Summit - Expanding Connectivity - Networking

Home

Not logged in - Login | Register

Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Summit

Moderated by: Joe Kelley

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

New Topic

Printer Friendly

Summit

Rating:

Author	Post

Posted: Sun Jan 13th, 2008 01:41 pm

Quote

21^st Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12189

Only two major party candidates that I know of rule out aggression aimed at Iran – and have spoken out loud and clear on the issue – and that is Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

What about Mike Gravel?

In case you are ignorant (due to censorship or whatever):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Gravel+Iran+

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0-wYkob6Kg

Who can count?

http://www.iranbodycount.org/analysis/

Last edited on Sun Jan 13th, 2008 01:47 pm by Joe Kelley

Quote

Posted: Tue Jan 15th, 2008 10:51 am

Quote

22^nd Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Kucinich_OK_d_for_debate_appeal_pla_01142008.html

Kucinich OK'd for debate, appeal planned

NBC to Appeal Court Decision Granting Kucinich Entry to Tuesday's Democratic Debate in Nevada

"We disagree with the judge's decision and are filing an appeal," said a statement provided by Jeremy Gaines, a vice president for MSNBC, sponsor of Tuesday night's debate. Gaines said the parent network would seek an immediate hearing before the Nevada Supreme Court.

Hours earlier, Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson ruled that Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, must be allowed to participate. If he is excluded, Thompson said he would issue an injunction to stop the televised debate.

Quote

Posted: Thu Jan 17th, 2008 10:50 am

Quote

23^rd Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/260.html

What would have happened if Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich 'went on strike' after Mike Gravel was first censored?

What would happen if those three began their own 'legitimate' debates where any candidate was welcome?

See?

Quote

Posted: Sun Jan 20th, 2008 09:51 am

Quote

24^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul431.html

That is old. What is the story now?

If the idea is Free currency markets, then, any currency is 'legal' (so long as criminals are not injuring innocent victims by fraud or violence with their version of 'legal' currency) and if any currency is legal, then, gold will compete against, say, energy currency and even currencies like the Euro or the Yuan right here in the good ole' U.S.A.

Gold is fine, or course, the thing about it is; will it be able to compete in a truely free (free from fraud and violence) market (market anarchism) if a more accurate and less costly currency isn't blocked from the competition?

Many well researched and proven competitive forms of currency have rendered gold to be less accurate and more costly in U.S. and world history.

One example is what Ben Franklin described to the British before the Revolutionary War. Another is 'labor notes' invented by Josiah Warren before the Civil War. There are also examples of stamp script used in Germany before WWII.

Lysander Spooner also described A New System of Paper Currency backed by land ownership. The point here is to point out that the Government that governs least governs best (besides the 'government' that does, in fact, manage to keep just ahead of the criminals to lessen the criminal's injuries to innocents) and if Ron Paul is to 'out-law' outlawing honest competition in money markets, then, why push GOLD down the people's throats?

I have a theory that suggests a need to shackle government spending with the GOLD standard; however - why impose that crippling demand on those who would rather not be hamstrung by it?

Does Ron Paul suggest that everyone will abuse their freedom to create and maintain free market currency and become criminal frauds and extortion racketeers just like the Fed is now (without his 'help')?

In this one detail – the critical importance of the gold coinage – I believe lies the key to establishing a new gold standard.
I am reading from the link at the top of this page while I comment. So far the suggested plan to inject the U.S. with a Gold Standard does not 'bar' competition in currency, rather, the suggestion is to employ (with tax revenue, involuntary tax as it currently exists) purchasing power to create gold coins and then use those gold coins as 'legal' tender. I believe that this can also work but only if there is no 'legal' incentive to trade gold for imports where (Gresham's law) 'our' currency leaves the country and 'we' can no longer pay taxes with 'legal' tender (gold) because 'we' no longer have any gold (we now have the imported stuff).

If I am not mistaken the problem of gold becoming scarce (and therefore costing more to get) was engineered by people before, during, and after the "Revolutionary War (1776)" as 'legal" paper currency was printed as payments while only 'gold' was accepted as tax payments. No foreign trader wanted the paper in exchange for imports and therefore the gold left 'the people' inspiring the creation of a 'black market' currency called whiskey. That black market currency (whiskey) was soon 'taxed' or 'out-lawed' (it was a competitive currency) where the penalty for failing to pay the 'whiskey tax' (with gold) was jail time (no more ability to earn purchasing power), fines (payable in gold), and forfeiture (loss of the means to earn), which, if you can imagine was the very reason for fighting the so called "revolutionary war" (out with the old bosses and in with the new bosses), so, Shays's Rebellion before "The Constitution" and The Whiskey Rebellion after The Constitution, where, people rebelled against the injustice of taxing people into slavery with a currency pyramid scheme. Paper on one hand and Gold on the other hand is the pyramid scheme and the victims are the tax payers who have to pay taxes with Gold and are paid with paper. The government acts as the check valve between criminals and victims. The government says: You can pay the people with paper (corporations can); however - all taxes must be paid with gold.

I will read on with Ron Paul’s suggestion and I will look for that check valve. What must be in place is a protection for corporations where the people running those corporations can issue their own paper currency for payments and non-corporations are penalized for doing the same thing. See?

If Joe Blow wants to compete in the currency business, then, the government makes that too costly for Joe to compete with license fees (including required license test studies and costs) while a 'company' can hire one agent to pay these 'fees'. The idea is to 'protect' people from the 'counterfeiters' (Joe wanting to print his own currency) whereas, in reality, if Joe prints too much of his paper I.O.U.s, then, no one will want them. On the other hand; if Joe is allowed to print at his own cost (his own cost in reputation) then Joe can get as much 'investment' power (purchasing power) as he is able to freely. If his 'currency' is good, then, he will be able to compete based upon his own merit - not as a 'government' sponsored 'privilege'.

In short the idea is to find out if anyone is out-lawed in the currency business according to the Ron Paul suggestion.
What we must first do is get the coinage into circulation, and then build the political base to lock the government's fiscal folly with golden handcuffs.

I see exactly what I suspected. Ron Paul does envision the shackling of government with a gold standard and I agree with this so long as it does not out-law competition in money markets outside of the 'government' business. The thing about Ron Paul, one must admit, is that he is in with the theives so he knows how to fix them. What about us Joe Blows?

They don't need to agree or even understand the fine points of monetary theory to own gold coins, trade gold coins, or use gold coins to satisfy part of their marginal-utility demand for cash balances.

This is speaking to me. I do not understand those 'theories' since I do understand the facts about costs. The cost principle is a fact - not a theory. I can go on and on about how the Gold Standard (with 'marginal-utility') is very poor when comparing that 'theory' to an energy currency fact, where, the greater the supply of energy currency the greater will be the purchasing power of that currency because the costs of production are reduced by that 'over-supply'. This is counter to the Carl Menger inspired Austrian scarce economic 'theory'. I don't think that Mises was infected with that bug. Anyway; there are more ways to skin a cat than energy currency or a Gold Standard and that is why (as Mises points out) FREE MONEY MARKETS are best (so long as 'free' doesn't mean free to injure innocents by fraud or violence).

