| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | 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. |
|||||||||||
|
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/ |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.infowarstv.com/video/2165/Elucidation I could be wrong but that is an example of power to me. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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
|
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/breaking-up-centralized-us.htmlFriends of Liberty, Much of the current conflict among possible friends of liberty could be avoided (it seems to me) if we could accurately identify friends from foes. I have yet to read the whole article above, and I may pass it off, since the tone of that article, to me, smells rat like. I say it smells rat like in the sense of smell referred to by Patrick Henry when he smelled a rat, or so the story goes, back in the days of liberty - before The Constitution. If I say to you, or to anyone, that "The Constitution" usurped Liberty in an otherwise freer America - the knee jerk reaction might be the word "No". No, Joe, you are wrong since "The Constitution" is our protection against usurpations of Liberty. Why jerk the knee? What has knee jerking produced so far? To that question I call upon the subject of James Madison. He jerked his knee, wrote the Federalist Papers (the ones not written by the Nationalist named Alexander Hamilton - who disguised his "nationalism" behind a false flag of "federalism"), and later, later on after knee jerk federalist paper euphoria, James Madison saw the light. James Madison went from a proponent, all blind with colorful language, promises of paradise, and other lies, went from a proponent of The Constitution to somewhat of a skeptic - certainly not as skeptical as, say, Patrick Henry. Reading Patrick Henry, as a critic of the nationalism being paraded around as "federalism", in that day, reading his predictions of "what will be" if that "Constitution" were ever to be enforced, God forbid, reading those predictions is to read what is. Patrick Henry warned us, we (the true friends of liberty), for the most part, didn't listen. James Madison came around. You can too. What follows the knee jerking "No" shouted in my direction (which has happened in actual reality, in public meetings, as all heads turn at once and shout in unison, and I have a witness, it isn't recorded for viewing on YouTube, but it is true) is, what follows the "no" is, politics. Why resort to politics? Power is the answer. There is power in numbers. Now, friends of liberty, guess what the Nationalist feared the most? Did they fear the rabble, the insurgents, the rebels, and the ignorant masses, or just the ignorant masses? You may be as wide eyed (in wonder) as I was when I read how the Nationalists managed to get their "Constitution" enforced into law. Well...the story continues doesn't it? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMSpkHq1HI "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing." |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
That above is from this: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23231.htm The next quote from that source could inspire discussion, as it does inspire me to comment. What is being reported in that message? What does the following (specifically) mean? Why will interest rates skyrocket? What prevents someone from buying money from another source of money, at a discount, while the "dollar" price skyrockets? That is my comment, and I will now return to reading the message concerning the future of mankind, from a monetary (interesting) perspective. I didn't get very far in reading before being inspired to comment again. What does that mean, exactly, as that above reports to anyone who will listen, those words? What does that mean? What happened to the choice, the freedom of choice, to purchase money, at a discount, while the "dollar" price sours into the stratosphere, as the "dollar" becomes even scarcer to everyone except the recipients of "bail-outs" and "subsidies" (amounting to trillions of dollar units of legal currency)? Where did all that money go, and what did it buy, exactly? How can all that money be "in circulation" at the same time as the dollar becomes so scarce, so hard to find, as to drive interest rates up into the sky? What is missing from this equation? What is missing in addition to the choice afforded by competition? What did all that money buy, exactly? Who has all that money, those trillions, and what did they buy, and what will they buy, and will all those trillions of bail-out subsidies flow rapidly through "the economy" soon, or later? How can the money supply double (since September 2008), and at the same time, how can money be scarce enough to drive the price of money to the ceiling? This: If he stops printing, (god forbid), why will consumers of money be left without a competitive supply of discounted legal purchasing power? Could it be another case of mal-investment? Is that an interesting possibility or nothing to worry about and nothing to be concerned about, and nothing worth thinking about, in reality? Remember this: How good does it sound, if you don't mind listening, to hear how your wealth subsidizes a build up of power in the hands of the Chinese State (not the Chinese government "by the people" and "for the people", rather, your power to purchase is spent on increasing the power of the Chinese "State")? How do you like that sound? Will you like that sound when, not if, the Chinese State begins to dictate to you how you will think, how you will act, and how much you will earn by your labor? I think you may then be left without the power or the affordability to ignore that sound. That may be just me thinking, a distant thought, hearing a distant sound, but why is that ever so distant sound so deafening to my ears? Am I as crazy as people like to think I am, for some reason? I'll read on. Is that the same thing as saying "The rate of wealth being transferred from producers of wealth to the legal criminals who control the legal money monopoly pyramid scheme is beyond a sustainable rate as the producers of wealth are being sucked dry and left to feed upon them-selves in a torturous and slow death"? That rate of wealth transfer (by monopoly banking interest) is now being flown into China, to subsidize the competition, at the expense of both American and Chinese laborers (the producers of wealth). And I have this all backwards? I'm the stupid one? As I have learned recently, during a viewing of a video documentary on money linked on this forum (thanks for that lesson), the pre-occupation with "savings" (instead of investing) is a part of the whole banking scam. The way that works, according to the data on the video, the banksters are "legally" able to loan out "savings" in bank accounts on a reverse ratio compared to the reserve requirements. It is fairly complicated, but not too complicated. The end result is an increase in the flow of wealth from producers to they banksters by that devise called: "interest". It is interesting if not moral. It is fact. Wealth (in the form of legal purchasing power or "dollars") transfers from producers of wealth to people collecting "interest". The fact that some "interest" (much less of a percent) goes to "savers" is cause for something. Should the "savers" rejoice since they get a piece of the action? If, for example, the rate of "price" inflation (due to the combination of monetary inflation and malinvestment) is 10% per year and the "savings" account interest rate is 3%, if that is a fact, not a guess, an actual fact, not a form of smoke and mirrors, if that is a mathematical accounting fact, then you can do some math, and see the light - or not. What do I care? 3 - 10 = -7 A negative 7 is better than a negative 10: WOOOHOOOO! I'M RICH! I am also out of time. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
On the subject of accurate currency are examples of "current" news, news currency, or just: News Example: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin6.1.1.html Is that accurate? Is that News? Is that Accurate Currency? I can quote from that link (whatever it is called): More NEWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBGo35zDFZg&feature=channel Well...who listens to the Pope? Who believes what the Pope says: many, few, a majority, a minority, who cares about the Pope - anyway? Blasphemy, or really, really, come-on, who in modern times listens to the Pope? Didn't the crusades work, after all? How about some real news, some real honest and accurate currency - up to date? http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=7 4&jumival=3568 ? I can add my simple viewpoint. If the idea is to allow competition in Global Currency Markets, then let us call that choice A. A. Competitors offer consumers the highest quality currency at the lowest cost - worldwide Now, on the other hand, the opposite side of the fence, there may be, on the way, coming to a "Theater Near You", option B, which isn't really a choice, on purpose, for some reason. B. One Global Supplier of THE legal currency - World Wide Web of Legal Fraud and Violence (torture and mass murder - legalized) I may have added too much text so...how about brevity: A. Liberty B. Not A or What, or who, are the internment camps for - believers or non-believers in the internment camp conspiracy theory? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280&hl=en Well, I wonder if that video will arrive at a different angle of view as I digest it while my work load has caught up. I have time to view that documentary and comment about its value as "accurate currency". If those people living as "un-civilized" people happened to be living over large reserves of oil, would they be more or less "civilized" than they are now? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23267.htmSibel Edmons also speaks on that audio recording of a public address, public service, radio broadcast. If you do not know about Sibel Edmons you may be encouraged by her example so please look into that name. My next commentary (up for discussion to anyone who may wish to discuss the general topic, or this specific topic), my next commentary concerns the last part of that radio broadcast where the question was tabled concerning any scenario whereby the march toward absolute despotism may, somehow ratchet down. There were no positive perspectives on that question from those people in that broadcast. Why not? I see a very real scenario whereby the march toward absolute despotism ratchets down, and I see this because this is happening and it is happening in a measurable way. From the measurable perspective of a power relationship between despots and victims (criminals and victims) the pendulum is swinging in favor of the third group. That sentence above is English. If the reader has a problem reading English, the reader could blame me for that problem, and if that is done by the reader, then I ask for a measurable power transfer in this specific case. Does that transfer of blame constitute a measurable power shift, or is that transfer of blame merely identifying someone as a victim? Are you a victim? If so, why are you a victim? Why not join the group of people who are not victims? The following is a sentence: From the measurable perspective of a power relationship between despots and victims (criminals and victims) the pendulum is swinging in favor of the third group. That is a sentence and that sentence addresses the question asked by the host in the radio broadcasts linked at the top of this page.
Criminals are linked to victims by fraudulent monetary (legal) currency. People who are not linked by fraudulent (legal) monetary currency are not criminals or victims by that measure. Take the torture of some hapless victim in some legal dungeon somewhere as that victim screams and follow the money from the paid torturer on back to your pay check. You are an accessory to that crime, a criminal, confessed or not, you paid for each scream - if you are linked by that fraudulent currency. Is that an uncomfortable bit of news? Is it accurate? Do you wish to censor such transfers of power? Welcome to the machine. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://tree3.com/Video/rp8.14.09.wmv 100 trillion dollars, That number isn't just a number thrown out to see if it will gain currency, in other words that number is not just a politically motivated falsification of the facts designed to cause potential victims to be victims. That number represents actual reality, it measures reality, it measures a reality that is complex in detail, yet simple in principle. If the simple principle is not understood the complexity can be confusing to a point of victimization. The link at the top of the page reminds me of that Presidential "race" in 1992. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dR38yCC5js That link is a reminder and other things. The simple principle can be expanded into complexity or reduced to a razor sharp edge or refined into the smallest particle, or focused down to absolute clarity. I can't force anyone to do anything, but I can offer a competitive example of focus, or sharpness, or simple base principled perspective, and from that point the perspective can expand on avenues of greater understanding that lead to liberty or to whatever the viewer desires. That may be a problem, of course, the problem of choosing something other than liberty once the person gains the power of self-determination. The base principle is simple, or it isn't a base principle, so here is my competitive offering of the base principle:
100 trillion dollars, I can almost hear the gears turning in the brains of the people who read my texts, and my guess is that much of the thinking in response to the words above may be along the lines of "over-simplification". I have over simplified the human condition in reference to that number. Do you really think that? Is it better to be clear or clouded when viewing something as enormous as 100 trillion dollars? If 100 trillion dollars is at your finger tips, you, yes you, a human being, a person, a living breathing willful creature of life, if you have 100 trillion dollars at your finger tips, what are you, if not a criminal? How did you get that power? Is that power measuring something? What does that power measure? Are these questions irrelevant or merely unpopular? What does the measure of unpopularity offer in this effort to understand that number? Why would anyone not find that number to be worthy of note, worth the effort to understand it, and cause for careful and diligent concern? From that base principle I am going to offer one possible and competitive avenue from which to move willfully. The perceiver sits at the one point, viewing the one event, where an innocent person is victimized by a criminal, and the perceiver measures that event with some measuring device of some kind.
