| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Copy | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:43 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
In this thread the intention is to employ the scientific method in arriving at a more accurate understanding of monetary currency so as to empower human action designed to supply and maintain a higher quality money supply of monetary currency at the lowest possible cost. The reader is encouraged to participate since discussion is as vital in any voluntary human association as it is vital in science (peer review). The reader is cautioned too as to the current state of my personal understanding of how money works in any social setting; I didn't just now fall off the tuna boat on this topic; so please do not expect to over-power me with your greater knowledge. If the reader has something valuable to add to the effort to know what is a more accurate, higher quality, and lower cost currency (so as to aid in its production, maintenance, and general usage), then please understand that such a valuable addition to the pot of data is not only welcome, but known to be vital. A true application of the scientific method welcomes every source of valid contention to any supposed understanding of reality. The reader is also welcomed into this effort with encouragement to see or to understand the vital nature of this effort, by me, or by anyone who is aware of the vital nature of this effort. In other words: creating and maintaining a higher value currency at a lower cost is one vital process on the road to prosperity for those who are now living and for those who have yet to live. Please consider the opposite path where the creation and maintenance of an increasingly lower value monetary currency has dominated and dictated human torturous and murderous misery, for centuries, due to its exorbitant costs. In essence the topic here aims directly at both the cause of human suffering and the remedy of that unfortunate condition, so far as human beings are empowered to find the cause and affect a remedy. If someone doubts the validity of the perspective above, please consider following the money, it leads to the cause of human misery. Are you in doubt? Please take a moment to use your own brain, just a moment, but first borrow my question for you to answer and for you to answer accurately, or not at all. What would be the point? If the world is in debt, as our authorities tell us often, and that debt has a number on it, an ever increasing number, if that is true, if that is an accurate account of the state of monetary human affairs, then what was done with that money we borrowed and what will be done with that money once it is paid back to the people who once had it but who gave it up for something better? Is the question too hard to answer accurately? How about an illustration? Suppose the money supply, in dollars, is x and the portion of x that is debt is y. Now suppose that someone has loaned this y to someone else. What was purchased and who purchased it? Now suppose that the purchase of that power to purchase was a big waste of power and that big waste of power left no one with anything except this debt stuff. All that is left after the borrowing and the spending is a pile of debt which is now y. Y is then sent back to the loan officers and now they have the power to purchase again. Y, if you remember, is a big number, a colossal number, a doom day number, a scary number, a depressing number, a significantly bad number, a horrible, a torturous, and a murderous number, it is huge. Y will purchase something by someone. What is purchased? Who purchases what is purchased? He who has the power to create this debt does so by purchasing something, what is purchased? Who purchases what is purchased? If the answer is ambiguous, such that the questioner has no power to know the true answer, then, and again, the questioner is asked to follow the money. Following the money leads to the true answer to the question being asked of the people who doubt my claim that the money issue causes human misery, it is the tool abused by the criminals who cause human misery. Focusing on any other part of the cause of human misery, such as the names of the criminals, or the dates of the crimes, are vital things to consider, however the idea here is to know how to remedy the cause of human misery, not to punish anyone. So, if the reader is still reading, (something I've found difficult to measure), I will continue this topic for discussion with an ongoing steam of data in the next series of posts where my intention is to create something similar to a discussion; by linking other examples of data and by commenting on the accuracy of the data linked. Everyone is encouraged to jump in the stream of data with a mind toward improving the issue of legal monetary currency - if possible.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:43 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Next up is a link to a source of data on the money issue, after which there will be quotes and comments, as a form of ongoing discussion between separated viewpoints that do not converge as if one is vinegar and the other is oil. http://www.garynorth.com/public/5115.cfm +++++++++++ He is known as a deflationist: a man who predicts price deflation. Yet he is also an inflationist. Let me provide examples. ++++++++++ That above is a quote from the link above it; and the issue is monetary currency. Gary North and a challenger to Gary North's perspective discuss, in a disconnected way, the issue of monetary currency. One is predicting inflation. One is predicting deflation. Before I dive into that data stream I see an opportunity to clue the reader in on a third perspective, and the third perspective is one that doesn't get much currency. In other words the third perspective is not gaining readership quickly; not from a "major media" point of view. In other words; if you look at how popular the 5 various perspectives are in terms of relative popularity you will find an order similar to this:
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-parable-of-perfect-economy.html The reader has now a handful of data to peruse or gloss over, whatever power is in play on that end of this discussion. For my part I am going to summarize the forces at work here and end this contribution to this topic by that summary. The Federal Reserve currency issue is secretive and therefore ambiguous, who actually knows what it is and how it works? Many people have theories. I can offer mine. Follow the money to the source of it, and in my opinion the effort will accurately identify the worst human criminals ever to pollute the earth and injure the validity of the species human. It is popular, and this can be found on that money trail, because it is backed by powerful stuff like popular falsehood, oil, and military might. The second on the list is to me similar to the antithesis that plagues the gold bugs, akin to the antithesis that plagues the conservatives, plagues the republicans, plagues the nationalists, plagues the monarchists, plagues the capitalists, etc. as those forces vie for favors in the shadow of The Federal Reserve criminals. Did anyone follow the money yet? The third on the list (which may actually be second on the list) is easily understood by me as "The Gold Bugs" (and they confess this label voluntarily). Gold is a very good currency, it isn't the most accurate and it certainly isn't the least expensive. Fourth on the list is a very good example of what can be produced when science is applied to the work of producing and maintaining the best monetary currency i.e. mathematically Perfect currency - tm. Fifth on the list can be illustrated with a few questions and comments. What is the meaning behind the term Petrodollar? Petroleum (not the often repeated falsehood called "fossil fuels") is linked to dollars by the term petrodollar. When someone claims that the dollar is "fiat" currency I can't help but suggest to the claimant (not that the claimant will entertain the suggestion) that the dollar is backed by at least three very powerful commodities. Falsehood Military Might Petroleum The dollar is commodity money. How much do you pay for falsehood? Here is one measure (and that will end this "contribution"): http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:44 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Returning to the effort to contribute to the topic of accurate currency, absent feedback, it appears to me to be a good time to get down to some basic observations concerning what money is, what money does, and what makes one money better than another money in the eyes of the users of money. In order to do that task I am going to fall back onto a chore that was worked out years ago during one of my one-sided discussions on a forum posted to the World at Large - on the net. That work has since been lost, never to be found again, and it was very instructive to me at the time for reasons that may or may not become clear again as I set about rebuilding the illustration. The idea here, as it was then, is to imagine a remote society somewhere as that society begins to employ gold as money and by this effort the idea is to follow the money, its purpose, what it does, and for whom it does what it does in time and in place, as history writes itself. The reader can play the part of the miner who discovers the gold, and the reader can then play the part of the farmer, the banker, the tool maker, and any other worker in the