 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Your post will appear after it is approved by moderators
That didn't go well.
What follows is the 'response' to my post:
On Jul 18, 5:51 am, Josf <josf.kel...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Questions?
The issues regarding the obligatory nature and consistent value of the
necessary currency are obvious. What we had agreed however was that
you would present the arguments of energy currency advocates so that
we can debate them here. I see no comprehensive justification here why
the unit of the currency should be an ostensibly consistent unit of
energy; and as that is the relevant issue, I would like to avoid
redundant repetition so that we can concentrate on that.
> If the form of currency cannot accurately transfer wealth from those
> who earn wealth to those who cannot earn wealth as a means of charity,
> then, no transfers of wealth to those who cannot earn wealth will
> continue and, again, a Mathematically Perfected Economy will not be
> realized.
Putting this proposition that economy inherently must support charity
to the fullest test, would require that an economic system be able to
support charity even if for instance all potential producers are so
disabled that they are able to produce nothing. It is neither the
responsibility of the economic sytem to perform the production -- the
economic system is explicitly and only a system to enable achieving
and realizing all the desirable prosperity that we are capable of. If
you give that system such potentially impossible/improbable tasks as
perfecting charity, then you make it impossible to perfect "economy."
Let's perfect economy first; and perfect whatever else we can, as we
prove a formula for doing so.
Thus combining your proposition that "objective A and B will take care
of C," then your proposition is that accurate transfers of wealth
between wealth creators (producers) and an end to unwanted transfers
of wealth to criminals provides charity. But you show no automated or
intrinsic process. Yet if for instance we are designing such a thing,
we should make this our original intent. Were we solving the issues of
"economy?" And are we now saying that we can perfect charity as an
inherent aspect of economy?
Many people will rightly question that; and any failure to achieve the
latter will therefore preclude the former -- which can readily prove
to otherwise be achievable.
It is important to adhere to necessary definitions, or every argument
can legitimately stray from every point as we are free to revise our
definitions to meet further hopes or needs which are not necessarily
even our initial, direct or accomplishable objective. There is a
difference between "mathematically perfected economy" and
"mathematically perfected economy *and charity*." The perfection of
the latter, even as you write, is a questionable thing to presume to
perfect. Why then combine the unperfected or imperfectable thing with
the perfectable thing, as if they were one and the same objective?
Moreover, if we desire the best possible achievement of charity, how
best to do so but to perfect economy?
Under MPE we have the greatest possible capacity to afford and
disburse charity. Under MPE therefore, we can do the best possible job
of distributing charity at the least cost to ourselves, because we can
best afford to do so.
Thus the charity system is subject to the success of the economic
system; and the systems in fact are distinct. Any valid discussion of
either ultimately finds that the *possible* success of the charity
system is subject to the *practical* success of the ostensible
"economic" system.
Let's therefore discuss them as the separate systems they are.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> That last one may not pass objective scrutiny. The last one can be set
> aside, to be inspected last, while the form of currency that will
> replace the fraudulent currency is created according to its specific
> purpose previously mapped out i.e. Accurate Wealth Transfers between
> Wealth Creators and the avoidance of Wealth Transfers Financing
> Criminals.
> My suggestion is that objective A and B will take care of C.
> A. Account for Accurate Transfers of Wealth between Wealth Creators
> B. An end to unwanted transfers of Wealth to Criminals
> C. Charity
> This is a big chunk of stuff to expect anyone to read; therefore - I
> will stop here as I continue to merge Energy Currency with The
> Mathematically Perfected Economy perspectives.
> You can join in or ignore this current effort at will.
> Example of the link between Energy and Currency:
> Petro/Dollar
> The link is a vital consideration for anyone endeavoring to communcate
> the soundness of Mathematically Perfected Currency
I will say here for the sake of others that as I wrote you, I have
been round and round with the energy currency advocates, who so far
have never advocated a prescription for regulating their theoretical
currency, nor have they even established a direct link. This was what
I was hoping that you would try to do so that we all can move beyond
stumbling over these things forever.