If the criminal is smart (and I am leaping ahead some) the criminal will be mindful of any possible observers who may be measuring the event whereby the criminal is extracting a measure of victimization from the intended victim during the crime. How much better for the criminal will it be to have the observer miscalculate the exact measure of the crime? What would happen, for example, if the criminal manages to dress up the crime, spin the crime, adjust the look of the crime, so as to make the crime appear as if the victim is the criminal and the criminal is the victim, and do so in such a way as to be effective, economical, precise, exact, measurable, factual, actual, and real? An observer views the crime in progress and the observer is led to believe that the victim is the criminal and the criminal is the victim, in some measurable way. 100 trillion dollars, one criminal, one victim, and one confused observer, I've leaped so far ahead as to confuse the observer, perhaps, and all I have done is to stealth-fully add the factor of falsehood. The point I intend to convey here is a matter of accurate currency, to find it, to use it, and to gain by it, at the expense of no innocent person anywhere, and unfortunately, if it must be so, at the expense of criminals. Criminals may have to find productive work, real jobs, be competitive, produce something someone else wants, something someone else hasn't been tricked into wanting, and produce a higher quality product at a lower cost, once the observers employ accurate currency so as to avoid being either criminals or victims. Why is that not simple? I don't understand the confusion anymore. I once ran for congress, I didn't understand the confusion then either, what is to be confused about? I can relate, I can sympathize, I can be empathetic, it isn't beyond my comprehension to know confusion, and for example, I am confused about why people are confused. What is so confusing about the 100 trillion dollar number? When criminals run things, what can the victims expect? 100 trillion dollar debt isn't so hard to understand. Victims owe the criminals a measurable amount of victimization. The number is just a number, add 100 trillion more zeros to that number, and it will be the same thing, it will have more zeros, but it will be the same thing, from the same source. Who has the power to add zeros to their own legal monetary account? What would you do with that power? Would you buy puppets in foreign countries? Would you teach poor criminals to be very good criminals in schools where torture and mass murder is taught, and then employed? And why is my viewpoint so often demonized, what is the power behind that effort - exactly? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3626brits_hook_zhou.htmlThat link and that quote flows from the source to this node on the net. Is that link an example of accurate currency? I see evidence supporting that hypothesis; yes, that is accurate currency. I have yet to read the rest of the link, and I will comment as I read. I read the rest of the article. The recipe for reform, to me, appears to be another case of employing the cause of the problem as a means to fix the problem. Hamiltonian debt based financial systems; it seems to me, is as big of a problem as is the current regiment labeled as: The Dollar Hegemony. I may have missed something in the text. This: Whenever someone claims such a claim as the one above, where "only" one possible thing can be done to fix the problem, I see a problem. The fix, it seems to me, is to stop fixing that problem with the one and only cure, which is almost always some version of crime, some version of making plans to injure innocent people for profit, and then executing those plans. The fix whereby all competition is eliminated (only one fix is planned on and executed by the "fixers") is the fix that destroys the natural force of nature built into the natural system of self-fixing, which is by any other name, the same thing i.e. competition. Competition (instead of the one and only fix - fix - where competition is destroyed, on purpose, for profit), competition is many fixes, not just one, and each fix, each competitor, in nature, is working the fix, working to be more better, working to increase quality, working to reduce cost, because failure to do so, removes the power to do so, and that power is supplied by all the customers who demand higher quality and lower cost. Who desires lower quality and higher cost? If you don't know the answer to that question, then my offering for a competitive (and accurate) answer is: Monopolists (with their one and only one fix). That one and only one fix, it seems to me, is the same thing over and over again, as if doing the same thing over and over again, one more time, will result in a better (and lower cost) result this time, despite the fact that every other time, for as far back as human's have been recording these things (accurately, not "spun"), that fix, that same fix, has always ruined the thing it was intended to fix - that one and only fix, the fix that plans on and then executes the plan to eliminate competition. I can search for more data on that author of that article since that article does offer some very interesting text, on history, and other things. Like this: Note the link between "The Dollar" and "London-created petroleum spot market". Petro-dollars. Now look at the latest effort to eliminate competition in oil-currency: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_417757.html I never said that Chavez was not a dictator, but compared to what, what is the standard of excellence in that department? Whose plans to injure innocent people for profit is the most profitable when the dust settles? Who benefits? Who pays? Who is going to pay for the southern front war of aggression this time? How about some old news on an old power employed toward competition? File this under "things to consider in defense of liberty" - while most everyone else is employing the one and only fix (the one that never works - as advertized)? http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods121.html Madison was the "federalist" turned "anti-federalist" once he saw the light. Once it was proven to Madison that the anti-federalists were accurate in their exposure of the crimes of "Nationalism" (spearheaded by Hamilton), once things like the "Alien and Sedition Acts" proved the point, with an exclamation point!, once the false flag of "Federalism" was sufficiently stripped from the bare naked criminals who donned that cloak, once that happened, Madison began campaigns to undo what he had helped do. No longer was the idea the same old, one and only fix, no, no, no, the idea returned to something more like competition; where separate and sovereign states could compete for market share and the consumers could pick and choose which state was higher in quality and lower in cost. But I'm just a troll, so don't mind me. The articles speak for themselves. Is it accurate currrency, or not? How is it measured - exactly? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski235.htmlKaren Kwaitkowski wrote those words. I think it is more of the stuff that I like to call accurate currency, the stuff that moves minds to begin thinking accurately. But that may just be me. My guess is that Karen thinks that her words are accurate enough to accomplish some specific task. The theme of this article, this example of accurate currency, asks a specific question, and the accurate answer is worthy of consideration. I think the false answer is the answer used by people who fall into the category of Machiavelli types, or Statists, or to be even more focused, more precise, and more accurate, the thinking that generates the false answer originates from un-natural criminal minds. I suppose that it can be suggested, with words, that criminal minds are natural experiments of mutated DNA; where the criminal brain, absent the stuff that generates sympathy, empathy, etc. is a naturally occurring genetic mutation. I think that would be a false representation of nature, since nature has a job to do, and that job is to further life, to preserve it, to make life prosper, to cause life to exist, to sustain life, and to keep life going and going and going. Why would nature produce a killer, a torturer, and a mass murderer? If nature produces a species killer, does that part of nature test the validity of the targeted species? I am going to continue reading the article and continue commenting from an accurate currency (based upon Joe's Law) perspective. There is power in accurate currency, and accurate currency can move people from false and destructive paths toward true and productive paths - from miserable slow death to prosperous and exciting life. Perhaps I have that backwards too? Someone invents the false stuff for some reason, what could be the reasoning? Back to Karen (Lieutenant Colonel) Kwiatkowski: The "news" offered before that statement concerned a few polls that could be checked for validity. I attended a junior college course called Statistics and Dynamics (or some such title) back in the 80s, and even then the sophistication of propaganda was remarkable. There is a great power in mass media as a means by which massive numbers of people can be stupefied, and those massive numbers of people can be conditioned to respond to "polls" in such a way as to generate false data. If someone reads the false data and comes to false conclusion as a result of the employment of false data, what does that fact inspire in the reader, the author, or the fellow members of a discussion forum? I can offer an example of what I am describing here, in reaction to the commentary offered by Karen Kwiatkowski - currently. Suppose a poll asks for opinions concerning who is or who is not esteemed to a high degree, up on a pedestal? Suppose the majority answer with a highest esteem for the police and the military workers. You call these guys up, and they do the dirty work - clean-up on isle 5. That data, if that data is inspected, judged, chewed on, and then employed, could be spun into a false esteem for police and military leadership - a false measure of esteem for the people who are in between the employers of the police and military and the actual peace officers and grunts in the police and the military. How can that data be made more accurate so as to re-assess the situation with a greater concern for measuring the esteem of the people with regard to liberty, with regard to prosperity, with regard to peace, with regard to harmony, with regard to the work that the police must do, and with regard to the work that the military must do, in defense against all criminals of any kind from any quarter? Here is an example: http://texasfred.net/archives/3814 Take the same people who generated the data in the polls reference by Karen Kwiatkowski and ask those people to place Oath Keepers above or below the mindless order followers in either the police or military employment theaters. Run the poll like this: Do you place Nazi type order followers who rape, torture, and mass murder innocent babies, because they are told to do so, above or below Oath Keepers who will not follow unlawful orders where they are told to commit such crimes by their criminal bosses?
What happens to the conclusions derived from the poll data? How does our liberty minded or anti-liberty minded public measure up after that poll? How does that poll measure up as "accurate currency"? How many will answer A? How many will answer A if the poll taker thinks that punishment will occur for failure to answer A? Beware of Greeks offering gifts? I'm going to send the link to this forum to Karen Kwiatkowski, since that is what I have done, in the past, when commenting on people who write things, and when those people leave their e-mail addresses after their writing is published to the public - for public consumption. And that is why I read Karen Kwaitkowski, she is ever so ready to test her thinking for validity. The scientific method still lives and breaths in human form. The U.S. military, by that example, that Lieutenant Colonel, is cause for high esteem. Who will be there when you really, really, need them? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, What would a "gloves off" libertarian presidential message to the tax paying people while this leader is in office fighting a congress (house and senate) filled with a super majority of legal criminals look like - exactly? "Hi fellow lovers of liberty, today I have horrible news to pass on to you." [Cut scene to obscene graphic video of live torture upon a "terrorist" aged 20 paid for by the tax payers - one full minute duration] "Did you see that?" [Prime time interruption during a Super Bowl commercial] "Your elected "representatives" [double peace sign] are spending your hard earned wealth on worse things." [Cut to scene to gang rape and murder of teenager while mother and father writhe in excruciating mental anguish - forced to watch] "You are paying to have that done, and it is live. I've managed to infiltrate these "off the books expenditures" expressly designed to clue you in; however I'm holding back, the worst is censored for your protection." [Cut scene to babies just about to be burned alive and the screen stops abruptly - returning to the president - live] "My agents are being paid with my own salary and from donations from the following donors. Have a nice day." [A list of donors in white plain text scrolls quickly on a black background - and the regular broadcast resumes.] Not real? http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/ Who prefers ignorance? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/52369,news,land-grabbing-the-new-colonialism,2Food is power, try not eating for 3 days and see if food is power, don't take my word on it. Who owns the land, and how did they get that power? If that is a strange question, or irrelevant to the reader, then I may ask: what is relevant? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Since discussion is no longer fashionable, or I'm just looking in all the wrong places, I see an opportunity to digest some one way data in the form of a series of video presentations. I may find cause to comment after viewing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6767qPd1iPg That is part I |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Since discussion is no longer fashionable, or I'm just looking in all the wrong places, I see an opportunity to digest some one way data in the form of a series of video presentations. I may find cause to comment after viewing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6767qPd1iPg That is part I Comment: I find it very difficult to listen to any false apologies for the crimes being committed by "The President" (no matter who sits in that seat), where the "reporters" say things like: "he inherited" the crime. The "cost of the war" is not a cost to the promoters of the war. Why is the focus of attention moved away from finding the specific people who profit from the crime ("war") so as to find the people who cause and perpetuate the crime, find the motive and therefore find the perpetrators, then expose those specific criminals? Why not do that? Why apologize for the crimes and why apologize for the criminals? Why confuse the purpose of the crime with things like "find the criminals who attacked us on 911"? Why lie? Why perpetuate lies? It seems to me, and I'm not alone, even if "the majority" think I'm alone, a lone lunatic, a conspiracy theorist, etc,; it seems to me that the paper trail followed from the crimes (war) in Afghanistan lead back to the same people who destroyed those buildings in New York (by controlled demolition, along with all the people inside those buildings). I could be wrong, but why not follow the paper trail, if not to expose the worst criminals currently torturing the most people and currently murdering the most people, why not do that just to prove me wrong? The paper trail leads to the criminals. Why not cut the flow of paper trailing from those who earn wealth to those who are now stealing it, now using it to torture, using it to mass murder, using it to apologize for torture and mass murder, using it to cover up and perpetuate that flow of wealth, and those crimes? If the flow is cut off, and if the crimes suddenly lessen, lessen more and more each day, grind to a stop, no more legal torture soon, no more legal mass murder soon, then doesn't that prove something worth proving? What is the profit in allowing the flow to continue? What generates that demand for that flow that continues to go from the honest productive people who produce wealth to those horrible terrorizing torturing mass murderers who set their own pay rates and give themselves license to rob, rape, steal, torture, and mass murder with impunity on into perpetuity? If there is a supply, there must be a demand - no? I went past the last link (the "apologetic" commentary) and went to the source link instead: http://rethinkafghanistan.com/ |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
If there are two storage bins, it seems to me, one thing going in one storage bin can't be in the other storage bin at the same time. One thing goes in one or the other storage bin, not into both storage bins, at the same time. Suppose that there is a storage bin and in this storage bin are things that are accurate. Outside that bin are all things other than the things that are accurate. Next to that bin are two more bins. One bin is a place where all the inaccurate things are, and the third bin stores all the things that are false. False things are things made by people who make false things on purpose, in a pre-meditated manner, so as to cause someone else, a victim, to change behavior, to modify behavior, to response in a conditioned manner, response conditioning, to propagate specific behavior, to cause the targeted audience to move onto a false path.
Example: War is good for the economy! Where does that belong; if the idea is to place that declaration into an accurate bin among the choices listed?
Accurate Currency Where does that go? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/191213-Word-gets-around-Twilight-and-the-trick-of-the-ps ychopaths
Two links that go along with that link are: http://tinyurl.com/mmmgyx Fromm answers the question on "how to tell between psychopaths and healty people. If I understand it right the tell tale method is to ask them if they are psychopaths. If they can honestly admit to being a psychopath, they are not. How do you get an honest answer out of a pscyhopath? I may find the actual words written by Fromm on that question later. Here is the other link that goes with the first link: http://www.gametheory.net/mike/applets/PDilemma/Pdilemma.html That one is not the one I prefer to link. The idea is to see how infectious or destructive crime can be in human life. The cost is seen in game theory. If people cooperate (collude) then people produce the necessities and benefits of human life, if people prey on each other (cheat) then the necessities and benefits of human life are consumed by those cheaters. It is false to claim that cheaters score anything of benefit. Cheaters injure innocent victims because they steal from the production process. Note how that link (the game theory applet)show this fact. If the two players collude (cooperate) the end result is an increase of "profit" or score by 40 - each player gains 20 points. If one player cheats while the other player doesn't cheat (the psychopath factor) the cheater steals 30 points and the honest player receives no points. What does that tell you? Two people honestly cooperate and produce wealth with their advantage gained in cooperation. Those two people create 40 points and each gain 20 points. If one cheats and the other does not cheat, please see this, the cheater creates a 10 point cost, production goes down by 10 points, total production is only 30 points, and the cheater takes the whole "profit". If both cheat, in game theory, each producer receives 10 points for a total of 20 points produced. Does that sound like a modern corporation to you? If you don't stab your fellow workers in the back you will be stuck on the bottom of the pyramid working for subsistence wages, gaining no profits, while the bosses stab each other in the back to split the meager profits. I've been there, I've done that, and to be the best worker, to produce the most, the highest quality stuff, in the least amount of time, to bust all the established rates of production, to be the best employee possible, causes, and this is a fact, causes the middle management "managers" to fear for their positions, fear the upcoming "worker", and rain down upon that worker a steady flow of falsehoods, cheats, back-stabbings, lies, and every possible action that can destroy that competition if the slightest hint of accession is perceived by the threatened mid level manager. The higher tier managers know this, see this, promote this, and reward the mid level managers who are the most efficient at destroying competition, like a game, and if the mid level player is too good, the top level players eliminate them, by the same means: cheating. Don't take my word for it, consume your own life in "business" and see for yourself. If you happen upon a "company" whereby the idea is to cooperate, honestly, then watch out, watch out for those psychopaths - they will raid your happy cooperative, and they will destroy it. If the idea is to know the truth about game theory, and how it applies to modern human life, I can suggest a few more links (if someone asks) and I will comment some here: Cooperators gain the power to increase production through three obvious forms of honest "leverage", or "mechanical advantage", where this economic advantage can be seen with a simple illustration using three terms.
