| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   1 2 3 4 |
|
|||||||||||||
| REAL NEWS | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13th, 2011 12:54 am |
|
61st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Your argument may seem linear in your mind Joe HCKaos, I can only trust that your topic title is honestly written by you, and from that assumption on my part I participate in discussion. You can then twist that around, in a false advertizement campaign, playing some game of your exclusive invention, a variation on "bait and switch", and turn a discussion into you claiming that I am arguing. I am not arguing. What is a legal credit? That is a question to be asked. That is a question to be answered. You can answer it. What does that have to do with me? Leave me out of your answer. leave me out of your question. If you have an answer offer it up. If your answer is worth anything, to anyone, then your answer is worth something to someone, and how do you manage to turn that around into an argument? A token for a video game, a voucher for cheese? There is only so much power in existence. How much of the power in existence is usable power that can be used to save one human life? If there is more than enough power existing to save every single human life, then how do you explain the torture millions, the dying millions, and the murdered millions, and even the murdered, and tortured billions of innocent people. Now you have my question, before you, plopped on the table, like a screaming innocent toddler, fresh from the torture chamber, writhing, screaming in agony, as the last breath of that innocent human being is exhaled. Plop. The wet sound of raw flesh slaps the table. You can play your games, you can argue with yourself, but what does that have to do with me, in your argument, your drama, your fantasy, your play? I'm not here to argue. I have no interest in arguments. What the hell did you dream up as a topic title? Allow me to quote it: Is there any meaningful debate to be had here? Is argument a synonym for debate? You tell me. Set me straight. I'll look elsewhere for a competitive viewpoint, and I most certainly will avoid any arguments. If I had a history of repaying 2 seperate loans, each paid on time exactally as it were structured, would that earn me this credit? From me? If you are targeted by the legal criminals, then you are transferring power to them, because you create power, you do that, that is what constitutes the target on your back. The target says: "Hey, legal criminals, I produce surplus wealth, so here I am, come and get me, enslave me, take what I earn." You are not targeted if you are an old person dying soon, on welfare, or social security, or in some measure powerless, having no stash of surplus wealth, nothing of value whatsoever, you are a bum on the street, old, worthless, unable to produce anything, begging, consuming, a net loss, a liability, a cost, a drain, a user, a consumer, nothing but cost. Who pays that cost? Legal criminals don't, they take, that is their version of earning. They take, that have no interest in the dying, homeless, non-productive, bums on the street, unless, perhaps, they vote, or sit on juries. They can help take all the power from the producers of power, if they can be made to behave as ordered. You, if your net measure of production is greater than your net measure of consumption, constitute a source of surplus wealth, to be targeted, and exploited, as the legal criminals convince you that you have no choice, you must pay, you must transfer all, most, or as much as humanly possible, transfer your excess production, the total amount, or as close to the total amount as you can, transfer to them all of your production over your consumption, to them. They want you to consume less, more for them. You consume X. X is less than Y. Y is your total amount of production to date. X < Y. You produce more than you consume. Who get's the extra? How does someone else get the extra? Why does someone else get the extra? Why does all surplus wealth flow to a few people, from all the many people who produce surplus wealth? What is the formula, what is the process, what is the means, what is the method, how, exactly, does all the production that is in excess of all the consumption manage to flow from the producers to the few people who collect all that surplus wealth, and can that flow of power slow down, or stop? If I had a history of repaying 2 seperate loans, each paid on time exactally as it were structured, would that earn me this credit? Do you know what is a FICO score? I have a very limited understanding of the FICO score, but enough to know that it is a competitive measure of credit rating. It is certainly not the best, there is certainly much room for higher quality, and lower cost methods of measuring credit more accurately. Is there a competitive measure of credit, where the competitor offers a much more accurate, and much higher quality, and much lower cost, measure of credit than a FICO score? Is there a method working in Belgium, Switzerland, China, Japan, Africa? If there is no competition working, then why is there no force of competition working to force the credit rating process to higher quality and lower cost? What power has been spent on removing competition? I don't know. I can guess. Meanwhile there is, absent nothing, a method of measuring credit. That monopoly measure is called a