Don’t hoard the Means of Exchange! (Part 1)
One of the most deeply rooted misconceptions about money is that it is a store of value and that hoarding it is a viable way of maintaining wealth for future use, also known as saving.
Few things could be further from the truth.
Many economists, both of a Mainstream or Austrian persuasion go even further and say money can only be a credible means of exchange if it has stable value. Stable value, they claim, is necessary for people to accept the money.
This is complete nonsense as practice shows in three different ways.
First there is Silvio Gesell. He destroyed the store of value function in his units with his ‘demurrage‘. A tax or interest on holding money, as opposed to owing it, typically between 12 to 20% per year.
The result?
Greatly enhanced circulation.
Many more transactions and booming (local) economies.
The Worgl is of course the most famous example, but also today’s Chiemgauer (and most other German Regional Currencies) are equipped with it.
Another important observation is ‘Gresham’s Law’. Bad money drives out good money. The unit depreciating quickest (with multiple units circulating simultaneously) will be used to pay with. The others will be hoarded.
And third there is the issue of inflation, which is linked to economic growth, exactly because people fear hoarding the means of exchange because it is losing value. Deflation, on the other hand, is associated with depression, because people sit on their cash instead of having in it circulate.
So clearly practice does not confirm the proposition that money must be a good store of value to be a good means of exchange. Quite the opposite is true. A good store of value is a lousy means of exchange and a unit losing value sees enhanced means of exchange functionality.
So what do we want from our money. Does it need to be a store of value, or a means of exchange? Because we can’t have both. Not in one unit, anyway. And the answer is easy: there are many reasonable substitutes for money as a store of value, but it is indispensable as a means of exchange.
In fact: the designation of anything, any commodity, to be a means of exchange makes it money!
The modern definition of money is: ‘anything agreed upon by the community to be used as a means of exchange’.
Money derives its value exactly from this agreement. It is not because of its value that it is money. It’s clearly wrong to say a means of exchange needs to have (stable) value to be called money. It’s the other way around: by agreeing it will be money, it becomes valuable.
Just think of the Fed notes. Pieces of paper with ink slapped on it. And it’s not the State’s ‘extortion’ that makes it valuable either. No State power could force a community to accept money it didn’t trust. But people will accept every unit that they will be able to spend viably.
So it’s not ‘law’ that gives money its value, but the (tacit) agreement by those using it.
This, incidentally, is proven in practice by the thousands of free market units that circulate world wide in countless forms. From LETS to Regional Currencies or large scale ‘barter’ organizations using their own units that are created on a ‘Mutual Credit‘ basis.
All this is even true of gold. Having lingered at $200 per ounce for two decades it started appreciating in the aftermath of 9/11 on mounting speculation it would be money again after demise of the dollar and the American Empire. This is the key driver behind its relentless march over the last ten years, not a non-existent ‘inflation’ threat.
So while economic textbooks usually quote the three classic functions of money as being a means of exchange, store of value and unit of account, we can see clearly now that this is wrong.
It is wrong by definition and both monetary theory and practice show that for something to be called money it must be a means of exchange.
Period.
Even the unit of account function is not necessarily part of it. Many units exist that use other units of account. For instance, most barter units and Regional Currencies use the dominant national unit as the unit of account. By saying, for instance: 1 Berkshare = 1 dollar.
Detrimental effects of hoarding cash
Not only is money not meant to be a store of value, using it as such hinders it as a means of exchange.
After all: to exchange is to circulate. Circulation is the antithesis of hoarding. Hoarding the means of exchange hinders circulation. Less money is available for trade. The economy stagnates or more of the means of exchange must be made available.
Therefore, modern monetary systems should actively discourage hoarding.
Gesell’s demurrage is just one way of doing this.
Interest on the money supply, incidentally, clearly favors the store of value function of money and therefore hinders its main aim. Astonishingly, Mainstream economists will actually claim interest will increase circulation. Obviously it will not. If you gain by putting your money in a bank account, you will be less inclined to pay with it. You have, for instance, a clear incentive to postpone paying your bills.