That is a fact. The one person is born into no history, no advantage of cooperation between past human beings, no cooperation of gaining past knowledge. Passing on knowledge, recording knowledge, is a form of human cooperation; which brings me to the first term. Past experimenters pass on their savings of knowledge power to future generations and that is a division of labor. Past experience is earned by past generations, they did the work, the new generation does not have to do that same work, the work load is divided by that division of labor. Another example of this powerful honest economic leverage point, this fulcrum, is reproduction. Women bear the children. How can a pregnant woman survive all alone (let alone get pregnant) during the months of child birth? Labor is divided. Why, the reader may ask, is this division of labor thing capable of increasing production? Perhaps you don't ask. The question is a good one, it begs to be answered. One person can specialize in one job and not be tasked with every job. One person can make 100 chairs and not have to make 1 chair, stop making chairs, start making hammers, stop making hammers, start making nails, stop making nails, start making glue, stop making glue, etc. Division of labor and specialization combine, in honest cooperation, to enable 2 people to increase production by a significant factor, significantly more that twice as much production compared to two people producing alone, without exchange of any kind, one person on one remote island and another person on another remote and disconnected island. The two people cooperating have the power to increase production significantly greater once they honestly cooperate and employ division of labor and specialization. That is two people, and that cooperation is shown in Game Theory as 20 point each earned of the 40 points of production. If one steals the act of stealing will destroy cooperation. The destruction of cooperation is paid for with past or current production, there won't be any future production, unless the victim is unaware of the cheat or if the victim is forced to continue producing while the cheater continues to steal from the production run. 40 points are earned by cooperation. 30 points are taken from past or current production, stolen by the cheater, and the cheater can "keep the slaves alive" or let them perish. Both will perish or the cheater must work and produce after the slave dies. 10 points each are earned if both player cheat, and that must be less than the production rate earned by two people completely separated form each other because each cheater expends production costs on defense. They have less time to produce because they are working at finding ways to defend against cheating and finding new ways to cheat. Who is producing when everyone is cheating? That is not shown in game theory, not without looking deep into game theory. When everyone is cheating the rate of production falls below sustainable levels; where production is less that consumption - and that will kill off people. Who does it kill; honest producers? What game theory should teach us, is for us to avoid any connection with cheaters, and the most obvious connection, in my view, is inaccurate currency. Who demands inaccurate currency? Why is the supply of inaccurate currency increasing? Cheaters love dishonest currency, even if they won't confess that love. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue08/coverstory.phpIn that story is the key to the success of liberty. I'll quote and then comment: In order to understand what I perceive, clearly, an individual must understand the power of Trial by Jury. What is it, what was it, and what can it be - in reality? Here is a good look at the history of it: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html Here is a relevant quote: http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/ls-tbj/ch1.htm That copy is easier to quote: How accurate can it get, what is your capicaity in handling accuracy? How accurate can it get, what is your capacity in handling accuracy? Can you trust your neighbor to wield the power of nullification? Can you afford not to trust him or her? Can they afford to trust you? What happens when nullification is out-lawed and how would that law be enforced - exactly? How is crime enforced by law? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/how-money-finds-its-way-into-the-economy/
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #dddddd"That is bull...stuffing. Interest charged by someone who pays no interest is an easy to explain abuse of power, it is crime, it is legal crime. These are words, these are words that have no power, people have power. Some people, call them "The Fed", have the power to add zeros to their own personal accounts. If you believe the words published on that OHHHH SOOOO official looking link, and you prefer not to believe that sentence above, then please take a moment and look in the mirror and ask yourself this question: "When will I take back my power to perceive accurately from those who stole that power?" Here is the sentence again (that you may or may not believe to be true, while you may or may not believe the bullshit published in the link to be true): Some people, call them "The Fed", have the power to add zeros to their own personal accounts. Suppose that you went into the bathroom and you asked yourself the question concerning your power to see clearly and then suppose that you decided to use your brain to see what may be true in that sentence I offer to you. Suppose that these people, call them The Fed, add millions of zeros to their personal accounts, millions of zeros, because the keyboard stuck, or some other excuse. They now have a lot of zeros in their account no? Yes? When is one zero too many zeros? When is the number of zeros not enough zeros in their personal accounts? What do they want? What do they want to buy? They already have the power to add zeros to their personal accounts so they don't have to buy that power from someone. It is already their power, and it is not your power, not legally your power. What happens if you want to add zeros to your account? You have to pay them. They don't have to pay you. Why do you not have that deal? Why do they have that deal and not you? What makes them so special? I have the accurate answer. They are criminals. You are a victim. If you refuse to see things in that way, then you work for them - without pay. Good luck with that, it leads to torture and mass murder as those people buy what they need to keep that power. You may end up pushing less powerful people in front of you on the line to the torture chambers on that path. You may end up digging the mass graves. You may end up being tortured as you torture other people, being murdered as you murder other people and if you think I'm the one "on crack", then ask yourself what happens to your wealth when your zeros on your account are transfered to a government employee who is at this moment torturing someone for profit. You bought it, hook, line, and sinker. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north750.htmlWhen "News" is bottled up, if you can borrow my brain, the reason for this action (bottling up), the thought that drives it, is fear, and the fear is that competition will find a way to break through, real news will pass through the barriers that block accurate currency from flowing between separate and sovereign beings. When accurate currency (real news) passes between separate and sovereign beings, like wildfire, becoming viral, the effect is a more powerful bunch of separate and sovereign people. The fear is a fear of competition. The act of "bottling up" is an act intending to destroy competition. Competition leads to quality increases while costs (prices) decrease. The subject matter here is: "The Fed", the people I call legal criminals or "Legal Criminals" (no caps is better if by "better" the idea is to focus defensive thoughts and actions toward the actual criminals who think out and act out crimes and "better" is to avoid focusing attention on "the group", since actual people are response-able and "groups" are not "responsible" or "accountable"), and "The Fed" (the people) are criminals, so my label is more accurate in that sense. A. Legal Criminals B. The Fed Who blocks the flow of accurate currency when you hear my accurate term (legal criminal) as that term flows through your central processor? Do you fear competition too? The fear of competition is a fear that is driven by a false sense of security concerning a supposed advantage or "leverage" held by the people stricken with fear, and I can explain this point of perceptive focus. The people who have the power to add zeros to their own accounts, and do so at will, and do so without being held accountable for any debt whatsoever, are people who think that they have an advantage over people who do not have this power. The idea, in the head of someone who has this power, is such that the loss of this power is fearful. What are they going to do when they no longer have the power to add zeros to their own personal bank accounts? Who will have that power once that power is no longer held by these people who fear the loss of that power? These are questions that focus attention at the problem, the specific problem, and the problem that has so far managed to metastasize into "legal" torture and mass murder, and the torture and murder victims are "paid for" by you and me - because of this problem, because this problem works the way it does. Power flows from the many to the few by this effort to hold secure this power to add zeros to the accounts of the few people who have this power. What is there to fear?
The power to add zeros to a few personal accounts (and by that power wealth transfers from the many to the few) is the power that finances all forms of "government" including "Corporations", "States", "Despotism", "Monarchy", "Kingdoms", "Federally Constituted Republics", or even "Families". If that power is given up, if the barriers are torn down, if there are no monopolies ever, nevermore, here in this land (internally), what happens in other lands (externally)? That is the source of fear that is injected into the minds of the victims, and I can explain that too, to anyone who wants to know the truth of it. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know exactly what is wrong with my thinking. An example of how I would explain that fear thing is by pointing to China.
It is not, it is a false fear, it is delusional, it is the essence of "The Problem". If "we" are competing with the "Chinese", to see who is the most powerful monopoly (few people adding to their person accounts at the expense of many people), then the focus of attention MUST BE focused on the purpose of that "entity" (the few people's version of that "entity"), and the focus MUST NOT BE confused with legal crime. A. Competition to be the best legal crime extortion racket B. Competition to be the best defenders of liberty Please see that illustration, and if you can't see it, please ask questions. One competition is real and the other competition is false. A. The victims are the many people in each "entity" as the leaders pretend to fight each other (they actually form a consortium or cabal or a mutual agreement to leave each other's turf alone, or to combine their power to consume the victims i.e. war) B. The competition is a race to see which "entity" prospers and gains power in defense of liberty One actually gains more power, more wealth, more prosperity, without limit, and the other throttles down that power to prosper, and it does so: on purpose, for profit ("it" is refereed here as a "methodology" a "path" a road to follow, the actual people herding the victims on this road are the actual response-able people, the "accountable" people). The "cabal" (leaders agreeing to victimize their own victims in their own turf or the leaders agreeing to "cull the herd" by executing mutually profitable wars among between their respective victims) is PATH A (the one we are on now). Liberty is the path that results in the most power produced soonest, or, in other words: the most benefit for the least cost. I may be alone with this viewpoint, and that may be another angle of view, where that fact illustrates the same problem, or that fact measures the power of the barriers set in place to "bottle up" the flow of powerfully accurate data (accurate currency). Read the link at the top of this post, if you will. Or not. The link reports on an effort to hold the legal criminals to account for their crimes - in an accurately measurable way (follow the money). |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://fora.tv/2009/07/22/The_Electric_Horizon_Shai_Agassi#Shai_Agassi-How_to_Effectively_ Reduce_the_Cost_of_Electric_Cars I.Q. Test - anyone? http://fora.tv/2009/07/22/The_Electric_Horizon_Shai_Agassi#Shai_Agassi_The_Marginal_Costs_ of_Electric_Driving Down a curve that cuts in half every 4 or 5 years |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, I am currently reading the manuscript for Howard Blooms new book titled: The Genius of the Beast The book is due out in 69 days, or so. Here are Howard Blooms two previous books: http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Principle-Scientific-Expedition-History/dp/0871136643 http://www.amazon.com/Global-Brain-Evolution-Mass-Century/dp/0471419192 And here is a pre-order page for the new book: http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Beast-Radical-Re-Vision-Capitalism/dp/1591027543
Howard (as I read that new book) is a cheerleader for capitalism. I am not, I know what capitalism is, so does Howard. Howard, so far, does not focus attention on the legal criminals, the people who create and maintain the legal money monopolies, and that is fine with me, since Howard does what Howard does best, he focuses on the science of our species, and compares our species with other species, in a very well researched and very well elucidated way. This post is not an ad for Howard's book; so much as it is a confession on my part concerning my lack of maintenance on this topic. I started the topic, so I feel obligated to continue it, so long as the hit count continues to add up. Howard, or someone working for Howard (I can't know for sure), took a look at my Joe's Law wording and the response was positive - it looks right. That means something big to me. I may be deluding myself - of course. I see much to be positive about in our world, despite the power still held by very evil legal criminals, and much of my perspective is attributable to people like Howard Bloom, people who take a scientific approach to perception - people who are not satisfied with popular dogma. A case in point, to illustrate what I mean by "not being satisfied with popular dogma" is the resent events leading up to my running for congress a second time. I didn't get any farther than a trip to Redlands (Registrar of Voters) to change my legal "party" from "Libertarian" to "none of the above" (the next best thing in legal terms is "Independent"). I didn't get far down the path of "running for congress" (the second time) because my initial inspiration to "access the political means" was driven by falsehood, by a false belief in a "popular dogma". I had become aware of this case of "popular dogma" as I began reading version of it from "official sources" and to the prognoses was very, very dark, foreboding, pessimistic, and filled with doom and gloom. Who among the readers has heard of "Peak Oil"? That is the popular dogma that sent my running for the political means, as a means of addressing "Peak oil" as that popular dogma began to infect my mind. I managed to pull my own head out of my ass before the process of "running for congress" included the necessary fight I'd have to win against my wife, to drop all the things we are doing to together, and to march off to access the political means, again. The "Peak oil" popular dogma is my illustrated example of how falsehood works on some people and how such things don't work on other people. Life can be much more positive, much more accurately perceived, if the person perceiving is able to avoid falsehood, to defend against it, to know better. On the Joe's Law front (Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production are the following two links: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0915/p06s01-woeu.html I can offer a relevant story on that above. A customer where I work went looking for a piece of land out on the middle of no where and he happened upon two people there in that same spot. Those three people were one owner of worthless land and two people looking for land where a wind generator could be placed. That happened last week. http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/09/15/volkswagens-e-up-an-electric-car-for-t he-people/ The local story on that is such that my wife needs a new car. We don't yet have Solar Panels so we will have to pay for our car fuel (electricity) at the going rate (2 cents per mile or about an equivalent of 1 dollar per gallon - very roughly) and I have yet to convince my wife to hold off on buying a petroleum fueled car (gas guzzler), and I have yet to convince my wife to invest in a pre-order for a Tesla motors sedan (available in 2011 or so). The second link above aids me in my campaign to hold off investing in a new gas guzzler purchase (a God damn waste in my opinion), and move toward an investment in a more independent power purchase (more in tune with Joe's law). Here is a quote from the second link (people's car): To be more accurate (and not to fall victim to the false ad above) the Tesla Sedan is selling for 49900 Here: http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php The sports cars are selling for higher price (apples and oranges?) Whatever |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north758.html Anyone, All that above, and it is good stuff, concerns the monopoly issue of legal money. Take away the monopoly power, with any legal competition, and all those things turn right side up. If anyone anywhere is legally allowed to produce and sell money, what happens? Anyone? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, I wonder how that logic followed through to find its way here in this thread. If the topic is diverted from what it was to that above, by some logical progression, I wonder too: what is the purpose of such a huge leap? Whose point is that quote targeting or referencing? Who is the intended audience? What is the targeted and exploited market expected to do with that form of currrency. Is that message, that currency accurate or not accurate? Example: There is my opportunity to lead back to the topic subject matter, and avoid falling victim to the obvious false currency quoted above. I read ahead from that quote in the lasted offering from the libeler and this libeler appears to have a battle going with his Straw Man; where the libeler, by all appearances, is winning that battle somehow - an amazing feat to be sure. Setting aside the "argument for the sake of argument" offered by the Libeler and his Straw-Man (ventriloquist act), I can employ that false statement to aid in the view of something called monetary interest. The false quote, the false currency, the inaccurate currency dictates a dictate with the following words (again): Crime is a market, and only the people who are criminals will be the people who monopolize, or cartelize, or create a cabal, in that market. Not being a criminal leaves the person out of that cabal. One criminal all alone, working his planned injury to his one victim, will not constitute a crime market monopoly, not in reality. There must be greater interest in this form of exploitation. The interest in injuring innocent victims for profit (crime) must spread to other people so that more than one person has an interest in profiting by this method of injuring innocent people. If two people are targeting the same victim and both criminals are interested in profiting at the expense of the one victim; the two criminals are then presented with a problem, and many possible solutions, here are two:
Now suppose that the above can be illustrated with historical facts and to do that there must be a criminal, or a number of criminals, a victim, or a number of victims, and a second criminal or a number of additional criminals. I'm going to pick a historical time period, present the facts as they were at that time, and then project a hypothetical situation that could occur from that historical point; the idea behind this hypothetical situation is nothing more than an illustration of a specific viewpoint that isn't intending to exploit anyone for any reason whatsoever. The English Monopoly Power over the global market was currently exploiting the American Colonial Power over the same global market; and the plan by which that crime was to be executed included a device called: monetary interest. In order for the English Monopoly Power to have the leverage required to execute the plan the English Monopoly Power had to link money with law by a device called: legal tender. The device requires that the victims pay taxes with legal tender. If the Monopoly Power dictates that "legal tender" is dog poop; then the subjects (the targeted victims being exploited in this global market, by monopoly power) must pay taxes with dog poop. Dog poop becomes Monopoly Power money. They don't, of course, because dog poop can be made at home by anyone with a dog; a female dog can reproduce and increase the creation of Legal Tender exponentially. The English (including the Royal governing power) had a measure (not absolute but a lesser evil, a lesser measure from an absolute) Monopoly Power had power, and that power was evaporating, lessening, dissolving, and growing less powerful as more of their targeted victims moved from England to America and in America the people there "created their own currency". American people who moved from England didn't, at first, import the same Monopoly Money or Legal Tender, rather the people who moved from England created "Colonial Script". Now, as often happens, the Monopoly Power divided into two money powers as such:
Here is where the interesting part comes in to play as the English Monopoly Power weakens and the American competitive power increases - in actual history. The English Monopoly Power was able to extort from their victims a rate of wealth charged to anyone within their power to extort and to that end they used a tool called: interest. If someone needed English Monopoly Money, they had to pay interest on that money. If they had to pay taxes; they had to pay the interest (an offer they could not refuse). The competition charged less interest (interestingly enough they even charged no interest or even negative interest); and that was the tool that brought down the English Monopoly Power - a notch or two. In absolute terms, perhaps, there isn't anything that can be called an absolute Monopoly, not so long as any competition exists too. In reality, the cartelization of separate powers into one power is a monopoly power that can be measured by its ability to eliminate competition by any means imaginable and unspeakable. Example: War Example 2: Libel The English Monopoly Power planned for war, executed war, and the result was not as profitable as expected. The competition for Monopoly Money Power in the colonies remained competitive, interest rates continued to be forced down to cost, as the global market of criminal exploitation by interest from Legal Money Powers had to contend with competition. A legal money power where the money issued from that legal money power didn't include large military budget costs, large budget costs run up by internal wars to suppress rebellions, etc. are examples of legal money powers where the charge for use of legal money can be competitively lower than the competition where legal money charges (the cost of using the money), or interest, includes the costs of large military budgets where wars of aggression are unsuccessful (not as profitable as expected), and where costs of suppressing internal rebellions run up huge costs, prison costs, legal costs, etc. (not to mention all the costs spent on propagating falsehood, institutionalizing things like "nationalism", etc.) - so the competition in this particular market can be measured as "the interest rate". If the interest rate is high, simple enough to know, the monopoly power is high, and that concludes this effort at this time. In the future I can elaborate or expand on that hypothetical example whereby the English Monopoly Power Traitors (Hamilton and his puppet Washington) cartelized the legal money power; however - in the hypothetical example their battle wasn't won, a "Nation State" wasn't formed, and the hypothetical example will illustrate what could have happened instead. What could have happened instead was a number of separate and sovereign States, held together by a Federated voluntary agreement (modeled after the Swiss Republic), and instead of a Fictitious Legal Entity called: U.S.A. the federation of states existed, where the separate and sovereign states competed against each other for market share in Monopoly Money Markets (legal tender). Such a hypothetical competitive from of government could have replicated the events previous to the English war of aggression (to eliminate competition in legal tender Monopoly money markets), where people opted out of the usury and went elsewhere, where interest rates were interestingly much lower. I don't have time to comment further on the battle going on between the libeler and his Straw-Man - not directly. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, Please note how the dictating libeler responds when the dictating libeler isn't presently producing libel in this market where data is offered for consumption on a public forum. Please note how the dictating libeler defines what he or she is and see how the false fronts do not accurately reflect what he or she is - not the whole truth. In this forum, in this thread, on this topic, the word crime is employed in context, by me, and the word crime has a very specific meaning that is specifically meant to mean what it means by the person employing that word - me. Example: A crime is a act by which a person injures an innocent victim and such a crime is willful, or pre-meditated, where the criminal plans on injuring the innocent victim and then the criminal follows through with that plan to injure the innocent victim. The criminal defines what he or she is by what the criminal does, in fact. That is the context by which the word crime is used in this forum, on this topic, by me. The word "innocent" used before the word "victim" is employed here in this forum, on this topic, for a specific reason and that specific reason is to accurately discriminate between a victim who is innocent of any crimes and a victim who is also a criminal (someone who is also planning on and following through with plans to injure innocent victims on purpose, or for profit).
