 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Anyone,
My point exactly: no market-monopolies exist, nor have they ever, therefore any "monopoly" you attack is instead and necessarily an attack against market-intervention.
I wonder how that logic followed through to find its way here in this thread. If the topic is diverted from what it was to that above, by some logical progression, I wonder too: what is the purpose of such a huge leap?
Whose point is that quote targeting or referencing? Who is the intended audience? What is the targeted and exploited market expected to do with that form of currrency. Is that message, that currency accurate or not accurate?
Example:
There is my opportunity to lead back to the topic subject matter, and avoid falling victim to the obvious false currency quoted above. I read ahead from that quote in the lasted offering from the libeler and this libeler appears to have a battle going with his Straw Man; where the libeler, by all appearances, is winning that battle somehow - an amazing feat to be sure.
no market-monopolies exist
Setting aside the "argument for the sake of argument" offered by the Libeler and his Straw-Man (ventriloquist act), I can employ that false statement to aid in the view of something called monetary interest.
The false quote, the false currency, the inaccurate currency dictates a dictate with the following words (again):
Crime is a market, and only the people who are criminals will be the people who monopolize, or cartelize, or create a cabal, in that market. Not being a criminal leaves the person out of that cabal.
no market-monopolies exist
One criminal all alone, working his planned injury to his one victim, will not constitute a crime market monopoly, not in reality. There must be greater interest in this form of exploitation. The interest in injuring innocent victims for profit (crime) must spread to other people so that more than one person has an interest in profiting by this method of injuring innocent people.
If two people are targeting the same victim and both criminals are interested in profiting at the expense of the one victim; the two criminals are then presented with a problem, and many possible solutions, here are two:
- Fight each other for all the profits extracted from the one victim
- Cartelize, monopolize, and share the profits from the one victim equitably
- Find honest work
Now suppose that the above can be illustrated with historical facts and to do that there must be a criminal, or a number of criminals, a victim, or a number of victims, and a second criminal or a number of additional criminals.
I'm going to pick a historical time period, present the facts as they were at that time, and then project a hypothetical situation that could occur from that historical point; the idea behind this hypothetical situation is nothing more than an illustration of a specific viewpoint that isn't intending to exploit anyone for any reason whatsoever.
The English Monopoly Power over the global market was currently exploiting the American Colonial Power over the same global market; and the plan by which that crime was to be executed included a device called: monetary interest.
In order for the English Monopoly Power to have the leverage required to execute the plan the English Monopoly Power had to link money with law by a device called: legal tender.
The device requires that the victims pay taxes with legal tender.
If the Monopoly Power dictates that "legal tender" is dog poop; then the subjects (the targeted victims being exploited in this global market, by monopoly power) must pay taxes with dog poop.
Dog poop becomes Monopoly Power money. They don't, of course, because dog poop can be made at home by anyone with a dog; a female dog can reproduce and increase the creation of Legal Tender exponentially.
The English (including the Royal governing power) had a measure (not absolute but a lesser evil, a lesser measure from an absolute) Monopoly Power had power, and that power was evaporating, lessening, dissolving, and growing less powerful as more of their targeted victims moved from England to America and in America the people there "created their own currency". American people who moved from England didn't, at first, import the same Monopoly Money or Legal Tender, rather the people who moved from England created "Colonial Script".
Now, as often happens, the Monopoly Power divided into two money powers as such:
- Legal Tender enforced by the English Monopoly Power
- Not A
Here is where the interesting part comes in to play as the English Monopoly Power weakens and the American competitive power increases - in actual history.
The English Monopoly Power was able to extort from their victims a rate of wealth charged to anyone within their power to extort and to that end they used a tool called: interest.
If someone needed English Monopoly Money, they had to pay interest on that money. If they had to pay taxes; they had to pay the interest (an offer they could not refuse).
The competition charged less interest (interestingly enough they even charged no interest or even negative interest); and that was the tool that brought down the English Monopoly Power - a notch or two.
In absolute terms, perhaps, there isn't anything that can be called an absolute Monopoly, not so long as any competition exists too. In reality, the cartelization of separate powers into one power is a monopoly power that can be measured by its ability to eliminate competition by any means imaginable and unspeakable.
Example:
War
Example 2:
Libel
The English Monopoly Power planned for war, executed war, and the result was not as profitable as expected. The competition for Monopoly Money Power in the colonies remained competitive, interest rates continued to be forced down to cost, as the global market of criminal exploitation by interest from Legal Money Powers had to contend with competition.
A legal money power where the money issued from that legal money power didn't include large military budget costs, large budget costs run up by internal wars to suppress rebellions, etc. are examples of legal money powers where the charge for use of legal money can be competitively lower than the competition where legal money charges (the cost of using the money), or interest, includes the costs of large military budgets where wars of aggression are unsuccessful (not as profitable as expected), and where costs of suppressing internal rebellions run up huge costs, prison costs, legal costs, etc. (not to mention all the costs spent on propagating falsehood, institutionalizing things like "nationalism", etc.) - so the competition in this particular market can be measured as "the interest rate".
If the interest rate is high, simple enough to know, the monopoly power is high, and that concludes this effort at this time.
In the future I can elaborate or expand on that hypothetical example whereby the English Monopoly Power Traitors (Hamilton and his puppet Washington) cartelized the legal money power; however - in the hypothetical example their battle wasn't won, a "Nation State" wasn't formed, and the hypothetical example will illustrate what could have happened instead. What could have happened instead was a number of separate and sovereign States, held together by a Federated voluntary agreement (modeled after the Swiss Republic), and instead of a Fictitious Legal Entity called: U.S.A. the federation of states existed, where the separate and sovereign states competed against each other for market share in Monopoly Money Markets (legal tender).
Such a hypothetical competitive from of government could have replicated the events previous to the English war of aggression (to eliminate competition in legal tender Monopoly money markets), where people opted out of the usury and went elsewhere, where interest rates were interestingly much lower.
I don't have time to comment further on the battle going on between the libeler and his Straw-Man - not directly.