In the omniscient Protocols (no 20.) we find this instructive quote on the matter: ‘On no account should so much as a single unit….be retained in the State’s treasuries, for money exists to be circulated and any kind of stagnation of money acts ruinously on the running of the State machinery, for which it is the lubricant; a stagnation of the lubricant may stop the regular working of the mechanism‘.
Libertarians should read ‘economy’ where it reads State. In the megalomaniacal dreams of the writer these are the same.
Savings and inflation
The classic case made for a strong store of value function in money is of course the perceived desire to store wealth. Individuals are encouraged to save for a rainy day or old age. This is considered prudent and common sense. We will consider the veracity of this idea in part two of this essay, but for now we will point out that there is no reason to hoard cash if one wants to maintain wealth for future use.
There are many alternatives and we have mentioned them before. Considering the negative implications for the other users of the money it is clear that the desire of the individual to hoard is of lesser priority than that of the community to use it for trade.
Just like it is considered common sense that when using a road, the need for safety for other users is considered more important than individual’s desire for speeding.
And yes, it is easily forgotten that money derives its value from the fact that our brethren agree to use it as a means of exchange along with ourselves. Meaning we are not alone in this and we have clear responsibilities to the other users of the money.
Also, using money to store wealth makes our wealth vulnerable to manipulation of the volume of the money supply, also known as inflation. The classic approach to this problem has been to try to organize a system that was invulnerable to this kind of manipulation. But in a sense this is a strange approach, especially for libertarians, who tend to stress personal responsibility.
The idea that the individual has a ‘right’ to a stable unit does not withstand critical scrutiny. It has also proven to be impractical. It is simply unwise to put too much faith in the controllers of the system. Whether they are bankers, politicians, or even well meaning monetary reformers.
So it is easy to conclude that saving money for future use is simply an unsound approach, both from the perspective of the community and of the individual.
But don’t we need savings for investments? Many Austrian and Mainstream economists are on record claiming this is the case.
But as has become well known over the last few years, the banking system creates all the money in circulation through fractional reserve banking. A rather inefficient, unstable, obscure and basically fraudulent way of going about the simple way of money creation.
This state of affairs exists to hide the simple truth in plain sight: that no reserves are required to create all the money we will ever need.
The notion ‘we need savings for investments’ is to maintain the illusion banks need capitalization.
In a rational monetary system, based on mutual credit, no reserves are necessary, nor the need for the illusion that they are. All credit is created from scratch, just like in the current system. Interest-free, that is.
So capital in the real sense of the word, meaning real assets belonging to real people, will provide the backing for all the credit, for all the investments we will ever need.
Conclusion
Money is a means of exchange. It is defined as such. It only has value because we agree to use it as such. So to use it as a store of value is simply abuse. To say it is a store of value is simply a mistake.
Related
Don’t hoard the Means of Exchange (Part 2)
On Inflation, Saving and the Nature of Money
Mutual Credit, the astonishingly simple truth about money creation
Why Gold is appreciating
On Interest
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Social Credit with Demurrage | Real Currencies
- Interest-Free Economics « regionalcurrencies
- Snabba Cash III – Hastighet & Inflation | Peak SWE
- Don’t hoard the Means of Exchange! (Part 3) « Real Currencies
- the Power of Demurrage: the Wörgl Phenomenon « Real Currencies
- Don’t hoard the Means of Exchange! (part 2) « Real Currencies
Real Currencies 
Would you recommend Silvio Gesells books?
Yes.
Would Anthony Migchels please address the following in a new blog entry/article? (Someone – not me – wrote below) Thanks.
All paper money is worthless when it can no longer be redeemed for face value, because it has no intrinsic value in itself.
For example, say there is a society that trades in bushels of corn but finds it difficult to carry in the purse, so a voucher is carried instead, redeemable for a bushel of corn. When the voucher is no longer honored (dishonored) it becomes useless.