Next up, in the effort to be more precise, more accurate, and less specious, less ambiguous, is the employment of the term "market" in context with this forum and this topic on this forum. Here is one competitive version of the term "market": Here is another competitive version: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/market To that definition I find a need to qualify the definition so as to aid in the effort to communicate accurately. I can explain the reasoning for doing so: the word "sale" is replaced with the word "exchange" so as to eliminate some of the confusion associated with markets. The grand total of markets can be all markets; specific markets can be specified precisely as needed. An example of a free market is "The market of ideas"; except those ideas that are enforced by copyright laws.
A person may have an idea, and another person isn't "buying it" and therefore that free market "sale" isn't a sale. Someone else may buy the idea and the exchange occurs without any transfer of money, no "sale" by that exclusive definition, but none the less an exchange from the producer of the idea to the consumer of the idea occurs in that market of ideas, that free market. In context of this topic on this forum the word "market" does not exclude any exchanges whatsoever for any reason, not for profit, not for any reason whatsoever: market means, in this context, all exchanges anywhere.
I do not see any need to exclude any transfers from the market being seen by me. I intend to see all exchanges within the market being perceived; therefore I do not intend to employ the word market to mean "only" exchanges involving monetary transfers, or "only" this or that according to some dogmatic school of obsolete economic theory based upon scarcity. Not this: Not here, not now, not by me, no way, no reason, no purpose in my mind, no cause to exclude generous exchanges, no cause to exclude equitable exchanges, no cause to exclude the free market of ideas, no intent on my part to exclude any exchanges occurring within the actual market that actually occurs in reality. This (with one qualified adjustment toward more accuracy): More like this: Market: Any exchange between human beings anywhere at any time in the past, in the present, or in the future. If the exchange in the market is equitable, then the exchange is equitable. If the exchange cost one person more than another person the exchange is inequitable. If the exchange is inequitable because one person is generous and the other person can accept generosity without any strings attached; then that is a part of the economic exchange in that part of that market. If the exchange is criminal, where one person plans on and then carries out the plan to injure the other person or other people, then the exchange is criminal in that part of that market. That is the context in which the term market is being used in this part of this forum, by me. That is another case of dictatorial dictates handed down from the dictatorial libeler, who is presently refraining from publishing libel, thanks for that, I'm much less injured compared to the libelous exchnages offered and consumed. If I don't use the words "innocent" and "victim" as redundant words, then I don't. If I do, then I do. I don't. I've explained the reasoning for distinguishing, separating, divorcing, discriminating between, and isolating the innocent victims from the other victims and I can elaborate on that idea - the consumer can buy this idea, or not. All the consumers can buy the idea offered by the dictatorial libeler, or not. I'm offering the idea, and it makes no difference to me what the consumer does, my offering isn't for personal gain, certainly not personal gain at the expense of someone else. The criminal victim, rather than the innocent victim, may actually earn victimization; and to illustrate that possible scenario I can offer an old saying: Live by the sword, die by the sword. How about some research on the World Wide Web concerning that saying? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by_the_sword,_die_by_the_sword In context of this thread, this topic, the employment of the word "innocent" in conjunction with the word "victim" is expressly and accurately not redundant. Not this: Again: I do not see any reason to combine the victims who are also criminals with the victims who are not criminals themselves.
In context of this thread, in this forum, I have not volunteered to be libeled by the libeler, yet it does happen, the libeler does libel me, the libeler does publish words that misrepresent me, and the libeler does publish words that misrepresent what I think, in this part of the market of ideas. I'm not buying the libel, because I know it is libel. I think that I am defending myself well enough so as not to be victimized (not to the point of suffering excruciating pain) too much by such a criminal act, in this market of ideas, right here. Often is the case, it seems to me, that the criminals conveniently wish away the whole concept of crime, and that tends to lead, it seems to me, to the often made rationalization where the victim is blamed for their innocence, their vulnerability, their ability to be victimized by the criminal, as the criminal plans on and as the criminal executes the plan to victimize the innocent targeted and exploited victim in that part of that market. The victim made me do it; because I can - perhaps. Something like this: Caveat Emptor Market: Any exchange between human beings anywhere at any time in the past, in the present, or in the future. Just because the criminal has no interest in perceiving the victim as a victim, and no interest in perceiving himself or herself as a criminal, just because they do that, doesn't change the facts. The tortured victims tend to have a more accurate perception concerning the measure of pain, what it is exactly, the missing finger nail, the cold, the electricity flowing through the genitals, etc. whereas the criminal is more likely to see this part of this market as fun, something worth doing, something profitable perhaps. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Before moving on to empower the ideas concerning accurate currency (from a Joe's Law perspective), I see a need, or an opportunity, to clarify a possible misunderstanding. I do not wish to argue. I do not wish to cause conflict. I see contention, and that is cause, or an opportunity, to find agreement, to resolve the contention, to see the contention, to measure it, and to resolve it, to find the truth that is exposed by the contentions. The dictatorial libeler, assumingly, is here to parrot an obsolete economic dogma, based upon scarcity, and he or she may be intimately associated with specific other dogmas. Example: Perhaps the dictatorial libeler is intimately association with the people who have been labeled Gold Bugs. Bug isn't a kind word in context, some of the people associated with the label have accepted it - other's not. The idea here and now is to show why the whole Gold Bug or Gold Standard or Gold "legal tender" support is a measurably misspent investment. The support for it is measurably less profitable than support elsewhere if the idea is the measure total profit, total production of wealth, and if the idea isn't to measure wealth flowing from specific targeted and exploited markets to specific individuals who manage to gain by that manipulation, that methodology, that "support". To see this viewpoint clearly I now link to a previous "giant wall of text" from which an idea, or a way of seeing things, is taken. Here is the link: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=labadie;cc=labadie;idno=2916966.0001 .001;size=l;frm=frameset;seq=2;view=image;page=root Here is the TinyURL version: http://tinyurl.com/lqrpjx The title is: "Of Interest to Goldbugs" Here is the relevant quote: I can explain how that may be of interest to gold bugs; because I can, if someone is "buying" the idea. If not, I can move on at liberty, and my next post may be another response to offerings from the dictatorial libeler or my next post may be something more in line with the purpose of the thread: Accurate currency (from a Joe's law perspective) Legal monetary currency isn't well fenced in within the three sided fence, the fences are high, for sure, and the fences are strong too, here in this country, and other fences do exist in other countries, where high and strong fences do what they do there too - if you know what I mean. If not, then blame me? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Hash3m, Your advice is misplaced, please stop suggesting that your viewpoint is superior to mine, it is not, and demonstrably not superior, and you demonstrate this fact every time you resort to falsification, misrepresentation, libel, lies, and falsehood. Now you can claim that you are superior because I am "always" claiming that "everyone" is against me, you can do that again, or you can misrepresent me in some other way, so as to make me look inferior, again, as if such a thing does, somehow, make you superior. These games you play, from my view, discredit you, and I do not make the mistake of transferring your discredit onto the good, and the accurate, texts written by many of the people who are intimately associated with in that Goldbugs camp of people. Your reference to Murray Rothbard is misplaced, I have already exposed his duplicity, he is among the supporters of legal crime, not among the supporters of free banking, among the group of people who call themselves Austrian Economic professors. A. Free banking (really free, not the false "Free") B. Not A I've repeatedly shown that duplicity from the words of one of their own, and I can repeat that link, and I can repeat those words, but for now this sentence is enough wasted power on you and your continued misrepresentations. As to the actual reality of what is or is not ideal currency, as people find it, use it, employ it, and as it powers up any economy anywhere, I think electricity, since its discovery, and its use, has shown to be the winner so far. If the idea is to monopolize, control, and employ as a tool for victimizing innocent targeted victims, I see no better device than "legal tender", in any form, be that form Gold, Silver, paper, or networked digital accounts (employing electricity). Currency (a medium of exchange whereby the tool itself is a vital tool necessary when people access division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale) is a double edged sword type of thing, due to its unique character, its power, and its ability to facilitate the production of actual power, physical power. The production of currency is subjected to manipulations of opinion. False currency, or "fiat currency", is a good example of this phenomenon, resulting from this character of currency (a medium of exchange...). Electricity cannot be falsified, and neither can oil. It is what it is, and it does what it does, and it does what it does exactly as it does each time, when it is what it is. Gold has similar properties; however gold isn't divorced from manipulations of opinion. Gold can be a very good medium of exchange when opinions think that Gold is a very good medium of exchange, and this can be measured as purchasing power. If Gold is not thought of, by anyone, as a good medium of exchange, like modern society for example, then gold isn't a good medium of exchange. How does Gold measure up? Can I use gold to buy something on E-bay? Can I use gold to pay taxes? Can I use gold to buy my groceries? How much does it cost me to use gold as currency in any of these transactions? If the answer is no, I won't except gold at this time, then the answer is no, if the answer is maybe, if and when you can prove that your gold isn't fake, or if and when you can prove that your gold is good, worth something, real, and not false, then the answer isn't yes, thanks, here is your groceries, move along, there is someone else in line, we are working with velocity here at the grocery store, then the answer isn't yes and the reason for something other than a quick "yes" answer is a measure of that other side of that sharp double edged sword called currency. If a person buys 20 solar panels and sells those panels to the manager of the grocery store, hooks up the power producers (all 20) to begin supplying the grocery store with power, and by that investment the grocery store owner pays less for electric power to the new power producer, you or I (the one who hooks up the power), and my pay is a lifetime of groceries, then that illustrates something about electric power, currency, and the power to purchase, while bypassing opinions. Each watt is worth a calorie of food - perhaps. Once the deal is made the seller can receive groceries at that rate, so long as the solar panels continue to produce power. If the grocery store manager buys the solar panels himself, if that is the snappy come back, then why are you and I not farming our own food? Why don't you and I farm, or produce, our own currency? The double edge on the sword of currency is there because currency must seek monopolization or cartelization so as to gain power, to become universally accepted, and in doing so the cost of haggling, the cost of measuring relative value, and the cost of proving value, are minimized. Even when the last two "best" or "highest quality" currencies remain to be the "accepted" ones there must be one last haggle, one last "exchange rate" calculation done, at the point of exchange, whenever the people trading are not somehow brought under some monopolization or cartelization routine, tool, or process. Absent a "legal tender" force, or tool, or opinion changing process, monopolization routine, cartelization routine, absent that force the process (without "legal" means) would theoretically be free competition of multiple competitors seeking dominance, seeking monopolization, and seeking cartelization for the one and the only one currency. What would the winner be? If actual reality were used to answer that question, it seems to me, the winner would be electricity, with oil a close second, currently, at this time in human history. But that is just me seeing with my brain, my eyes, and my capacity, or my power to know, and to know accurately. To suggest that I look, again, at words written by someone who supports "legal tender" or even someone who claims not to support "legal tender" while hidden behind his false message that person actually does support "legal tender" with his support of enforced property rights or enforced "intellectual property rights" or some other enforcement of some other contract, or some other support of some Gold Standard, or some other, hidden, support of something other than actual free banking, where the actual support being supported by the duplicitous individual isn't free banking, it is something else, something nebulous, something ambiguous, something hinted at but not confessed, then such a suggestion is misspent on me, I've been there and I've done that already. If the true winner of an actual free market competition for market share in currency markets were to be Gold as currency, then that would be the case, I can't see it, it makes no sense, since gold is much less able to pass quickly from user to user, therefore it limits velocity, it throttles down economic activity by that measure. It is simple to see this affect, and it is known to be a real condition, an actual fact, and a possible illustration of this affect is the T.V. commercial where the scene in view is a store, with a check out person processing a line of buyers, where the velocity of trade is smooth, quick, and efficient, and then someone in the line pulls out coins, or dollars, and then the quick and efficient commerce routine slows down to a crawl. Anyone at the grocery store who has had to wait longer in line because someone ahead in the line is "negotiating" the transfer of payment is someone who can see this affect without complication, without duplicity, without error - perhaps. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, The libeler and his or her apologist have invaded this thread to accomplish some goal they two share, perhaps. As to the actual data hidden between all the text that is designed to discredit a person, that person being me, so as to discredit what the person says, that would be the stuff I write, the data, quoted above, is again false. The measure of power supporting the effort to eliminate competition can be easily found on bank accounts. How many competitors, for example, can compete with the U.S. National Debt? http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ Back to the libelers "contribution" to the topic: In context of the topic diversion (a welcome diversion from my point of view) the quote above is patently false. No U.S. Debt exists in any other currency whatsoever. There is no X debt, no Y debt, and no Z debt, there is only the debt created by the people who monopolize (eliminate competition) the U.S. National Debt. They produce dollars. The debt is dollars. Someone has to come up with 11,914,164,651,660 dollars, plus some change, and that number is increasing fast. In context, again, the offering from the libeler is patently false, measurably false, and the measure is easily measured. Example two: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home The denomination, again, is the monopoly money, not X, not Y, and not Z currency. There is no competition for that power to create that power to purchase war, war that is employed to eliminate competition (both foreign and domestic), and the measure of effectiveness is absolute, in a measurable, traceable, documented sense. Back to the libeler's contribution (as the libeler expends effort to eliminate the competition by conjuring up false publications): Who has yet to answer that question? Why would a question that is already answered suddenly become the "only important" question? To who is that question the "only important" question and why is that person claiming that that is the "only important" question to anyone but the person doing the claiming? I think an important question is: How can innocent victims avoid being victimized by war mongers and libelers?
