Joe Kelley
Administrator
|
+++++++++
Oh Yea! And Joe I didn't 'attack' you... I stated my opinion..that's all... I have no need to attack anyone.... I'm too old anyway...
+++++++++
Claiming that a proposed solution to the problem of legal crime is confusing, rather than confessing that you are confused, is an attack in my view upon me, and then you confess sorrow?
What is that? You are sorry for being confused? You are sorry because the proposal is confusing to you? You are sorry because the proposal is, it is itself, confused?
I’ll repeat the proposal in English.
The proposal is to create two products for sale, and both products are legal, both products are sanctioned by the National Government (the torturing mass murderers).
Product one is now at your local bank for you to purchase if you wish to purchase it (according to the proposal):
Product 1:
- A loan on the principle of any home currently mortgaged, or one as yet to be built, where the borrower does not pay any interest.
The fine print on product one is simple. The borrower must be qualified to borrow purchasing power (money), in other words: that stays the same according to sound banking practices as sound bankers practice typical loan qualification practices, where bankers check things like FICO scores to see if someone is more likely to pay back the loan rather than less likely to pay back the loan.
The fine print addresses the problem of loaning purchasing power to people who prove that they cannot pay back the loan, and despite that proof the bank loans the money, for some reason.
The fine print also addresses the problem of the practice of not loaning money out to people who have good credit scores and the practice of only loaning money out to people who prove that they do not need any money.
The fine print is merely an acknowledgement of sound, and reasonable, lender/borrower practices. No one reasonably expects a known abuser of credit to return something borrowed, it may happen, but calling such a transfer a loan is false, when someone who is known to be unable or unwilling to pay back a loan, the practice of transferring valuable stuff to them is not a loan, it is a gift, or it is a payment to shut the person up, it is not a loan. A loan is a transfer that is from the lender to the borrower and then from the borrower back to the lender, over time.
Product one also applies to any business mortgage or any business plan where the borrower plans on constructing a new business. The lender transfers the purchasing power to the borrower and the borrower pays back the entire sum of purchasing power back to the lender, over time – no interest payment.
Product one generates market share in the lending industry, more customers prefer to borrow legal money at no interest rather than borrowing legal money and have to pay back more money than the money borrowed.
Product two generates profit for the lender as product two charges borrowers a one percent interest payment on the money that is transferred from the lender to the qualified borrower and this purchasing power is only loaned to people who employ the power to produce more power by some practical means; and the Solar Panel/Electric Car is on example of such an employment of borrowed purchasing power.
The fine print here is the qualification of what is done with the borrowed money. The borrower may take the borrowed money and bet on the next Super Bowl game with that money, if so…(there are those dots again) that person will generate a history of poor credit. The fine print with product two is the requirement of producing more power than the power borrowed, and paying the lender 1 percent of the spoils.
A Solar Panel generates 100% return on investment, on a bad day. And an Electric car can save 10 cents per mile, for someone employing it, once they get one, compared to the employment of a gasoline car at today’s prices. If, does any one doubt, gas prices go back up, then the savings of Electric powered cars goes up too, and the savings of generating your own electricity, from the sun, to power your own electric car, if you have good credit, and you can afford to return 1% of your 100% savings to the lender, then Product two is for you.
Product two can also be employed to start a new business, at one percent, according to the same fine print, 1% goes back to the lender, and the purchasing power must be employed in the job of creating more power, like making electric cars, making solar panels, making food, selling electric cars, selling solar panels, selling food, repairing and installing power products, buying them, etc.
Perhaps power is ignored as much as fairness, in this PC world – and I don’t mean Personal Computer.
That was meant for the following web page:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tf2777/article22075_htm/?src=hsn
The following was also not showing up on my end as a published response:
++++++++
Your rhetoric sounds a little dictatorial..
++++++++
Anyone,
The “rhetoric” above “sounds” like dogma, it reeks of it, like “Political Correctness” or some other fashionable method of blending into the crowd. The original publicly published work offers a reasonable, and workable, solution to the social problems (individual people collected into a group of people who, as a group, are experiencing problems), since the root cause of the social problems, that are intended to be alleviated, are problems caused by a dictatorial currency monopoly, or PONZI scheme (another version of a “something for nothing” scheme).
I’ll pick out the part of the original published work that addresses that legally managed Ponzi scheme:
++++++++
Introduce a “new” US dollar as a strictly national currency, not tied to any exchange rate mechanism other than to the “old” US dollar, with limitations.
Issue it from the Treasury, ignoring the Fed and existing banks, which can fend for themselves with the currency they have rendered worthless. Issue the new currency through state and local banks all under the direction of the US Treasury in the form of long-term interest free loans.