Silver and gold coin cannot be counterfeited, and needs not be redeemed, thus it does not share the shortcomings of script, Silver Certificates which have been defaulted upon and Federal Reserve Notes, all paper money that in fact the issuer has become a thief, i.e., refused to honor.
Government is the main and foremost offender, issuing notes which they have borrowed upon the credit of the people, then refusing to honor them. By definition, such government is “dishonorable”.
Silver and gold coin prevent this “theft” because it does not provide the possibility or opportunity.
Further, it does not rely upon a promise that can be broken, and therefore provides stability in the economy.
Today, a gallon of gas would serve the same purpose, since it is universally purchased by the population, and easily bought, sold, and traded. A gallon of gasoline cannot be devalued, counterfeited, and carries no “promise to pay”, because it needs no promise and carries it’s value within itself.
An excellent book is “Pieces of Eight”, Edwin Vierra, several hundred pages of excellent documentation and history. Pieces of Eight was the Spanish term for Silver Coin.
“What is Constitutional Money?” with Edwin Vieira — Ron Paul Money Lecture Series, Pt 2/3 – YouTube
Silver and gold coin are weatherable, that is, they can be buried in a ship wreck, the ground, exposed to the weather, fire, etc., and retain their value as currency. Just find a wrecked Spanish ship with a cargo of these coins to verify the truth of the matter.
What would a Federal Reserve Note be redeemable for under “weathered” conditions, probably disintegrated in a short time. And what of the promise of the issuer of fiat paper money, they become winners when notes are lost, burned, destroyed, rotted, etc.
Silver and gold coin is tried and true, and a return to it, together with a repudiation of Federal Reserve Notes, would correct any economy the instant it was initiated.
Bankruptcy of all debtor governments, and establishment of the Coinage Act of 1792 would be a valid measure.
But it would end the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel, don’t forget that John Kennedy issued 400 million dollars in United States Notes, which were immediately recalled by LBJ in 1964. That move threatened the continued Fraud of the Federal Reserve Jewish Bank.
Killing a couple of patsies was part of the deal, and it was all accomplished in the open, “Bigger than Dallas”.
Gold and Silver are also just fiat currencies when minted into coins. What can you do with it that makes it valuable? The whole point of the blog post is that we need both currency that can be made valuable by it flowing from one service, labor, production etc to another and also be held as a store of value.
I think that if we look at what has worked in history in the US- the store of value should instead be the government which just prints more in times of recession and invests it into public programs that put people to work, but that would be dependent upon well educated and well meaning politicians who believe that society can make a positive difference. Really the value of the money should be based on the health of the middle class. Otherwise we often end up with money games that happen on Wallstreet and in banking and finance that are enabled by bought government and government subsidies. These games have almost nothing to do with anything in terms of what happens in local markets when those giant pools of currency are self perpetuating and not based on the actual system of commerce- labor, services, production, consumerism, wages etc. Or if it those investments do they happen at the net expense of the producer hidden as a gain. See private equity schemes. At what point does it collapse?
I think it will last as long as the government enables it and or the rich can make profits from investing in foreign cheaper and or less responsible business markets. The people certainly can do nothing about it as long as we have a flawed voting system which does not provide majority winners. First past the post plurality vote is creates the two party system and enables fringe views to be expressed in politics and is less robust to the presence of moneyed interests. Instead we should implement a rank vote. This would at least make it a lot hard to buy the government.
>>>>>”Is there anything whereof it may be said; See this is new ?
it hath been already of old time which was before us.”