society at large as gold flows through it once Henry, the miner, discovers the gold and begins to mine it. Suppose, if you can, if you will, that the society muddles along without gold as money by exchanging things for things or by some other means that doesn't matter much since the idea is to see the influence of gold as money as it flows through the first time it flows through the remote society. The history of money as gold, a thought experiment, an illustration of base principles: Henry mines the gold and Henry begins to use the gold to buy tools from the tool maker, so as to replenish the worn out tools that are worn out in the work of mining. Henry mines more gold than he needs to mine gold so Henry needs a place to store the excess gold. That place is the first gold bank, and it may be a box at the mouth of the gold mine. The tool maker exchanges his tools for gold because that is all that the gold miner has in exchange for tools. The tool maker can say: "Don't you have anything else you can give me in exchange for my tools? I need food, I need iron, I need wood or coal or something to fuel my furnace, and I need fuel for my transportation, what good is gold?" The gold miner can respond: "The jewel maker needs gold, the watch maker needs gold, the electronics parts maker needs gold, gold is in demand, you can get what you need for the gold you have, the only thing left to do is to figure out how much you get for the gold you have to give." The tool maker may be skeptical so the tool maker speculates on this supposed value of gold. The tool maker is conservative and so the tool maker demands the entire bank of gold for the tools he has for trade. That is the first day on the path of following the money and on that day the rate of exchange is what it is, it is how ever many hours it took the tool maker to make the tools, how ever many costs were expended to make the tools, all that cost was then exchanged in exchange for how ever many costs were expended to fill the gold bank with gold. That was the first exchange rate, the first measure of gold as money in this illustration of the principle forces involved in gold as money. In an effort to avoid ambiguity and to set some standardized beginning point of understanding, so as to measure any variation from that standard point of beginning, the estimate of relative cost during that first exchange of gold as gold was exchanged for tools we or only I can round off the exchange as one weeks worth of gold mining plus all the costs involved during that week in exchange for one weeks worth of tool making plus all the costs involved during that week of tool making. Here there is an important thing to consider in that the tool maker and the miner will meet again, and both will have an intimate understanding concerning the relative value of the tools and the relative value of the gold, and they will have a history of the first exchange rate to compare to the new exchange rate. The gold maker returns to the gold mine and works as hard as he did the week before and in that new week the tools he bought wear out again; however, just suppose, in that week the gold miner stumbled upon a much greater quality vein of gold and this time his gold bank overflowed with gold, the gold bank had to be made bigger to hold 10 times as much gold made in the previous week. Now the gold bank and the gold supply in this social community grow to a potential 10 times larger than it was a week ago. The gold miner, who is also the new banker, has the gold, and the gold miner has the need for tools, food, and other things. Meanwhile the tool maker goes to the steel miner seeking steel, to the farmer seeking food, to the transportation fuel supplier seeking fuel, and in each case the tool maker uses up a portion of the gold to get what the tool maker needs by convincing each new customer of the value of gold as money. The tool maker, just suppose, even hired a tool maker and convinced him of the value of gold as money, to make tools for pay while the tool maker makes gold coins, to sell as money. Now suppose that the week goes buy and the tool maker turned money maker returns to the gold miner seeking another exchange. The tool maker has no gold left, he spent all his gold, spent it on many things, and the tool maker turned money maker now has a gold coin business, a money supply business, with no current supply of the raw material. In a weeks time the tool maker's money business generated many exchanges for gold as money in exchange for a variety of things of various quantities, all of which amount to a new average exchange rate to compare to the first exchange rate at that first use of gold as money one week ago when one weeks supply of gold was traded for one weeks supply of gold mining tools. The tool maker and the miner turned banker meet again. The bank made by the gold miner turned banker is full of the raw material; the money maker has no more raw materials for his money making business. The previous exchange rate was one week worth of tools for one week worth of gold. What is the new exchange rate? Who has the most leverage? What will the two traders agree to do in the banking and the money making business? Will the tool maker turned money maker let the gold miner turned banker know that gold is in very high demand in town due to the tool makers efforts to turn gold into money, to a point where one weeks worth of effort and cost by the miner has paid for food for the tool maker, labor for making tools for the tool maker, fuel for transportation for the tool maker, tools for turning gold into coins, labor for turning gold into coins, and an insurance policy in the form of a few big guys to accompany the tool maker to the weekly exchange of gold for tools at the tool mine; and much more? Suppose that the miner doesn't need honesty from the tool maker and suppose that the miner figured out through back channels of accurate communications that the demand for gold is much more than the old rate of exchange one week ago. One week ago the old rate of mining profit was one week of mining effort and cost spent producing 10 times less than the new rate of profit in the gold mining business where now the rate of profit is 10 times more for the same cost of mining due to a much easier to mine source of gold, a much richer vein of gold in the mine. The old rate of exchange was a poor trade for the miner turned banker, obviously, and now the miner turned banker is even richer. The miner is now in a much more powerful position to leverage the tool maker during the new trade, which is one week after the first trade, when gold was first used as money. The gold miner turned banker, with a large and full bank of new gold, can see how much richer the tool maker is, as the tool maker turned money maker drives up in three new black SUVs, the money maker and his employees get out of their SUVs, gold watches, gold rings, bling shining, and everyone is decked out in new suits. The gold miner turned banker has more than a clue as to the new value of gold - as money - out with the old rate of exchange, in with the new rate of exchange. The tool maker turned money maker is now set to make a deal with the gold miner turned banker, the second deal in gold as money history between banker and money maker. Both traders are fully informed as to the relative value of gold, or so they think, at that point in time, on that place, at the gold mine turned bank, where the supply of gold as money is now 10 times more than it was one week ago. Gold miner turned banker: "I ran out of gold in my mine, unfortunately." (A lie of course) Tool maker turned money maker: "Not to worry, I have a plan." Gold miner turned banker: "Do tell." Tool maker turned money maker: "Your last profit from the gold mine produced enough new money to set the society on its ear; you should see all the activity going on in town. My plan is to begin accumulating the gold back into a bank by trading less valuable stuff for the gold until most of the gold is back in my control. Then I will loan out the gold with a cost charged to the borrower based upon the demand for the gold, and this plan will work as you can see there is a great demand for gold as money. I will call the charge for gold, based upon the demand for gold, as INTEREST." Gold miner turned banker: "That is a very interesting plan, where do I fit in?" Tool maker turned money maker: "I'll give you a piece of the action if you make sure that you don't mine any more gold. My employees and I will make sure that no one else makes any more gold." Gold miner turned banker: "You will pay me not to mine gold?" Tool maker turned money maker: "Precisely." Now, to the reader, my effort here didn't turn out the way it did the first time I went through the process, and my reasoning for not following the same path as before is a function of the way my brain works, I think freely. I have learned to access creativity despite my having experienced the indoctrination routines of public schools, in part because a few of my teachers were willing and able to impart to me the desire for a creative mind. If the above diatribe is insufficient to spark an interest in following the money, which leads right to the worst legal criminals ever to disgrace the history of human kind, then I can try harder to light that spark in the future, some feedback is demanded.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:44 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Vote Poor, When you refer to "they" I am inclined to ask which ones?