FICO score. Do you know what is a FICO score? What defines me as honest hardworking? I think that there is a very good way to find out. I think there is a very accurate method by which your question can be competitively answered, so that the answer is the highest quality answer, at the lowest cost to you, where you are the person who is asking the question. I think that your question is a good question. I'll repeat that good question: What defines me as honest hardworking? Do you pay any taxes? Do you know that inflation is a tax? Do you know how inflation works as a tax? If you are paying the inflation tax, then you are a net producer of wealth, you are not a net consumer of wealth, you have produced something worth stealing, and that makes you a net producer. If you acquire that which you have, which is worth stealing, or taxing by direct tax, or taxing by income tax, or taxing by way of inflation, and you had acquired that taxable stuff, by way of deceit, you lied to get stuff that is later taxed, you perpetrated fraud, then you are not honest, are you? I can't answer that, I don't know you. What defines me as honest hardworking? Are you taxed? Do you lie, deceive, perpetrate fraud upon some innocent targeted victim, so as to accumulate the stuff that you send to the tax man? I can't answer those questions for you. You asked. I offered a competitive answer. I do not argue. What would be the point of argument, or debate? Do you see argument and debate as one and the same thing? Is it, not using tax loopholes to avoid paying my fare share? Is it sweating while performing CPR, is it being ignorant? Do you produce value? If you save a life, how can you measure that up as anything other than a very high measure of producing value, as high as giving birth, as high as creating a new human being, saving a life, whereby failure on your part, ignorance on your part, irresponsibility on your part, in that specific willful act, ends life instead. Not only do you managed, without resort to deception (against a targeted victim), and without resort to threats of violence, and without resort to willful acts of violence upon innocent victims, to produce enough to keep your own life going, added to that great accomplishment, you also save the life of someone else, when someone else lacks the power to keep their own life going. How is that not measurable as producing much, much, much, much, more than you consume? Did the person you saved then go onward to kill millions of people, or billions of people, crushing the lives out of multitudes of people, and torturing them on their paths to early deaths, and all those victims were innocent of any crime? If so, then, perhaps you should have let that one die. I don't know. I'm not you. It seems to me, that the amount of power transferring to you, as payment for the value of what you produce, is less than right, less than equitable, less than reasonable, less than that which you earn, and all I have to do to prove it, is follow your tax return, and follow the rate of inflation if you happen to be paid in dollar units of money. Did you give that stuff to them? Is that your measure of some willful investment, or charity, according to you? This isn't rocket science to me. It is easy math. It is easy, documented, legal, crime, accounts, on paper, or on digital records, undeniable, accurate, factual, understandable, traces, from you, to the legal criminals, in dollar denominated units, pennies, nickles, dimes, and dollars. Leave me out. I'm not arguing. You have questions, you can get answers. I may not offer a competitive answer, compared to nothing? I do not offer argument. What would be the point? Are you here to win something? Win something, then, do you need permission to win something? Do you need a targeted victim, willing, and able, to lose something, because you are so, so, so superior? My understanding of credit has greatly improved since I no longer need it, thats not to say I may someday need it. Why do I get the idea that you are speaking about one thing, and I am speaking about something entirely different? You are asking for a measure of credit, when, apparently, you are asking for a measure of how many legal dollars someone is willing to transfer to you, at any given moment in time. Legal dollars are designed to be debt notes, debt based, legal, accounting instruments. You hold one. What happens to it? You get a dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve System of Extortion began to be enforced by the legal criminals. That dollar in 1913 is worth X. You hold that debt based legal accounting instrument for 98 years, up to today, how much is it worth today? Why do you want dollars? Why do you associate the concept of credit with the factual reality of the dollar unit of legal fraud? I'm asking. I don't do that, it makes no sense to me, credit is credit, and legal fraud is legal fraud, one is not the other, so why confuse the two, as if the two were the same thing? I was fortunate enough pre-bubble burst to sell my house in 05 for 3 times what I paid for it. I reevaluated what my family and I required to be happy, paid cash for a home down south which is modest at best compared to the previous, but none the less my only debts are to the government. No cash = no purchase. Why do I now get this feeling that you are playing the part of Devil's Advocate, taking me for a ride? I don't have magical powers of intuition. You