(Diary of a Bank Director)
Monday. McThwackem lent me to-day a dissertation by a learned professor in a South Carolina college, intended to prove that “money is not wealth.” Ah, these professors in colleges, they are the men ! Surely wisdom was born with them, and when they die, wisdom will, I fear, die also. One of them, (he belongs to the University of Pennsylvania) not long since proved, or attempted to prove, that “all the use of metallic money is to create a confidence.” Now his brother of South Carolina proves, or attempts to prove, that “money is not wealth.” In regard to paper money, a Loco Foco might perhaps admit this doctrine to be true as far as concerns the community at large. But the professor extends it so far as to embrace metallic money also. Some curious consequences follow from this. For, if money is not wealth, then a man who is in possession of millions, if it be in the form of gold and silver coin, is not a wealthy man. If John Jacob Astor, should tomorrow sell all his houses and lands, and every thing else he possesses, for gold and silver coin, he would, from being the richest man in the country, suddenly become one of the poorest. He might, indeed, have from five to ten million dollars in hard cash, but as “money is not wealth,” the possession of even a hundred million dollars would not make him wealthy. However, John Jacob Astor, in order to become wealthy again, would have only to melt his gold and silver coin into ingots. For, the professor does not, I believe, deny that gold and silver when in the form of bullion are wealth, in the same sense that copper and iron are wealth. It is only when gold and silver are converted into coin, that they cease to be wealth
>>>>>why christians do not like the law
Sunday. Brother McThwackem has gone to a watering place, partly to recruit his health, partly to look after some rail road, and other speculations in which he and I are jointly interested –and partly to try if he cannot be of some spiritual benefit to the poor, light-headed mortals who usually flock to those scenes of gaiety. Through some strange mistake he left to fill his pulpit a stupid country parson, or I should rather say priest, for if his sermon did not savor of popery I know not what popery is. It was all works — works — works ! Not one word about the precious doctrines of grace ! I doubt if the man be not a Jesuit in disguise, smuggled into the church by the hard-money men with intentions best known to themselves. His text was “Thou Shallt not Steal;” and, in the course of his remarks, he drew a strongly marked line between what he was pleased to call conventional and essential honesty. There were, he said, many practices which, though strictly compatible with the former, were at utter variance with the latter. Taking advantage of men’s ignorance and necessities in driving a bargain, was, he said, just as bad in the eyes of reason and religion, as taking advantage of their physical weakness and robbing them on the high way. It was no matter whether this was done according to the forms of law or contrary thereunto. What was wrong in itself, mere human enactments could never make right. It was no matter whether this taking advantage of men’s ignorance and necessities was open and immediate, or covert and indirect, by a long string of contrivances, with a legislative charter at the end. If a man’s pocket was picked, it was much the same to him whether the thief did it with his naked hand and five fingers, or by means of machinery the handle of which was turned in the next street. If a multitude of men were thus treated, it only added to the enormity of the offence.
I can truly say that I never listened to a more unedifying discourse; and the whole congregation were of the same opinion as myself, –at least, I know all my particular acquaintances were. I suspect that this parson or priest, or whatever he is, will have but few hearers this evening. At all events, I am determined that my pew shall be vacant.
Anthony Migchels:
“Circulation is the antithesis of hoarding. Hoarding the means of exchange hinders circulation. Less money is available for trade. ”
That’s why lending was invented. That’s why we have banks. So money can be hoarded AND spent.
But that effectively doubles it, so the effect is money creation. But that is not a problem.
http://rudhar.com/economi/monydebt/en/006fulrs.htm
“But that effectively doubles it, so the effect is money creation. But that is not a problem.”
And than this new money is all of the sudden taxed with interest.
And this new money is put in another bank. Which will AGAIN double this money. And lend it out at even more interest. And than THAT doubled money will be put in yet another bank, who will then proceed to again double it, lending it out at more interest. At this point we already have 4 times the original amount of money (if we disregard that the bank only reproduces 90 of 100 dollars).
And all this interest is no problem. It is no problem that 45% of prices already are interest. It is no problem that somebody with no assets and no debts loses 45% of his income to interest. It is no problem that all the interest slowly moves up the ladder of income and eventually ends up with the richest of them all. It is no problem that a 200k mortgage costs 300k interest, while the money was created the minute it was lent out, and while it could easily be created interest free.
It is no problem that all this money is created within a banking system that is one major cartel, with all major banks owning each other, which means that all the money creation and the massive interest that it rakes in through it is controlled by one power.
It certainly is no problem that taxpayers in the west pay trillions on interest on ‘national debts’ whereas Governments could easily create all the money they would ever need themselves. It is no problem that the governments instead handed over their monopoly on currency to a private banking cartel. It is no problem that senior politicians go work for banks after they’re done fooling their constituants into believing we need these banks.
