 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
That is a link to an up-to-date report by Ron Paul on money matters.
I think it is a good source from which to begin work on increasing accuracy in the perception of money and the current problems associated with inaccurate currency.
That sentence could be made more accurate, better able to transfer the perception.
I think that Ron Paul's offering is a good start on the path toward a more accurate understanding of the current monetary crisis, and toward remedy.
Above are now two sentences that compete to supply the demand for a more accurate sentence, a sentence that can transfer the intended information.
How about a sentence from Ron Paul's latest report?
I think it is foolish to consider the people who are engorging themselves on the misery of their intended victims as being foolish. The people who have the power to add zeros to the legal dollar account are making money hand over fist, profiting exponentially, giving themselves more and more wealth, by that so called "foolish notion"; where some other dupe, supposedly, is made to believe that "they" have "our" best interests cared for, diligently, but foolishly.
The foolish notion that unlimited amounts of money and credit, created out of thin air, can provide sustained economic growth has delivered this crisis to us.
"They", and specifically the people at the end of the paper trail that leads specifically to "them", are not foolish fools if the measure of foolishness is measured by the number of dollars in their accounts relative to the number of dollars in the accounts of the people who are claiming that "they" are fools.
Perhaps I am being perceived as nit picking and picking apart Ron Paul's message unjustly.
- They are foolish
- Not A
That may just be me.
Moving on:
Economic growth did occur as productivity increased and that went along according to the plan, as planned, and now it is time to cause an economic depression, as planned, and there isn't anything foolish about it, unless the fools are the ones who fail to see the actual people behind the planned (and followed through plan) to cause these things to happen in the way they are happening, and then the real fools fail to figure out a way to stop feeding those people who plan and accomplish these things.
Instead of economic growth and stable prices it has given us a system of government and finance that now threatens the world financial and political institutions.
Supposing, if that is what is being supposed here, that the people who control the money supply now are acting in "our" best interests is beyond foolishness in my opinion. That, again, may just be me.
From their viewpoint, it makes sense to me, ("they" being the people on the receiving end of the legal money monopoly wealth extortion racket), their view is such that the "problem" isn't a problem, rather, it is their legal money monopoly wealth extortion racket working well, better than expected even.
Some people may say that some people in that group of people who control the money supply are not getting what they deserve, exactly, so the supposition that things are working well for "them" doesn't apply to all of "them", not in the same way - some of them are in big trouble, the crisis to some of them is a crisis in fact - not a bonanza in fact, to some of them.
So, my response is, follow the money. Who among the powerful few are left holding the bag, and what of it? That is the way they operate, that is their modus operandi, that is their code of conduct, that is their way of doing business, that is what they do, they feed on each other, and the only reason they cooperate with each other is to maintain the bonanza, to maintain their monopoly power, their cabal, their consortium, and their mutual agreement to feed off of the innocent victims within their "turf", with their "end competition" devices.
The thing is, if you can manage this leap of logic, the thing is to let them destroy themselves, so be it, it is their thing, and from that point of view, move on.
It is past time to make our own currency and to make it accurate this time.
Who is the stupid one? I've looked in the mirror, blame me.
If China invades California, landing in Los Angeles on C Day (like D Day only later), then spending becomes investing in defense (real defense, not aggression hidden behind a false front of defense); so that the real reason behind government spending is seen for what it really is.
Pursuing the same policy of excessive spending, debt expansion, and monetary inflation, can only compound the problems and prevent the required correction.
To suggest, if that is what is being suggested, that spending a fund that is collected from the people, by the people, and for the people, cannot ever be spent in a "corrective" manner, an economical manner, an efficient manner, and an expeditious manner, is to refute any notion of any government ever. If that is not the suggestion, if on the other hand the suggestion is that there are some cases where a "government" (from, by, and for the people) can spend an existing collected fund (or a fund that is borrowed into existence) can spend money in such a way as to maintain sustainability, to invest money, to make money make more wealth, to increase wealth by that investment, in some cases, then it may be a good idea to be specific about those cases; rather than ignore them.
- Defense against an invading army of torturing, raping, stealing, and mass murdering barbarians is cause for government spending (of an existing fund or a fund created "out of thin air")
- Nothing done by "the government" can ever be a case where money is well spent
These questions are not new, again, a quote from history will suffice to prove the observation that history repeats (because people forget, and willfully ignore):
A. Feed the monster
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
B. Not A
If it is a monster, call it one, don't falsify the facts, do not dilute them, do not water down the message, do not afford the monster one inch of credit, and do not suggest that "they" are "foolish".
Who is foolish?
- Those who feed the monster
- Those who are fed by the monster
If war was declared on the legal criminals who have invaded this land, from sea to shining sea, would that be a formal recognition of the facts, or would that be an aggressive war for profit?
Pursuing the same policy of excessive spending, debt expansion, and monetary inflation, can only compound the problems and prevent the required correction.
If war in defense against the legal criminals who have taken over the government of the U.S.A. (the 50 sovereign states) is declared, what costs would be realized by the defenders and how would the defenders cover those costs?
Would the defenders save up for an effective defense and then on the day when the defenders have enough savings in the bank to execute an effective defense (have enough power to deter any further aggression would be nice), then would the defenders spend that money on that defense on that day?
What would be spent?
Where would these defenders keep their savings securely until such time as an effective defense could be mustered?
Where is the defenders bank account and how much is in it today, and who is minding the store?
