Daily Bell: wrapping up
After answering to their ‘Response to Anthony Migchels Regarding Gold at Henry Makow’s Website‘, things took a little bit of a nasty turn. It is not necessary to repeat everything here verbatim, in can be read in the feedback section below the article at their site. But a number of strange things happened, and a few of their most fundamental positions simply don’t add up.
In the first place, DB sticks to it’s rejection of my analysis of Gresham’s Law and Gold’s prospects in the market place. They use Wikipedia as their source, while they regularly denounce Wikipedia.
They tried to circumvent my question ‘would you pay with Gold or Federal Reserve Notes if you had a choice‘ by simply stating: “You quoted Gresham’s Law incorrectly and then when we pointed it out to you, you explained that your incorrect interpretation was the correct one”
This certainly is not very convincing.
Secondly, when I asked them: “Does the Daily Bell, in the light of our discussion, accept that interest is indeed a very important problem? A crucial aspect of the slavery of the 99% to the Money Power?”, they answered:
“no we don’t think that interest is a problem, or not in a free market system, anyway. Is farming a problem? Is building a problem? Why should the lending of money in a free market be a problem. if people don’t want to borrow money at interest let them figure out a way not to.”
At first sight this seems consistent with their ‘let the market sort it out’ approach to life.
But when one remembers their continuing bleeding heart for those poor middle classes being raped by inflation, it is clear that they are not consistent at all. To be honest, this creates the question: do they care about inflation, or do they find it a useful argument for a position they want to take anyway, for different reasons?
Thirdly, I then amicably tried to end the discussion, saying: “Well, that does seem a little light to me: you do, after all, consider inflation a problem, because it is a wealth transfer to the Plutocracy.
So why would not interest be a problem, if it does the same? Probably even on a much greater scale too?
I think it will be hard to get together a plausible strategy to get rid of the Money Power if you don’t address a wealth transfer from anywhere between 5 and 10 trillion per year from the world’s poorest 80% to the world’s richest 10%. These are the numbers.
It is disappointing that you would plead for the end of inflation, but resist solutions that will seriously lessen the drain, like Public Banking, Social Credit, or even the inferior Greenback.
After all, the Government gives it’s monopoly away to allow a senseless plunder. I think it is strange to oppose reforms that would at least end that ridiculous situation, even though it may not solve inflation.
But on the bright side: we all seem to like the free market for currencies idea.
Thanks for the conversation, it was amusing. “
But then they all of the sudden showed annoyance, and started misrepresenting my position:
“We don’t find it amusing. And you are contributing to misinformation if you continually advocate the use of government force to solve the problems of Money Power. Absent Money Power, the elites you mention would not exist. Starve them of government power and they will not have the requisite force at hand to move ahead with their agenda. If you advocate the use of government violence as you seem to, you are using their tools and mechanisms. “
This is very important, not because of me, but because in this way they are trying to sabotage every reform at Govt level, unless it is what they want.
Ellen Brown, who is the real player here, knows all about that.
I made very clear in my statement that:
1. I favor a free market for currencies
2. Interest free Govt money is the lesser evil.
To come back with “We don’t find it amusing. And you are contributing to misinformation if you continually advocate the use of government force to solve the problems of Money Power” is simply not within the parameters of rational and civilized discussion.
I tried to correct this blatant misrepresentation, but unfortunately, they insisted.
Why would this be?
At last, I felt forced to point out the obvious:
“In the meantime, I circulate a private currency, interest free credit. While you are plugging a politician to… ..yeah, to do what actually?
Establish a free market? Use Government force for that?”
And to this came the astonishing reply:
“As far as Ron Paul is concerned, he is the best POLITICAL hope of rolling back what is taking place in the US. He is no ordinary politician. At least not so far.”
What the hell? So if I suggest the State should at least not hand over it’s monopoly to private interests if it insists on one, I’m a statist aiming to use the full force of Government against my supposed adversaries, but when they do it, their man is ‘no ordinary politician’?
Yes, this business can be a little exasperating sometimes.
For the record: I described interest free currency by the Government as ‘the lesser evil’. But that is a matter of context. I believe the implementation of Social Credit or Public Banking would be a catastrophic blow to the Money Power.
Yes, a free market for currencies would eventually work out even better, although it would take probably decades to mature, but it is clear that the Central Banking rape of the many through interest MUST end, either way.
It is ridiculous to say this is a statist approach. The State has a monopoly for now, that’s a practical fact. It gives this monopoly away to private interests, raking in anywhere between 5 to 10 trillion dollars per year, coming from the poorest 80% of the global population. Saying that Govt should at least take that monopoly back, even if it would be better to end the monopoly altogether, is just common sense.
Resistance against it is either lack of information about the problems and the proposals, or malice.
So all in all it was a very enlightening conversation.
We can conclude that the Daily Bell is not a serious hindrance to the Money Power. In fact, perhaps unwillingly, it is a major asset for it: they ignore and downplay interest, which is the Money Power’s main tool of domination. Worse: they discredit good people like Ellen Brown and good systems like Social Credit, trying to address this problem. They do so in unpleasant ways: misrepresenting both the issues and the positions people take accordingly.
They plug Gold and although they claim to resist a Gold Monopoly, they are paving it’s way: many libertarians will accept a Gold Monopoly Standard, because they mistakenly believe Gold would win out in a free market anyway.