Habits may transfer. MODERATORS Please note the egregious example of libel above as the libeler continues to publish libel on your forum, this public access forum, this place that isn't free from people who volunteer to libel innocent people who volunteer to publish on this forum. Who does this "fellow" forum member target with that quote above? Who does this "fellow" forum member mean to attack with that sentence? Who continually accesses libel as a means of eliminating competition? Who hates competition? I do not hate competition; to publish that lie is to libel against me, again. Please stop publishing such libelous falsehoods aimed at me on this public access forum. Please stop the continuous libel, please stop. The aim of the competition I know, in context of this topic, the aim of productive competition is to provide the highest quality products at the lowest possible cost. The aim of some other form of competition (not a form of competition that fits in context of this topic) may very well be to "eliminate other competition" in some way, "inherent" as the libeler claims. What does that have to do with this topic? Species A is in competition with species B for the last of a declining supply of vital resources. What happens? Species A destroys species B and survives. That could be an example of planning on and following through with the plan to eliminate the competition by killing off the competitive species. What does that have to do with this topic? Team A is competing with team B for more points, so team A plans on attacking team B, going through team B, getting to the goal, and scoring a point or six. What does that have to do with the competition that is in the context of this topic? A supplier of money (accurate currency) doesn't have to raid the competition, torture them, kill them, and by that plan the supplier of money eliminates the competition - it is an elective plan, not at all necessary or produtive. The supplier of money can supply higher quality money at a lower cost instead. If competitor A isn't up to the task the competitor could find work where the competitor is up to the different task instead of resorting to the other type of "competition".
The libeler has an ongoing discussion with his or her Straw-Man, perhaps, and the curious thing about that, to me, is why that argument spills into this thread. "We" can't improve currency (make it more accurate if "we" want more accurate currency) if a part of "we" insists on employing any means imaginable, or unspeakable, to eliminate competition - such as libel. U.S. National currency is not accurate, not "constantly improving", not "quality"; but it may be efficient at transferring purchasing power from the victims, and I can see why so much power is spent on apologizing for it, hiding it, disguising it, ignoring it, and why some people employ their own power to censor any person who may happen to raise the subject above a whisper. A competitive viewpoint (among many competitive viewpoints) is the following. Since morality is the root of civilization, cooperation is its life blood, because cooperation is required to access division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale. If anyone reading this has ever worked in a setting of cooperation, where the team is working together for a specific goal, each with their one special talent, each being productive with time and energy focused on their part of the production, and during that harmony someone in the group begins to execute a plan where the plan is to get something for nothing, to use someone in the group as a stepping stone to an easier job, and that nefarious someone begins to create lies, communicate lies to some central power, some team leader of sorts, and at that moment when that 'defector' executes the plan, the team's productivity falters, in-fighting begins, as that one 'defector' employs plan B, if you have been there, do you now see a parallel example? Plan B?
|
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, I do not know why the libeler is inspired to repeat, over and over again, his or her version of perspective. My guess is that the person intends to discredit any voluntary tax, or to ignore any voluntary tax as if no such thing can exist, a form of selective ignorance perhaps. Something ignored does not go away, as if the child holding his hands over his eyes can make him or her invisible during a game of hid and seek. My part in this discussion is as serious as Nuclear War. People do pay taxes voluntarily every day. People even pay voluntary taxes that amount to a greater percentage of total earnings voluntarily, not just a low percentage. Why ignore that fact? What would be the purpose of discrediting that fact, or ignoring that fact? I can't answer that question since I don't ignore or discredit that fact, it is a fact, and it is a significant fact. The significance amounts to a measure of the power involved. A. How much power is available from all the people who would stop pay an involuntary tax if they banded together and acted as one collective power? B. How much power is available from all the people who would stop the people who would stop paying an involuntary tax if they were confronted with a great power focused toward avoiding the payments of involuntary taxes? And that is my version, spoken by me, and that isn't my version spoken by the libeler who pretends to speak for me, when, in fact, the libeler is speaking for his or her own creation, his or her Straw-Man. The group of people in the A list above and the group of people in the B list above constitutes a measurably smaller number of people than the number of people in the C list, it seems to me.
Again, that is my view, not the view of the Straw-Man pretending to speak for me.
The libeler has a way of looking at things, a unique way, and a way of communicating that unique perspective. He or she may see a tax as being only one thing, his or her way of seeing it. What does that have to do with the topic? If two people or 2 billion people see a tax as a voluntary thing and no one in that group of people taxing each other disagrees with the voluntary tax, then one person disagreeing with the tax could exert his or her power toward avoidance of paying the tax, what happens? What happens in reality? What happens in his or her utopian dream? If, among the billions of people who view a tax as voluntary (and do so because they see a need to combine power to defend against criminals who combine power into cabals), if among those people the idea expands into an idea where suspected criminals are judged by some reasonable process, then some reasonable process may become a reality, it make take an actual form, the form may be something similar to Trial by Jury, or the form may change over time into something less like Trial by Jury, as people ignore specific things that may not be immediately obvious. If one person has a negative view concerning the process of combining power (taxing) into a defensive force for the purpose of avoiding crime (defending against it) as criminals combine power into aggressive, and criminal forces, or powers, then one person has one option, perhaps more than one option, when faced with a criminal power intending to victimize that one person. Who will help that one person defend against crime if that one person with the negative view is currently being victimized in a real and measurable way? What is the process by which that one person is helped? Are the people helping that one person taxed, or are those people helping that person paying a cost that would otherwise be spent on things that are more immediately interesting to their own selves? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, Person A exchanges with person B. Person B thinks the exchange is accurate as Person B receives a personal check in exchange for an old gold wedding ring. Person A thinks that the gold ring is gold. The gold is not accurate since the gold ring is a lead ring painted gold or some other inaccurate gold, not really gold, not accurately gold. The personal check isn't accurate either, there isn't anyone anywhere, as it turns out, willing to exchange the personal check for anything, and it was a one time form of inaccurate currency by that measure. The measure of inaccuracy is a check that cost the receiver of the check one fake gold ring and all the time and energy spent on finding out exactly how inaccurate the check is, in fact. The measure of inaccuracy is also the cost of all the time and energy expended in finding out that the gold ring was not gold, after all. Had the gold ring been plated with gold, the measure of inaccurate currency wouldn't be the same measure of inaccuracy as was the gold painted ring. Had the gold ring been all gold the measure of inaccurate currency wouldn't be the same measure either, and from the rubber check writer's perspective the rubber check and the gold could be seen by him or her as an accurate form of currency. The check was worth one gold ring. The ring is worth one gold ring. The currency to him or her, the rubber check writer, is accurate currency. On the other hand the ring passes from someone who can measure the inaccuracy of the rubber check as inaccurate currency, inaccurate to the tune of one gold ring and all the costs required in finding out that the rubber check is, in fact, inaccurate currency. At least the victim now knows that the rubber check writer writes rubber checks. Currency that is designed to be inaccurate, on purpose, can be seen as currency that is accurate, precisely accurate, from the perspective of the producers, designers, and maintainers of inaccurate currency as they receive wealth by that use of currency. Who measures it? How is it measured? A. The currency accurately transfers wealth from the deceived consumers. B. The deceived consumers transfer wealth even if they don't know it at a measurable rate and the measure is a measure of inaccuracy, not accuracy, from the perspective of the victims. The U.S. National debt is a number. Is it accurate? Is it currency? What does it do? What is it designed to do? Who uses it, why is it used, what is the cost of using it? Are there alternatives to its use, a currency that is more accurate (able to transfer more wealth from more people, faster, to fewer people, "better" and more "accurate" in that sense) or is the competition less accurate (not able to transfer wealth at all from the users to the producers of the competitive currency)? Is accurate currency accurate from each and every user of it, or not? A. Universally accurate B. Not A
You and I are not far off in viewpoints, while you and the Straw-Man you create, the one you place my name on, may have an argument going, I suspect you do, and those two sentences quoted above measure up to me as accurate currency, universally accurate, words that covey meaning, agreeable meaning, equitable meaning perhaps. I could explain what I mean, but who am I speaking with, the reasonable person or the one who libels? If the currency is measured as accurate by both people in one transaction then who can say that the currency is inaccurate? Example: The fake gold guy was paid with the rubber check for his fake gold and then, the fake gold guy pays for something else with the rubber check, a used car perhaps. Meanwhile the rubber check writer pawns the fake gold ring on someone else, buying a handful of Federal Reserve notes perhaps. What has happened? The currency passes as accurate currency, yes or no? Eventually the rubber check is falling apart, paper deteriorates, the ink fades, etc. Eventually the gold paint wears off the ring. Eventually someone measures the currency accurately. Currency is dynamic, not static. Money could be seen as a static thing, perhaps. The argument for the sake of argument costs something to one of us, perhaps the other one of us gains by that routine somehow. This topic doesn't ask for libel. The victim here has not volunteered to be libeled. The exchange is inequitable; the currency is false by that measure. The currency is inaccurate by that specific measure. Example:
That is an example of inaccurate currency. I do not hate competition, far from it. Competition is the power, or the force, that drives prices down to cost, and the power, or the force that drives quality up to the highest possible limit of quality and quality in this sense is universal, not "quality" in a one way sense, as shown above, the quality of accurate currency is universal to all, not "quality" to someone using currency as a means of getting something for nothing from some hapless victim. That false sentence quoted above is not a "quality" sentence from my view. From the view of the author of that sentence, as that sentence publishes what it publishes, is obviously a quality sentence to the author, or the person writing it would not write it. It was a "quality" sentence during the process of creating it, publishing it, etc. By that measure it appeared to be worth something. The moment this reader read that sentence this reader found that sentence to be false, to be another example of libel, to be of a very low quality, very inaccurate, an example of inaccurate currency, costly to me, a cost that isn't easily measured. The reward, perhaps, gained by the writer may also be difficult to measure. Why does anyone produce and distribute inaccurate currency? What is the point? Where is the demand for it? I certainly don't want any inaccurate currency. Who does? Who wants inaccuracy currency? Who produces it? Why do they produce it? Who distributes it? Why do they distribute it? How does something not wanted by so many people become current, become active, and flowing within a social structure? Why is falsehood produced to such great abundance when roughly half the people involved are injured by that production of inaccurate currency, at least half, and the other half are the only one's who benefit by that production of that inaccurate currency? How do the producers of inaccurate currency manufacture demand for it? How do the consumers, the victims, come to see the inaccurate currency as necessary or desirable to a point where the victims consume the false stuff? What is the process by which inaccurate currency becomes legal? Why, for example, are liars, known liars, proven liars, elected to office regularly? Is the process incorporating inaccurate currency as a tool to be used toward that end, that goal, where wealth transfers from the producers of wealth to the producers of inaccurate currency? Why do the people continue to work in exchange for inaccurate currency? Who duped them into such an inequitable deal? How was that accomplished, exactly? Is there a demand for higher quality and lower cost currency? If not, why not? The power to collect wealth from many producers of wealth is a power. Once that power exists the collected wealth can increase. When wealth becomes a power to purchase, and that power increases, what is the limit of possible increase in that power to purchase? Can that power purchase defense against crime, avoidance of crime? Can that power purchase criminals willing to commit crimes, to lie, to cheat, to rob, to rape, to torture, and to mass murder for a piece of the action? If that power is used for defense against crime, that power to transfer wealth from many, to increase the collective power, and then use that power to purchase defense against crime, is that something called insurance? Is that simply a process that can be called: Insurance? People send wealth, give it up, transfer wealth, to a collective pot of wealth, and in return the process insures the purchaser against crime. That is simple. If, on the other hand, the process is crime, then the consumers will get what they pay for, yes or no? If crime is called socialism, it is still crime. If crime is called capitalism, it is still crime. Falsehood hides the truth, yes or no? Who produces it? Why do they produce it, and can't you see that it is inaccurate currency? What does accurate currency look like? Is it past the point of no return? Is accurate currency not welcome, not demanded, not even on the table? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, Your aim is off the mark by a wide measure. You have me confused with your imagination; perhaps. Your subjective opinion is lacking objectivity. What possible event inspires you to make that error in calculation? How can you be so wrong? Perhaps you fail to see your own errors? How, for example, do you arrive at the notion that "fraud" is objective? Fraud is subjective and measurably so, ask any two people, where one person produces the fraud and the other person is victimized by the fraud and see if the answers are the same as these two subjective perspectives convey their version of that supposedly objective thing. One thing, two opposing views of it - hardly the stuff of objectivity. Fraud is not objective. The object of fraud is to cause a false subjective perspective; how can it be objective? If it were objective it wouldn't work. Why do you fail to see that despite all the data that supports that accurate observation? Again your subjective opinion doesn't objectively measure the supposed "voluntary" action caused by an effective fraud. An effective fraud causes the victim to "volunteer" to give up less for more, and this can be accurately measured. If you now claim that "voluntary" is as "objective" as "fraud", then your crusade to address your belief in what I "will ultimately try" will dig an even bigger false perspective. Why go there, when your premise ("you will ultimately try...") is false in the first place? That is measurably subjective and certainly not another case of you being objective. That is a case of subjective opinion being paraded as fact. It is not fact. What is necessary and what you think is necessary are not the same thing, not in that case. Why must you and whomever you exchange something with insist upon a non-equal trade? Why can't you see that other people have the power to trade equally despite your false presumption that supposes that they can't trade equally, or more precisely: equitably? Are you redefining the word: equal - as you have redefined the word "accuracy" to be something associated with "ad hoc"? The reason why equitable commerce is a more accurate form of communication compared to equal commerce concerns how things are measured, and by whom. If everyone, in a universal sense, is free to measure the exchange, without your enforced dictates being followed religiously, they are free to gain at the expense of the other people trading, gain nothing, or give up more for less, as they see fit. If the trade occurs in a measurable way by anyone during any trade whereby the trade is inequitable (someone gains more for less, or gives up more for less), then that is a measure of inequality, or inequity, by that measure, by that person, for that trade. If the other person claims that the trade is equitable, or equal, the other person doesn't defeat the other person's measure. In a universal sense, all true, and accurate measures, are as valid as all others. If one measures a trade as inequitable, and they still do the trade, the reason for doing it may not be a "voluntary" reason. The supposed "voluntary" reason may be one of necessity, an offer that can't be refused, not logically, not with any sense of expediency, or economy. A person holding leverage over someone can force inequity upon the supposed trading "partner", and that person can claim that the exchange is voluntary, while the person holding the smelly end of the stick has an opposite opinion. The trade is one trade, seen from two opposite perspectives. When the trade is seen as a win/win from both perspectives, the trade may be equitable, presuming that no fraud has occurred - whereby the loser is measurably less benefited by the one exchange unknowingly, and the factor of "not knowing" is a pre-meditated and effectively executed production of false data produced by the benefactor of the fraud and that false stuff is transferred accurately to the victim of the fraud. Again: the victim may well be duped into a false belief in having benefited as much as the other trader (equity, not necessarily "equally") because the