Here are your words: "They" is referred as follows: I am going to address that contribution to this topic further. My first inclination is to point out that people are able to think, not states. I can offer another person's viewpoint in support of this perception here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts269.html This: I see no "Southern State". I've read people who were employing their time and energy (power) as agents of an idea called "government" or some other such label that intends to refer to the idea. Example: http://www.sagehistory.net/constitution/HenryConst.htm That is Patrick Henry the sage of his day, even the prophet. Patrick Henry was leaning toward voluntary associations (among specific races of course) as he opposed the constitution on grounds that are now well documented as prophetic realities. You may want to read the link, or not. Which of "They" do you mean, when you offer data in this data stream? I would like to know and I would very much like to discuss this topic with you. To me it is an important subject worthy of careful study, so as to be better armed for defense against future injuries to our innocent families. That's just me perhaps, what do I know?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
In another thread on this forum the demarcation line is coming into view between two opposing perspectives as those opposing perspectives look at something similar - if not the same thing. What, for example, will happen after the supposed "collapse" of "the economy"? Will a new currency be issued by the legal criminals who run The Dollar Hegemony? That last sentence is my version of the perception of the thing in view. The thing in view from someone else's perception, from the opposing perception on the other side of the demarcation line may write a different sentence. I can hazard a guess at what that opposing perception might be: Will the constitution be in force and will the legal currency return to a gold standard? Note the demarcation line (if I have done a fair job of representing the opposition viewpoint):
My viewpoint considers the constitution to have been a usurpation of liberty from its birth in Robert Morrison's brain, or Hamilton's, or any of those legal criminals of their day who took part in that usurpation of liberty. They were nationalists parading as federalists as they demonized their competition: the actual federalists who were mislabeled as anti-federalists, which was quite a feat of propaganda that continues to mislead people even today. The point of this discussion is to point out a few things concerning the future; as the ever so predictable business cycle ends it's bottoming out phase and begins its upswing phase again. What will be our currency, and will it be better or worse than our currency in the past, as the new future unfolds before us? Will we take back control of our economic blood or not? Which do you prefer, and if you prefer to take back control of our economic blood, then what will that new blood look like? I think it will be, eventually, power. It will be purchasing power, and it will be accurate, and it will be powerful - for reasons that may or may not warrant careful discussion before it is ushered into general use. That's just me. I'm odd, I get that part.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Absent any topic feedback I'll introduce a foreign voice from a foreign source to aid in the discussion between the Joe's Law perspective and any other perspective so as to have a starting point and a competitive version from which to measure relative value, relative accuracy, relative marginal utility (whatever that may mean to those who employ the term), relative worth of the perspectives being set side by side for easy, user friendly viewing. The link will be a voice from China as told by an English publisher, author, and reporter, whatever. Before linking the link and quoting the link and then commenting on the quotes from the link I am going to repeat Joe's Law, then report the relevance of Joe's law to the topic title and to the link as yet to be linked. I will also pose one question to task the reader with a thought experiment before finally arriving at the link. Joe's Law states: Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. China is where lots of capital is flying from the U.S.A. to that land. Capital in various forms is powerful, capital can purchase things, capital can be employed to produce things such as electric cars and solar panels, to name just two things that capital can be employed toward production, and employed toward purchasing other things in exchange for the capital flying from the U.S.A. to China. China is where there is a scarcity of jobs and an abundance of people who are willing to work for subsistence wages for those jobs, and China is where the subsistence wage earners pay taxes to subsidize solar panel production and electric car production to name just two things that Chinese tax money purchases. Labor rates are low due to the current scarcity of jobs, the current abundance of people willing to work for subsistence wages, and due to other less relevant factors such as the almost total control over the supply of legal money used by the Chinese people. The end result will be a much greater capacity to produce solar panels and electric cars, to name just two things that China is producing as capital flies from the U.S.A. to China, and as capital flies from other places to China. Will anyone buy those solar panels and electric cars, is there a demand for power producing products, power saving products, and what will be the quality of these products, and finally what will be the cost (the price) of these products? The question relevant to the topic and the link is to ask finally: which currency will be used by the people purchasing the millions of solar panels and the millions of electric cars flowing from China to the Chinese people, the people in the U.S.A. and the people elsewhere around the Globe? Here is the thought experiment question before linking the link: What would happen if every bank selling money (loaning money)to anyone worldwide required monthly payments paid back to the bank to be denominated only in the highest value currency whichever that may be on the date of the payment? If that question is not well understood by the reader who participates in this thought experiment, if there are any questions concerning the thought experiment question: I can answer the questions and re-write the though experiment question, or I can employ will power toward resolving any miscommunication whatsoever. Here is the link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-repeats-call-for-new-reserve-currency Here is a quote from the link:
Did anyone try out the thought experiment? Does anyone see a problem with the power to create the peoples money and do with the people's money what that power dictates on any given day? Are the readers stumped, stupefied, and did the link, the question, and world affairs gone completely over the reader's heads, or is it just a matter of convenience to pick and choose what one likes to read, to fill their minds, to process, to employ, while disregarding the rest? I will go on writing nonetheless. If all the banks in the world were to demand payment on loans only in the most valuable currency of the day there would be an end to the current money monopoly power as that power dictates what is or what is not the money that will be used by the people who demand money, use money, and pay for money. If someone prefers to ignore that fact, or if someone considers that fact to be less than accurate, then someone will either be inspired to discuss or not discuss the topic, the presentation of facts, and the perception of reality can move closer toward a more accurate one. Or not. Assuming as I do, based upon the available data passing my notice, that no one will respond to the thought experiment, as if thought itself has been weaned from the genetic pool, I'm going to go on writing just a bit more on that though experiment. The principle of competition would regain power if every bank in the world decided to enforce payment of loans only in the highest value currency at the time the payment was paid by the borrower. Each borrower would gain a higher sense of urgency for having his own debts paid in the highest currency of the day without which the exchange rate is a net loss to the individuals who work for peanuts and are taxed in gold.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
tinyurl.com/nghk37
The news above can be seen as a bridge between the socialists and the capitalists if someone where desirous of such a bridge. If someone prefers to stay on the socialist side and from that side the idea is to completely destroy the competition, then the bridge being built would be used to carry the Trojan horse. If someone prefers to stay on the capitalist side and do the same thing as the socialists who want to destroy the competition at all costs, then, my friends of liberty, you can see that those socialists and those capitalists are truly on the same side, the side that wants to destroy competition at all costs. The bridge allows socialism to compete with capitalism without allowing one to destroy the other at all costs, to defend the idea of competitive offerings to those of us who really don't care which label is placed on the product. I don't care if the product is called socialism, my nose doesn't wrinkle at the mention of the word, and I don't turn my nose up, and I don't sneer. What is inside? If the product allows the competition to present another product on the same shelf as socialism, then I can try each one out at liberty, and I can judge for myself which one I want, which one I will employ, which one is better for me, and which one costs me the least. The idea behind this competition thing is to pass the control of choice from the socialists who destroy competition, and from the capitalists who destroy competition, to the consumers of either. Note that neither offers "none of the above". Competition passes the power to choose from the supplier to the consumer and by that feat of magic the producers of socialism and the producers of capitalism are left with a challenge to supply the higher quality product at the lower cost. What is wrong with that? I don't get it. Why is it presupposed that manipulation of the interest rate to something higher is required? Does the supposition suggest that the money powers are giving up too much power to their victims? That makes no sense. The interest rate, if it is anything other than a cost of doing business is an insurance cost paid for by the borrower. Why would a risk-less borrower pay any insurance cost? Why would risk-less borrowers pay costs that are produced by high risk borrowers, does the idea incorporate collective punishment into its dogma? I'll read on to see if Dr. Paul offers an explanation. That looks like agreement with the collective punishment dogma to me. Why should risk-free borrowers, people who spend their lives producing more than they consume, people who earn good credit, be grouped into the group of people who must pay high interest rates for credit that they earn? I don't get it. So there is more of the same thing. What do these people consider to be too low or too high as these people consider charging someone for the use of legal money? In a free market the force of competition will drive quality up and cost down. The best money will win market share over the second best money. I've tried to get anyone anywhere to confess to me what they think is the best money and no one confesses, as if the question comes from an extra-terrestrial source. The supposed "market" is nothing more or less than an aggregate of individual choices and that "market" asks the question I am asking of the supposed "authorities" and the supposed "experts" on money - what is the best money? The least expensive money that continues to do the job is the best money for the consumers of money, how can that not be true? The suppliers of money, on the other hand, may be seeing the money issue from a different perspective, they may want a money that transfers the most power possible to them, at the cost of the consumer, and that, my friends of liberty, is the same thing as a higher interest rate (the cost of money passed onto the consumer). Why would the cost of money caused by abusers of money be passed onto everyone as if everyone were held accountable for the increases in cost that has been caused by the few who run up those costs? I'm going to post this, seeking feedback, and add more if more from the Ron Paul interview inspires more questions or comments. I see that someone on this forum has linked an educational video on money, and if my time and energy allows I will view that video.