write ignorant things, and then you write things that are measures of your exceptional intelligence, are you playing me for a fool? I've learned, through experience, that those who "play" Devil's Advocates are not playing. They are the real deal. There are, of course, exceptions to almost every rule. I am trying to imagine which vehicles exist in the financial market that would enable someone, anyone, to offer an interest free or one percent interest loan. Now you are back to being ignorant? Credit is directly proportional to potential, not accumulated surplus wealth. Savings, or amassed, or collected, or stored, or accumulated surplus wealth is surplus wealth, not credit, surplus wealth is here, now, existing, ready, spendable, fluid, powerful, liquid, ready, and all the spender has to do is turn on the switch, turn the valve, and the power flows, because the power to purchase has already been produced. A warehouse full of gold, oil, electricity, food, oxygen, iron, Solar Panels, weapons, ammo, hydrogen, lap dancers, whatever, beer, you name it, it is one door away, you have the key, you have the control, you own it, you open the door, and you spend the supply of surplus power because it has already been created. You had invested, you had avoided having your power stolen, you had produced more than you consumed, you had saved, you had stored, you had accumulated, you now have ready power to purchase. That is not credit. Someone else looked at you, before you did all that saving, and they said, that man earns my credit rating, he has the potential to make all that stuff, and I am measuring me as being in his debt, for that potential that he has, by my accurate judgement. That is credit. You earn it, as obvious potential, not as proven fact. So, there you are, before you prove the fact, and no one, anywhere, judges you, as credit worthy, so you are set back, you have to prove your worth, you have to start small, you have to inch every step of the way, you have to struggle, you have to do without, you have to pinch every penny, you have to do everything yourself, you have to cut corners, you have to set aside, put off, delay, forestall, procrastinate, and even avoid doing things that you know will produce much greater value much sooner, if only, if only, if only other people would give you the credit you so obviously deserve. What if you are back at that point where you will die, without credit, without help, and no one gives you credit, no one gives you help, you die, and that is the end of that story. They help. They gave you credit. That is you, just you, and just one other person. How about you, a family, and a group of families, and an impending drought, or a nearby belligerent army of criminals marching to your doors, but you have not saved, not yet, you were delayed, in saving, you were set back in saving, things were not working best, not yet, but the drought looms, the army marches, the legal criminals are at the gate, and you have no savings. What do you do? You have no savings. All the people threatened have to stop doing their individual things and all the people have to start rowing the boat, in unison, to reach the shore before you all starve to death, failure to give each other credit, at that point, amounts to certain death. You all have to stop making new inventions, stop consuming, stop using up, and you all have to credit each other with the power, and the permission, to go ahead and focus all remaining power into reaching one common goal, and that goal must be reached, or failure is death for everyone. The enemy is at the gate, you all had better start making weapons, and meet the enemy at the gate with a much larger force of ready arms, making those enemies think twice about invading, pillaging, raping, stealing, and enslaving you, and your family, and your neighbor, and their neighbors, and their families. A. None of you separately have the power to defeat the drought, or the invading army of legal criminals. B. Even if you all collected all your individual supplies of surplus wealth into one pile of surplus wealth, the form of the wealth, and the actual constitution of the wealth is not useable in the work needed to defeat the drought, or the invading army of legal criminals. C. The only possible path to survival as an individual, each individual in that group of families, is to agree to combine all effort to reach that one specific goal, and each person must do a specialized, individual job, so as to build the very things needed to defeat the drought, and the invading army, failure is death for all, or enslavement for all, there is no other way out. Does each credit each other, or does someone come up with a plan that doesn't measure up? It has nothing to do with me. Leave me out. I'm not arguing. People either invent credit, and then use it, or they don't, and credit is not used, no skin off my nose, I'm going to die eventually, and I've lived well so far. Leave me out. I'm not grinding an axe. I'm not arguing. I'm not on a crusade. You see bad things. I do too. There is a solution. Take it or leave it. Invent one yourself. When you do, let me see it. I'm curious. Is your solution viable, compared to the one offered by me? Absent one, it isn't, by default. The problem will not fix itself, it is not a problem to the people who cause it. To the people who cause the problem, it is the solution. Past performance is no indicator of future