View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 09:01 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6399
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 +++++++++++++

Both of them may regret their decision after the fact, but the actual transaction voluntarily occurred because they both preferred what they received more than what they gave up at the moment of trade.

+++++++++++++

 

hash3m,

 

Again, if you have an argument going with some imaginary being created by you, then I can understand the reasoning behind your wandering into this thread, spilling into it so to speak, to work on that argument. Have at it. I’ll be something like a referee.

 

If someone somewhere has ever communicated to you that you and whomever you trade with can’t do as you say you do, when you trade, then that person may be inspiring your reactions, like the one above. I’m not that person. You can do whatever you want when trading, and the person you trade with can do whatever they want when trading.

 

Are we clear about that so far?

 

I’m going to repeat, just in case we are not clear.

 
  1. I am not questioning your motives for trading.
  2. I am not suggesting that you don’t trade up as you see fit
  3. I am not demanding that you and everyone else must or must not trade up
  4. If someone has demanded that you don’t trade up, look for that person to teach them a lesson, not me.
  5. I don’t have an issue with what you do during trading
 

Those 5 things in that laundry list are things that pass from me to you if you care to accept those things, a trade of sorts, and I offer them as a gift, from me to you, if you take them, that is fine, if you reject those 5 things, that is fine too.

 

I am doing my part to be clear, to be accurate, to avoid confusion, and to defend against further libel produced by you and passed from you to this pubic forum where your product is available to pass to anyone caring or interested in receiving your product.

 

Back to your product:

 

+++++++++++++

Both of them may regret their decision after the fact, but the actual transaction voluntarily occurred because they both preferred what they received more than what they gave up at the moment of trade.

+++++++++++++

 

Anyone can, and I know for a fact that some do, trade down, and they do so on purpose. Many people, perhaps very many people, willingly receive less for more, on purpose, when they want to receive less for more, on purpose, and that type of transaction is so common as to have inspired a word in English where that word in English is a label for that type of transaction. That type of transaction is called: Generosity.

 

Here are two types of transactions:

 
  1. Austrian School of Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/Systematic/Capitalist Pricing Scheme Dogma type of “trading up”
  2. Generosity
 

If you are interested, at all, in entertaining a viewpoint that isn’t parroting the ASEIPWPSCPSDTU (Austrian School of Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying Systematic/Capitalist Pricing Scheme Dogma type of “trading up”) line, nor the Straw-Man argument conjured up in reaction to that pricing scheme dogma, then you may be interested in viewing a third exchange type, an exchange type that is neither “trading up” nor “trading down” on purpose.

 
  1. Trading up
  2. Generosity
 

The third option looks more organized when the third option is placed in between “Gaining at someone else’s expense” and “giving up something for less or nothing in return”.

 
  1. Profit at the expense of someone (trading up)
  2. BLANK
  3. Generosity
 

I can understand that you may not want to look at option 2 or 3, and that is fine, leave those products out of view, ignore them, and I will fill in the blank for anyone else who may have an interest in those products, and anyone else who may not want to think of me as your Man of Straw – just in case someone might be inching that way.

 

The BLANK between Profit at the expense of someone and Generosity is neither Profit at the Expense of someone nor Generosity, it is the middle place between the two, and it can be called “equal trading” or it can be called equity, or equitable commerce.

 

It can be called:

 
  1. Profit at the expense of someone
  2. Profit without someone being expended in the process
  3. Generosity
 

That brings me back to the part that is pushed under the rug, the part that appears to be unspeakable, the part where the two people are at the recruiting office, and one partner is signing on the bottom line to join in on the Military Service Contract thing, where both partners are conducting a voluntary exchange – voluntarily.

 

Do those people realize the nature of option 1?

 

Here is option 1 again:

 
  1. Profit at the expense of someone
 

My guess is that they do not fully understand the gravity of option 1, and my guess is that that is also why this part of this discussion from the topic is unspeakable to some people.

 

I am not that person, I speak about it. It is speak able, I am speak able. I can respond to that subject matter. I am respond able.

 

Do you have a response to my part of the topic where you have helped place us at that voluntary exchange at the recruitment office where volunteers are voluntarily transacting?

 

How many times can I ask before it is obviously not something that you are willing or able to respond to?

 

+++++++++++

That's because fraud isn't fraud until it actually happens. lol, seriously man?

+++++++++++

 

Fraud begins as an interest in someone’s mind. You can laugh out loud, sure, and you can question my sincerity, sure, but who are you responding to? Are you responding to your conjured up Straw-Man? Your questions of sincerity have nothing to do with me. I am serious enough to run for public office. I am serious enough to join armed marches on the capital. I am serious enough to write and speak my mind concerning unspeakable things.

 

Your argument isn’t interesting to me, it has nothing to do with me, and it is out of place in this topic.

 

Why are you brining your argument in here? What is the point?

 

++++++++++

It is all voluntary, from their viewpoint.
You make a good point, something both of us would do well to remember. It is voluntary, from their viewpoint. But a transaction requires two parties, so the actions of only one party do not make the transaction a fully voluntary one. Murder and torture are generally voluntary on behalf of one party, notably the murder or torturer; but they are clearly non-voluntary transactions once both parties are considered.

++++++++++++

 

People who libel, or people who commit fraud, do libel, and they do commit fraud, and it starts in their minds, and their minds are inspired by things the occur previous to the spark that ignites the idea, and previous to the adoption of the idea to proceed down that path, where the idea and the path is to injure someone else for personal gain.

 

What does that have to do with the subject here in this thread?

 

The idea of this thread is “accurate currency”.

 

The idea of this thread is to link accurate currency with something I all Joe’s Law, to see accurate currency from a Joe’s Law perspective.

 

Joe’s Law:

 

Power produced into a state of oversupply will reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

 

Accurate currency is powerful currency, because it is accurate.

 

The very loose connection between your argument and this topic is the introduction of a form of accurate currency that isn’t universally accurate.

 

Fraudulent currency is only accurate from the viewpoint of the criminals who produce the fraudulent currency and I can adjust Joe’s Law to address that introduction of that destructive power (it is destructive from the victims perspective, not destructive from the criminals perspective).

 

Joe’s Law (in defense against criminal powers):

 

Universally productive power produced into a state of oversupply will (not may or might) reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases (each unit of accurate currency has the power to buy more, more quality, and/or more quantity) because universally productive power reduces the cost of production.

 

That is Joe’s law expanded (wordier) so as to defend against destructive power (inaccurate currency from the victim’s perspective) being produced so as to gain at the expense of the targeted victims.

 

Here is where I share much with the dogmatists in the Austrian School, and here is also where I depart from that dogma in a big way.

 

I share the viewpoint that the frauds at The Fed are destroying much, destroying many, and destroying greatly, as those criminals follow through with their plans.

 

I depart from the dogmatists on a few obvious points of interest.

 

Obvious to me, perhaps no one else, but that is fine by me. I can proceed alone.