It is also no problem that these banks than regularly go bust and claim they need trillions in handouts, because otherwise we would not have money. It is no problem that BIS, which rules over the bankingsystem is a private corporation. It is no problem that the FED is a private corporation, owned by the same banks to which it gave/loaned 16 trillion dollars throughout the crunch.
Excerpted from:
The Fractional-Reserve Banking Question
June 14, 2010 by Robert P. Murphy
http://mises.org/daily/4499/
A Simple Example
Suppose a teenager, Bill, is rummaging in the attic and finds $1,000 in physical currency in an old chest. Bill is ecstatic and runs to the local bank, where he opens a checking account and deposits the green pieces of paper.
Under a 100-percent-reserve banking system, this would be the end of the story. In the act of making the deposit, Bill’s currency holdings would fall by $1,000, while his checkbook balance would rise by $1,000. Putting the money in the bank wouldn’t affect the total amount of money in the economy.
However, in our current system, Bill’s bank would see a new profit opportunity. After the bank put the $1,000 of paper currency into its vault, its reserves would be that much higher, while its outstanding deposit liabilities would have risen by $1,000 as well (in the form of Bill’s new checking account). But since banks in the United States are subject only to a reserve requirement of (approximately) 10 percent, the bank would have new excess reserves of $900. If it found a suitable borrower, the bank would have the legal ability to grant a new loan for this amount.
Suppose the bank found such a borrower, Sally, and charged her 5-percent interest for a 12-month loan. Assuming she paid off the loan in a timely manner, here is what the bank’s balance sheet would look like at various stages in the process:
I. Bank’s Balance Sheet after Billy’s Deposit
Assets Liabilities + Shareholder’s Equity
$1,000 in vault cash $1,000 (Billy’s checking account balance)
II. Bank’s Balance Sheet after Loan Granted to Sally
Assets Liabilities + Shareholder’s Equity
$1,000 in vault cash $1,000 (Billy’s checking account balance)
$900 loan to Sally at 5% for 12 months $900 (Sally’s new checking account)
III. Bank’s Balance Sheet after Sally Spends Her Loan on Business Supplies
Assets Liabilities + Shareholder’s Equity
$100 in vault cash $1,000 (Billy’s checking account balance)
$900 loan to Sally at 5% for 12 months $0 (Sally’s checking account balance)
IV. Bank’s Balance Sheet after Sally Sells Her Products for $1,000 Cash and Deposits the Proceeds in Her Account
Assets Liabilities + Shareholder’s Equity
$1,100 in vault cash $1,000 (Billy’s checking account balance)
$900 loan to Sally at 5% for 12 months $1,000 (Sally’s checking account balance)
V. Bank’s Balance Sheet After Sally Pays Off Her Loan Plus Interest
Assets Liabilities + Shareholder’s Equity
$1,100 in vault cash $1,000 (Billy’s checking account balance)
$55 (Sally’s checking account balance)
$45 in bank shareholder equity
As our hypothetical example[1] makes clear, with the power of fractional-reserve banking, bankers can apparently earn income out of nothing! So long as Billy leaves his money in the bank, and so long as Sally is able to earn enough revenues from her business to avoid defaulting on her loan, the bank’s shareholders end up with $45 of the community’s cash, free and clear.
Now, the bank didn’t stick a gun in anyone’s belly, and the original owners of that $45 voluntarily traded them to Sally in exchange for whatever goods or services her business produced. Still, something seems a bit fishy in that the bank created $900 in new money, earned $45 in “old” money held by the outside community, and then destroyed the $900 when Sally paid back her loan.
Incidentally, it is because of these strange machinations that many critics of our current financial system describe it as “debt-based money.” In a very real sense, if people stopped taking out new loans (from banks) and paid off their outstanding loans, the total quantity of money would shrink drastically. In my opinion this would be a good thing — especially if the politicians and the Fed sat back and let it happen — but it is nonetheless a very strange feature of our current system.
