 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
++++++++++
This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for everyday transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.
++++++++++
To those who have an interest,
Also - to those who may wish to censor my input on this forum please know that my comments are published on other sites too. The barriers are falling around you. If someone, anyone, feels injured by my defensive comments, then, consider the origin of that feeling. I intend my defensive comment to find only those who wear the shoe - if it fits. If the shoe does not fit, then, don't wear the shoe and don't censor me. See?
I'm reading Ron Paul and commenting - the above economic logic is contradictory. The reason why 'enough units of money' - 'satisfy the needs of exchange' is to 'satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it'. The idea is to have credit in the hands of those who can utilize it productively when they can utilize it productively. There is no arbitrary need to make the currency ‘scarce’ for everyone (a broad brush or 'collective' and prejudicial edict or punishment) other than to avoid mal investment or the other ‘real reason’ whereby the supply is made scarce so as to command a higher price (high interest rate) and then only under monopoly or near monopoly control.
The mal investment problem is solved by charging interest against borrowers with a history of mal investment and then to invest that purchasing power into an insurance policy based upon accurate data concerning predictable loses (costs) associated with borrowers who fail to pay back loans (for any reason not limited to mal investment). The mal investment problem is exacerbated (made worse) by an arbitrary (collective punishment) decrease in the supply of currency to those who can and will pay back the entire principle plus the minimum interest charge (a charge that is charged to cover the costs of operating the currency supply business – including a competitive ‘profit’). When the competition is eliminated, then, the sky is the limit on the POWER to profit (at the expense of everyone in that enforced monopoly - including the legal criminals 'if they only knew').
The FREE BANKING proposal eliminates the ‘scarcity value’ reason for imposing what amounts to a TAX on qualified borrowers when a monopoly currency provider can charge whatever the market will bear (since no competition will offer a lower cost alternative). Please see this clearly and comment if your viewpoint is critical of this accurate viewpoint.
The idea behind making currency scarce during a currency monopoly is to increase profits flowing to the producer of currency. The higher the demand (due to scarcity) the higher will be the potential to charge more COST (pass on costs) to the buyer - as interest. This ability to control the supply at will (making currency scarce and then making currency abundant followed by making currency scarce again) causes the flow of purchasing power to increase toward the monopoly supplier (the one adjusting the supply) because the supplier has inside knowledge (accurate knowledge) measuring when and how much the supply will change. The flow of wealth is further increased toward the currency supplier when the currency supplier falsifies the published accounting of when and how much the supply will change; in other words - the Bankers say one thing and do the opposite so as to trick investors into poor investments while the insiders know in advance which investments will plummet and which investments will sky rocket because the people who control the 'scarcity value' cause investments and returns to fluctuate by that deception and control of currency supply.
See here:
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Monopolists-Frederic-C-Howe/dp/0839807937
So far Ron Paul expresses either a lack of understanding concerning the purpose of currency or my interpretation is reaching too far or not far enough. The point, again, behind making currency scarce (to qualified borrowers) is to rape them. Please know this. A qualified borrower does not mal invest or COST anyone anything, on the contrary, a qualified borrower is an investment earning entity who by his or her actions will lower costs and increase purchasing power generally; therefore – qualified borrowers borrow from themselves and by their actions they increase value as consumers, laborers, and otherwise add to total productivity (at lower costs). The idea that someone should profit from their investments (as a systematic approach toward financing) is taxing their ability to be productive and for what is this systematic approach designed to accomplish?
The answer is clearly a design feature intending to cause a flow of purchasing power from those who produce purchasing power to those who monopolize the ‘legal’ currency supply. Once that flow is set in motion the affect is to empower the ‘legal’ currency suppliers at the expense of the ‘borrowers’ (the ones who produce purchasing power) and the logical conclusion is best expressed by (in my opinion) Common Sense.
This:
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
++++++++++
our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer
++++++++++
In other words our POWER (in the precise form of purchasing power) flows to those who steal our POWER making 'them' more and more POWERFUL at our expense.
The obvious link is monetary currency and the obvious design of the fraudulent monetary currency is extortion, on purpose, for profit. To suggest, if that is the suggestion, that the engineers of the fraudulent currency monopoly intend to 'save the children' or do anything other than rob, rape, torture, and mass murder goes beyond common sense and all the profuse evidence proving otherwise.