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:46 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
tinyurl.com/lzo7vh I see bank A beating up on its victims while bank B has an opportunity to offer the victims of bank A a better currency; however bank B takes the bank A crime spree as an opportunity to beat up on their own victims intstead. What do you see? If the creation of money power is invested into the creation of more power the creation of money power will be an investment and not a consumption of power in proportion to the net increase in power - no? Is the investment designed to gain political (psychological) or economic (physical) power?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:46 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The following currency is accurate according to my experience dealing with the source. The supplier of the accurate currency wrote a book titled BLACKWATER. http://rebelreports.com/post/132342133/a-few-thoughts-on-the-coup-in-honduras That above is, if I have the idea right, an expense of inaccurate currency (consume involuntary tax revenue) to gain political power over a competitor who dares to defy the oil and dollar cartel known as The Dollar Hegemony. I have yet to read the link, it is a major news story that could be told accurately or falsely. Tell me, who do you trust?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:46 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Two things to consider:Ignoring China is soon to be an unaffordable luxury? http://www.cheniere.org/ What happens to the price on human labor when power is abundant?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:47 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://c4ss.org/content/724 In that link are words intending to explain current realities and possible future realities associated with the force of defense against criminal governments diverted from a conflict dictated by the aggressors to a defense invented by the defenders. In other words the control over the nature of the battle is seized by the defenders of liberty and forced into being strictly defensive as the defenders avoid contact with the aggressors on all possible fronts. That is the opposite of the battle cry that goes like this: "If you can't beat em': Join em'". The idea in the link is to avoid all contact with the aggressors by nurturing contact among the defenders of liberty, to build stronger voluntary associations as a means of avoiding involuntary associations. The problem with the idea in the link is a question of efficiency, not principle. The principle behind the idea is not only workable, it ensures the preservation of liberty; however, the road is long and the power gained on that road is comparatively less than the power that could be gained on a more efficient road. The plan is to encourage and then employ an increase in the volume of barter trade, and by that enterprise the involuntary tax man is avoided, less power is sent to the aggressors and more power is left in the control of the defenders. This is a solution to the problem that was so well described by Thomas Paine in his work titled: Common Sense. The problem can be seen as this: The problem stated above can be remedied, obviously, by slowing down and then reversing the furnishing of the means by which we suffer and turning that flow of power into the means by which we prosper - in liberty. The casual reader may gloss over the link and my report on the link and be inspired to write off the effort as impractical or even insignificant, to which my own experience suggests otherwise. At least the effort is affecting remedy concerning the specific problem defined so well by Paine. My only critique concerns, again, the measure of efficiency, which can be measured as power flowing from Bank account A to the various bank accounts that were previously raided by the aggressors through the various means that they manage to achieve that end - including involuntary taxations such as "inflation" and "income tax". It makes sense to me, perhaps not so common of sense, that those who "voluntarily" give up their power to the legal criminals are not likely to invent any method by which a remedy could be put into good use, so much as they would be very inventive of ways to apologize for the torturing and the mass murdering done by their co-conspirators; the same people who cause the rest of us to suffer. There you have a specific demarcation.
Here is one measure: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html Perhaps the meter broke from spinning around too fast?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:47 pm |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I am going to cut and paste an e-mail I received which led me to cough up the money needed to become a "Gold" member. I'm somewhat chagrined here because of my memories of supposed humor having to do with a James Bond spoof where someone's member was gold - gold member. The idea here is to throw the link into the stream of links that is "arguably" becoming a form of market anarchism. Market anarchism is legalized black markets for lack of a more detailed explanation. Perhaps the contents of the e-mail will explain itself and I can certainly explain the link between the e-mail and "Accurate Currency from a Joe's Law Perspective" if anyone were interested in such an explanation.
Next, in this thread, as one sided as it may be, will be further discussions on the origins and applications of Joe's law. Joe's Law states: Power produced into a state of oversupply will reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. Power, in that context, includes the power of accurate currency, and to see how that works I am going to borrow a concept from someone named: Per Bylund. Per Bylund speaks for Per Bylund so well that, I will waste little time introducing him, linking is better: http://anarchism.net/forum/index.php?id=35282 Few main stream media personalities stoop down to my level but Per has done so on occasion and on one such an occasion he passed to me the concept of "Perfect Information". No one has "Perfect Information" but my point here, and now, is to suppose what would happen if everyone had "Perfect Information" and the supposition suggests that getting to that point is a slow and gradual progression that is measured somehow. We are here at A, and by "we" I mean the human species. Sometime in the future we arrive at a time and at a place where our efforts have arrived at "Perfect Information" or something much closer to that than Point A. We go to point B where we are much closer to "Perfect Information" than now. We did manage to move from burning witches, and torturing for confessions, didn't we? Would someone at Point B (Perfect Information) waste their own power, hand it off to some legal criminal somewhere, to have that power used against the giver upper of that power? Would someone send off his son or daughter to anther ongoing war of aggression for profit once someone arrived at Perfect Information, so as to have their son or daughter suffer and inflict torture and even mass murder? My thinking is that the power contained in "Perfect Information", once unleashed, or employed as it were, would tend to lower costs and increase purchasing power in almost all the accurate measures of political economy - but we ain't there yet. Are we even heading in that direction? I has been said that too much information is too much. My reply is to employ something similar to meditation if that point is reached. It helps to process the information once in awhile, and it helps to have a method by which productive information can be easily separated from destructive information; like a truth bin and a false bin. Who works the switch?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:48 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.infowarstv.com/video/2165/Elucidation I could be wrong but that is an example of power to me.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:48 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