I would love to see a purely private, free-market monetary system with any honest manufacturer able to produce coins, as Americans saw in California from 1849 to 1864. There must certainly be no restrictions on the private production of coins, but I believe that getting the US Mint further into the act, producing a gold coinage with some of the mystique of the government, will be useful in the further political stages of monetary reform. Honest money, after all, is a political objective; it is fitting that people should demand honesty from their government, as well as an economic policy that permits individuals to compete honestly. An official coinage that reflects honest bullion weights is a powerful symbol of the gold standard we support.

That is fine so long as Ron Paul doesn't come down with some punishment when an honest manufacturer produced paper currency to be used as paper currency between anyone willing an voluntary partner based upon honest and honorable exchange agreements. If, for example, Ron Pauls suggestion includes a law that punishes anyone manufacturing a 'bill of credit' because (according to his 'theory') he thinks a 'bill of credit' is 'inflationary', the, that is the confession on his part that he is a 'monetary crank' (to use the Rothbardian ad hominem) and a despot. If person A wants to print an I.O.U. and person B accepts it based upon the documented promise written on the I.O.U., then, it isn't any of Ron Paul's damn business.

See?

If Ron Paul wants to shackle government with the restraints of a Gold Standard, then, by all means do so - please. If Ron Paul wants to shackle everyone else with the same 'penalties' for failing to abide by his version of economic theory, then, he is can do so by out-lawing the competition based upon his 'theory' instead of allowing all competition to compete (so long a no one is frauded or violently injured against their knowledge or against their will) in a FREE MONEY MARKET.

If, for example, a law out-laws 'bills of credit', then, there is an obvious fear of the competition and if the justification for out-lawing 'bills of credit' is based upon a 'theory' that suggests that voluntary 'bills of credit' between free traders is 'inflationary' according to the 'theory', then, that is 'future crime' being outlawed by someone who will abuse the power of government to impose a currency monopoly and out- law the competition. It will be the same damn thing under a new false front.

Second, as Mises understood, the Federal Reserve and existing banks have to be kept separate from the remonetization of gold until the progress of popular support is broad and deep enough that special interest lobbying will not pervert the system. By avoiding any use of a dollar denomination on the coins, the Federal Reserve System is automatically kept out of the picture during this developmental period. The dollar denomination is today a monopoly trademark for the Federal Reserve System.

Warren (Equitable Commerce) and Andrews (The Science of Society) illustrate the need to have a standard measurement too. Not having a standard measurement is like a carpenter or machinist measuring stock with an erasable stick or a dial caliper with a blank face. The carpenter makes a mark on the stick and then uses the stick to cut a new piece at the right length. That works for the carpenter. What happens when the carpenter gives the stick to a helper? The helper says things like: "Is this the outside of your mark or the inside of your mark?" The carpenter says: "I don't remember; most of the time I use the inside of the mark."

See?

If currency isn't accurate, then, it costs more. If currency doesn't have a 'scale' that is universal (good for everyone), then, there is a whole lot of room for someone to bend the margins and get more for less because the measurement is ambiguous. That is why frauds want 'fiat' currency. That is not a universal attack on any paper currency. Paper currency can be useful, certainly, and it can be standardized based upon THE STANDARD. Gold can be the standard. I prefer to make the standard a NEWTON. That is my idea concerning Energy currency. How long will it take for anyone to adopt my idea? How much time is left before the neo-cons destroy the Earth?

The choice for advocates of a gold-coin monetary system, therefore, is straightforward: either we move ahead with a program for US gold coins denominated by weight, with no face value in terms of dollars – thereby starting the transition period immediately – or we sit on our hands, perhaps for decades, debating the fine points of banking theory, until the paper money system collapses around us. Even then, it is not obvious that the collapse of the paper money system would bring about the political pressure necessary to restore a gold standard. We might end up with controls on wages, prices, credit, and exchange controls instead of a gold-coin standard.

We are on the same page here - again. It makes no sense to divide actions against the most horrible criminals who have infected the human species since time began, so, find an agreeable defensive plan and go with it. So far I have not seen the killer where Ron Paul out-laws the competition in Money Markets, rather, his 'nationalism' intends to strengthen this thing called The U.S.A. in competition with other 'countries' by creating a standard by which economic trade can measure economic trade. A voluntary standard is preferred over an enforced one; however - I'm not in a position of power to do either and I know, for a fact, that a standard of measure is economically much more powerful than what happens without one. The power of falsehood is unleashed without a standard of economic measure and human beings really need to know this fact sooner rather than too late.

So long as the conversion agency performed its role, it would also be impossible for the Federal Reserve System to produce a monetary inflation because the conversion agency, which would be completely separate from the government's banking activities, would be engaged in the process of absorbing excess dollars from circulation, in exchange for the troy-ounce coins that it issues. If the Federal Reserve made the opposite mistake, as it has often done in the past, of overly restricting the money supply, the market could always sell coins to the conversion agency to obtain any dollars demanded. A precise balance would be achieved between the general public's demand for money in the form of coin and its demand in the form of bank notes or deposit accounts with banks by the existence of the conversion agency as something separate from the Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul talks about Gresham's Law and please don't get too confused about that because it doesn't need to be so confusing. If you print your own money (think about a 'time card' where you punch in and out at work) and your fellow employee prints his own money (he punches the same clock) and both of you are turning in your money to an employer, then, which one is better than the other?

Think about that awhile. You punch the time clock and your fellow employee punches the time clock. You both turn in a card (money) to an employer.

Which money does your employer accept and which does your employer reject (supposing, of course, that the employer can only take one and not two time cards)?

Well...this is too easy really. The employer will take the one he wants to keep and the employer will reject the one he doesn't want no matter what is written on the card. That is the point.

That is precisely the point and don't let anyone else tell you different - please. The confusion of Gresham's Law is confusing on purpose so that someone has the power to reject what he doesn't want and accept what he does want based upon an arbitrary decision on his part. The fix is accurate measuring and reductions of costs.

Go back to the time cards and see this clearly.

What happens if you produce twice as much in the same amount of time as your co-worker and you get back to the same situation where you and your fellow employee are turning in the same time card (currency).

You also know that your fellow employee has someone else punch is time clock in before he arrives at work late. You also know that the fellow-employee spent half his day under the employers desk if you know what I mean.

Your time card is good. Your fellow employee's time card is bad.

Now tell me how Gresham's Law works?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. The benefit of a standard measure is a time clock that is honest and universal to all. On the time card, with good, accurate, and cost-less currency would be all the information required for accurate exchanges - not just time.

One more point may help brighten the idea bulb over the head. If things move along as the are and human labor becomes more and more valuable because fewer and fewer people MUST work, then, the tables will turn and know this or trust this now just for your own sake and only to peek ahead and see the possibilities.

Take the same time clock scenario above and imagine 5 employers knocking on your door looking for someone, anyone, to do some work. The same 5 employers are knocking on your fellow workers door (the one under the desk).

You decline to work today because you want to see what happens when your fellow worker spends some time at his new job. Here is the thing:

When the work isn't done by your fellow worker, then, the employers return to your door. You earn your living because you are the genuine article - you are not fake.

Gresham's law is this:

Fake shit is forced and sold (false advertising) into a state of value that does not exist without the lies and without the violence. Strip away the lies and the violence and there isn't any Gresham's law because people are armed with the knowledge of what is genuine and what is NOT.

See?

The fact that the troy ounce of gold is well defined and the paper dollar has no fixed referent at all should be made the focus of continued education and debate, just as we are now doing.

That is a reference to the Federal Reserve paper dollar (inaccurate money).

