I find this to be incredibly ironic. Many so called “experts” on political economy are very authoritative and simply wrong, a false perspective is more destructive than an ignorant one because an ignorant perspective is at least open to the possibility of learning that which is not accurately understood currently, while the false perspective goes happily down the path of destruction.
The warning in the piece by Gary North above is warranted in simple terms, easy to understand language, and beneficial to anyone who may be steered down the false path of accepting false authority concerning money matters. Specifically speaking there is a danger in blaming the wrong people for pre-meditated actions perpetrated by un-exposed criminals as those criminals plan on and then execute their plan to injure innocent people for profit. Gary North points directly at a specific Central Banker who caused specific things to happen in Germany during the time of Hitler’s criminal (legal crime) reign.
Gary North does not appear to be interested in exposing the men behind those men. Who benefits most from these pre-meditated and willful acts perpetrated by these legal criminals?
Gary North will leave his readers thinking in terms of Capitalism and capitalists, the good guys, against the bad guys, those socialists who run Central Banks.
Before anyone badmouths me, if someone has a mind to turn the tables, or point this reflection back at me. I offer, as a challenge, for the reader to read and comment on Gary North’s work, in the link above, and then for the reader to read the following:
http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904
++++++++
'The small town of Worgl in the Austrian Tyrol, suffering like every other town in Europe and America from the Great Depression, took the unlikely step of issuing its own currency'
++++++++
The point here is to point out how the blame does not go to “socialists” running “Central Banks” where these error prone economic “monetary cranks” (idiots), make the mistake of failing to obey “Austrian Economic” wisdom, where “capitalism” is the only way that leads mankind toward prosperity.
If the reader has exerted actual careful effort into reading both links and the reader considers my take on this to be unsupported conjecture, I offer the following quote from Gary North’s article:
+++++++
What the witch was to medieval man, what the capitalist is to socialists and communists, the speculator is to most politicians and statesmen: the embodiment of evil.
+++++++
When people get caught into the clap trap of blaming innocent people for the actions of the guilty, what is the expected result of that error? The guilty are empowered to continue committing their crimes, while the innocent continue to be injured?
Blame is being projected, explicitly and inexplicitly (subliminally), at innocent people who happen not to be believers in the goodness of capitalism, as a means to economic prosperity or any other supposed end by that means.
Capitalism is merely a pricing scheme whereby the seller sets the price of the seller’s property at the price determined by the buyers want, or need, of the property for sale. That is the essence of capitalism, when a capitalist will hazard to confess the principle behind their dogma, and few will.
Capitalists see no other possible method of pricing, such as the price of a thing that is based upon the cost of the thing being sold. Perhaps a capitalist does exist, a self-confessed capitalist, who can see a cost based pricing scheme, but by that capitalist filter, their dogma based ideology, the perception of a cost based pricing scheme is viewed as “monetary crankism” or “economic ignorance” or some other emotional reaction. If a capitalist is capable of exposing the error of a cost based pricing method (not the capitalist method to be sure), then that capitalist has yet to speak, or write, and reach me.
Speak up if you can, please.
When a few people command the power to produce and maintain a legal money supply those people can abuse that power. When that power is willfully abused, after having acquired it, the idea is to transfer even more power to the abusers from the people who create power.
If a capitalist calls the people who create power by the label: entrepreneur and a socialist call the people who create power by the label: laborer: is there any cause for conflict in that discrimination?
Why do capitalists blame socialists for the deeds of legal criminals?
Who do socialists blame capitalists for the deeds of legal criminals?
Why do legal criminals hire propagandists?
Please enlighten me.
I read through the whole article written by Gary North and a few things could be answered with more precision.
- What is ideal money?
- What is the goal of capitalism, according to a capitalist?
- What does Gary North use as a working definition of Socialism?
- Who owns the global oil supply?
- Who owns the global sunlight supply, the global water supply, or the global oxygen supply?
I ask those questions to serve as a base of operations, a point of questioning perspective, to launch into my emotion driven reply (reaction) to Gary North’s diatribe.