That quote is from here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance177.html If the problem is an invading army, robbing, raping, torturing, and murdering, even mass murdering innocent people - then some defensive power that is more powerful than that criminal one is either powerful enough to solve that problem or that problem goes on and on into perpetuity. But, if you read the link, the subject there, in that link, is a mixed bag, an ambiguous mixture of this and that, without any clear enemy in sight, and without any clear solution to that mysterious problem. I think the most serious problem is this propensity to confuse actual people with actual things. "The government", if is not plans hatched by people, and then actions performed by people, government by the people, in essences, then "The Government" is nothing, a myth, a phantom, a trick, smoke, mirrors, fraud, the velvet glove, etc. The government didn't do it; please know this, if by "The Government" the idea is to point to some thing, and while pointing to that thing, all the power in the world can be focused on that thing and all that power is wasted on that thing, since no power on earth can make that thing anything more than a thing, it has no thoughts, it has no capacity to act, to be alive, to be anything but a thing. If "The Government" is "the people"; then the people who plan on and then follow through with the plan to injure innocent people for profit are, by those thoughts, and by those acts, themselves criminals, and those people, those specific people, for those specific thoughts and actions, make "the people's government" a criminal one. Don't expect the paper they generate, so as to cover their crimes, to be written truths, accurate, and able to empower their victims in any way. If you do that, if you think that, if you hold those lies up as truths, you ensure your further victimization, by that confidence scheme acted out against you in printed form. So the power of the people, once that power is focused against the power that plans on injuring and then does injure innocent people, by law, or by any means whatsoever, will be the power, by any name, that defends against those bad people who do those bad things. How far did I get from the quote? If "government intervention" in "the economy" is a problem, whose economy is it, and who is running this government? The last guys who ran this government were people. The current guys who run this government are people. Those people represent themselves and other people. Their plans are being followed to fruition. From their viewpoints, please get this straight, they are winning - what is the problem? Do you think they will confess? Do you think that they may pay people to write things that cover their tracks, make them look inept, incapable of solving simple problems, powerless as it were? Don't throw me into the briar patch.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:49 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/06/thermodynamic-economy.html Anyone (with an interest in sound money), The link at the top of this post is not, in my opinion, to be taken as gospel truth, in its entirety. I link it for its specific relevance to this topic on sound money that is based upon Joe's Law. Joe's law goes like this: Power produced into a state of oversupply (more and more and more power, food power, transportation fuel power, industrial fuel power, production power, home heating power, cooking power, clothes making power, power to light up the dark, electric power, etc.), more and more power, reaching an over-supply of power, abundant power, power flowing like clean water, power flowing like clean air, more and more productive power, will, economically speaking, reduce the price of power, while, and this is the political part of this economic observation, while the power supply increases, and while the price of power decreases, the power to purchase increases, the monetary unit gains purchasing power, as power flows in abundance, because, and this is the reason for the purchasing power increase, because power reduces the cost of production. In short: Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. Now I am going to scroll down much of the text in the link, linked above, to find the relevant words that are relevant to this topic: If the "ur-commodities" (whatever that means) are different in any respect, I suspect, or my speculation is such that, those commodities are self-contained units of power, or self-evidently powerful commodities. Those commodities, having power within them, are commodities that power economic production, and as such their value is directly related to the cost of those commodities, and directly related to the price of those commodities, in such a way that the effect of an oversupply, or a quantity of supply that exceeds the demand, is such that the end result is zero price, or falling price, - for all things that require those power commodities in the process of production. In other words: if the supply reaches a point where demand for those power commodities falls to zero, or nearly to zero, where too much supply causes the demand to fall off into a state of no-demand, the obvious demand for things produced with that power must have also fallen off to zero demand, or near zero. That is so because a demand for something produced with that power commodity is a demand for that power commodity, in direct proportion, and not inversely proportional. How about another angle of view? If too many chairs are produced, if an over-abundance of chairs is somehow produced into a state of oversupply, the price of a chair will reach zero, or close to zero, as sellers of chairs try to sell their supplies of chairs, finding no demand, no chairs are sold, no one wants chairs, everyone has a chair, the cost of storing a chair, the cost of maintaining a chair in some warehouse, or the cost of maintaining a chair on a showroom floor is a waste, an added cost, while chairs have been over-produced. No more power is needed to make any more chairs, so the economic demand for chairs reduces the economic demand for the power that is needed to make the chairs, but what costs are still in demand while those chairs are maintained until such time as people are again demanding more chairs (chair owners wear out their chairs)? Power remains in demand even as chair demand falls. Perishable food is another example. The demand for producing food is a demand for the power required to produce the food. When food is produced into a state of oversupply the costs of production, of the food, go up, as more power is expended preserving the food, as demand for the food falls off, and that is an even higher demand for power commodities. Power remains in demand even as food demand falls off. If the demand for power commodities goes down because the chair production demand goes down, the demand for power commodities may go up even higher because people are sitting in their chairs while they are browsing on computers, on E-Bay, trying to sell chairs. The only time a net loss of demand for power commodities will result, from the loss of demand for non-power commodities (like chairs), is a situation where all demand for all non-power commodities reaches a point where total demand for the power required to produce all non-power commodities has caused a net total drop in the demand for power commodities; and that means a drop in the demand for military hardware, a drop in the demand for precious metals, etc. I am going to read the rest of the article linked at the top of the page; but before doing so I'm going to convey an opinion concerning the "Peak Oil" phenomenon. When I first began my research (if you can call one guy reading links on the internet and reading books: research) on "Peak Oil" the "Scare Factor" sent me into a campaign to run for congress a second time. My first run for congress was a reaction to the Waco Massacre. Here is the best link I've ever found on Waco (and during my research on Waco, before running for congress, I interviewed, or questioned, one of the survivors at a public speaking engagement run by the survivors). http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/ Anyone living in the U.S. today, who is of an opinion that it is OK to do that stuff, by law, on this land, is someone who is diametrically opposed to me, and to all that I know of morality, law, and economy (those dead tortured babies may have been the next Einstein, Ford, Tesla, Bach, Mozart, Leonardo Da Vinci, or Jesus - Jesus who knows?) . If you think it is OK to torture and murder innocent babies, for example, by law no less, than you are patently evil - in my not so humble opinion. Anyway, the "Peak Oil" phenomenon, the patently false part, the part where the data suggests a killing off of half the population of the Globe, was cause for me to call up the Libertarian Party, to find that they already have someone running for congress in my district, and then to re-register as an independent. At that point I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk That sent me on more research, being less inclined to access "the political means", and the result of that effort is the invention of Joe's Law, or authorship of the sentence. Here is another link on the subject of "Fossil" fuels: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Russian+scientists+peak+oil+myth&aq=f&oq= &aqi= That is a collection of links; based upon a back-tracking search using the keywords: Russian scientists peak oil myth Those who control the oil, control the money, control the military, control the politics, and control economy; currently. Things are changing rapidly: http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE56G17220090717
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:49 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone (or no one), Two items of news cross my path, one like a black cat, and the other like an insider trade option. Here is one link: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/671.html Here is a relevant quote: The source of that quote, the link, and the subject matter in the link, including that quote, are all pointing to something happening now, pointing to something that has happened, and pointing to something that may happen. What is at the center of all that pointing? If someone could know what is at the center of all that pointing, then someone could look outward from that center from a position of greater clarity concerning the origin of all the news making events; to see how that news is generated, on that subject matter. The center of all that news, the source of all that news, is very likely a place where a few people decide to increase or decrease the supply of legal dollars and then a decision is made as to who receives or who gives up that adjustment in that total supply of that legal currency issue. The individual who is outside that group of powerful people may not appreciate the power that is contained within that group of powerful people; and therefore the individual who is outside that group of powerful people may ignore the significance of the power that is contained within that group of powerful people as that group of powerful people increase and decrease the supply of legal currency within the legal boundaries of the U.S. Federal legal regime. Not having a working understanding of how economy is altered by political power, such as the power supplied by a legal license to monopolize legal currency, is also deleterious toward the goal of understanding the significance and appreciation of the power wielded by a legal currency issue monopoly. From a position of understanding and appreciation for the power wielded by specific people who are able to increase and decrease the total supply of legal dollars, from that position the perception is specific, from that position of understanding the perception is such that the link I linked here is half true, and the other half is wildly fantastic, or speculatively unreliable. If the power to monopolize is a power, for example, the power will destroy competition, or the power will not be a powerful monopoly. If the power is unable to remove competitors, it will not be a monopoly power, and that relationship will be a proportionate one, where the monopoly power will be in proportion to the share of consumers who drop the monopoly purchasing power for something better. That is an explanation for my taking the specific quote out of the specific link. Here is the link again: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/671.html The link concerns