The task at hand, therefore, is to remove every roadblock to the realization of the will of the majority. The sentiment for gold must be mobilized. The question is no longer "Why do we need a gold standard?" but "How do we get it enacted?" To restore the gold standard to its central role in our system of constitutional government, we must lead a second kind of American revolution, a popular movement for honest money.

Again - that was an old article and now is now. There isn't any mention of road blocking the creation of paper currency by anyone if someone wants to give it a try. The check valve of gold on the government would then cause the government to spend only as much as it receives like cutting up its credit card. I think a big problem with that plan is the number of people in government who depend upon that credit card to live at the expense of their victims - for nothing in return. People who have grown accustomed as parasites will fight against that plan. People really aren’t stupid.

People who earn their living will see the value in it and the question remains to be answered as to their level of support for it.

By no means can my support for this plan be synonymous with support for any punishment perpetrated against people creating and maintaining a more accurate and less costly currency voluntarily traded between welcome individuals where no innocent people are inured for profit.

That last statement does not apply to the parasitic criminals who will certainly see FREE MONEY MARKETS as an injury to their current flow of purchasing power from those who earn it.

Last edited on Sun Jan 20th, 2008 11:55 am by Joe Kelley

Quote

Posted: Mon Jan 21st, 2008 05:10 am

Quote

25^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.garynorth.com/public/2963.cfm

I read it (most of it) and I have to say BULSHIT.

The capitalists are arming up to defeat the socialists.

Why?

Why not fight the criminals?

Why do people ignore the facts?

If all the Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich supporters began to CO-operate rather than fight each other, then, the criminals will be less powerful EXPONENTIALLY.

Gary North likens the political campaign to Paine’s Crisis and I too see this; however – the Crisis starts when the criminals are no longer in power not before. The current situation is more like the days leading up to 1776 before the war starts when the British Royal power still held favor and control across the pond.

Suggesting that the Crisis has started is like a little girl throwing stones at a tank and claiming that War has started. The criminals won’t bother wasting the ammo.

The REAL chore (the crisis) will be when a non-establishment (legal criminal) is elected into office and the criminals will treat that elected official the same as any other threat; the war will then be on.

For wall we know Ron Paul has already be bought, extorted, threatened, or compromised on some manner. This is why the POWER of the non-criminal working and producing (including business owners, managers, and others who earn and produce a living) force (POWER) must set aside PARTY politics and join forces to COUNTER the establishments freak show.

Come on Gary! You must know that this whole ‘debate’ (election) buffoonery is a farce on purpose. It is a false front. WHY NOT CONDUCT A REAL DEBATE?

Get all the Ron Paul people and all the Dennis Kucinich people and all the Mike Gravel people to invite all the other candidates to a live, real, open, and professional DEBATE and invite any broadcast medium WORLD WIDE to cover the event.

Why wait for the criminals to DICTATE the progress whereby THEY LOSE POWER. It isn’t going to happen.

Forget about it

The power is there to utilize and it is in the people where it always will be until there are no more people.

It is past time to bury the old party politics and get down to the business of throwing the rascals out for good.

The Crisis will start after Election Day and only IF the legal criminals are throw out of POWER.

They know it. Why is this so hard to see?

Quote

Posted: Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 09:32 am

Quote

26^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNXP1djL27A

No mention of Mike Gravel "Follow the Money".

Quote

Posted: Sun Jan 27th, 2008 03:58 pm

Quote

27^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EqvzXQLPtMU&feature=related

Last edited on Sun Jan 27th, 2008 04:00 pm by Joe Kelley

Quote

Posted: Tue Jan 29th, 2008 03:01 pm

Quote

28^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/brimelow3.html

Everyone has heard of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_Law]Gresham's law,[/url] but practically no one understands it. Queen Elizabeth I's financial adviser was talking about a situation where two monies exchange at a rate fixed by law – for example, if both are legal tender and must be accepted in discharge of debt. Under these circumstances, people will try to pass on the "bad" money – the money whose value is suspect, either because of debasement or overissue – and hoard the money that's "good." But if the rate of exchange between the monies is free to fluctuate, it is the debauched currency that will depreciate and be driven out.

Quote

Posted: Wed Jan 30th, 2008 06:08 pm

Quote

29^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19243.htm
Libertarians preach the morality of the market, and socialists preach the morality of the state. Those convinced of the market’s morality want de-regulation; those convinced of the state’s morality want regulation.

On what planet?

Why make things harder than they really can be perceived? I am going to link and quote someone who defined ‘socialism’ in 1850 or so and there was no mention of morality of The State. Please note that someone is reaping the rewards earned when divisions are created out of falsehood.

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm
What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all.
Name calling is a function of pre-judgment, so…, why do it? Why, for example, does someone blame ‘socialists’ for this moral justification of The State?

My answer is this:

“every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.” Carl Menger (1840 -1921)

The 'socialists' are the bad guys according to the 'capitalists', or so the story goes, meanwhile the crimnals laugh all the way to the bank.

Quote

Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 12:49 pm

Quote

30^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.lewrockwell.com/perry/perry40.html

Quote

Posted: Sat Feb 16th, 2008 11:57 am

Quote

31^st Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

I am going to cut and paste from here:

http://www.restoretherepublic.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,27/func,view/id,863/catid,34/limit,6/limitstart,6/

Welcome,

My introduction here may appear to be odd; bear with me - please.

Experience suggests to me this type of introduction before moving onto the main purpose of this current effort. In case history repeats itself the thread here will generate unwelcome text including but not limited to Straw-Men, Hyperbole, Projection/Transference, and other types of psychological/political falsehoods; therefore – watch the first strike and know it will be pointed out by me as accurately as I can possibly identify it (and defend as this ‘welcome’ intends).

Call me a ‘conspiracy theorists’ and know my intent from moment one.

Currency is currently inaccurate and fraudulent to a point of extreme criminality on the part of the producers, maintainers, and infected individuals involved who just so happen to receive the lion’s share of purchasing power flowing to them from their victims.

The fix is very simple and safe.

People merely need to demand more accurate currency, and we are, leading to the production and maintenance of more accurate currency which is, in fact, cost-less.

I contend, on this point, to expose the fallacy of ‘legal tender’ laws whereby competitive currencies are outlawed (excluded, taxed, levied, or otherwise crippled by law) including any law whereby involuntary taxes must be paid in Gold.

To concentrate upon the negative, in defense of the positive, is not my purpose here and now.

Allow me to offer a simplified version of what can be in the effort to back up my claim of positive reinforcement concerning my professed economic knowledge.

Suppose a few things happen in order to realize the simplicity of what I am trying to communicate.

Suppose two products become available to any qualified borrower on the planet.

Allow me to qualify the qualification with a simple measure already in existence. A ‘qualified borrower’ is a person who has a high credit rating and a history of repaying all of the principle and all of the interest on currency borrowed.

Hint: I did not say ‘debt’ on purpose. Currency is ‘borrowed’ from some one.

Product number one is a loan of purchasing power of a size equal to the current interest bearing mortgage and this loan does not require any interest payment at all.

Product number one pays off the mortgage company debt and allows the user to gain title of his residence in a shorter time period at the same monthly payment rate or lower the monthly payment rate and change the duration of the loan.

The entity offering the loan (person or group of persons working together to offer the loan) cannot afford to give this service away; however – the costs of running the business is meant to be realized with the next product.