Abraham Lincoln did not rule a social network where paved roads and an internet connected the individual human beings that constitute that social network. If Abraham Lincoln did rule a social network, only in the north, where paved roads and a communications internet connected the individual human beings that constituted that social network only in the North: then would the North be more powerful than the South by that measure?
I ask this so as to compare the relative power involved in creating a means by which the North becomes more powerful than the South. What is the means by which that increase in relative power was managed, and be precise, and accurate in the answer.
Having expended some effort in being precise and accurate in the answer to that question just above this sentence, move onto Hitler’s version of Germany and ask a similar question: by what means did Hitler’s social network gain more relative power than France, Russia, and England combined?
Can I offer some help in finding the accurate answer? I offer a method of discriminating between two separate forms of power: A. Psychological Power and B. Physical Power.
Why do people desire and then construct connections like roads, and the devices that travel on those roads, and the fuel that fuels the devices that travel on those roads, and why to people desire and then construct connections like the telegraph, the phone, the radio, the television, and now the internet? Why is connectivity desired? Why is connectivity constructed?
What is money?
Abraham Lincoln, or so one story goes, could not finance the elimination of the competition in The South, because the private banking monopoly of the time would not loan Abraham Lincoln the money he desired in his effort to eliminate the competition in The South, so Abraham Lincoln desired and produced a competitive money, a money that competed with the private banking monopoly of the day.
That story above is not quite true, as far as I know, there is too much data missing, too much data is required to tell the whole story; nothing but the truth. That paragraph above doesn’t include the rate of interest charged by the private banking monopoly for loan products offered to Abraham Lincoln. That is a story within a story, but the idea here is to think in terms of power and how power is employed to satisfy desires, to construct, if construction is desired, to consume, if consumption is desired.
If the desire is to eliminate competition, then the banking monopoly power may desire to eliminate Abraham Lincoln, and that story is another story within that story, since Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Abraham Lincoln happened to be offering competition in money markets, just like Andrew Jackson before him, who was also a victim of an assassination attempt. People do not have to die, to be tortured, to be murdered, to be victims, really. Don’t ask the legal criminals to define victimization, or torture for that matter, they may not be in a position to know the facts, torture may be fun to them, torture may be desired, a fun thing to do – to them.
Money is power, or it is not money.
Why not call money by the name that describes what money does, in fact, why not call money by the name of Purchasing Power, and then why not see how two powers combine in order to increase Purchasing Power. Combine psychological power with physical power and see what happens in your mind, as you employ that power that god gave you.
With that above in mind, that question, that desire to combine two seemingly disconnected powers: physiological (political) and physical (economic), combined into one power, and then consider the following term: Petrodollar.
Lincolns army could have been fueled by oil, had oil been currently flowing through the social network in The North in his day, it was not. Lincoln was blocked from getting money (high interest rates) in his day, and Lincoln was blocked from getting oil power in his day. Had Lincoln the power of a ready oil supply, an oil supply that was demanded, as a necessity, by every other social network on the planet, in his day, he would have had much less trouble getting money. Lincoln would not have had to invent new money, his own money, or the money of his own social network.
Hitler’s social network was also starving for money, before it became Hitler’s social network. Why was it starving for money? Did you read the link on a competitive money in Austria before Hitler took over?
Here is the link again:
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north715.html
Competition is bad for dictators and monopolies, competition offers the victims a way out, and invention is one form of competition. Oil was invented as a motor fuel as well as a commodity to back the currency. Gold may have been a good commodity that did work as a backing for currency, for money, in the past. Now, dear reader, consider the invention of electricity and consider the invention of solar generated electricity.
Do these inventions offer the human species a more powerful currency? Are some people threatened by these competitive inventions? Are some people inspired to expend their power toward the elimination of these competitors? What might China look like in 20 years if China continues to expend power toward the creation of more and more Solar Electric Generating Plants and more and more Electric Cars?
The Sun charges no interest on the power borrowed.