a new method of gaining power from victims by a new way of manipulating the currency issue. The new method employs the capacity to increase the velocity of favorable transfers. The link describes a get rich quick methodology. I quote the part where the authors of the link prefer to take the information as a warning of some future calamity. Doom Day is on the horizon - supposedly. I see something different. When product X is no longer good for anything other than stealing, then product Y is going to gain market share (even black market share if necessary). Just because (and there really isn't must justice in it), just because something is legal (like a legal money monopoly) isn't proof of its legitimacy, it's sound economy, it's moral standing, or even its capacity to cause obedience among its target audience. If the dictators really, really, really, really must have their economic depression, to end all depressions, to be the greatest ever, or whatever, they may have to do more than lie, and falsify, to get it, and to keep it going at the level they wish - the low level. The "economy" (actual people working to produce the necessities of life, and then some) is depressed by a supply of currency that is made scarce on purpose, made so scarce as to heighten the demand for currency well in excess of what could be considered normal or above just what one would think to be right. That is the lead in for the second link that I get as an e-mail because I'm on an e-mail list. I won't quote the whole e-mail, just this part: It's been a tremendous time for Tesla Motors. In May, Tesla secured a $50 million investment and strategic partnership with Germany's Daimler, maker of Mercedes. We also delivered our 500th Roadster -- the only car in the world that offers performance with a clean conscience. In June, we were among the first automakers to get approval for Department of Energy loans. The $465 million in interest-bearing loans - entirely unrelated to the bailout of bankrupt automakers -- will help finance production engineering and assembly of the Model S, the all-electric sedan. The loans will also fund an assembly plant where we will produce electric vehicle powertrain components for affordable EVs, such as the Smart city car and other platforms.There is a longer story to tell on this new day of news; but readers are in short supply, so there really isn't much demand for actual news, news that is significant, news that is productive, etc. The demand for accurate currency is artificually low, for reasons that become clear with a little productive effort.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:50 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north738.html Anyone (or no one), As I look for discussion, and find none, I can usually count on one way discussions to fill the void, to supply the demand (with something less than the demand, by at least half less). The above is a link to the latest news from Gary North, as often is the case, Gary and I are seeing similar things from different angles of view, as if we are looking from the outside of a circle, Gary North on one side of the circumference, I'm on the other side, as we both look in toward the center. As we orbit this thing we both see, it seems to me, that we both see "them" from our perspective on the outside. "They" are operating without specific clues, they are clueless. That is not derogatory, it just isn't, they are operating without specific clues, clues that are easy to see, if one looks. All you have to do is look for a specific clue, and you see it. How hard is that? Now it is story time. This Joe, who is actually named Joe, by his parents no less, is working after having been pushed out of a job, and pushed out of a job that I worked at for over 20 years, almost 25 years. I began showing signs of depreciation, bad ankles, a disease or two, and before long the bosses let me know that I was no longer in demand. It turned out to be a good thing that my little family unit had already turned in the 401K "retirement" fund to start a Real Estate business, since that source of income paid for the insurance that covered the costs that brought me back to working capacity, since my former employers (the 25 year "career") dumped me when they might have had to pay on all that insurance I had paid into, all those years. That was the capitalist insurance program routine. Pay, pay, pay, and when it is time to cash in, or time to "benefit" the insured, the focus of effort, the cost, the expense, is aimed at severing the bond. I was severed from that bond. I was sick, I was without work; I was dumped from that insurance "plan". What about the socialist angle of view? They are not competitors for market share, as one might think, they are two sides of one coin. The "social security" people denied any benefits too, and we went all the way to a judge, me and my wife, as we struggle to make ends meet. That is one Joe story, a real one. We manage to make ends meet, we borrow from usurers, we pay those prices, and we still manage to produce more than we consume, even while we suffer debilitating conditions of health, or life. Perhaps our personal insurance policy will dump us too; but so far that policy has cost us little compared to how much was paid to various health care providers - on our account. Insurance is interesting in ways that defy simple explanation, but for now it seems appropriate to return to the latest from Gary North. This Joe didn't even ask for unemployment insurance. Effort spent on healing, effort spent on producing something of value so as to ensure a steady income, an income above the consumption rate, is effort that cannot afford too many costs that are spent on boondoggles, wastes of time, wastes of effort, pyramid schemes where placement at the bottom requires devouring those further up so as to built steps from which a person can ascend while stepping upon the tortured bodies, the mass murdered masses. The need for a rat race is purely man-made; rats are not fond of such drama, it isn't in their genetic code. They eat each other, sure, but not as a result of having created the conditions leading to that option on purpose. It isn't a profit motive for the rats. That is our legacy to the history of life: self created social cannibalism. We are special. Someone may take my viewpoint as being one of depressed melancholy, or even manic foreboding. I'm just commenting on specific things, a pieced of the pie, the overall evaluation, from my end, is utopian - just ask my critics. We don't have to be so self-destructive, and all we have to do is learn not to feed the legal criminals. That is, again, cause for me to quote from a source that aught not be relegated to the irrelevant history bin: Self government, on my end, is spent on producing more than consumption, and when that isn't possible, to assume a position of dependence until such time as self-government can resume. Included in that task is a demand for accurate accounting, to answer the vital question: am I furnishing the means by which we suffer? Only the accurate answer will do, counterfeit answers tend to cause the opposite result. Back the Gary North: Tesla is hiring. Those are the guys who have not received any bail-out money unless the bail-out money was given to the Germans and now the Germans are loaning money to Tesla. Tesla is a career change type thing; they are making cars that can run on home made electricity. Home made electricity is another career change thing. I sent an application for employment to Tesla, not that I need more work, I have more work than I can manage; it is just a good thing to increase the supply of options - generally speaking. One of my ideas is a Taxi service where the base of operations, the garage, the dispatch office, etc. is a Solar Power farm. How much does it cost to full up a gasoline powered taxi? Tesla says that their "not so economical" sports car costs 4 dollars to fuel up and a full tank of electricity will force the car over 244 miles of road. Doing the math helps. I've done the math on Solar Panels. My Taxi service idea can create an income with the Solar Panel investment; where the surplus electric power is consumed by the Taxi Cabs; which isn't exactly the same thing as free fuel. It is a competitive perspective, it isn't the norm. From the customers view; which (a question) would he or she prefer: pay for gasoline costs as part of the fare, or have no fuel cost to pay as part of the fare? Again, not the normal calculation, not yet. People operate generally under this 'scarcity' dogma that is passing as economic theory, but that too will pass. Doom, doom, doom, or "green shoots"? Looking into the center of things, Gary North from one side, me from the other, I'm inclined to see electric cars and solar panels, career changes, and there are more, like vertical farming from modular green house units, where algae can be used to produce motor fuel if necessary, inexpensively, as time goes by, or tomatoes. What is the purpose of a steady diet of doom? Businesses need current purchasing power in the absence of "savings", the competition won't wait. Tesla is a very good example. VALCENT PRODUCTS INC. is another good example. My own family business is another very good example. When the legal criminals in the counterfeit government starve them-selves, as we stop feeding them, and when they devour themselves, is that cause for depression? I don't think so. But that may just be me. We demand an accurate currency, even as we ignore our own demands.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:51 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul560.html That is a link to an up-to-date report by Ron Paul on money matters. I think it is a good source from which to begin work on increasing accuracy in the perception of money and the current problems associated with inaccurate currency. That sentence could be made more accurate, better able to transfer the perception. I think that Ron Paul's offering is a good start on the path toward a more accurate understanding of the current monetary crisis, and toward remedy. Above are now two sentences that compete to supply the demand for a more accurate sentence, a sentence that can transfer the intended information. How about a sentence from Ron Paul's latest report? I think it is foolish to consider the people who are engorging themselves on the misery of their intended victims as being foolish. The people who have the power to add zeros to the legal dollar account are making money hand over fist, profiting exponentially, giving themselves more and more wealth, by that so called "foolish notion"; where some other dupe, supposedly, is made to believe that "they" have "our" best interests cared for, diligently, but foolishly. "They", and specifically the people at the end of the paper trail that leads specifically to "them", are not foolish fools if the measure of foolishness is measured by the number of dollars in their accounts relative to the number of dollars in the accounts of the people who are claiming that "they" are fools. Perhaps I am being perceived as nit picking and picking apart Ron Paul's message unjustly.