When is a realistic date for the defense of liberty to commence and effective defense once the defenders of liberty have enough cash to finance that defense?
How about next Tuesday?
Who is "we"? I am paying off debt. I can write it off, supposedly. "They" are not creating more debt; they are transferring more and more power to "them" from "us". How is that excused as being "foolish" on "their" part?
Excessive government and private debt is a consequence of a loose Federal Reserve monetary policy. Once a debt crisis hits, the solution must be paying it off or liquidating it. We are doing neither.
Who is playing a game here? Why must a "politically correct" version of the truth be normalized? Who decided to create and maintain the façade?
Debt is only debt from the perspective of the people who pay the creditors. From the creditors viewpoint the thing called "DEBT" is an income stream. Why is that fact not made very, very clear?
What is this "debt" crisis - exactly? Can the defenders of liberty distance themselves from it? Why must the defenders of liberty have only two choices?
- Pay off the debt
- Liquidate the debt
- Pay off the debt
- Liquidate the debt
- Competition in money markets (end the monopoly by creating and maintaining competitive currencies, i.e. black market currencies are legalized)
I'm wondering why Ron Paul has to edit his words so as to make his message palatable to the "electorate"; why is that done when the message becomes diluted by that supposed necessity; by that supposed expedient?
Where is the congressman who calls for the arrest of Ben Bernanke, for false testimony? I'm not saying that Ben should be beheaded. Arrest the guy, place him in a nice jail cell with TIVO, and don't allow someone to replace him. Move on down to the next Federal Reserve officer, rinse and repeat.
They all lie. Am I exaggerating?
"Where is the money?"
"What money?"
"The trillions of missing dollars, sir, where is it?"
"I don't know"
Who is foolish here? Blame me, if you feel better, go ahead, and call me names.
If the money is stolen, then it is stolen, and if it is stolen then why the two choices?
- Pay off the debt
- Liquidate the debt
Why are there only two choices concerning DEBT (which is credit, or an income stream, for the other side of that DEBT coin)?
Confused?
Why?
If this supposed crisis is so bad, so horrible, so destructive, so dangerous, so debilitating, so evil, so torturous, and so murderous, then why not wage war on it? Call out the National Guard, and invest in a remedy?
Can you hear yourself answering that question?
"They" are the enemy.
The problem is that we have been feeding our worst enemies.
It cannot be expected that "they" will fix "our" problems. "They" (follow the money to find "them") cannot be expected to fix a problem that is to them an income stream (a sound investment strategy).
"Who has the power to declare war in the U.S.A.?"
Answer accurately.
People, and to suggest otherwise is foolish, people have the power to declare war, and these people have names, and these people have faces, and these people think, and they breath, and they utter phrases, and they speak to other people, and they act.
People, not "congress", not "the president", not "the government", not "the state", not "The Limited Liability Fascist Corporate Nation State Pyramid Money Monopoly Extortion Racket"; people declare war for the reasons that they alone confess to their own conscience - when convenient to do so.
Where are the defenders of liberty and why have they not declared a peaceful, non-violent, powerful, knowledgeable, effective, and expedient war on the legal criminals who have invaded this land and taken over the power of self-government?
I am the stupid one, yea, yea, I've heard that already.
Back to Ron Paul:
The dollar is someone's baby. Whose baby is the dollar? What is it?
Since the attack on the dollar will continue, I would suggest that the problems we have faced so far are nothing compared to what it will be like when the world, not only rejects our debt, but our dollar as well. That's when we'll witness political turmoil which will be to no one's benefit.
It, in a term, is The Dollar Hegemony. I didn't make up the term. I am the messenger here concerning that term. I can offer a definition of that term (The Dollar Hegemony) so as to focus attention on that specific baby, what it is, what it does, whose baby it is, why it is, what it does, why it does what it does, and then: weather or not it should be thrown out, and finally, if "the bath water" should be thrown out instead of the baby and the bath water.
The Dollar Hegemony is a Money Monopoly. The idea behind a money monopoly or money consortium, or money cabal, or money extortion racket, is a simple economic idea based upon simple economic principles. If the supply of money can be controlled, by a money monopoly, the price for money can be increased.
That is the simple version.
If money can be made scarce, where the demand for money increases, then the price tag on money can be increased in proportion to the scarcity of money and in proportion to the increase in demand for money since, and this is the monopoly part, since no other supply of money is allowed (by law).
The enemy of a money monopoly power, and it sure won't be a money monopoly without power (money is purchasing power or it isn't money), the enemy of a money monopoly power is competition - and that is why a Global New World Order (a money monopoly to end competition globally) is in the works.
One separate and sovereign group of people, banded together by whatever means binds them, will compete with another separate and sovereign group of people in money markets, if those people trade with those other people - unless the two separate and sovereign groups of people are "led" (led astray) by "governors" who form a consortium, a deal, a mutually beneficial arrangement, to abide by specific sets of specific actions concerning the money issue. No one supplier of money is allowed to gain market share over another's "turf".
If you think I'm stupid, great, ignore me. Move on.
If you think I'm on to something, but you remain confused - somewhat - then work out a simple economic problem that is illustrated with a simple set of circumstances as such:
A new law is agreed upon by all borrowers and all lenders world wide (a voluntary agreement absent any force or fraud by which the "agreement" is made) where any loan borrowed will be transferred from the lender to the borrower in the most valuable currency of the day the loan is transferred from lender to borrower, and every single payment of that loan will be made in the highest value currency of the day of the loan payment.
Call me stupid, if you like.