The first product is meant to gain market share.

Product two is offered to the same people (qualified people) at one percent interest. Product two is a loan of purchasing power equivalent to whatever the borrower wants to purchase if the purchase is invested in alternate (other than petroleum) energy production and use.

Example:

Person A uses his savings in mortgage interest (he pays less per month for 30 years) to pay off a new Solar Panel loan whereby person A begins creating accurate currency from the Sun (electric current). Person A also borrows enough purchasing power to afford a new electric car; hence – no more utility bill and no more gasoline bill.

Since the interest on the second loan is one percent the net gain for the borrower is positive. The cost of the home mortgage loan is merely the principle (no interest and thereby saving nearly the entire cost of the home since mortgage interest can easily amount to double the home cost) and the cost of the Solar Panels including the interest on the loan (one percent) is less than the price (at current rates) of the electricity produced by those Solar Panels (even if only one Solar Panel is purchased). The savings on gasoline (at current prices) pays for the car during its lifetime since Solar Panels generate more POWER than the cost of the Solar Panels – see this clearly.

The entity offering the accounting process (the loan) gains one percent on every sale of product number two, so, do the numbers.

How much does it COST to allow a limited liability corporate nation state to produce and maintain a monopoly on our preferred currency?

Do the numbers.

I can explain in more detail if someone has an interest in learning.

If not, then, please consider ignoring this thread and this post.

MrRekoj,

I tried to read the whole thing however the effort ran into a general lack of interest. Is it funny how the word ‘interest’ appears in so many ways on the economic/political front?

Example:

What is “National Interest”?

I submit that the definition is not ours so much as it is their interest. No one is allowed to add zeros to their personal accounts at will, spend those units of purchasing power added at will, and do so with impunity perpetually; except certain exceptional people. That is what I mean by ‘them’.

Whenever anyone confuses us with them I am inclined to point out something important concerning that measure. You may wish to do something else. What can I say?

I lost interest in the article because the words parrot the same old story and it is a false story. It is an inaccurate story. It is a half true story so as to inspire interest in those who fail to recognize the other half of the story. Since I know the other half of the accurate story, the whole story, since I at least know more than the author - the fraud fails to work on me.

Well…I’m building myself up without any proof – perhaps. Therefore I will begin to read deeply into the fraud (half truth) and comment on what I see so as to add to this endeavor we pretend to construct (a discussion).

I will quote and comment. My quotes will be fenced like this:

++++++
This is a quote fence.
++++++

Here is the first quote that strikes me (and evaporates my interest in reading on into the falsehood):

+++++++
Leveraging always carries with it the remote possibility of a chain reaction
+++++++

Before I comment upon the above it is vital (in my view) to impart the observation (physical measure of fact) of ‘currency’ as both language and monetary accounting. In other words the quote above IS currency. The quote above IS a support (a leg on a chair) for fraudulent monetary currency no less vital than a Green Back, Treasury Note, Encrypted Digital Account, etc. and furthermore none of these structures are of any value to anyone without actual PEOPLE moving the physical matter (language, monetary units, resource supplies, gold, anything).

Therefore; before replying to the quote (currency) it is worthy of comment (remarkable) to point out how none of this can be interesting (valuable) without PEOPLE. In other words; if anyone (a person) follows the money (including language) the END will terminate at another PERSON.

+++++++
Leveraging always carries with it the remote possibility of a chain reaction
+++++++

My comment is a question first followed by some possible answers to be considered (if someone has an interest) for validity. Why, and who, invented the word ‘leverage’ when, in fact, the actual phenomenon described is extortion? In other words; why paint a half true picture when the whole truth empowers PEOPLE with accurate knowledge?

Possible answer – in order to get away with torture and mass murder (or leveraging) there must be a false front in place to divert interest away from the crimes currently being committed so as to perpetuate crime on into the foreseeable future.

An argument can arise from this simple comment concerning one simple unit of currency (language) whereby my subjective measure ‘smells a rat’ and the author (and reader) may simply let that one slide (insignificance). The argument divides my interest and the reader’s interest away from a common interest in accurate communication. In other words; we cannot get past a fundamental question concerning currency. I say; it must be accurate or it is worthless to me. The argument may say (I can only parrot past experience with ‘the argument’); currency does not have anything to do with accuracy.

I see the need to drop this endeavor right here because the gap between reality and fantasy starts right here and can only widen from here on unless there is confirmation from the reader of an interest in accurate currency (language and monetary); if no expressed interest is published from this point acknowledging an interest in accurate currency, then, the obvious assumption to be concluded (without an actual confession) is that the reader is interested in inaccurate currency. I am inclined to point out, again, the need to be accurate. Why call it an interest in ‘inaccurate currency’ when the more accurate term is ‘extortion’?

I will close this effort with a little history lesson. Way back during my early days of investigating life’s mysteries (before Waco) I came upon a fellow traveler who supposedly occupied a seat in the Federal House of Representatives. I found that to be unbelievable at the time since the currency being transferred from that person (in the form of newsgroup publications) were exposing the half truths propagated by the Federal STATE (I will not use the term ‘government’ to describe criminal extortion on purpose – I may slip up from time to time) and that person’s name was Ron Paul.

Since then (after Waco) my efforts to solve the mystery (why are legal criminals torturing and mass murdering with impunity) focused on economy and specifically Ludwig Von Mises on one side (Conservative) with Josiah Warren (Liberal) on the other side and both advocated Currency Market Anarchism ( Free Banking ) where the terminology did not agree specifically; however – the divergent labels described the same physical reality.

Now; the history lesson is brief and to the point. I went to a Financial Markets Conference (paid for admission) after running for congress as a libertarian with the objective of gaining answers concerning specific questions.

Upon arrival I viewed a basket and a solicitation. The solicitation requested questions to be asked of the panel. I filled the basket with questions including (not verbatim since none of my questions were tabled) but not limited to questions concerning accurate currency and the competitive advantage in place as a result of the open (free) market phenomenon called “The Internet”.

The ‘Panel’ (it is recorded on audio tape at the Mises web page) members (I don’t remember which one) alluded to ‘the hard questions’ to be answered ‘tomorrow’ and tomorrow never arrived.

I heard Ron Paul speak and in particular I heard mention a desire to support the troops by bringing them home. That was great! I didn’t however receive any answers to my questions. My questions were effectively censored.

My questions continued to be censored at the Mises Forum (and the whole sordid business remains recorded on their web site) where any exposure of inaccurate currency (anything half-true including language) was met with abuse, name calling, misdirection, and all types of political machinations. Eventually my I.P. was removed.

I am not a stranger to economic/political activity. I am not an agent provocateur for anyone, for profit, on purpose. I am an independent person who has an interest in liberty and my efforts on this path have acquired (as stated in my first post) practical knowledge.

If anyone has anything to add (including criticism) to the proposed illumination of the PROBLEM with the illustrated SOLUTION, then, add – please.

Two products offered into the FREE BANKING market illustrate the extortion racket by comparing the pyramid scheme with the OPPOSITE like night is compared to day.

No interest mortgage loans to qualified individuals are product number one.

Product two consists of cost earning loans (low interest charged to cover costs of accurate accounting) to qualified individuals who use the currency to create more POWER.