++++++++
The author of the published work leaves more than one loose end in that proposal, while mine leaves no stone unturned – and I employ only two new currency products. The idea is the same, or at least the idea is based upon the same principle, if I have the original author’s intent understood. The idea is to legalize a competitive currency and employ that competitive currency toward power producing investments, for a net increase in power over time, something not done with the current legal currency monopoly, as that current legal currency monopoly is employed effectively to accomplish it’s intent, which is to transfer wealth (purchasing power) from those who create wealth (purchasing power) and transfer purchasing power (wealth) to those who employ the current currency monopoly – or else.
The current legal currency monopoly is much like the old protection racket, you must pay, or else, you must pay or you may get hurt, it’s for your own good – of course. Advertising the current currency monopoly as a something for nothing scheme merely hides the true intent behind a veil of lies.
Get rid of the veil, by publishing alternatives, and the public (those who are not confused easily) can see the crime, and then see the criminals for what they are, in fact, badge or no badge.
++++++++
You ascribe names and such to comments that are made that don't quite suit your fancy..
++++++++
Now I have a pro-bono editor in chief, someone to tell me what I think, what I do, and how I do it, and it the same person who confesses confusion concerning he reads of the text I’ve published? What is the point of this tactless nothingness? Have I missed the point, as the light of “remedy” fades?
What do those dots mean, exactly.. ?
++++++
but otherwise your arguments do make sense, but then do we as a species make sense?
++++++
Philosophy? The criteria by which a species survives can be summed up as follows:
Produce more than consumed - anything less than that makes no cents, and ensures extinction of the species.
++++++
I don't think so..
++++++
Perhaps your father and mother had more than one child?
+++++++
We are screwing up the place big-time...
+++++++
I prefer to discriminate more accurately between those of us (in the set called “we”) who produce more than consumed, and those of us who merely consume – and pass on costs – it makes more sense to me; to be more accurate in this job of discriminating, to be less likely to punish everyone for the acts of a few – for example.
+++++++++
So let your guard down pal and tru thinking outside the box called excess baggage.
+++++++++
When you offer thoughts worth thinking, I’ll think those thoughts, so far my bull**** tolerance “guard” is working fine, or have I missed something important?
+++++++
Not paying for a place to live does not imply getting a place for free. Nor does it imply not working or doing nothing. We need to work to build shelters for each other, but not work to take them away from each other. We need to work so that we are all fed, but to work at producing food and then depriving it from those who just happen to be born at the wrong place at the wrong time... That is a survival of the fittest condition... to the victors the spoils sort of thing...
++++++++
The problem of accurate accounting, if you ignore it, will grow from a small problem, into what we have now, you call it “survival of the fittest condition…” while I see it as legal crime, conducted by legal criminals, who are not fit to carry my groceries, never mind dictate to me who receives the next “great giveaway” and who has to pay for it.
If “we” make houses for each other, and I’m not suggesting, by innuendo or any text whatsoever, that we don’t make houses for each other, but if we do this, continue to do this, without accurately accounting for who does all the work and who does all the lying, torturing, and mass murdering, then the bigger houses will continue to go to the lying, torturing, mass murderers, and the honest hard workers won’t need a house cause they will be chained to their jobs.
If you ignore this point, the accurate accounting point, as you continue to work out your plan, then your plan may fix the inaccuracies in accounting by magic, and if that happens, good for you, and good for everyone on your list of good guys. What about the rest of us?
+++++++++
The sun's energy is free... and we should not pay for it if our life depends on it. In fact, we should not pay for anything on which life depends.. otherwise we will fight for our share, as our armies are now doing...
+++++++++
Are those words addressed to me? Did you get from my words a confused notion concerning some tax being levied upon sunlight? If so, then you have missed the point.
A solar panel turns the power of sunlight into the power of electricity and current solar panel prices are paid for with current electricity prices produced by a currently produced solar panel. In other words: a Solar Panel purchased today can pay for itself as it produces more power than it consumes. Solar Panels, even in their currently inefficient form, constitute an investment where the power invested in them produces a greater return of power over time – more power for less – which is not the same thing as “something for nothing”.
Someone has to work to get the power of the sun turned into a greater power, a power that can be employed toward human survival. The Sun doesn’t shine at night, for some reason – lights powered by electricity can turn night into day if needed, if someone has done the work to produce the hardware involved in that process. If you have to pay someone for their work in that process, it is not a tax, you want light at night, you transfer power to the person who makes light at night, you get the power of light at night in return. Is this not fair, or are you still setting aside the whole fairness thing for something more practical – in your mind?
Last edited on Fri Feb 27th, 2009 11:24 am by Joe Kelley
|