Creating Money Out of Thin Air?
Some people deny that commercial banks “create money out of thin air.” They agree that the Fed does so when it buys assets by writing a check on itself. However, in our example above, it seems that the commercial bank at worst is taking $900 of “Bill’s money” and handing it over to Sally. Sure, that might be dubious, but it’s not as blatant as when the Fed literally writes checks drawn on thin air, right?…………………..
Try as I did to arrange the ledger columns before posting, they did not keep their columns,
Please see link for the tables in readable columns.
There are two major stumbling blocks (there are other stumbling blocks as well) to the Libertarian belief that markets are perfect:
1. Incomplete knowledge or information
2. intentional deception
Markets should be looked at the same way Churchill looked at democratic forms of government:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
The market is imperfect.
The market is a reflection of human nature.
Many aspects of Libertarianism are encompassed in neoclassical economics; particularly the assumption that markets are “perfect”, therefore no regulation is necessary, but actually is harmful to the “harmonious” workings of the market.
Actually, while many, if not most regulations are harmful to the market, some regulation is crucial in preserving the best qualities of the market.
Here is a critique of the assumptions of neoclassical economics:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/mainstream-economics-is-a-cult.html
For many Libertarians their belief system is like a religion: It doesn’t matter how many empirical examples (actual observation & measurement of physical behavior) contradict their assumptions, they still cling to their a priori assumptions in the face of contradicting facts & evidence.
Economics as a “science” is false because human behavior is too variable from individual to individual within the well known bounds of human nature.
The original name given to the study of humans’ exchange of goods & services and the creation of wealth was called ‘political economy’.
That label — Political Economy — is still the best name of that study of human behavior — human interaction is political as man is a social being and politics is inherently unsuited to scientific certainty — as is economics.
Libertarians are blinded by their utopian assumptions about the market and therefore fail to appreciate that while the market is best, it is not without its failures.
Thats all wet, mankind is predisposed to cooperate, not coerce, that has always been teh sole domain of the state, the more politically (iows massive and much ill gotten wealth the political way vs the market way.
Libertarians are the most widely awake.
FYI-
According to official Trilateral Commission membership lists, there are only 87 members from the United States (the other 337 members are from other regions). Thus, in less than two weeks since his inauguration, Obama’s appointments encompass more than 12% of Commission’s entire U.S. membership.
Is this a mere coincidence or is it a continuation of dominance over the Executive Branch since 1976? (For important background, read The Trilateral Commission: Usurping Sovereignty.)
*Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner
*Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice
*National Security Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones
*Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon
*Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker
*Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair
*Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell
*Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg
*State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass
*State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross
*State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke
There are many other incidental links to the Trilateral Commission, for instance,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is married to Commission member William Jefferson Clinton.
Geithner’s informal group of advisors include E. Gerald Corrigan, Paul Volker, Alan Greenspan and Peter G. Peterson, among others. His first job after college was with Henry Kissinger at Kissinger Associates.
Brent Scowcroft has been an unofficial advisor to Obama and was mentor to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Robert Zoelick is currently president of the World Bank
Laurence Summers, White House Economic Advisor, was mentored by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration.
There are many other such links, but these are enough for you to get the idea of what’s going on here.
Analyze the positions
Notice that five of the Trilateral appointees involve the State Department, where foreign policy is created and implemented. Hillary Clinton is certainly in line with these policies because her husband, Bill Clinton, is also a member.
What is more important than economic recovery? Paul Volker is the answer.
What is more important than national intelligence? Gen. James Jones, Thomas Donilon and Adm. Dennis Blair hold the top three positions.
What is more important than the Treasury and the saving of our financial system? Timothy Geithner says he has the answers.
The State Department is virtually dominated by Trilaterals: Kurt Campbell, James Steinberg, Richard Haass, Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke.
This leaves Susan Rice, Ambassador to the United Nations. The U.N. is the chosen instrument for ultimate global governance. Rice will help to subvert the U.S. into the U.N. umbrella of vassal states.