If you do not see the wisdom, then, I can explain it. If you see the folly, then, expose it. If you expect to censor me with inaccurate currency, then, expect an effective defense. My censorship will be accomplished by deception. The censor can hardly afford to publish the reason. What would it be?

Removed for spreading accurate currency?

Accurate currency is the stake that kills the vampire. Those who fear it confess.

Does that make sense or do I speak a foreign language? Should I climb aboard the effort that comes up with words like “leverage” in the effort to disguise extortion, which, by the way has grown to a point whereby torture and mass murder is a lucrative investment.

I don’t think it will ever be too late to reinvest in liberty and I know how to do it. It is easy once the other half of the truth is visible.

Last edited on Sat Feb 16th, 2008 12:14 pm by Joe Kelley

Quote

Posted: Sat Feb 16th, 2008 12:19 pm

Quote

32^nd Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul434.html
Before I read the above I will make a comment.

Ron Paul has prescribed a march on Washington.

Right now I am working on a bid for a congressional seat (40th district California) with little hope of getting out of the house. In other words; my wife is nearly traumatized by the idea.

A step back in time may suffice to illustrate the interest in keeping me home (my wife’s perspective). After Waco a person by the name of Linda Thomson began a prescribed march on Washington (The Capital). I was ready to go. My wife and other considerations inspired an interest in staying home (I later ran for congress instead).

Competition in currency can be seen easily as a race to the top as competitors vie for greater accuracy (something that will sell itself) and lower cost (something that will sell itself) in any market having a genuine demand.

Example (I pick this example for a reason):

Suppose two competitive commercials (one after the other) showed up at half time during this last Super Bowl.

Commercial A was a Gun Control commercial put up by, say, AIPAC (or some other common investor investing in all three leading presidential candidates according to ‘the polls’).

Hold on for a commercial break (before I continue onto commercial number two):

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/index.php

Check out that poll (I’ve been tracking it for some time - look here):

http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10922&whichpage=1

Commercial B was an Armed March on The Capital commercial (as a parody not as a serious NEED) produced by reasonable people (such as, say, JPFO).

Here is some recent data that could have been included in the competitive commercial being supposed now:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/perry/perry40.html

The Super Bowl illustration intends to measure the relative POWER of competitive currencies (not limited to monetary or pecuniary currency = accounting currencies).
In other words the competition against true, accurate, and useful (to all rather than only useful to legal criminals imposing a false currency – for their won profit) currency is currently POWERFUL.

People will entertain an armed march on the capital as readily as people will entertain Free Money Markets. It is, if you can see it, the same thing. Both rely upon TRUST.

Do you trust your fortune, your life, and your liberty to be secured by anyone other than your own damn self?

If the answer is affirmative, then, you do, in fact, get what you deserve.

Or

If I answer in the affirmative, then, I do, in fact, get what I deserve.

I will now read the message from someone who is gaining or reinforcing a trust I have already gained albeit a reserved one.

Last edited on Sat Feb 16th, 2008 12:19 pm by Joe Kelley

Quote

Posted: Sat Feb 16th, 2008 12:21 pm

Quote

33^rd Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul434.html

++++++++++
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

Quote

Posted: Sat Feb 16th, 2008 12:22 pm

Quote

34^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

++++++++
In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham's Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king's coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight. (Ron Paul)
++++++++

Anyone,

There is, in fact, a revolution on the march. People are apt to miss it as people are led to focus upon the self-fulfilling prophetic Dooms Day Parade (on into Iran) as the Dollar Hegemony makes its last stand. My guess (as I trust it to be) is that Ron Paul is leading that revolution as best he can and my proof is quoted above.

Those words quoted above stab the legal criminals in their hearts and those words are spoken in their own HOUSE. It is not The People’s House now even if it once was way back in our history. The power of those words may not ignite the accumulated pressure of oxygenated public conscience (a fuel of moral outrage) as it should if only logic and common sense could prevail again. Then again – there is hope. Whatever does happen in these coming months leading to the new leadership it will remain a potential moral and prosperous victory for posterity because, as those words speak, the cat is literally out of the bag.

I’ve been warned of the weakness of ‘old sayings’ when endeavoring to communicate accurately; however – my view often returns to those word choices, for some reason, and therefore I repeat them. The age of falsehood, in my view, is waning. People are gaining access to greater supplies of information, with each new connection, going around old established sources, which have formerly blocked access between interested citizens, producers, and consumers of everything (good and bad) flowing through an ever larger global network.

What is true will weather the storm because accurate perception works, produces, and binds honest people voluntarily, on purpose, for mutual profit – and fun.

That last bit I offer back to Ron Paul because that is what he told me (not me personally) i.e. have fun.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are possibilities – if we want them and freedom from falsehood must be earned along the way – with help.

Like this:

+++++++++++
I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies.
+++++++++++

Thanks; that may be sticking your neck out pretty damn far.

Quote

Posted: Sat Feb 16th, 2008 12:22 pm

Quote

35^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

MrRekoj,

Can I propose to discriminate human inter-action (specifically ‘inter’ action since the individual acting alone and without consequence to any other individual has little consequence or bearing on our current, mutual, concerns) into two obvious and opposite types as such:

A. Voluntary
B. Involuntary

I also propose to point out how any pre-meditated action designed to accomplish an involuntary association is further dissected into two obvious and opposite types such as:

A. Offensive (intending to injure innocent people)
B. Defensive (intending to secure against injury to innocent people)

I offer those distinctions in order to answer your first stated concern (from my point of view).

++++++++++
What is the difference between a National Bank and a Central Bank?
++++++++++

My suggestion concerning the accurate answer to the question is to find out what type of inter-action (association) are those labels which may appear on the front of the Bank.

If, for example, both types of Banks are involuntary/offensive types of associations, then, whatever other differences exist between those two banks are insignificant differences as far as I can see. In either case the power commanded by each (due to the involuntary/offensive nature of the association) will be absolute and no amount of lesser power will be able to contain or dilute that power from an external source. In other words the involuntary and offensive BANK will have the power to eliminate any competition at will. The exercise of that power will then depend upon the relative ‘benevolence’ of the people commanding that power. A benevolent dictator will spread the wealth about as compared to, say, an absolute tyrant who would, by definition, keep all for his own and starve, abuse, and enslave every other member of the association – and everyone within reach to the extent of the current STATE of that POWER.

We are considering specifically a power relationship or association, by definition, whenever human action is designed, on purpose, to be an involuntary association. I cannot stress the importance of identifying this design feature enough and I trust that you will not gloss over this distinction lightly. Furthermore there is also the subtle difference between a defensive (involuntary) and an offensive association where the division can become very clearly defined as threats become accurately identified as clear and present or the division can become almost imperceptible during conditions whereby no threat is obvious at all. I feel obligated to also state now that this part of my answer deals only with honest people inter-acting in an open, honest, and accurate manner. I do not intend to confuse the answer at this time with any intent upon the designer, the creator, and the operators of the BANK to disguise the true nature of the BANK behind a false front. In other words an involuntary and aggressive human association (naked oppression/slavery/coercion/ etc.) may be advertised as a voluntary association. That needs to be set aside for now to inspect the actual associations which are involuntary and aggressive where everyone involved are aware of the nature of the association.

A few tests may suffice to test the nature of the association and in the case of American History it may help to pick out specific times when these specific types of Banks existed (National and Central Banks).

Test one:

Can anyone within the jurisdiction of the BANK create a competitive currency for use by anyone without any prescribed penalty whatsoever?

