 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
You are now asking questions that are vital in the effort to offer a competitive viewpoint on Legal Money Matters.
Example:
Why do limits need to be set?
The concept of a defensive power stepping into the role of offering a defensive deal has to be understood in the context of an aggressive, fraudulent, attacker, in this case the form of the attack is The Federal Reserve/Federal Income Tax/Enforcement by Federal Criminals.
Failing to have that context in view fails to acknowledge that specific LIMIT already LIMITING, and therefore the offer to offer a counter to that LIMIT is not acknowledged if it is not acknowledged.
If the LIMIT Enforced by the False Federal Enforcers is acknowledged, then, it can be seen by the observer, the lady seeking a new Home Loan, or a new Construction Loan for Power Products, that there are two things in view as such:
1.
Legal Crime Limit
2.
No Legal Crime Limit
OK, so that now, if you understand the above, is the question here:
"Why do limits need to be set?"
The quick answer is that there does not need to be a limit set, but in context there is NO LIMIT once the LIMIT (Legal Crime) is no longer enforced by those Legal Criminals, and therefore a time exists between the old Legal Crime Limit and whatever happens next, and what happens next will be a LIMIT of some accurate measure.
You pay no interest?
What is interest?
If interest is a Free Market cost paid by Free Traders so as to cover the costs of offering accurate accounting services (Free Market Banking Services), then the highest quality (most accurate) and lowest cost (lowest costs paid by the bankers in providing and offering the service) provider is on the shelf, or on the Web Page, or on Main Street in any City, right next to the next best provider who offers lower quality and higher cost (LIMIT).
So the question again:
"Why do limits need to be set?"
To bridge the gap between NOW (LEGAL CRIME LIMIT) and THEN (NO LEGAL CRIME LIMIT) there has to be communication between those who offer (The pretend salesman in the pretend Free Market Government Banking Transaction Play Acting) Free Market Government Banking Services and those who may be shopping for a Home Mortgage and possibly shopping for Home Improvements, and their LIMIT will be LIMITED by whatever the Market will Bear.
How many choices of Free Market Government Banking Services exist now?
None.
Everything is denominated in Federal Reserve Notes, and that is not a random occurrence.
"Why can't Joe's Law work as power is produced into oversupply thru bank profits?"
What are "profits," and how are they measured, and what power is at work to increase or decrease those accurate measures of those profits as those profits flow form one person to another person?
A Fraudulent Government Banking "Service" is "profitable" right now to the tune of "profits" amounting to a few people gaining as much Legal Purchasing Power as everyone else combined, and those few people merely write themselves a "private" check that is "good" as far as the Fraudulent Government is concerned, as good as gold.
That is what does exist right now.
The question is, and can be answered accurately, what is the alternative to what exists right now?
"Why can't Joe's Law work as power is produced into oversupply thru bank profits?"
Which bank? The legally enforced fraud bank or one, and only one, alternative bank?
If there is only one alternative bank, then are those "profits" more or less compared to the legally enforced fraud bank as the legally enforced fraud bank, which is ONE, and only ONE, is replaced by ONE, and only ONE replacement?
If there are two Banks "profiting," in a Free Market (meaning free from Legal Crime, and free from Non-Legal Crime) then which is "profiting" more than the other, and what are they doing with those "profits" compared to what the other bank is not doing with those "profits"?
What are these "profits"?
Are profits the costs of doing business paid for by the buyers, and if one competitive Bank is passing on much more costs to their buyers compared to the competitive bank (the Bank that does not pass on nearly as much costs to their customers) then which competitive bank tends to gain more currency compared to which bank tending toward going out of business due to lower quality and higher prices (costs to the customers)?
"Can that profit be used to produce more power which would then make wealth cheaper?"
If the buyer of banking services keeps that "profit" (which is either/or an actual increase in POWER or not), as "savings," or as "cheaper banking costs," then the buyer decided if the buyer will consume those "profits" having fun, or if the buyer will invest in making more power out of less power, or if the buyer will give away that "savings" as charity.
If the Bank wins the competition for market share in competition with a competitive bank, and the Bank gains that advantage or "profit" from the customer, then the Bank decides what to do, or not do, with that power.
1. Is there actually more power produced?
2. If there is actually more power produced, then who produces it, and who is in POWER to control that new power?
3. Is the power consumed?
4. Is the power invested into the process of making more power out of less power?
5. Is the power given away charitably?
6. If the power is invested into the process of making more power out of less power, then who is credited with having made that decision, and who gains that currency once that POWER does exist because of that decision to invest?
"Why does a limit have to be set on the bank's production of profit?"
That is a question that returns back to the Play Acting done during the imaginary discussion between a potential buyer who may be shopping in a potential Free Market Government Banking Shopping Center where many possible Free Market Government Banking Service Providers are offering Banking Services of highest potential quality at lowest potential costs.
The idea there, with that LIMIT, was to start somewhere, and start somewhere other than "offering" the same Un-free Government Monopoly Banking Power lack of quality (unless you are a criminal and therefore quality means the same thing as being better able to destroy people) and the same Un-free Government Monopoly Banking Power PRICE (which is potentially everything paid by the targets to the criminals).
Pick an "interest rate" number out of a hat, please, and tell me why you think that number is an accurate representation of what a competitive bank, in a competitive market, could offer to competitive shoppers looking for high quality and low cost banking services?
There will be a measure of quality and cost, so what is it?
If there will be a measure of quality and cost, what is that measure?
There is, now, a measure of Fraud, in fact.
Look at the National Debt Clock to see how National Interest is working now, right now, currently, and know the difference between what is, and what can be.
What can be?
What that which can be: is, then what is it?