Conflict of interest
Since 1973, the Commission has met regularly in plenary sessions to discuss policy position papers developed by its members. Policies are debated in order to achieve consensuses. Respective members return to their own countries to implement policies consistent with those consensuses.
The original stated purpose of the Trilateral Commission was to create a “New International Economic Order.” Its current statement has morphed into fostering a “closer cooperation among these core democratic industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system.” (See The Trilateral Commission web site)
U.S. Trilateral members implement policies determined by a majority of non-Americans that most often work against the best interests of the country.
“How,” you say?
Since the administration of Jimmy Carter, Trilaterals held these massively influential positions:
*Six out of eight World Bank presidents, including the current appointee, Robert Zoelick
*Eight out of ten U.S. Trade Representatives
*President and/or Vice-President of every elected administration (except for Obama/Biden)
*Seven out of twelve Secretaries of State
*Nine out of twelve Secretaries of Defense
Is this sinking in? Are you grasping the enormity of it?
Endgame is at hand
For the Trilateral crowd, the game is about over. The recent reemergence of original members Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and Paul Volker serves to reinforce the conclusion that the New International Economic Order is near.
The Trilateral Commission and its members have engineered the global economic, trade and financial system that is currently in a state of total chaos.
Does that mean that they have lost? Hardly.
As I recently wrote in Chorus call for New World Order, they are using the crisis to destroy what remains of national sovereignty, so that a New World Order can finally and permanently be put into place.
Conclusion
The Obama presidency is a disingenuous fraud. He was elected by promising to bring change, yet from the start change was never envisioned. He was carefully groomed and financed by the Trilateral Commission and their friends.
In short, Obama is merely the continuation of disastrous, non-American policies that have brought economic ruin upon us and the rest of the world. The Obama experience rivals that of Jimmy Carter, whose campaign slogan was “I will never lie to you.”
When the Democrat base finally realizes that it has been conned again (Bill Clinton and Al Gore were members), perhaps it will unleash a real political revolution that will oust Trilateral politicians, operatives and policies from the shores of our country.
If the reader is a Democrat, be aware that many Republicans and conservatives are still licking their wounds after finally realizing that George Bush and Dick Cheney worked the same con on them for a disastrous eight years of the same policies!
augustreview.com
There is substantial evidence that President Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed communist / socialist, most persuasive is Obama’s own book “Dreams from my Father” (that Obama is not the actual author does not detract from the evidence as Obama certainly had a hand in shaping the book) where Obama mentions a man who mentored him in Hawaii whose name was “Frank” 25 times in the book.
Frank Marshall Davis lived in Hawaii at the time. (there is plenty of other evidence regarding Frank Marshall Davis being Obama’s mentor, see or google “Dreams from my Real Father”.
So, how does it come to pass that a man steeped in Communism / Socialism became the establishment’s choice as president, as reflected in his support by Trilateralists and other Globalists?
There is a perverted relationship betw /een elites (particularly of the Globalist variety) and Communism.
There are facts & evidence which suggest Communism was promoted by a segment of the elite of Europe in the 19th century as a false choice for the masses of humanity in Europe who objected to the monarchial / fuedal relationships, highlighted by the 1848 revolutions.
these elite wanted to divert the Common Man from insisting on reform that limited both government power and private elite power by common sense regulation of a mininalist fashion which benefitted the Common Man, but restricted the power of government and those who stood behind government power — actually pulled the strings and controlled government.
Communism is controlled by an elite, the phrase “Rule of the Prolotariet” with all property owned in common by the masses through government is a lie. The reality is that property owned by the government will be controlled by the “string pullers” of government.
Communism also served the elite by providing a “dead end” road or ‘outlet’ for the yearning for reasonable reform — thus discrediting reform in general.
Communism is a hand-maiden for the elite to preserve the power of that same elite.
That explains why the Globalist eltie (Trilateralists are Globalists) would support a person mentored, perhaps, ‘groomed’ would be a better expression, by a commited and avowed communist / socialist.