If the answer is no, then, I suggest that the association is involuntary. In other words the BANK has the power to eliminate the competition and having that power will eliminate the competition even if the operators of the BANK are benevolent dictators.

I also propose that the BANK (if it starts out defensive) will become offensive. In other words; even if the BANK is created to finance (involuntary association) the power to defend against aggressive attack by another power, even so, it will develop into an aggressive consumer of as yet un-associated individuals. The nature of involuntary associations empowers the stronger to gain strength at the expense of the weaker and that is the natural flow of power resulting from involuntary associations – even when they begin as benevolent involuntary associations whereby the design is defensive.

Certainly the logic of creating the involuntary association when a powerful enemy is invading, torturing, and mass murdering fellow associates (not yet consumed by the involuntary association) is inspired by the destruction. People may demand from each other a rigid conformity or UNION of power whereby anyone not so inclined are seen as ‘aiding’ the enemy. Even so; if Thomas Paine’s Crisis is read there are ways around that impetus to degrade civilization with involuntary enforcement by law (institutionalized).

Perhaps I’ve gone too far in this response. I am patient.

Quote

Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2008 10:06 am

Quote

36^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXCkgz1Y-Bk&feature=related

Note: The censorship routine begins as a part of the process. Of many possible candidates there are legitimate efforts to narrow down the possibilities (the opposite would be everyone voting for everyone).

Mike Gravel was the first person to be included and then censored from the presidential candidates who qualified to be on the ballot (party ballot) as seen from the two party ONLY system media. In other words; no one spoke up about censorship against third party candidates during the major media debates.

However – a new media (internet) offers a connection between people who demand a legitimate election process and candidates. That media has linked many people together with the POWER to pool resources in defense of LIBERTY or for any other reason. The ones who intend to plan out and carry through with the defense of LIBERTY ought to build a bigger tent, so to speak, and avoid becoming that which is abhorrent (censoring legitimate candidates).

Example: Ron Paul censors Dennis Kucinich by not supporting Impeachment (purely party politics). Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich censure Mike Gravel as the first candidate (of the two party SYSTEM) to be censored by the Major Media (removed from the debates).

Quote

Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2008 06:49 pm

Quote

37^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

http://www.lewrockwell.com/case/case13.html

It is with the restrictive, inequitable, and unequal intent of these laws that we must deal. Now, either we agree with Bastiat, "…that they produce scarcity or we do not admit it. If we do admit it, we thereby confess that they inflict upon the people all the harm that they can do. If we do not admit it, then we deny that they limit the supply of goods and raise their prices..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/case/case24.html

You see their money was REAL: it had inherent value. They could eat it, wear it, or trade it for other needed goods or services. As long as they had enough for their family, everything else could be "spent," they just needed to know where to begin the bartering process. Thus the shekel became nothing more than the standard, an example of worth not the absolute value of a product.

Quote

Posted: Thu Feb 21st, 2008 08:14 am

Quote

38^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

MrRekoj,

I have to ask the next question because it is the right thing to do at this time according to my sense of right and wrong.

Are you playing some kind of mind game with me?

Example:

Why preface your response with a reference to running in circles; where someone or everyone is speaking of ideas with no reference to reality and then go on to describe some imaginary argument?

If you assume that my words express a preference for The Articles of Confederation over The Constitution, then, you do so with a measure of liberty that steps over specific points of reality as if those physical properties are meaningless. Then your progress of logic dives into a speculative venture of such vague generality as to almost leave reality aside in favor of some fancy. I am referring to your comparison between what may be called ‘low’ finance and what might be called ‘high’ finance.

When I see this type of report in response to something I wrote I find a few things to be important enough to point out as above and onward:

A. The Articles of Confederation were usurped by the people who pushed through and later enforced The Constitution.

B. My preferences will always favor Liberty over despotism and therefore your assumption is correct since The Articles of Confederation was a voluntary association of Sovereign States while The Constitution is a Limited Liability Contract incorporating an imaginary or false UNION of separate States into a merged conglomerate of incorporated legal entities run by legal criminals who have no moral conscience beyond that which is driven by greed.

C. “The Government” is an imaginary entity if the people are led to believe that “The Government” is a ‘self’ and therefore must ‘pay for itself’ and this type of thinking is exactly how legal criminals falsify their crimes on into perpetuity.

D. Government by the people figure out how to finance their government and they can as easily do so with or without involuntary servitude no matter how much falsehood suggests otherwise. In other words; the involuntary servitude ‘contract’ is a confidence scheme or it is naked extortion depending largely upon how duped the victims can be had – for the lowest possible expense – paid for ‘by the people’ who produce valuables (purchasing power).

E. If someone is stepping into the arena of fantasy, then, how about naming names rather than keeping me on the edge of my seat, since, there are two of us here in this discussion and one of us is entertaining the idea that both of us are reasonable people who command accurate perception and the ability to transfer that accurate perception to other people accurately.

F. A Straw-Man argument is one whereby the person doing the arguing has no intention of communicating anything accurately, rather, the idea behind the construction of a man of straw is to create an imaginary and weak opponent so as to destroy that weak opponent is a game of one up man ship or some other derivative of Hegelism.

G. I do not accept or tolerate being the butt of someone’s joke (if that is what is being done here).

Suppose that the truth is somewhere between the two perspectives being represented here within this discussion and someone other than these two participants where to create some kind of measure to illustrate how that demarcation is occurring in time and space.

The time is early 2008 and the space is a hard drive on some network node. The text appears to anyone on the planet earth who happens upon it for their own personal judgment.

The ‘side’ I intend to occupy is the one where people figure out how to nurture voluntary associations and on that side I suggest strongly that it will be the side capable of producing the most advanced civilization ever imagined by any human being since the masters and slaves left, on that side, will only be the ones who love to be masters and enjoy slavery. Those remaining masters will either find willing slaves or they will have none. Those remaining slaves will find willing masters or they too will have none, or, these types of people will find each other on the other side.

I cannot speak for those people who want the involuntary associations and I can hardly imagine what twisted logic occurs in their minds when they fabricate such things into existence. My guesses fail every time and therefore those types of people must speak for themselves or they must fabricate some puppet of some kind to work some kind of ventriloquist act. I reject being a part of that type of association.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I can speak for the other side and please know how I personally abhor argument since finding agreement is so much more, well, voluntary.

Suppose the other side imagines a need to enforce an involuntary tax upon everyone with the possible exception of the tax collecting agents who receive the tax and are therefore exempt from having to pay the tax. Note how I am speaking in terms of physical reality rather than imagining into existence some method of both paying and receiving at once as if both paying and receiving at once were possible. An agent of an involuntary association receiving purchasing power or valuables of any form by that involuntary means are people and people who earn their living by involuntary means. I cannot see this ‘reality’ otherwise and therefore, and again, I am a poor person in this endeavor to imagine what the other side thinks.

Suppose the other side does manage to enforce a flow of wealth from those who earn it to those who manage to enforce this flow of wealth. Now the people who earn the wealth have less and now the people who enforce the flow have more. That is called a wealth redistribution scheme. It is also a pyramid scheme. The reason why it is called a pyramid scheme happens to be a geometrical relationship and economic fact because the number of people creating the power to purchase (wealth) must occupy the larger and more numerous station within this fabricated reality (involuntary association) while the less numerous receivers of this wealth must occupy the higher (or more powerful) geometric ‘sides’ of the pyramid, and, the top is where the buck stops. The top is the final say on what is or is not real in this fabricated reality.