What is the Free Market Government Banking Interest Rate moved, or forced, to be that rate, once the shoppers, a total collective will power of shoppers, constitute the force that forces Free Market Government Banking Services to the highest quality, and lowest cost, that is possible at that time?
Pick a number, a guess, a starting point, and see if your guess is competitive.
I pick 1%, and I can offer words, and mathematical calculation, and references, whereby my guess is not picked out of a hat, so much as my guess is an educated, or competitive, guess.
I've told you about the Jellybean Jar Experiment?
The Wisdom of Crowds Example
As it happens, the possibilities of group intelligence, at least when it came to judging questions of fact, were demonstrated by a host of experiments conducted by American sociologists and psychologists between 1920 and the mid-1950s, the heyday of research into group dynamics.
Genuine things are often counterfeited because the genuine thing is good for life, powerful for productivity, and therefore a threat to the Legal Criminals who find cause to counterfeit the genuine goodness.
"Wouldn't the nature production of profit yield to cheaper wealth thus making interest rates lower?"
I do not understand that question, and rather than guessing, I can ask for clarification.
1.
Do you mean "natural production of profit," rather than "nature production of profit," and if so, then what IS this stuff that you call "profit," how is this stuff accurately measured in fact?
2.
What do you mean by "cheaper wealth," because I can guess at this point and it appears to me that you are referring to the concepts in Joe's Law at this point, whereby the only problem I can see, at this point, is the problem of accurately identifying what is, exactly, this stuff called "profit," and then who is credited with the decision to create this stuff called "profit," and does "credit" mean the same thing as "power to decide what to do with" this "profit" stuff?
If I or anyone could start my own bank, then wouldn't that competition become the natural limit set on bank profits (rather than a government ceiling)?
Yes, and if you build a scale, then you can build a scale from worst to best as a function of Monopoly being worst and the exact opposite being best.
National Debt Clock (and all that goes with it) is on the bad side of things.
Everyone having the legal POWER to start and maintain their own Legal Bank (the experiments done by Josiah Warren prove that this competitive option is viable) is on the other end of the scale.
To be even more precise with building this scale, consider a possible additional extreme reaching out past The Dollar Hegemony with false Federal Reserve Notes on the bad end of the scale.
What would be the result of having one person, and only one person, as absolute Banking Dictator, whereby no one, anywhere, can breath air, or eat food, without having paid "interest" to this absolute dictator, a single person, for "credits" needed to buy some air, or some food?
I make a habit of building these scales as a means of working out complex, dynamic, forces, into a illustrative form.
If you are just beginning to get the idea of building scales, in this way, then you may find the process useful as you become more proficient at it, as it may turn out to be a productive use of the scarce power currently available to you.
My question has to do with human nature. Even when power is made abundant for all, will all make the effort to access the abundance? Will some squander abundance and live in poverty instead? What happens when too many people squander abundance?
To me the question you are asking is the same question I asked above your quote.
What would be the result of having one person, and only one person, as absolute Banking Dictator, whereby no one, anywhere, can breath air, or eat food, without having paid "interest" to this absolute dictator, a single person, for "credits" needed to buy some air, or some food?
It is the same answer.
The single person in power would not be in power for long, unless the single person in power hired fellow members of the exclusive club.
Those who threaten to compete with the single power in any way (any true form of competition) will be dealt with in a few possible ways:
1.
The threat will be destroyed
2.
The threat will be turned, paid as an employee, subsidized, incorporated, hired on, deputized, given an offer that can't be refused, etc.
What is the definition of squandering?
1.
Using scarce power to destroy all competition.
2.
Using scarce power to increase the number of fellow Legal Criminals who use scare power to destroy all competition.
Joe, there are people here who do not even bother to shower. In my experience, some people are poor and choose to be clean, while others are poor and choose squalor.
Is it merely ignorance as to the benefits of being clean, or is there more to each individual story as may be found out if someone wanted to truly help those who are stuck in abject misery or squalor?
I think there are many people in the middle of the scales that can accurately measure the conditions of mankind.
On the extremes are powerless people, having nothing, starving to death, for lack of something, and those with power in abundance who use that power for good (make power abundant for everyone), and those with power in abundance who use that power to keep the power they have, which is the power that takes from everyone, causing power to flow from everyone, flowing to only them, flowing only to them in their exclusive club.
It is not that hard to map out with factual data.
A unit of power, such as a seed, can be planted, cultivated, nurtured, and then there are many seeds.
A solar panel works out the same way.
It is not hard to see, once you can see it, or I may be deluding myself.
So their own volition causes their own condition, and that is part of liberty too. Make ones own choices and live in ones own consequences? But do those types of ill-choices impact economy and Joe's Law for the whole?
Someone who is hurting only themselves, as may be proven even to themselves, all in agreement, yes, yes, yes, without controversy, person A is hurting themselves, and no one else, willfully, as another volunteer volunteering to be a criminal, is something worthy of discussion.
I agree.
Much hurt, of oneself, can be seen as an injury to anyone who may love that one who is hurting oneself, too.
Food for thought?
Power to make more power out of less power?
That is not the same subject, in my mind, as that subject is nearly opposite the subject of those who are currently, willfully, working very effectively, at destroying mankind, right now, and all those who produce anything worth stealing are financing that destruction through the use of Federal Reserve Notes (or whichever new issue of Legal Monopoly World Reserve Currency may replace that one).
Helping people, actually helping people, requires that the people being helped agree that they are being helped, by some measure, or the supposed help, from the viewpoint of the target of supposed help, will fight in resistance to help that is seen as counterfeit help to that person.
That is a subject worth discussing too, and I happen to have a real world example of such a human condition going on right now in my wife's relationship to her brother (I should not speak anymore on that specific process).