That may just be me. Moving on: Economic growth did occur as productivity increased and that went along according to the plan, as planned, and now it is time to cause an economic depression, as planned, and there isn't anything foolish about it, unless the fools are the ones who fail to see the actual people behind the planned (and followed through plan) to cause these things to happen in the way they are happening, and then the real fools fail to figure out a way to stop feeding those people who plan and accomplish these things. Supposing, if that is what is being supposed here, that the people who control the money supply now are acting in "our" best interests is beyond foolishness in my opinion. That, again, may just be me. From their viewpoint, it makes sense to me, ("they" being the people on the receiving end of the legal money monopoly wealth extortion racket), their view is such that the "problem" isn't a problem, rather, it is their legal money monopoly wealth extortion racket working well, better than expected even. Some people may say that some people in that group of people who control the money supply are not getting what they deserve, exactly, so the supposition that things are working well for "them" doesn't apply to all of "them", not in the same way - some of them are in big trouble, the crisis to some of them is a crisis in fact - not a bonanza in fact, to some of them. So, my response is, follow the money. Who among the powerful few are left holding the bag, and what of it? That is the way they operate, that is their modus operandi, that is their code of conduct, that is their way of doing business, that is what they do, they feed on each other, and the only reason they cooperate with each other is to maintain the bonanza, to maintain their monopoly power, their cabal, their consortium, and their mutual agreement to feed off of the innocent victims within their "turf", with their "end competition" devices. The thing is, if you can manage this leap of logic, the thing is to let them destroy themselves, so be it, it is their thing, and from that point of view, move on. It is past time to make our own currency and to make it accurate this time. Who is the stupid one? I've looked in the mirror, blame me. If China invades California, landing in Los Angeles on C Day (like D Day only later), then spending becomes investing in defense (real defense, not aggression hidden behind a false front of defense); so that the real reason behind government spending is seen for what it really is. To suggest, if that is what is being suggested, that spending a fund that is collected from the people, by the people, and for the people, cannot ever be spent in a "corrective" manner, an economical manner, an efficient manner, and an expeditious manner, is to refute any notion of any government ever. If that is not the suggestion, if on the other hand the suggestion is that there are some cases where a "government" (from, by, and for the people) can spend an existing collected fund (or a fund that is borrowed into existence) can spend money in such a way as to maintain sustainability, to invest money, to make money make more wealth, to increase wealth by that investment, in some cases, then it may be a good idea to be specific about those cases; rather than ignore them.
These questions are not new, again, a quote from history will suffice to prove the observation that history repeats (because people forget, and willfully ignore): A. Feed the monster B. Not A If it is a monster, call it one, don't falsify the facts, do not dilute them, do not water down the message, do not afford the monster one inch of credit, and do not suggest that "they" are "foolish". Who is foolish?
If war was declared on the legal criminals who have invaded this land, from sea to shining sea, would that be a formal recognition of the facts, or would that be an aggressive war for profit? If war in defense against the legal criminals who have taken over the government of the U.S.A. (the 50 sovereign states) is declared, what costs would be realized by the defenders and how would the defenders cover those costs? Would the defenders save up for an effective defense and then on the day when the defenders have enough savings in the bank to execute an effective defense (have enough power to deter any further aggression would be nice), then would the defenders spend that money on that defense on that day? What would be spent? Where would these defenders keep their savings securely until such time as an effective defense could be mustered? Where is the defenders bank account and how much is in it today, and who is minding the store? When is a realistic date for the defense of liberty to commence and effective defense once the defenders of liberty have enough cash to finance that defense? How about next Tuesday? Who is "we"? I am paying off debt. I can write it off, supposedly. "They" are not creating more debt; they are transferring more and more power to "them" from "us". How is that excused as being "foolish" on "their" part? Who is playing a game here? Why must a "politically correct" version of the truth be normalized? Who decided to create and maintain the façade? Debt is only debt from the perspective of the people who pay the creditors. From the creditors viewpoint the thing called "DEBT" is an income stream. Why is that fact not made very, very clear? What is this "debt" crisis - exactly? Can the defenders of liberty distance themselves from it? Why must the defenders of liberty have only two choices?
I'm wondering why Ron Paul has to edit his words so as to make his message palatable to the "electorate"; why is that done when the message becomes diluted by that supposed necessity; by that supposed expedient? Where is the congressman who calls for the arrest of Ben Bernanke, for false testimony? I'm not saying that Ben should be beheaded. Arrest the guy, place him in a nice jail cell with TIVO, and don't allow someone to replace him. Move on down to the next Federal Reserve officer, rinse and repeat. They all lie. Am I exaggerating? "Where is the money?" "What money?" "The trillions of missing dollars, sir, where is it?" "I don't know" Who is foolish here? Blame me, if you feel better, go ahead, and call me names. If the money is stolen, then it is stolen, and if it is stolen then why the two choices?