I have to admit that my version of the other side must be inaccurate since I have to guess at what kind of side is imagined into being. My perspective is based only on empirical evidence and personal experience. I cannot actually justify any notion of planning for and then assembling the necessary components required to construct an involuntary association. In my view the cost is prohibitive.

I prefer to speak for the other side where voluntary associations manage without these Straw-Men or whatever is meant by this:

+++++++++++++
provide for the general welfare of all the citizens of the nation
+++++++++++++

On my side there may be one other entity that could provide for the general welfare of all the citizens and that God is not The Nation; the people actually have to work on my side or the people have to depend upon charity – or God. On my side there isn’t some imaginary benevolent dictator who can provide ‘welfare’ to those who can’t or won’t work. On my side people learn to take care of other people because no one forces people to pay an involuntary tax to no one – not even a Straw-Man.

EVER

Yours truly,

Joe

Quote

Posted: Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 11:02 am

Quote

39^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

+++++++++++
That last sentence will probably remain a point of contention for the moment.
+++++++++++

MrRekoj,

If a contention exists from my view I will speak about it. My contention is over ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ means of accomplishing anything. If the people of this land demand a lessening of compulsory participation we will get it. That is the path to prosperity and it is the only path in that direction. The involuntary path goes the other way.

You can gloss over my proposed fix and ignore it and then suggest by innuendo that one of us is in fantasy land. That is OK by me so long as you acknowledge the consequences of that type of tactic. Now I am interested in reading your viewpoint as it flows through this topic on currency. You are certainly welcome here by me and, as far as I know, everyone else involved.

I will comment as I read; because that is how I work forums.

++++++++
This would restore our constitutional provisions defining our financial system as based upon a CREDIT system, rather than a MONETARY system. *
++++++++

I do not contend with that viewpoint as I see it. I would rewrite the sentence as such:

A system of currency based upon a good credit history will empower honest productive people to be able to produce a much greater prosperity than a system based upon fraud, debt, punishment, and violence.

Which sentence is more contentious to you?

My contention merely intends to point out where the falsehoods appear to surface in your sentence. I do not prescribe to the notion that a piece of paper can dictate the system I support especially when the dictation is ambiguous (rather than precise).

I will read on (and look for the explanation for: *).

+++++++++++
Is Hamilton completely wrong or merely his version of a national bank?
+++++++++++

Much can be invented, tried, and perfected concerning currency production and use. The point is: Who profits from this venture?

If you do not see that point, then, you should.

Stepping from that point to the next point it may become more obvious why the first point is so important to see. The second point is: Who cannot profit from currency production and use.

What those two points manage to accomplish is something called COMPETITION.

Any proponent of a favorite SYSTEM of currency can be asked a very simple question if the person asking really wants to know if the proponent is out to make a killing or, on the other hand, if the proponent is offering something equitable.

Here is where important point number three arrives for anyone to notice or ignore. When one power manages to gain power that power can over-power all other lesser powers at will. Equity in commerce removes that power to gain power at the expense of lesser powers. Is it equitable?

You, or anyone, can ignore that last paragraph at your own cost and if you do I suspect that the cost will become very high the longer it is ignored.

You now have three points to ponder if you so choose.

1. Who profits?
2. Who cannot profit (as a result of the proposed ‘fix’)?
3. Competition (if it is FREE of fraud and violence, it will work) increases production and lowers costs
4. Equity removes the power to exploit the weak
5. DO NOT CONFUSE EQUITY WITH EQUALITY

I added point 5 just in case someone might make that terrible mistake. I do not suggest that you are or can be guilty of making that mistake. There are other readers hitting on this thread.

I have no personal problem with a voluntary National Bank competing with a voluntary STATE BANK equitably. The one who provides the most accurate currency at the lowest cost will gain market share and I suspect that the one who provides a less accurate currency at a higher cost will have it’s share of a much smaller market (where criminals trade). I contend with one excluding the other from the FREE CURRENCY MARKET, by law, on purpose, for profit, for access to the exploited who were formerly free people before the monopoly currency fraud.

I will read on:

++++++++++++
From what I understood him to be saying, the basis for an honest credit system is based around production, or more precisely an agro-industrial-science driven economy void of usury.
++++++++++++

I can offer to you what works very well for me when confronting any confusion: Think in terms of voluntary and involuntary associations. When you do that the whole thing becomes very clear.

Take the term ‘usury’ for example. In an involuntary association the term is merely a false front for crime and specifically the crime of extortion. Set that aside for a moment and see the beauty of how the voluntary association works – for a moment.

“Usury” in a voluntary association could very well be a ‘loan shark’ who intends to make money from people who have a very bad history of credit. This is akin to a long shot at the race track or betting on snake eyes in craps. Why would anyone loan money to a poor credit risk with a very bad credit history?

Answer: To profit.

The ‘interest’ charged to a bad credit risk is based upon an average cost or ‘odds’ of receiving the principle back from that investment. If the borrower has an extremely bad credit history, then, the calculation spits out a very high interest rate.

Now look at the numbers to see what I am trying to impart to you.

INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION:

A 20 percent interest rate in an involuntary association can be enforced upon honest people with good credit ratings (a long history of paying back every single loan plus large interest COSTS) because the market is ‘captive’ and because the competition is out-side the law.

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION:

A 20 percent interest rate charged only to those who can’t find anyone willing to loan them money BECAUSE they have a long history of failing to return the value borrowed. This is OPPOSITE the JUSTIFICATION used in the involuntary association. The BAD risk EARNS his "USURY" in a voluntary association and in an involuntary association everyone is 'collectively' punished for the actions of the BAD RISKS.

One is right and the other is wrong (not left and right).

See?

The justification to increase interest rates (in modern ‘Austrian Economics’) is such that the supply of currency ‘deflates’ to an amount that reaches scarcity. Less currency means a higher 'price' can be had. The justification for 'inflating' is merely the same coin on a differnt side where the monopoly supplier increases the supply to lower the cost (more and more currency and less and less 'price'). Why be so confused?

Currency is a POWER product. Currency is not a consumable or perishable product (unless it is designed as such and we can discuss ‘stamp script’ if you like).

Look this way:

Anyone can use the power of currency to increase production of valuable things. If those people get currency as needed at the lowest cost (interest) then production of valuable things increases in proportion to how much can be produced by that access to cost-less currency. Why would anyone want to limit that flow of currency?

Answer: Scarcity increases price.

People who monopolize POWER production cannot jack up the price if POWER is abundant.

If this is too difficult to see; I can help. Everyone must use their brain or ask questions.

See if you can find error in the following statement:

As power reaches oversupply the cost reaches zero while purchasing power INCREASES because power lowers the costs of production.

I’ve re-written that sentence many times and so far one person has managed to get it.

If you don’t get it; think electricity, food, gasoline, oxygen, or any other POWER product and try the sentence out.

Like this: As electricity reaches oversupply the cost reaches zero while purchasing power increases because electricity lowers the costs of production.

Use motor fuel next and think about how the cost of everything increases when the flow of motor fuel reaches scarcity (under-abundance). I am merely pointing out the opposite: When motor fuel reaches oversupply the cost reaches zero while PURCHASING POWER INCREASES because motor fuel lowers the costs of production FOR EVERYONE (except the exploited ones excluded from the bonanza).