returns, is that rhetoric or is that a staple of investing? Or both? I don't look directly at the sun. I don't go running blindfolded across the I-15 Freeway at rush hour. I don't stick my hand in fires. I don't see any good in sending my power to legal criminals who then use that power to take more power from me. Call me a fortune teller. I don't have the schedule that the FOMC has, as they add double the supply of legal dollars, or cut in in half. They have that, not me. They aren't telling fortunes either, they have the facts, because they produce the facts. More people transferring their non monetary power to other people in the form of ideas is what we lack. A tool does no good if it isn't used, time spent on lap dances, or drinking beer, is a better investment, compared to making a tool that no one uses. I'm not offering an idea, you have before you one of many possible solutions to the most dangerous threat to human kind existing today. What you do with it is your choice. Your choices are beyond my power to control, and beyond my desire to control, if you ever need that tool, there it is, take it or leave it. You alone are the judge of the value of your time, and your time spent with me here through keystrokes. I am passing on knowledge gained while standing on the shoulders of giants, they deserve more credit than I can give them - alone. Your next response will have answered that question. I've been writing daily, for many years, thousands upon thousands of words, you are exceptional in that you respond. You are even more exceptional in that you respond without resort to willful deceit, or threats of violence, as I trust that you are doing, so much for my credit rating. That does not mean, to me, that this exchange, necessarily, measures up as a debate. I'm not really sure as to what one is, exactly. As to the measure of meaning, I can claim that such a thing can be measured in how much less power flows from you, or anyone, to someone who does not earn that power: if less flows that way, this exchange is as meaningful as that.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jul 15th, 2011 02:52 pm |
|
62nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
You too have something to prove to me, don't you? Matt, You are a puppy, at 40, compared to my 50 odd years, I've lost count. Your state of youth, relatively speaking, can be measured as time spent working on what I call The Problem. I've been going to sleep with this problem, working on it every night, and waking up with new competitive solutions, for almost 3 decades. If you have been doing the same thing, you started at age 10, or so. Discussion (or Debate, or whatever word is the highest quality and lowest cost word) is a tool, by which, one single viewpoint is placed next to a competitive viewpoint, and by way of comparison, a new viewpoint can be constructed, through a process similar to The Scientific Method, or Trial and Error, or whatever word works best to describe the process of finding reinforcements in support of possible answers to questions, and finding information that contradicts possible answers to questions. Discussion, unlike reading books, and unlike one person working on a problem alone, inventing possible contrary, and possible supportive viewpoints, allows one person, with one viewpoint, with or without invented contentious, or supportive viewpoints, to actually borrow another person's viewpoint, assuming that the discussion involves honest people whose product, whose words, whose voices, are not all lies. The first time I encountered a "discussion" whereby the supposed other viewpoint was false, and false on purpose, or as a result of a false viewpoint being parroted, I learned something. OK, that was a lesson to be learned, running down a rabbit hole, or off a cliff, what was that called? An argument. The second time I encountered a "discussion" whereby the supposed other viewpoint was false, and either false on purpose, or as a result of a false viewpoint being parroted, I employed what I had learned. Hey, you are another one of those people who lie, so as to accomplish some goal, winning, or something, I don't know, can you help me know why you lie? I learned more, then, as the answer was either no answer, or more lies. By the time I've reached 1000 people, who lie, will-fully, or just "going with the flow", who knows, they don't confess, I've learned almost all the tricks, almost all the arguments, almost all the deceptive fabrications of non-reality, the tactics, the methods, the process, is knowable, and few new tricks come my way these days. 1. The Parthian Arrow (one of my favorites) 2. Transference/Projection 3. Collective punishment/prejudice 4. Diversion/misdirection/willful ignorance (the most common) 5. The Devil's Advocate 6. I agree but... Suffice to illustrate the point? Your offering: You too have something to prove to me, don't you? I am me. I am not someone like me. Just me, always me, no matter how much I try to escape me, I'm still me. No, I have nothing to prove, TO YOU. Product 1 and Product 2 ILLUSTRATE what has already been proven, time, and time, and time again, every time, each time, without fail. Competition ends monopoly. Good avoids evil. Words do not reach those who refuse to know. No, I don't have anything to prove to you, or anyone else, if you have an interest in knowing, then you will know, can I help? I don't know. Do you want to find