This is where I add my confusion concerning Ron Paul's stated stand on impeachment. Who is fooling whom? It is the congressmen (and women) who have the POWER to begin investigation concerning possible crimes and therefore it is not the congress people who decide guilt or innocence. If a congressman or congresswoman has yet to entertain the idea that the President or Vice President could, possibly, be guilty of some crime, any crime, then - said individual has his, or her, head stuck in the dirt or other place not as complimentary.
These, of course, are one person's opinion to be perused or ignored or otherwise handled as anyone judges on their own. Be my guest. I welcome logical criticism. How else have I arrived at this point in time and place otherwise? People exchange and that is our wealth producing activity which goes well beyond any capacity any human can command in solitude.
Moving on:
++++++++++++
At this country's founding, there was no government-controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint's operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades. (Ron Paul)
++++++++++++
One of us has been duped.
http://www.ushistory.org/tour/tour_1bank.htm
++++++++++
Up to the time of the bank's charter, coins and bills issued by state banks served as the currency of the young country. The First Bank's charter was drafted in 1791 by the Congress and signed by George Washington.
+++++++++++
Perhaps something has been misunderstood concerning how and why The Constitution was created and subsequently enforced by people such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.
I can offer the following:
A revolution was fought to liberate the American continent from a currency monopoly imposed by the English STATE (legal criminals). The people, under the Articles of Confederation, voluntarily defeated the British. During the war a group of merchants invested in and profited from the conflict by loaning fraudulent currency to The People through the various States; however – under the Articles of Confederation the debts (investments) were precarious and the control of the flow of wealth through these ‘loans’ were insecure.
A false advertisement campaign was launched to ‘save the Union’ and adjust the voluntary association under the Articles of Confederation. Once the merchants gathered behind closed doors (Secret Meetings) a ‘dirty compromise’ was agreed upon whereby the Northern Interests and the Southern Interests agreed to throw out the voluntary association and usurp the POWER of voluntary association and instead a Limited Liability Corporate Nation State was written into law. Some of the ‘delegates’ “Smelled a Rat” and a last ditch effort to save Liberty (from a currency monopoly) was attached (The Bill of Rights) to the new ‘Contract’ known as “The Constitution”.
Sufficient proof of these facts are provided by George Washington’s own pen as he assembled a conscripted army to suppress the second of two major currency rebellions (the first being Shays’s Rebellion).
Here:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/text.html
+++++++++++
And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
++++++++++
In those days no one (not even the legal criminals) dared speak against ownership of the means of defense against Tyranny (Gun Control was 'off the table').
Economic knowledge was 'on the table' and The People knew how to get around the currency monopoly. They used Whiskey as currency once the Gold left the country because of currency Mal Investment through The STATE (legal tender monopoly usurpation).
Two very good sources for that time period are:
http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812236696
++++++++++
Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle
++++++++++
And:
http://www.amazon.com/Whiskey-Rebellion-Frontier-Epilogue-Revolution/dp/0195051912/ ref=pd_sim_b_title_2
++++++++++
The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution
++++++++++
Moving on:
++++++++++
On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don't steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition. (Ron Paul)
+++++++++++
This post of mine is too large already and my rap up at this point (to be continued if possible) is to reiterate the logic as I know it to be concerning that last quote from Ron Paul’s message to Congress (The House).
When any product demanded is supplied by more than one source there will be a tendency to provide greater quality at a lower cost in order to gain market share and remain competitive because a failure to provide greater quality at a lower cost fails to gain market share.
Take, for example, the local fast food providers (a form of currency) and imagine having a choice between two rancid meals, one rancid meal at one establishment and another rancid meal at the other establishment, and both restaurants charge a months pay for one meal.
Know that 'our' currency is rancid and we pay, in the case of necessary shelter, twice the cost of the home for the 'privilege' of 'borrowing' currency FROM OUR SELVES.
I'll close with one more link and a quote:
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-parable-of-perfect-economy.html
++++++++++
In restoring one such relationship after the war, Franklin explained the real cause of the American Revolution in a conciliatory letter to a friend in France:
"We would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that they took from us our money, which created great unemployment and dissatisfaction. Within a year, the poor houses were filled. The hungry and homeless walked the streets everywhere."
++++++++++++
Last edited on Sat Feb 16th, 2008 12:21 pm by Joe Kelley