When that last sentence is thought about, perhaps, the ‘knee-jerk’ reaction (conditioned response) will be to think: GLOBAL WARMING.

Try it and let me know how it goes.

+++++++++
I’m asserting that it is the proper role of men to protect themselves from usury and related economic modes premised around that concept, namely that of “free-trade”, but that is another related concept I will save for another day. What say you?
+++++++++

“Free-Trade” can be a false front disguising crime and it can be real.

When it is real (free) it is important to recognize it for what it really is and avoid mistaking it for something false and destructive. There is no free lunch, of course, and to suggest that honest people can be free from criminal fraud and violence as a result of ‘free-trade’ is as disarming and dangerous as suggesting that honest productive people can be free from criminal fraud and violence as we pretend that fraud and violence doesn’t exist, however there really is no way to gain power over the criminals and defend against them if we do not empower ourselves with a accurate and cost-less currency. It will not happen.

If there is one thing the criminals know and require it is false currency (which costs way more than the accurate stuff). If someone can’t explain this simply (as I have done) then they are either dupes or criminals (accessories or active torturing mass murderers).

Perhaps my perspective is too honest?

If that is the belief being constructed by the reader it may be a good time to look in the mirror.

Try your fix out on anyone (National or State Bank) but ask yourself if someone will be excluded from the issue of currency, at will, and why they are excluded. How much does it cost to borrow the currency? Does the currency do its job accurately?

If you can’t answer the last question (some people absolutely refuse to even consider it) then the cat is out of the bag. Either ignorance or falsehood (inaccurate on purpose) is the cat and the bag is the false front hiding the fact. Only you can find out which of the two options between ignorance and falsehood apply to you.

It is that simple and I say this with the utmost confidence. The proof is proven when anyone complicates currency ON PURPOSE.

Why?

Answer: For PROFIT at the expense of those who are excluded.

Just because I may not write things out in an easy to understand manner does not change liabilities associated with the ignorance and falsehoods existing. It isn’t only me at fault for the confusion.

I have two paths before me. I could try to add more. I am taking a writing course. I could run for congress again (it may be too late). Both paths involve accurate currency at lower costs.

Think about it. Feed back

Quote

Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2008 04:25 pm

Quote

40^th Post

Joe Kelley
Administrator

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

                                                Confusion on Money

Modern industry is currently stuck with confusion on money. This fact causes production costs to increase and therefore purchasing power lowers. People are apt to pass on the costs and the least powerful people lose big. Meanwhile the most powerful people sell short and reap unconscionable benefits as everyone scrambles to make sense of the chaos.

Why? It may come as a surprise to some that the reason why is answered with a simple look on the path that money takes as it travels through the social being. Money starts out one place, goes to the next place, and eventually money returns to the first place and this is why money is called currency. Money currently flows through a loop or circuit. If a problem exists, as it apparently does for some, the likely fix isn’t going to be imagined, constructed, and enforced into being by the people who profit from the chaos. That would be a very unreasonable thing to expect and this realization leads to the actual fix.

It may be under-stating the obvious to say, now, that the reader is ignorant about what I am now going to propose next. This is my way of illustrating the nature of mysterious money. When some of the people know what comes next, those knowledgeable people have power over those who are ignorant about what is next. Add to that premonition power another power and the obvious problem will no longer be a mystery. When someone has the power to make the next thing happen there can be no doubt about knowing what will be the next thing happening. Such is the power the people give up to the people who issue monetary currency. They, the powerful ones, know. We, the power-less, do not know. They profit. We pay. That is the problem, even if you will not see it, it is the problem and therefore the fix is the reverse of that problem. It is that simple.

When people gain the power to issue their own currency, when that actually does happen, the people will profit from that issue and the only ones who will pay will be the current legal criminals who took that power from the people. This is too much knowledge arriving too soon for many people who currently live on our small planet. This knowledge is too powerful for some people and that is why the problem remains to be a problem. That is not going to remain true for long.

Many signs are proving how the change from the old power situation to the new power situation is happening now and one of those signs happens to be too obvious to ignore. I’m speaking of something that everyone knows and everyone must account for every day. The price of oil is going up.

Oil is the stuff that empowers the American Dollar and the people who profit from the issue of the American dollar know this fact even if the people exploited by the American dollar do not know it. Therefore the obvious problem, the currency problem, is reinforced by the oil factor. Too much dependence on oil power is the same problem as over-dependence on the dollar. Eliminate both and the illustrated fix is impossible to miss. I am going to illustrate the fix very soon.

Here is where I illustrate how the problem will be fixed and the problem includes the problem of legal torture and legal mass murder. I hope the reader is not too scared at this time. I trust that the honest people will listen and judge for themselves, even if they are scared. Such is the way things work. The illustration is simple and the reader is encouraged to use a little imagination along with some logical deductions or brain power to see the problem and the fix for what they are and not what we are led to believe by those who have that power. The illustration, once seen, will illuminate much that was previously hidden from view. Don’t despair and prepare for some enlightenment. It won’t hurt unless you are currently invested heavily into torture and mass murder. If you are currently heavily invested into torture and mass murder it stands to reason, to me, that you have already stopped reading.

If the next power having the power to issue new currency offers the people two new products, the fix will be fixed and the legal criminals will all have to find productive work, where they are forced to please their customers, just like every other honest person earning a living, and no one has to hang for their current crimes. The two new products will at first be too simple to take hold and that is a very sad thing to consider from my end since I’ve been there and it was sad at that time. Now I know that the realization will arrive slowly and irreversibly for the reader so my confidence is high and my outlook is positive. The two products will be listed and then I will make a short ending comment. The reader can be powerful from then on. It, my friends of liberty, is a power that only honest people share and it always will be that way.

Product one is a new issue of currency that can be used to pay any tax. The only people who can get this new currency are people who need the currency to pay off an existing mortgage for their home or business. The charge for purchasing this new issue of currency will be the necessity of paying back the currency in full after 15 years or 30 years time. If the customer needs one hundred thousand dollars to pay off his home mortgage it is a requirement to pay all that money back. Here comes the part that will blow the reader away. The new currency will not cost any interest for the borrower who has a long history of good credit up to this point in time. Chew on that awhile.

Product two is another loan that can be used to pay taxes and this second product (another loan) is only available to anyone who will construct or consume renewable energy products such as Solar Panels, Wind Generators, or Electric cars. The loan must be paid back and the charge of this loan is one percent interest on the loan to everyone borrowing the new currency.

Take a break. Have a cup of coffee or a beer. Have a glass of wine. Be happy about it. We are living beings. We earn our living.

Now consider the possibilities and know that the first product will gain a huge market share of all the customers borrowing loans currently floating around this planet earth and therefore the second loan will pay for all the time and energy required to provide these loans since the number of people involved in this new venture will be enormous and know how things work when working with enormous numbers of people paying one percent interest on loans. Do the numbers yourself. The amount of profit is staggering. Do not fear for the provider of these loans. They will do well. They will grow rich on one percent interest. They will not go rich enough to take over the world; not at one percent interest. We will. We will prosper and so will posterity.

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Confusion-on-Money_1

Last edited on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 07:21 pm by Joe Kelley

Quote

Current time is 12:22 pm	Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Summit	Top