out if I can help, if you have an interest in knowing? Is that the same thing as ME having to prove something to you? I do not think so, I think one is one thing and the other is not the same thing, and potentially the opposite thing. A. Me having to prove something to you (or else what?) B. Me offering help to someone who I think deserves help, and helping myself, by some measure, at the same time (also known as an equitable exchange) You tell me, please. One is one thing, not two things, not duplicity. A) We (now) mutually agree that the monetary system of values is a flawless tool for the people at the top of the pyramid, drainging excess power from the greater good, to emass insurmountable power for the lesser bad. (lets skip the good/bad/good/evil/right/wrong/left/right argument) I am not here to argue either. It is your choice, not mine, to skip morality. I do no such thing. Live is good, all things that work to ensure survival of life are good, that is the full measure of good. Look up ectropy. Ectropy No need to resort to any organized religion. Good is what it is, bad is what it is, as bad is that which works to end life. Entropy No opinion necessary. If there is no force working toward the work required to produce and maintain life, there will be no life. If there is a more powerful force working to end life, there will be no life. No life = no opinion. You can skip the moral question as you please. I don't. It is simple, why skip it? I am in totality FOR the free exchange of ideas, opportunities, and perspectives without monetary exchange. I am not. Money is a tool, it helps increase the quality of life, and lower the cost of life, for those who use it for that purpose. Why skip money? Why skip morality? Why skip money? Both are very useful in the work required to maintain life, increasing the quality of life, and lowering the cost of life, so why skip either, why skip both? I don't know, that is why I'm asking. Your products are based on a system which intrinsically favors the cheat. I cut that out of the context, since that stands alone as a false statement. That is a false statement. You obviously do not understand Product 1, and Product 2, which are definable as they exist, and they are not, necessarily, mine. They exist, here and there, not in exactly the form I describe, as I describe them, but in principle they exist, and the point is to point out, or to illustrate how the force of competition works in legal money markets, not necessarily any one competitor, it just so happens that the competitive legal money I use as an illustration, Product 1, and Product 2, are the highest quality, and the lowest cost competitor in my view, to date. If you can illustrate a higher quality legal product, at a lower cost, then you can, if you can't then you can't, and you sentence merely shows how little you know, or how much you are guessing wrongly, in reference to Product 1, and Product 2. If you trip over a rock, and it happens to be the largest diamond on Earth, you may look back and blame the rock for you carelessness, to what end? Someone else may find the same rock, and use it, to what end? A better illustration may be a case whereby someone right now, on this planet, has invented a devise that consumes the least amount of the most abundant form of power in the process of producing the most amount of the most scarce, usable, constructive, productive, power, and no one wants it. There it is, right there, it exists, it is there, you can argue about it not being there, because you don't see it, but it is there, as described, exactly as described, and no one, not you, no one, uses it. Not yet. Someone, other than the first to invent it, then prove it, then use it, first does so, then two, then three, and that has happened with the discovery of Whale Oil, and Petroleum Oil, and Solar Panels, and personal computers, and horse draw carriages, cars, planes, rocket ships to other planets, cures for diseases, to name a few examples of the same point. Your products are based on a system which intrinsically favors the cheat. There is no hidden meaning on my part there, I am not implying you are a cheat. The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. No hidden meaning, there is no meaning, all that you are doing is presuming something that does not exist, and then concluding things based upon the initial false presumption, if you were not doing so, then you would have specific things, rather than ambiguous things, to report to me. Your angle of view could be inspected for validity, if it was specific. Since your expressed angle of view is nothing but hot air, it can't be inspected for validity. What exactly do you mean? There is no reference in your expressed viewpoint to the actual Product 1, or the actual Product 2 offered to you. You are stumbling on the rock, and blaming it for your carelessness. Is that an MO, a habit, a willfully repeated mode of behavior? The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. What system? What are you referring to when you describe the thing you are referring to with those words? Are you describing the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion? You cannot be referring to Product 1, and Product 2, because your words do not apply to Product 1, and Product 2. Your words do apply to the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion? Your words apply to the Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion because that system is a legally enforced monopoly that is designed to accomplish exactly what you describe: The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. That is a description of the design of The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion and it works, as you describe, because the competition to it is rendered power less, or not powerful enough to end that process of moving power from those who create power to those who steal it with The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion. As soon as any competitor, Product 1, and Product 2, or Gold, or Silver, or any legal competitor, or all competitors being made legal, as soon as there is a legal competition, not a phoney legal competition, the description you describe is rendered power less, and is exactly as less powerful, as the competition is more powerful, and that is the point. It is not "my" offering of an illustrated example of just exactly what competition can be, as competition can be higher in quality and lower in cost, it matters not whose offering what, since the full measure of meaning, the full measure of what matters, is that competition is, in fact, higher in quality, and lower in cost, that is what matters. You say: The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. So how can that be made better? How can less power be relinquished as producers relinquish power to the legal criminals? How can any less power be relinquished while the legal criminals enforce the relinquishing of power from producers to them, with their legal money monopoly extortion racket? No competition: things keep flowing as is. This way: Dept Clock Those are the numbers that are for "public consumption", and as likely as not, that isn't even close to the full measure of the ongoing crime spree. Competition rears it's ugly head (not phoney competition): less of an ongoing crime spreed, in direct proportion to just how much higher in quality and just how much lower in cost the competition is, exactly, and Product 1, and Product 2, offers an illustration of just, exactly, how many less pennies, nickles, dimes, quarters, and dollars worth of surplus wealth flows from the producers to the legal criminals. If you are speaking about the monopoly power, then your words make sense, otherwise, what are you speaking about: certainly not Product 1, and Product 2? The system of exchanging power for $ at each end of the transaction has someone gaining and losing $ and relinquishing some degree of power. Those words apply to a working legal monopoly; which is the direct measure of non-working competition. Those words do not apply to working competition; which is the direct measure of a non-working monopoly. So stands my confusion, but offer that we are all a work in progress. To me, from my view, you trip over the rock, which is the diamond called competition in money markets, and you blame the rock for your carelessness in knowing better that which is before you, in reality, and for what purpose? Are you in such a hurry to get somewhere that your goal blinds you to any other perception on that path? I've been, alone, up, down, and sideways, on how Product 1, and Product 2 work in reality, and as yet no one, ever, makes any effort to expose to me how those products would not work as claimed. Why is that? Actual words do not exist, not yet, whereby any perspective, my own, or anyone else's, expose the faults of Product 1, and Product 2, as a means of avoiding, completely, all the worst things borne by all the victims of the legal criminals who perpetuate their crimes, all their crimes, empowered into existence by their enforced legal money monopoly extortion racket. This: Dept Clock Product 1, and Product 2 ends that above. I know it. You claim to know otherwise, from a position of ignorance. Is that an MO? Is that a habit? Is that the result of years, and years, and years, of exposure to behavioral modification, brainwashing, response conditioning, false advertizements, and deceit, and threats of violence, and witness to terrorizing, horrible, torture to millions, and the serial killings of those same millions, on your dime, as you work harder, and harder, and harder, to get less, and less and less, and as your earnings lend psychological (political), and physical (economic) support, making you accessory to those tortures of millions, innocent and guilty alike, and you continue, by this engineered habit, this unwelcome, this enforced, this invasive, and this undetected, method of operating, this knowing from a position of ignorance routine, that results inevitably, with millions, or billions of murdered innocent lives, and perhaps, even, the end of all life on Earth? I think some habits may be in need of avoiding. That isn't me trying to get something from you. I'm not, as you say, having to prove something to you, that is me, offering a competitive point of view. If yours, which looks like you claiming to know something from a position of ignorance, is higher in quality that what I offer, then it is, and if your viewpoint is less costly to you, for now, than the one I offer, then it is, and that is what that is: your viewpoint. It is not mine. Product 1, and Product 2, end the legal monopoly, and all that goes with it. Simple. Easy to understand. Workable. Obviously workable, until proven otherwise, by some accurate means, by some obvious contradictory viewpoint addressing Product 1 and Product 2, which so far, does not exist. So, as a closing question, thrown on the discussion table, a tabled question, to anyone: Would the honest productive people be able to realize a solution to the legal crime problem if they saw one, and if they saw one, where is it?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jul 18th, 2011 01:30 pm |