fraud was an accurate fraud, and effective fraud, a true fraud, a real fraud, a fraud that worked, a fraud that did not fail, and a fraud that did not fail due to the intended victim's lack of power to uncover the fraud before the fraud worked. | My intentions can be summed up as follows: I employ discussion as a means of exchanging ideas, so as to "borrow someone else's brain" since my brain is limited to what my brain can do, and another brain increases the power available in the process of processing ideas - or thinking. My intention is to employ discussion so as to gain greater control over my thinking process, so as to better my life. That is my intention. My intention is to employ discussion. My intention is to borrow your brain. My intention includes and intention to avoid argument. I see no point in argument. What would be the point of argument? See how I borrow your brain? I ask for your perspective concerning what would be the point of argument from your viewpoint. I have my limited viewpoint of argument. I see argument as being counter-productive. That is my limit. What is the point of argument? Why do you presume to have the power to dictate to me? I will not ignore these questions and this post. I find these questions and this post to be valuable, and these questions and this post inspire me to respond. That sentence is a good example. I read it and I see a dictatorial statement produced by you and that dictatorial statement is obviously meant to target me. "That" may or may not be "my intention", I don't know what "that" is, your communication that is presumably meant to let me know what "that" is didn't communicate "that" to me well enough for me to accurately know what you think concerning "that" (my intention), and now that I have offered to you what my intention is, presumably, we can move on, and we can bypass any errors you may have produced concerning what is or what is not my intention. A person who suffers from behavioral modification routines may transact voluntarily in his or her own mind, while the transaction is far from any moral sense of legitimacy. Case in point: Person A grows up to believe that Nationalism is synonymous with patriotism. Person A transacts with Person B. Person B is hired by the people who produce a sufficient quantity of false propaganda so as to modify the behavior of Person A. The transaction is a deal whereby Person A "joins the military". Person A volunteers to kill people for oil profit, in an accurate and measurable way. Person A thinks he or she is volunteering to "spread democracy" or "liberate", or fight the "War on Terror". People involved in that transaction: Person A (volunteer) Person B (volunteer) Person B has also volunteered and he or she is working at the recruitment office, processing volunteers during the transaction, where the volunteer signs at the bottom line on the transaction document. Transaction: Military Service Back to the question (good question in my opinion): Both people in the above transaction may very well be convinced of the legitimacy of that transaction at the time of the transaction. I see such things as being illegitimate in a measurable way. People are tortured, and massive numbers of people are murdered. I find that to be rather illegitimate. If, on the other hand, the "War on Terror" was a true thing, instead of a false ad campaign, and Person A, and Person B were truly being employed to liberate someone, or to legitimately do something, perhaps even "spread democracy" (whatever that means), then that wouldn't be an example of a voluntary transaction being illegitimate. How is the truth measured accurately? How about this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ This in particular: $695,228,665,326 What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if China invaded Texas for its oil, then Alaska for its oil and gold, then California for all the goodies left there? Would people here have a more accurate understanding of the "war on terror"? What would happen if people here in this Nation State decided to have a "war on falsehood"; would you volunteer? If the war on falsehood gains territory, will fewer people be selling their lives for oil profits, and is that a case of "preventing people for transacting voluntarily"? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, You libel, you do that, and you continue to do that, and from your view, are you wrong? If you libel, like you do, and you continue to libel, like you do, you may call it "right", or you may call it "wrong", but measurably it is called "libel", libel is the accurate word, you libel, but to you it is something done, something "accomplished", something done again, something "accomplished' again. You do it. You continue to do it. You, from my end, are creating a 2 and calling it a 3. It is measurable as a 2. You libel. You continue to libel. The word "libel" means nothing, neither 2 nor 3, it is like the word "fraud", it depends upon the person doing the measuring. You measure what you do and call it whatever you call it, when it suits you. I measure what you do, each time you do it, again, and again, and it is, in fact, libel. My measure isn't as objective as math. It is accurate each time, but it isn't math. How can the difference between my measure and your measure be accurately accounted for? You call something fraud if someone else does it, perhaps, but if you do it, what do you call it? If you are the victim, you call it what? That is not the stuff of objectivity. Math doesn't fall into that category of things that are subjected to interpretation; or manipulation. Example: I trade 1 thing for two things with someone who I convince, by some actions on my part designed to convince, that the person trading with me is getting the better end of the deal. The fact is that one thing is traded for two things, simple math. My actions designed to convince someone else isn't math. If I do it, if I make that plan, that plan to libel, or that plan to steal, I'm not counting wrong, as far as I am concerned I am counting right, I am counting upon my ability to pass false, misleading, and inaccurate data, data that is false on purpose, data that is false for a reason, data that is measurably accurate if the data accomplishes the designed task - it if false my my view, and it is accurate from my view. It is false and innacurate from the view of the victim. It is subjective. If your reasons for publishing false data concerning what I think and what I write is to discredit me, to glom onto me a false image, to create negative feedback in the hopes that someone else will steer well clear of me, based upon your false data, and certainly not based upon what I write, since your libelous false misrepresentations are inaccurate, if your reasoning is x and x occurs, then you accomplish your goal with your version of math? That is not math. Your math works for that intended purpose. It isn't math. It is libel. Call it what you will. Now, if you find that everyone excluding me, everyone alive today, without exception, believing in your libelous falsehoods concerning what you publish here against me, you then can claim that your version of math is true. It is Math, because you and everyone else says so. That doesn't change the facts, rather, that measures the number of people who share your libelous beliefs, which are false. Fraud is a word that intends to describe something done by people who incorporate specific actions designed to accomplish specific goals. Fraud could be a form of math, sure, 1 plus 1 equals 3. People use it all the time, not universally, everyone can't be successful at fraud, each time it is used, to accomplish the same goal; there must be a victim, otherwise there would be no point to it. Math, on the other hand, is either accurate, true, and measurably true, in every single case, no matter who is using it, it always works the same way, every time, unless the math in question is as yet not well understood by the people using it - certainly not addition, subtraction, division, etc. - as you appear to be claiming, or associating, with your grouping of "fraud" with "math". Fraud is fraud. Math is math. One mans' fraud isn't another mans math, not mine, certainly not mine. You can claim that fraud is like math, and measuring it as such, I've seen the ruler you use, it is the same ruler you may be using that measures your libelous publications, while that ruler can't be used by me, it has no gradations, the only gradations it has on it are the erasable ones you put on it. It is subjective. It isn't objective. If it were objective, I could measure the same "fraud", or the same "libel", and come up with the same, accurate, measure as you do. You would cease to produce your libel immediately if you were to use my measure of "fraud", and you don't, therefore "fraud" isn't even close to the objectivity of math. Saying that "fraud" is analogous to "math" is like saying the Ten Commandments on stone tablets is analogous to a calculator. One is certainly objective as any user can find the sum of one plus one on the calculator. Ask a professional fraud, or libeler, for the product of some problem resolved by the stone tablets and the answer may sound like the "right" answer but what does the fraud or the libeler actually do? The calculator answers the math problem every time in every effort to prove the answer; if it works accurately. If it doesn't, it is broken. If it adds 5 plus 5 and comes up with -378, a fraud, or libeler, may have a use for it. One apple exists. Eat it. How many apples are left? 1 - 1 = 3? Ask the fraud, or the libeler, for the interpretation of the stone tablets and the answer may be the same as the one I get, but when proving time comes, libel continues, fraud continues, the measure is subjective. If you do not connect the examples I offer to the viewpoint I communicate, such at the recruitment for military service example, then what am I to make of such an omission? Are you arguing with your Straw-Man? For my part, in this discussion, I have my reasons for it, my reasons have been confessed; they are true reasons, accurate communications of true reasons. You can do the same thing, it would be equitable, you could state an accurate confession concerning what you are doing here in this thread, and why you are doing it here in this thread. From the measure of the victim, the subjective measure, fraud and libel are wrong, or "theft", or whatever word is used to convey the accurate measure of it from the subjective viewpoint of the victim. From the viewpoint of the producer of the fraud, the beneficiary, it may also be "theft", as a matter of fact; the word is the same word after the fact, but what about before the fact? The fraud or libeler doesn't go around advertising what he is about to do with the correct label, it wouldn't work that way, the victims may be able to read. Fraud is certainly not "implicit" to the victims before the fraud is accurately executed as planned by the fraud, no more than a libel is "implicit" in the libelers mind; presumably. I don't libel, how would I know? Again; math is "implicit" as a tool used by anyone, ever, universally, to solve math problems. Fraud isn't the same problem solver for each person. Fraud solves the problem of having to work for a living, presumably, from the frauds measuring device. Fraud may be easier than working to produce something of value. Fraud is a problem from the victims measuring device. Libel solves the problem of having to address actual challenges offered to the libeler; from the libelers measuring device; presumably. Libel is a problem from the victims measuring device. That is one interpretation of the word "equal". It isn't the one used by some people as some people trade equally. The version of "equal" between traders who trade "equally" can be more precisely communicated as "equitably" traded; not 1 for 1, but 1 measure of total cost for one measure of total cost (a possible example of an equitable trade that is equal from a cost/value perspective). Who are you arguing with? Why do you omit, or ignore, my part in this discussion? Why do you prefer to create some nebulous argument? Who ever claimed that one exact thing would ever be traded for one exact copy of the same thing by anyone ever - if that is what you presume to be worth arguing about? An equal trade can easily be measured by the cost required to replace the thing traded measured against the cost required to replace the thing being traded for. Precisely "equal" is one way of seeing a trade, not my way, it is one way. "Equitable" trades are seen similarly by at least two people, the people trading equitably - they both see the trade as an equal trade, not necessarily as a precisely equal trade where the same exact thing, in the same exact condition, is exchanged for an exact, and an exactly equal, copy. What would be the point? Who would want that version of "equal" trades? Not me. Is that an argument conjured up by a Man of Straw? Equitable trades intend to transfer purchasing power equitably, so as to gain by accessing division of labor, specialization, competition, and economies of scale, and avoid gaining at the expense of anyone, if at all possible. That is my part of this discussion. You can ignore it, of course. You can ignore my part of this discussion, if it challenges you too much, and you can keep on commenting in this thread as you keep on constructing an argument with some nebulous non-entity - certainly not anything or anyone associated with me. As to the rest of the dogma associated with Austrian Economics: I've read Menger's work. and it is worthless to me, it is based upon inaccurate measures of value, false things. It is based upon a supposed value linked to scarcity. In his own words the value of things is based upon the scarcity of things. I much prefer the measure of cost as a more accurate measure of value. If the dogma you prefer works for you then I'm in no position to judge. What does that have to do with this thread? Does this thread cause you some measure of concern relative to your dogmatic beliefs concerning economy? That is not math above. That is a subjective way of perceiving both "utility" and "value". If I measure value as "how scarce something is" then that is what I choose to do. If I measure value as "how much it will cost me to get it", then that is what I do. One is as subjective as the other, neither are objective. If I wake up and oxygen is scarce, I can't breathe, I value oxygen more than when I wake up as oxygen is abundant. If I find that it cost me no effort to breathe my value judgment of air is less than when I find that I have food stuck in my air passage. My cost for failing to procure a ready supply of air is death. Which is more subjective? Which is better for you? You will choose what is better for you. I will not be subjected to your version of "marginal utility" or "value". I will, instead, be subjected to your libel. Libel, to you may have some "marginal utility'. Libel, to you, may hold some subjective value. What does your libel cost me? What will it cost me to replace what your libel has stolen from me? I don't want your libel, and I certainly don't want your way of seeing economy. It works for you at my expense, in a measurable way. Your libel cost me. I measure the value of my defense based upon a cost associated with failing to defend myself against your libel. I don't view my defense as a subjective value based upon scarcity; no more that I view oxygen as a subjective value based upon scarcity. Failure to defend cost me. Failure to procure a steady supply of oxygen will cost me too. You are not strangling me. You are libeling me. If you are pre-disposed to libel against me, it seems to me, it would be very bad for me if you were in control of my supply of oxygen. You could employ that control of my supply of oxygen, with its "Marginal Utility", and you could extract from me a very large measure of "Subjective Value" by making my supply of oxygen just scarce enough to get whatever you desire from me. Your cost may be a simple screwing down of the knob on my oxygen supply; while my cost is whatever you make me do, skip rope, dance, whatever you want, since I must have that oxygen. You can claim that I volunteer to give you all you ask for too, and you can make me praise your "economic dogma" as you desire too. You can even make me believe in it - presumably. I do need oxygen. You have your way of seeing things, and it is subjective. To me the above quote is measurably false, an example of "double speak" or "duplicity" or "dogma". If it works for you to get what you aim to get then it does. I'm not here to quibble about what you want and how you get it. This thread on this forum is specific, and my motives for being here are specific. My specific thread and my specific motives do not concern Austrian Economic Profit and Wage Paying Systems. Why bring that dogma here? Why publish that dogma here as if it were objective fact, if that is what you are truly doing, or even truly believing? What is the point of publishing subjective economic viewpoints as if those subjective economic viewpoints were facts - if that is what you are doing? My example of a "voluntary" exchange was offered, as an example of my side of this part of this diversion from the topic, and to ignore it is to ignore my part of this side of this part of this diversion from the topic. Why ignore my part of this part of this diversion from the topic? What is the point? My example concerned two "volunteers" exchanging military service for pay; at the moment the transaction transacted. I have an award here in my home. I helped out my fellow human beings who are currently working in the U.S. Military. Despite all that I know concerning what is being done with the U.S. Military, it seems to me, the people in it are still people. If you choose to ignore my part of this discussion, then what is your business here exactly? At the moment when the volunteer signs on the bottom line and joins the Military a transaction has voluntarily occurred. Then, in time, the person moves from that table to somewhere else, and then somewhere else, and a trail of tortured and murdered people occur. The people do what they think is right. If they "think" they are defending liberty, and they risk everything to do that, they are risking everything for what they think is right, and they are volunteering to do that. It is all voluntary, from their viewpoint. You can call it legitimate. You can call it illegitimate. You can ignore it. I don't. I prefer to see it accurately. I prefer not to place false labels on it, to make me feel more comfortable about it. I prefer or meet the challenge of knowing what is and what is not accurate. You can help me. Why do you ignore me? Why do you libel against me? Is your dogma so precious as to be worth my hide? How many people are you willing to expend to secure your dogma? If you bring yourself to the point of exchange where the volunteers help each other sign a contract to join in Military Service, right there at a table, right there where a pen is used, then you bring yourself to my part of this part of this diversion from this topic where you have helped us go. If you ignore that, then what was the point of helping us get here? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
+++++++++++++ Both of them may regret their decision after the fact, but the actual transaction voluntarily occurred because they both preferred what they received more than what they gave up at the moment of trade. +++++++++++++ hash3m, Again, if you have an argument going with some imaginary being created by you, then I can understand the reasoning behind your wandering into this thread, spilling into it so to speak, to work on that argument. Have at it. I’ll be something like a referee. If someone somewhere has ever communicated to you that you and whomever you trade with can’t do as you say you do, when you trade, then that person may be inspiring your reactions, like the one above. I’m not that person. You can do whatever you want when trading, and the person you trade with can do whatever they want when trading. Are we clear about that so far? I’m going to repeat, just in case we are not clear.