Why are there only two choices concerning DEBT (which is credit, or an income stream, for the other side of that DEBT coin)? Confused? Why? If this supposed crisis is so bad, so horrible, so destructive, so dangerous, so debilitating, so evil, so torturous, and so murderous, then why not wage war on it? Call out the National Guard, and invest in a remedy? Can you hear yourself answering that question? "They" are the enemy. The problem is that we have been feeding our worst enemies. It cannot be expected that "they" will fix "our" problems. "They" (follow the money to find "them") cannot be expected to fix a problem that is to them an income stream (a sound investment strategy). "Who has the power to declare war in the U.S.A.?" Answer accurately. People, and to suggest otherwise is foolish, people have the power to declare war, and these people have names, and these people have faces, and these people think, and they breath, and they utter phrases, and they speak to other people, and they act. People, not "congress", not "the president", not "the government", not "the state", not "The Limited Liability Fascist Corporate Nation State Pyramid Money Monopoly Extortion Racket"; people declare war for the reasons that they alone confess to their own conscience - when convenient to do so. Where are the defenders of liberty and why have they not declared a peaceful, non-violent, powerful, knowledgeable, effective, and expedient war on the legal criminals who have invaded this land and taken over the power of self-government? I am the stupid one, yea, yea, I've heard that already. Back to Ron Paul: The dollar is someone's baby. Whose baby is the dollar? What is it? It, in a term, is The Dollar Hegemony. I didn't make up the term. I am the messenger here concerning that term. I can offer a definition of that term (The Dollar Hegemony) so as to focus attention on that specific baby, what it is, what it does, whose baby it is, why it is, what it does, why it does what it does, and then: weather or not it should be thrown out, and finally, if "the bath water" should be thrown out instead of the baby and the bath water. The Dollar Hegemony is a Money Monopoly. The idea behind a money monopoly or money consortium, or money cabal, or money extortion racket, is a simple economic idea based upon simple economic principles. If the supply of money can be controlled, by a money monopoly, the price for money can be increased. That is the simple version. If money can be made scarce, where the demand for money increases, then the price tag on money can be increased in proportion to the scarcity of money and in proportion to the increase in demand for money since, and this is the monopoly part, since no other supply of money is allowed (by law). The enemy of a money monopoly power, and it sure won't be a money monopoly without power (money is purchasing power or it isn't money), the enemy of a money monopoly power is competition - and that is why a Global New World Order (a money monopoly to end competition globally) is in the works. One separate and sovereign group of people, banded together by whatever means binds them, will compete with another separate and sovereign group of people in money markets, if those people trade with those other people - unless the two separate and sovereign groups of people are "led" (led astray) by "governors" who form a consortium, a deal, a mutually beneficial arrangement, to abide by specific sets of specific actions concerning the money issue. No one supplier of money is allowed to gain market share over another's "turf". If you think I'm stupid, great, ignore me. Move on. If you think I'm on to something, but you remain confused - somewhat - then work out a simple economic problem that is illustrated with a simple set of circumstances as such: A new law is agreed upon by all borrowers and all lenders world wide (a voluntary agreement absent any force or fraud by which the "agreement" is made) where any loan borrowed will be transferred from the lender to the borrower in the most valuable currency of the day the loan is transferred from lender to borrower, and every single payment of that loan will be made in the highest value currency of the day of the loan payment. Call me stupid, if you like.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:51 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north739.htmlThanks go to Gary North for the link. I'll watch it and then return to this present "discussion" (one way as it may be) on Accurate Currency. I can simulate a discussion by accessing the work of Gary North, read his work, and then comment on his work, and for those who do not know Gary North, I can suggest to the reader that they can gain a lot with a little investment in their time toward knowing what Gary North has to say - be industrious and you will profit by that investment. What can I say? I'm going to watch the video where the legal criminal Bernake (puppet as he may be) is suffering under the power of an impending discovery of guilt. I'd be in a panic too; the con-men fear the wrath of their victims, during the process of fraud, because they don't get paid if the mark is made aware of the impending transfer of goods in exchange for a bag of empty promises. The confidence scheme only works when the mark is clueless. Ron Paul has been cluing people in since I don't know when; I first heard of the "conspiracy theorists" in newsgroups back in the late 80s - early 90s (if my memory serves me). Onward to the video? I saw the video and it looked to me like the same old stuff - lies. It turns my stomach. I'd nail that guy to the cross (figuratively not literally), and then call for the next of his kind in line, nail him, then get to someone who speaks the truth, promote that one, and move on. But that is just me. I'd then get two top guys, two private "contractors", and tell both of them, you are now in charge of legal money - let the best man win. The people will pick which money wins. If the first guy can't provide higher quality money at a lower cost compared to the second guy, guess what happens? But that is how I see it. The reader may have been at the cool-aid well too long. A gal might replace the guy who fails to provide the highest quality legal currency at the lowest cost? Speaking of gals; I have a wedding to attend. Adios.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:51 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
EricMcM, Thanks for the interesting and stimulating increase in the supply of accurate literary currency here in this competitive forum market. I for one, demand it. The effort to suppose principles, with my Gold miner illustration, is a case of gold being a commodity first, last, and always. The use of Gold as "legal tender", if you have my viewpoint understood, is an exploitive device, adding the use of falsehood, to gain leverage over a target audience, or a target consumer market. The addition of "legal tender laws" to the natural fact that gold is a very good free market currency, as a commodity first, last and always, is done, is added, falsehood is added, "legal" means are added, on purpose, for specific reasons, and the reasons seem clear to me as being the reasonable effort to eliminate competition in money markets (commodities or otherwise). Reasonable from a criminal perspective, not from a victims perspective. In other words: the addition of "legal" into the free market of currency is meant, designed, and carried out, by legal criminals, for the purpose of removing competition in money markets and thereby create and maintain a "legal" currency monopoly. The idea behind that usurpation is to control the supply of legal tender, legal currency, and from that power to control the supply, the controllers can know in advance when specific prices will increase and when prices will decrease, therefore knowing when to buy, and when to sell, so as to exploit that advantage and gain economic power over their intended victims. Furthermore; the illustration of basic principles concerning the free market use of commodities as currency intends to lead into an expose of the "business cycle" which is a natural step above the discovery and use of "legal" currency monopoly control (of the supply of legal currency so as to cause price fluctuations) since price inflation (of commodities other than "legal tender") doesn't offer a power to exploit without the change ('we want change") from inflation to deflation. Continuous "inflation" without any change toward "deflation" is useless as a criminal enterprise. The rate must change, and the criminals must know in advance when the rate changes, and the victims must not know. Once on the deflation side of things, the power to exploit must be followed by another change to a condition of inflation (increasing the supply of legal tender above the supply of things legal tender is supposed to represent), and that up, down, up, down, up, down cycle empowers the exploitive personnel to sell at the top (because they know when the top will occur) and buy at the bottom. The power of knowing is priceless. The powerful knowing personnel can grow very wealthy with orders to buy now, sell now, and then go on vacation. Buy now, when it is time, sell now, when it is time, and all the wealth in the world transfers to the powerful ones who control the supply of legal currency so as to create this "business cycle" dynamic. The problem, which I can see clearly, and which the legal criminals must clearly see, if they see anything at all clearly, is a knowledgeable target audience. The victims cannot know the truth, from the perspective of the legal criminals, no more than a mark in a confidence scheme can know the truth, before the wealth transfers, voluntarily, from the mark to the con man. If the intended victims are clued in, before the con is followed through to fruition, the jig is up. The victims find other things to do with their time and energy. The legal criminals know this, and that is why their puppets tend to stammer and sweat bullets under the pressure of legal scrutiny. Exposing the fraud, exposing the emperors total lack of clothing, while all the victims eagerly fawn over those beautiful non-existent clothes, is like cryptonite to Superman, sunlight to vampires, and holy water to the devils advocates. Perhaps I went well off the subject matter? Clearly
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 02:48 pm | Page: 1 2 3 |
| Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Copy | Top |