|
63rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
What I don't understand is how to bring them into the physical realm? HCKaos, As I've said, they already exist, they are already in the physical realm, so your question applied to reality has to be rephrased. If I were to rephrase your question I would ask: How can competitive legal monetary product production, and use, be increased? If that is the question, then I have to point out that there must be a demand for increased production and use of competitive legal monetary products such as the illustrated examples I offer in Product 1, and Product 2. The demand has to come from the honest productive people, since the dishonest legal criminals will loose their gravy train when competitive legal monetary product production and use increases, so they are not going to demand that increase in those products. Example: Many legal monetary products have been produced and used in the form that has since become known as Liar Loans, or Stated Income Loans, and many of these loans were produced, sold, resold, sold again, sold in bundles, and there is much evidence showing how legal "Chain of Title" has been lost, enough evidence has become known to alert "The Public" by some measure. I mean "The Public" to mean the honest productive Americans, or the source of purchasing power behind Taxes, the source of surplus wealth is The Public. Liar loans, bundled up, sold many times, and sold fraudulently, include, possibly, loans where the current "benefactor" (payee of principle and interest), has lost legal claim to the property since the lawful requirements of recording possession have not been met, bypassed in the rush to sell the loans fraudulently. There is no question concerning the fraudulent production and sale of the loans, and there is a legal question concerning the chain of title, and the number of the loans falling into this possible description is an estimate, and your estimate is as good as anyone's, and I'll estimate at 10 million. 10,000,000 If it is true, and if 10 million people are in homes, legally, whereby they can stop paying mortgage payments, stop paying mortgage interest payments, and no one can legally remove them from those homes, because the holders of the loans have no legal claim on the loan, the holders of the loans have been victims of fraud, or are conspirators in fraud, then legally, that amounts to 10,000,000 new loan products produced and ready for action. Is there a demand for it? If I sent letters to all 10,000,000 people, once I found out the facts, and told them, all 10 million, that they can stop paying, and keep their homes, because the fact is, that the holders of their loans are either the victims of fraud, or are conspirators in fraud, how many of those people would demand new loans, or how many of those people would stop paying? I have personal experience with this, so your answer has to be weighed, or measured, relative to what I already know to be true in the few cased I know about at this time. What can cause an increase in the demand for competitive legal monetary products, so as to force the legal monetary product producers to increase their quality, lower their costs, or go out of business? What has to happen? Here is another possible answer to your question: Legal Monetary Competition If you read that link, and you don't see an answer to your question, then I can try to figure out how the question is not understood by me, since I see that link as a very good answer to your question. I've tried to express that notion in past posts, but was met with a bit of resistance by you. I have no better solution to offer in this specific category of legal credits, and certainly am not defaulting through ignorance as I've read the description numerous times. Honest productive people complain about taxes. That is a common demand made by honest productive people. Honest productive people are the source of power that is taxed, they are the source of the surplus wealth that is then measured by legal money, and taxes denominate, or measure, that surplus wealth, produced by honest productive people, as that power flows to the tax collection points, and then whomever gains control of that power, spends that power, invests that power, or saves that power. Honest productive people demand lower taxes, by their complaints. Honest productive people demand hospitals, firefighters, ambulances, city governments, county governments, state governments, and National governments, for all sorts of reason, not limited to protective expenses in defense against crime. Honest productive people are confused by increased taxes, and lower returns on those investments, more taxes, less quality in hospitals, more taxes, less quality in firefighters, more taxes, less quality in police forces, lower quality, less quality in military employment (6 wars now, and who is "winning"?). How many honest productive people know that a legal monopoly extortion racket is a method by which honest productive people are taxed? Where does the total sum of all surplus wealth (profits) flowing from mortgage buyers go? Add up all the mortgages, pay all expenses to everyone in the honest mortgage business, follow all the dollar denominated interest payments, minus those costs, and where do all the profits end up flow to? How much is that total sum of all profits on legal mortgage interest in American in 30 years time? Do you have any idea? How much tax money flows from all the tax payers to all the tax spenders who profit from those expenses, minus the costs, in the same 30 years time? Do you have any idea? Which is the higher tax? A. Legal monopoly mortgage extortion racket profits. B. Legal tax expenditure profits? Try 30 years time, give me your best guess. When honest productive Americans know the facts, they may then stop complaining and they may then demand higher quality, and lower cost, and then your question is answered as increased production and use of competitive legal products like Product 1, and Product 2, as those products intend to illustrate legal competitive financial products. A loan of 0-1% is a "dream come true" for many people, hell for all people. After all the text we have exchanged so far, that single sentence tells me the most accurate information I need to zero right in on one of our shared beliefs in falsehood. Either you are ignorant or I am ignorant concerning the facts. Why do you believe that low interest is "hell for all people"? Where do you come up with that belief? How do you propose to bring this idea to life? The problem is ignorance, and then there is an even more serious problem in the fact that many honest productive American's prefer to remain ignorant, and we are at a proving ground, right here, right now. One of us will walk away from this point with a dogged determination to remain ignorant, despite obvious evidence providing a way out of that state of ignorance. Who will it be, you or me? What makes you believe that low interest rates will be "hell for all people"? If that is what you believe, what makes you believe that, since from my understanding of much information gathering, working, thinking, reading, experimenting, the claim you make is false, and demonstrably false, so how do you come up with that belief? If I can see the reasons for that belief, I may believe that belief too. I will not accept blind belief, and certainly not blind belief in something that I've personally disproven. I am very receptive to evidence that supports your claim, so as to make sure that my understanding is either accurate or inaccurate. How is a low interest rate "hell for all people"? Why are your thoughts based upon such a false notion? What other false notions do you harbor as a direct result of harboring that one false notion? Or is it me, on the other hand, that have made a principled false step, from which many additional false steps accrue? How do you propose to bring this idea to life? People, when they know better, demand better, including me, and you, and anyone else. When people know better, they demand better, and that is how better is brought to life. No short cuts. I offer you do so sooner the better, as more and more are incrementally losing the standard by which they would be elligible. 20 million people is one persons account of the murdered in Stalin's regime, where people were led to slaughter by accepting lies instead of truth, but I ask you: Why so many murdered? Why didn't everyone join in on all the fun? The question is a direct measure of how many people refuse to join the liars club, how many, at risk of death, remain stoically honest and productive to the core (at least honest among friends if not honest in the face of criminals - legal or otherwise)? How bad will it get in America, before the honest productive people demand better? What form will better take? Will those who have had enough lying, fraud, legal crime, still use The Federal Reserve System of Extortion, after they have had enough? I don't think so. When the honest productive people in American have had enough, there will be a low point, where the cost of living is highest, and the standard of living is lowest, in America, and after that low point, honest productive people in America will not settle for lower standards of living, will not settle for higher costs of living, and honest productive Americans will demand higher standards of living, and lower costs of living, and what do you think they will find when the start looking for remedy? I think they will find the legal criminals who have been documenting their crimes on their money trail, the honest productive people in America will follow the money to the source, and God help those criminals left holding that empty bag, once their employers have moved on to greener pastures. Regime change is afoot. Will the new regime be more powerful criminals, or will this be the low point that honest productive Americans will refuse to stoop below? Please don't dodge the question concerning why you think that low interest rates will be "hell for all people"; I am planning on attending a conference in Reno Nevada where many Gold Bugs will be speaking about this same topic, and if it is anything like the last conference I went to, all my questions will be dodged, and dodging specific questions are answers. If you dodge the question, I'll have my answer.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 07:26 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > REAL NEWS | Top |