Those 5 things in that laundry list are things that pass from me to you if you care to accept those things, a trade of sorts, and I offer them as a gift, from me to you, if you take them, that is fine, if you reject those 5 things, that is fine too. I am doing my part to be clear, to be accurate, to avoid confusion, and to defend against further libel produced by you and passed from you to this pubic forum where your product is available to pass to anyone caring or interested in receiving your product. Back to your product: +++++++++++++ Both of them may regret their decision after the fact, but the actual transaction voluntarily occurred because they both preferred what they received more than what they gave up at the moment of trade. +++++++++++++ Anyone can, and I know for a fact that some do, trade down, and they do so on purpose. Many people, perhaps very many people, willingly receive less for more, on purpose, when they want to receive less for more, on purpose, and that type of transaction is so common as to have inspired a word in English where that word in English is a label for that type of transaction. That type of transaction is called: Generosity. Here are two types of transactions:
If you are interested, at all, in entertaining a viewpoint that isn’t parroting the ASEIPWPSCPSDTU (Austrian School of Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying Systematic/Capitalist Pricing Scheme Dogma type of “trading up”) line, nor the Straw-Man argument conjured up in reaction to that pricing scheme dogma, then you may be interested in viewing a third exchange type, an exchange type that is neither “trading up” nor “trading down” on purpose.
The third option looks more organized when the third option is placed in between “Gaining at someone else’s expense” and “giving up something for less or nothing in return”.
I can understand that you may not want to look at option 2 or 3, and that is fine, leave those products out of view, ignore them, and I will fill in the blank for anyone else who may have an interest in those products, and anyone else who may not want to think of me as your Man of Straw – just in case someone might be inching that way. The BLANK between Profit at the expense of someone and Generosity is neither Profit at the Expense of someone nor Generosity, it is the middle place between the two, and it can be called “equal trading” or it can be called equity, or equitable commerce. It can be called:
That brings me back to the part that is pushed under the rug, the part that appears to be unspeakable, the part where the two people are at the recruiting office, and one partner is signing on the bottom line to join in on the Military Service Contract thing, where both partners are conducting a voluntary exchange – voluntarily. Do those people realize the nature of option 1? Here is option 1 again:
My guess is that they do not fully understand the gravity of option 1, and my guess is that that is also why this part of this discussion from the topic is unspeakable to some people. I am not that person, I speak about it. It is speak able, I am speak able. I can respond to that subject matter. I am respond able. Do you have a response to my part of the topic where you have helped place us at that voluntary exchange at the recruitment office where volunteers are voluntarily transacting? How many times can I ask before it is obviously not something that you are willing or able to respond to? +++++++++++ That's because fraud isn't fraud until it actually happens. lol, seriously man? +++++++++++ Fraud begins as an interest in someone’s mind. You can laugh out loud, sure, and you can question my sincerity, sure, but who are you responding to? Are you responding to your conjured up Straw-Man? Your questions of sincerity have nothing to do with me. I am serious enough to run for public office. I am serious enough to join armed marches on the capital. I am serious enough to write and speak my mind concerning unspeakable things. Your argument isn’t interesting to me, it has nothing to do with me, and it is out of place in this topic. Why are you brining your argument in here? What is the point? ++++++++++ It is all voluntary, from their viewpoint. You make a good point, something both of us would do well to remember. It is voluntary, from their viewpoint. But a transaction requires two parties, so the actions of only one party do not make the transaction a fully voluntary one. Murder and torture are generally voluntary on behalf of one party, notably the murder or torturer; but they are clearly non-voluntary transactions once both parties are considered. ++++++++++++ People who libel, or people who commit fraud, do libel, and they do commit fraud, and it starts in their minds, and their minds are inspired by things the occur previous to the spark that ignites the idea, and previous to the adoption of the idea to proceed down that path, where the idea and the path is to injure someone else for personal gain. What does that have to do with the subject here in this thread? The idea of this thread is “accurate currency”. The idea of this thread is to link accurate currency with something I all Joe’s Law, to see accurate currency from a Joe’s Law perspective. Joe’s Law: Power produced into a state of oversupply will reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. Accurate currency is powerful currency, because it is accurate. The very loose connection between your argument and this topic is the introduction of a form of accurate currency that isn’t universally accurate. Fraudulent currency is only accurate from the viewpoint of the criminals who produce the fraudulent currency and I can adjust Joe’s Law to address that introduction of that destructive power (it is destructive from the victims perspective, not destructive from the criminals perspective). Joe’s Law (in defense against criminal powers): Universally productive power produced into a state of oversupply will (not may or might) reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases (each unit of accurate currency has the power to buy more, more quality, and/or more quantity) because universally productive power reduces the cost of production. That is Joe’s law expanded (wordier) so as to defend against destructive power (inaccurate currency from the victim’s perspective) being produced so as to gain at the expense of the targeted victims. Here is where I share much with the dogmatists in the Austrian School, and here is also where I depart from that dogma in a big way. I share the viewpoint that the frauds at The Fed are destroying much, destroying many, and destroying greatly, as those criminals follow through with their plans. I depart from the dogmatists on a few obvious points of interest. Obvious to me, perhaps no one else, but that is fine by me. I can proceed alone. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, When you repeat your viewpoint in this thread, what are you doing? Are you trading down or up? You could trade in another thread, a thread where the topic is your advertised viewpoint. What is the point of repeating your way of seeing things, over and over again, in this thread? You may trade a Ferrari for a scooter, and you may do that because you want a scooter, and you may do that because you don't want the Ferrari as much as the scooter. Thanks for keeping me out of your dogmatic way of seeing things. I don't go there, I see things differently and I prefer to see charity as charity. People can be, and people are, charitable when people have that plan and when people execute that plan. There isn't only your plan, and there isn't only the Austrian Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System plan. Thanks for making your latest advertisement here exclusive to you, rather then making your latest advertisement here inclusive to everyone (which it is not). You may trade a scooter for a Ferrari, and you may do so for whatever reason you come up with, and that doesn't have anything to do with me, this topic, or my way of seeing actual, real, current, and accurate modern economic activity - where charity is included in it. Charity is, perhaps, one small part, so a reader who may be reading this may do good, do a more accurate job, of placing charity in an accurate place, and avoid confusing charity with another actual, real, current, and accurate modern economic activity called "dumping". Dumping can be seen as "giving away the razor so as to sell razor blades". "Giving away" in such a case isn't "charity" when compared to, say, someone volunteering to serve old people at the old folks home, for no pay, even when doing so requires time off of a paying job. The point of me communicating both "Charity" and "Dumping" is to point out, again, that the Austrian Dogma is incomplete, from a more complete, or more accurate perspective of economy, where people wander from equitable transactions to the extreme ends of wandering. Example of the extreme ends of wandering from equity can be seen with a laundry list as such: Equity That is the middle. That is when one person trades at a measurably equitable rate with someone else. To use the Ferrari for a scooter example, the traders are both completely satisfied with the trade, as far as they are concerned. As far as those two are concerned 1 Ferrari is worth as much as one scooter. Now that we have a base by which to measure these two people during that transaction we can add to both sides of equity. I can put equity in the list as number 2 and can add number 1 and number 3 to both sides of equity. 1. Blank 2. Equity (1 Ferrari = 1 scooter) 3. Blank If 1 Ferrari is given up for nothing in return, then the trade is not equitable.
Which is a sustainable method of operation? Clearly, it seems to me anyway, that equity is sustainable and wandering off of it is merely charitable. The giver upper will run out of things to give up, and must return to work, or starve, or depend upon charity. The receiver, if receiving more for less is taken to the obvious limit, will consume all the charitable people. When the receiver has all the Ferraris, all the scooters, all the food, all the power, the limit is reached - obviously. Everyone else has starved to death. Equity is sustainable. Wandering from equity is also sustainable such as 6 of one and half a dozen of another is sustainable, or what comes around goes around, or perceptions such as "karma" are sustainable (so far). Being taken to the cleaners by the same "trader" tends to grow old, and the "giver" (the one receiving less for nothing, or some unsustainable measure of trade) tends to find more equitable traders because, perhaps, being taken to the cleaners is obviously unsustainable. The giver gives up. The reciever has an interest in sustaining the inequitable flow to him, or her. Anyone, please, please note here, I'll put a big red marker here too. [size=NOTE THE CLAPTRAP HERE] Who is this person arguing with? A sentence is true, then the arguing person follows up the true sentence with the word "No", then adds a comma, and then another true statement Fraud begins as an interest in someone's mind. That is a true statement. Why would someone react to that true statement with the word "No"? Fraud begins as an interest in someone's mind. That is true. Why respond to that true statement with a false reaction to it? If the person responding to the true statement could disprove the true statement, then would that person do so, or would that person do something else, and what is that "something else", and why is that person failing to disprove the true statement, and why is that person doing whatever that person is doing here? I have no problem with someone following up a true statement with more true statements. There are many forums, many topics, and many places to "state the obvious", such as "thinking begins in someone's mind" and "fraud hasn't occurred until it has actually occurred" or "black is black" and "white is white" or "the sun is the greatest source of power in this solar system" - well that last one may be "iffy". Why add "no" in between the true statement I published and the true statements published after repeating the true statement I published? What is the point of that false ad? Why downgrade a word? Why is this person re-defining a word? Why is this person miss-associating the word "accuracy" with the word "subjective"? What is the point of this example of duplicity? Who is this person arguing with, again, and again, and again, and why do that in here, why spill that brawl into this particular topic on this particular forum, there must be a reason, is this a purely random occurrence? That argument happened to wander in here of all places? Where is this Straw-Man whose argument will crumble? I see only the creator of the Straw-Man and his personal argument, where this "property rights" dogma proliferates, confuses, or does whatever it's designer has planned for it to do. If the idea is to accurately convey the meaning of crime, if that is what is to be done, then my observation is to direct focus at the criminal, to see the criminal planning the crime, and then see the criminal execute the crime, to see the process as it occurs from beginning to end.