What you have provided, just as your prefix indicates, is *at most*
merely an example of *a* link. The proposed link is assumably intended
all of itself to justify the proposition that there is a concrete
relationship between energy which even complies with the requisites
you first stipulated, and predicates that money should *somehow* be
issued and regulated relative to energy -- even as none of these
things are even stipulated.
How so? What arguments establish unequivocally that such a link
complies with *any* requisites for regulating a currency perfectly?
Having danced in circles so many times before, I will try to cut to
the quick here.
First of all, what you claim is energy is equally (or even actually)
expressed as a product.
But if it is the case that the circulation should represent energy
(however unsaid it is that the energy is harvested, existent,
available to harvest, or unavailable to harvest), and if as you have
said this ostensible energy currency is equivalent to MPE, then when
do you introduce money for energy? How much energy *is* there at any
one time? And how do you properly regulate a circulation accordingly
-- particularly as it is very often not energy that we want to
exchange, but a combination of many other things which any ostensible
unit of "energy" does not necessarily account for?
To validate the proposition, these are the questions we must answer.
The "economists" of the usurers advocate that they should be able to
manipulate the value of oil, which you say is energy. They pretend
that they have already answered these questions. But we haven't
answered them so far here, either. So let us do so.
First of all, what are "oil producers?"
Mankind is not the producer of the natural resource. However, we
administer and perform all the acts which are necessary to producing
the oil into the forms we trade; and these are the true costs of oil
production -- these are the costs we would pay for oil in any system
by which *we* *could* pay our efforts for the equal efforts of others.
In true free enterprise, if a year's work of a given quality produces
a home for instance, we can *and will* earn and have a home by
furnishing no more than the same year's work of the same quality.
The purposed devices of the present system of course intentionally
obstruct this uniform intention and potential of true free enterprise.
These devises intentionally provide a few the unassented opportunity
to take unearned profit from that home forever.
Fools of course jump for joy that "the value" of their homes are
"appreciating." But the fact is they only tolerate the unassented
imposition of a system which both compels them to borrow ever more
merely to attempt to maintain a former status while ever more of the
circulation is consumed by inherently having to support the costs of
ever greater debt. In fact, this process so depreciates the value of
their earnings that they are forever paying with further labor for the
very things we produce by relatively little labor.
These are inevitable consequences of usury which we can readily end
only by establishing mathematically perfected economy -- a system
perfected of the processes which can only produce said detriments.
But how is your energy currency the equivalent of MPE; and if it is,
why would the form of the currency or the unit of the currency be
related to energy, versus the real costs and ultimate value of
*production*?
I sent a response (to be posted or not by the power that is):
"Having danced in circles so many times before, I will try to cut to
the quick here. "
I can cut this off now. If you insist upon blaming me for your past experiences, then, why bother participating when you have already discussed this with me? Why not simply moderate me out of this discussion and avoid wasting anymore time and energy - currently. You have the power. Why continue the circle jerk?
Your expansive regurgitation of my least important concern, from me, NOT ANYONE ELSE BUT ME, and your ignoring the previous other concerns gives me even more cause to ask of you, please, link me to these mysterious Energy Currency people who you have soundly defeating with your superior whatever.
Moving back to the two prime focal points that you ignored up to your quote above (I have yet to rest the rest of your response):
What is the form of currency used in any Mathematically Perfected Economy?
Does the form of currency accurately transfer wealth from one individual to another individual?
Does the form of currency accurately avoid transferring wealth to unwanted criminals?
I can leave the rest of the ARGUMENT to those who like to argue.
If you prefer to ignore my questions, then, by all means do so and transfer that expressed goal to me accurately so as to avoid wasting anymore of our time - PLEASE.
At some point I may be forced to kiss ass in my effort to gain accurate transfers of economically useful information; however - if that is needed, then, a cost is added to the exchange that is otherwise avoidable. Why not find people who actually want to trade equitably?
I think I'll keep looking.
Note: The People for the Mathematically Perfect Economy Site is a vitally important message that everyone needs to read if they don't already know the accurate data contained within that site:
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/index.html
Don't let the troll under the bridge discredit the facts presented at that site.