If the topic is crime, the argument between the Sraw-Man and his creator can crumble their own arguments about crime, as they see fit, my part of this discussion, on that part of that diversion from this subject, is not an argument. My part is to see crimes at the origin of it - or sooner, and to see it accurately as soon as possible, so as to have the time, and the power, to avoid it, be i libel, or be it torturte and mass murder. My part isn't an argument; nothing to crumble. I won't be the victim of this libeler, if I can see the plan unfolding in time. I can employ my power to communicate accurate currency. Accurate currency is productive purchasing power; in a universal sense. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, You are still creating and publishing falsehoods and targeting me with those false creations. That sentence targets me, and it is false. From my view your falsehoods are good, not perfect, examples of fraud. You are the fraud, you target your victim, and your intended victim is me. I see an opportunity to defend against your fraud. From your view, perhaps, your viewpoint isn't as good an example of fraud as your fraud is to me. Your fraud is good, I'm just able to defend against it - somewhat. See how there are two sides to this exchange. When someone fails to see the other side of the exchange, it seems to me, the person doing the failing is apt to misunderstand the other side of the exchange, the person who fails to understand the other side of the exchange is prone to get it wrong, perhaps even backwards. I don't know what you think. I know what I think. Someone so caught up in an attractive belief, a favored way of seeing things, is someone who may mistake that way of seeing things to be the only way to see things, and no other way of seeing things is possible. That is a case of self defeating, closed minded, false belief. Value can be seen as cost. This isn't new stuff. Example: Replacement cost. A common practice in the effort to accurately measure value is a calculation based upon accurate estimates of replacement costs. If someone could show me where I am "perfectly backwards" on anything they might actually do so - if they could. What is the point, again, of arguing with your own preferred Austrian Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying Systematic fleecing of the working people? Why are you brining that argument in here? Who are you arguing with? Why bring your Straw-Man in here? Your economic viewpoint may very well be as it is; but what does that have to do with me, what does that have to do with this topic? If you prefer something and someone else has it, go ahead and get it, and go ahead and think about what you are doing in any way you can conjure up or follow if your thinking follows some pre-recorded dictates or dogma. Why are you publishing those subjective viewpoints in here? This topic concerns accurate currency from a Joe's Law perspective; so, wouldn't your publications of the argument you are having with your Straw-Man be perfectly not backwards in a topic having the title you choose to place on your argument with your Straw-Man? As far as I know, and you could correct any of my errors if I am working with errors, your Austrian Economic Theories require a specific type of currency and your way of seeing things isn't such that the currency you employ is, by design, universally accurate. As far as I can tell, and you aren't giving up any trade secrets, not willingly, as far as I can tell you prefer fraudulent currency, where the currency is accurately made fraudulent by you so as to be an accurate tool you use to conduct your fraud, to gain your interest, to get what you want at the expense of your victims; but what does all that have to do with this topic? I'm not one of your victims, not so long as I can defend against being one of your victims, so it makes sense that you now bring along your Straw-Man so as to conduct your argument against your own nebulous viewpoint. Why not discuss the topic instead? I am a poor referee here since you prefer not to have a referee during your argument with your Straw-Man. You ignore specific things that refer to accurate data, you ingore specific things that are examples of accurate data, and you even manage to re-define the concept of accuracy in your mind, or so your words suggest. What is the point of continually ignoring the topic and continually arguing with your Straw-Man, and what is the point of falsely associating me with your self-created Man of Straw? I am not arguing with you, what would be the point? What would be the point of arguing with someone who makes up false ideas and then attributes those false ideas to their chosen opposition? You can do that all by yourself, you don't need me to place your false idea on, why not find someone who will accept your false ideas placed upon them as you wish? Why am I so special to you? Why do you pick me, of all the forums, on all of the World Wide Web, why pick me to conduct your false advertisements? Why pick this thread? What is the point? The point of this thread is to accurately communicate the concept of accurate currency (universally accurate and not fraudulently accurate from the fraud's unique perspective) from a Joe's Law perspective; which is a power perspective. Joe's Law: Power produced to a state of abundance will reduce the price of power while purchasing power increases since power reduces the cost of production. In order to view a power perspective such as the one I view it may be a good idea to shed the dogma that dictates the necessity of inaccurate currency - or fraud. There is no place for fraud, or inaccurate currency, in a productive power perspective, since, logically, destructive power, like inaccurate currency, or fraud, destroys - rather than producing. That is what you say, why are you claiming that "economics" said what you said (or wrote)? Now your Straw-Man has taken off one hat and your Straw-Man has donned a hat called: "Economics"? Can I meet this guy, or is this guy actually you - again? If I give a Ferrari away, I do it, and I do it for reasons that may not be understood by you. You might very well get my reasons backwards, perhaps not perfectly backwards, but so far you have a long history of failing to feed back any measure of understanding concerning what I think. So far your feedback appears to be inspired by what you misunderstand concerning what I think, so much so, that it appears from my view that you are arguing with some imaginary creation that you have constructed without my help. What does your Austrian Economics Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System have to do with me, or this topic? Why can't you speak for your own thoughts? Why do you pretend that some nebulous entity speaks your thoughts instead of you? Do you think that Mr. "Economics" will inspire greater belief than you can? You are behind that curtain. I can see you working the levers. Who are you asking? Are you asking your Straw-Man? Why are you constructing these libels here in this thread? Why are you targeting me with you inaccurate currency? What is the purpose of your "help" - here? Please find a place where your argument is appropriate, or please explain why you are targeting me with this "help", or whatever this is that you are doing. Your argument above appears to be defending this: It appears as if you are defending a concoction of legal doctrine, perhaps, I don't know. What is the point of creating an argument and then confusing the argument you create with an ever expanding series of false viewpoints? A fraud, or a price, or a cost, or any viewpoint occurs. If that is true, if such things do occur, then a time and a place where it begins can be accurately known. A time and a place where it ends can be accurately known too. What is the point of claiming that these things can only occur at one time, and not have a beginning and an end? Are you stepping from your preferred Economic dogma into your preferred Legal dogma? How many possible diversions from the topic are possible? Someone dead set on creating a never ending argument has an advantage over someone who prefers to communicate accurately, in a universal sense. If you desire argument for the sake of argument, can you get it, if you want it, if you love it, if you need it, and if you must have it - I suppose. What is the point of your part in these diversions from the topic? Will your answer be true? Will your answer be accurate? Example: Does that confess your desire for argument? When no argument originates from me, or anyone, do you create an argument out of thin air? What is the point of continuing this charade if your beliefs concerning what I may or may not do are proven to be inaccurate? What really drives you into here? Do you really think that I am going to mislabel something? That is what you do. If you are transferring or projecting your faults onto me, and then fearing your mirror image, then this whole business you are conducting here makes sense to me. I prefer not to believe in my reasoning here, certainly not without some acknowledgement on your part, since you are the only one who knows what you actually think, presumably. I can only guess. I can only guess based upon what you do, or I have to trust what you say. So far what you say about me has nothing to do with me. So far what you say is demonstrably false, demonstrably fraudulent, and so far, as far as I am concerned, you libel me, and you do so repeatedly. That is hardly the stuff worthy of trust. So, really, what are you doing here? What is the point? Suppose the dollar hyper-inflates, going back toward the topic, and suppose that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Indians, Japanese, and Hugo Chavez's Economic power (including oil), take over the power associated with the term "World Reserve Currency"? What, other than ignorance (a destructive power), stops the people in this land from creating their own accurate currency to replace the hyper-inflated (and thereby power-less) dollar, and what stops that accurate currency (replacing the dollar) from competing and winning market share from the hypothetical new Reserve Currency suppliers? The answer is simple. The Dollar Hegemony must destroy all competition at all cost or it will lose market share, and The Dollar Hegemony (the people who wield that power) currently has the power to eliminate competition within this legal regime (North America, or the U.S.A). That stops any effort, and all effort, to the extent of it's power (the power wielded by specific people) to effectively produce an accurate currency to replace the fraudulent currency. That is the power, and it is real. On the other hand; there are people who are gaining power where these competative people are producing a more accurate currency and gaining market share. All is not necessarily lost, not by a long shot; the power struggle isn't won by those who destroy alone. Someone must actually produce productive power. Is productive power going to be invested toward the production of more and more productive power, or will power be employed to destroy competition? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
hash3m, You are pointing out "absurdities"? What are these "absurdities" that you are pointing out? If you point out that your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying System has severe limitations in it scope, as you do repeatedly, then you point out the severe limitations of your viewpoint; what does that have to do with my viewpoint? When you read something that doesn't fit into your viewpoint, it may even challenge your viewpoint, your reaction is to repeat some dogmatic nonsense and then begin characterizing your reaction as some argumentative victory? Now, within your dogma, you attribute "economics" with concern? Your viewpoint attributes a human emotion to your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System? Your economic system is concerned? Is your economic system as concerned as you are, less, or more concerned? Did your economic systems concern make you publish libel, out of it's concern? Are you merely acting on behalf of your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying/System's concern, or is your continued libel more a reaction resulting from your concern? Is the System you believe in concerned, at all, that your subjective value judgment concerning the libel you publish is a measurable example of cost to me? If your System made you do it, with your System's concern for it's subjective value judgments, then can I ask your System to call you off, to make you stop producing and publishing all the libelous falsehoods you aim at me? Example: Can I ask your System, with it's concern for subjective value, the System that makes you libel, if that is the responsible, and the accountable entity, the one with the concern, can I ask your System to actually point out something absurd, through you presumably, rather than merely claiming (falsely) that you have, or even can, point out something absurd? Cost is a measurable tool used by people when people desire to produce, and then they do produce a more accurate measure of value when employing that tool accurately. Is that sentence above a challenge to your System's concerns, or is it, as your words appear to suggest, that the above sentence is an absurdity? Why do you continually blame wrong things, absurdities for example, produced by your Straw-Man, your vaporware? Does your other vaporware construction tell you to do it? Does your Austrian Economic Interest/Profit/Wage Paying System's concern dictate to you that you must create a Straw-Man and then you must blame your Straw-Man for being absurd, or do you have a hand in this libelous enterprise? What exactly is absurd? Is it absurd to claim that a system can be concerned, or is that just your way of diverting the topic even further from the topic? So far you claim that the word "accuracy" is "ad hoc". You claim that "fraud" is objective. You claim that cost is objective. You claim that "subjective" value is a concern of some thing that speaks to you, something you call "ecnomics". The first claim where "accuracy" is "ad hoc" has been hashed out, by your own admission, to be a paranoid emotion you suffer concerning what I may or may not do, again by your own admission, and then that miss-association (accuracy is ad hoc) has been a reaction to your paranoid emotion, a product of your own surreal imagination. Accuracy is accuracy. Ad hoc is not accuracy. When you fear something surreal, you miss-associate "accuracy" with "ad hoc" - and my guess is that your actual concern, and not the concern of some nebulous System, is that you are challenged by something that you prefer not to see, something you prefer to ignore, and therefore the easy way out, for you, is to produce libel. My guess is that your knee jerk reaction to things that challenge you is to shoot the messenger. Next you claim that "fraud" is objective, and from the eyes of the fraud, or the libeler, as the fraud or the libeler plans the fraud or the libel, the statement may be true; fraud, or libel, is an objective plan produced by the fraud or libeler, and then fraud becomes an executed plan once the fraud or the libeler executes the plan to fraud or libel. We went through this claim already. From the victims perspective the fraud or the libel can also be an objective process whereby the victim ends up paying an objective cost associated with the libel or the fraud; however the victims' objective measure is a cost while the frauds objective measure is a gain, at the expense of the victim. That is hardly the stuff of objectivity, and perhaps not completely absurd. A third party to a fraud can have another opinion concerning the fraud, and now there are three different viewpoints concerning the supposed objectivity to the fraud. If all three were concerned with some measure of accuracy, then all three would be concerned with some measure of accuracy, and if all three knew what was accuracy, then all three would know that accuracy can't be measured differently by all three subjective viewpoints. Accuracy, the actual thing, is a universal measure of fact, not subject to miss-interpretation. Miss-interpretation is the opposite of accuracy. A person does not need to be involved; a monkey can be involved in an accurate measure. A monkey can measure the chances of surviving a jump down out of a very tall tree, for example, and come up with the accurate measure that the fall won't be pleasant. If the monkey, or a human being, measures the distance accurately, relative to the harm a fall from the distance would cause, then the data, from an accurate perspective, may inspire the monkey, or the human being, to avoid that fall. A fearful monkey, one who miss-steps on a regular basis, a monkey who miss-steps while fearing things that do not exist perhaps, may be a monkey that falls while failing to perceive the impending fall accurately. An accurate perception is what it is, and to call it "ad hoc" is what that is. How many words are needed to confuse something simple, or are those words conveying accurate meaning that could be worth knowing? How does that claim above measure up to the following: "We" don't know the exact reasons people do what they do, and notice the use of the word "exact", which is an accurate measure, an exact measure, and which is not an inaccurate measure, "exact" is not "inexact". "We" don't know the exact (accurate) reasons but economics knows a reason? Is the reason told to us by "economics" an accurate reason, or is it not accurate? If the reason is charity, then does "economics" know it, or does "economics" fail to know it? If "economics" says something; are "we" required to obey or will we suffer libel if "we" don't obey as told? If the reason is "dumping", and "economics" ignore it, do "we" have to ignore it too? [size=MODERATORS] Please note the employment, again, of libel. The "fellow" forum member hash3m, continues to publish false, derogatory, inflammatory, and criminal misrepresentations of another forum member, despite repeated attempts to plead with the repeat offender to ceases publishing the offensive text. The employment of the word "insane" is unbecoming, at the very least. It is disingenuous. It is measurably inaccurate. It is false. Please note the employment of ambiguity and then the employment of false representations, of the facts, being presented as fact. If the libeler could produce some support for these libelous false claims, then wouldn't the libeler do so, assuming, of course, that the intent was to expose these supposed "insane conclusions"? So far as I can tell, the views "on it" are limited to your views on one word, where your views address the topic by addressing the one word, and that word is "accuracy". So far as I can tell, your views on the topic, on that one word, are false. Accuracy is not "ad hoc" as you have claimed, and as you have previously confessed, your false claim was inspired by another misperception you confess to having perceived. Here: When you get around to publishing text that is relevant to the topic you will, or you won't, and perhaps instead you will publish text that claims to be addressing the topic while not doing so. When you move from the topic back to your preferred dogma handed down to you from your "economics" that speaks to you, with it's concern, then you can do that too, and you can claim that you are then "citing valid economic evidence"; while the accurate measure of "validity" is only accurate from either your subjective view, or from the viewpoint of the "economics" being that uses you to speak for it. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Michael Delavar, You prefer to add this unpleasant chore to the list of things you are doing these days? How does that work? Reading this forum, then reading this topic, you find cause to offer corrective text aimed at someone who needs it, this seems to be a possible scenario, and you avoid mentioning any language that directly challenges someone who writes this: So, I think I get it, the person who associates a fellow forum member with the word "insane" is not worthy of direct moderation while the person targeted by that association with the word "insane" is worthy of direct corrective moderation by you. The topic is not worth discussing to this forum membership. That much is clear. The moderators, such as they are, have spoken.
In parting, you can have your forum, for all it is worth to you, my point will remain here, in this text, for as long as the moderators allow. Accurate currency is unwelcome here, what is welcome, what is rewarded, is libel. It is not worth continued libel, having my viewpoint twisted around, misrepresented, and on top of that having my efforts to defend against that libel moderated while the libeler is given a free hand in this market of ideas. Libel wins here at your request. Have fun doing whatever it is you are doing here, I see no point in it, not without accurate currency. I can leave with an open question. What is so attractive about falsehood, here in the form of libel, that you find it in need of so much dedicated support? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I took the last reply by a self elected forum moderator as a request from him, or her, for me to consider my participation as unwelcome. That ends that "discussion". What ever happened to discussion? |
|||||||||||