The Globalist elite want the masses to go to extremes, either Communism (which the elite control in secret) or Libertarianism, which with its anarco-capitalism where the powerful control the weak, allows the Globalist elite to inforce a “race to the bottom” of low wages and living standards for the masses (Globalists and Libertarians both LOVE so-called “free trade”) while the super elite consolidate power and control for the sake of power, itself.
I’ll admit, at first it’s hard to understand and reconcile why super rich Globalist elites would support Communism / Socialism, but when you realize that Socialism is a blind alley for reform which secretly benefits the Globalists and their plans for total control just the same as unrestrained capitalism, i. e, Libertarian type Law of the Jungle, it starts to make sense.
Obama: Both a Globalist puppet and a person raised at the knee of communist / socialist Frank Marshall Davis.
Globalists want the masses to go to the extremes because it is Globalists who control the extremes.
The classical Greek admonition of “the mean between two extremes” is the best path for the mass of humanity to achieve the highest living standard and best quality of life.
1) the Greek tradition isnt exactly perfect.
2) I dont buy that freedom is extreme, its a natural right human dignity demands.
To add;
All the above is due to undo influence of corp and banking power elites over legislation that robs us and pays them. IOWs GOVT is the sole problem.
I dont blame the bribers nearly as much as the bribees in the trangressions of their oaths and ergo indictable for abuse of the public trust.
Ending the plethora of regulatory pro-big biz figleaf agencies and depts, IS the leveling of the playing field I dare say you support.
This ideology that an unregulated “free market” with perpetual competition will indefinitely, by some “natural law”, sustain itself for the benefit of the majority is not only a falsehood but also a ruse to further consolidate power into the hands of the few.
Without moral and altruistic people in charge there will never be a sustainable monetary and governing system. This is what is prophesied in the book of Daniel… that humans by their own methods and devices will ultimately fail to establish a sustainable system of governance to the point where “And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.”
Non-commodity backed debt-free money of itself is an amazing tool that can be used to induce overall prosperity for a sovereign nation state when it’s controlled by a transparent, selfless, honest, incorruptible, moral group of individuals under the protection of a majority citizenry of the same characteristics. But this will never happen because such people today are non-existent in the ruling bodies and the few who exist among the masses of the general citizenry have little aspirations for power. For this reason the prophecy in the book of Daniel will be fulfilled when “a stone…cut out without hands” will establish the Kingdom of God.
This is just about the most succinct analysis of the situation that I have ever seen.
thank you.
You’re welcome, Anthony. Keep up the good work. I know my feathers may have gotten a little too ruffled from the subject matter in this article but it was through you that I got introduced to Dick Eastman. I enjoy your analysis of Ron Paul and Austrian economics. I hope that you’re commonwealth monetary theory is open sourced and dynamic… unlike many of the old static, packaged and sealed theories that have induced a cult-like obsession within some of their proponents.
Tammuz says: ‘Without moral and altruistic people in charge there will never be a sustainable monetary and governing system.’
Abu Aardvark says: With people ‘in charge’ there will never be freedom.
Tammuz says: ‘This ideology that an unregulated “free market” with perpetual competition will indefinitely, by some “natural law”, sustain itself for the benefit of the majority is not only a falsehood but also a ruse to further consolidate power into the hands of the few’
Abu Aardvark says: This ideology that a regulated, unfree market, without perpetual competition will indefinitely, by some “natural law”, sustain itself for the benefit of the majority is not only a falsehood but also a ruse to further consolidate power into the hands of the few’ – which is why ‘the state’ and ‘government’ – and monopoly fiat-money central banking, of course – are the most precious and primary tools of a globalist elite that operates via mercantilism, i.e. the use of government levers to advance their interests.
‘The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern’
‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’
(both by Lord Acton)
Well put!
Lao-tzu, the founder of Taoism, acquaintance of Confucius in the late sixth century BC;
Government, with its “laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox,” was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and “more to be feared than fierce tigers.”
“Therefore the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves….”
Chuang-tzu
“There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success].” In fact, the world simply “does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed.” Chuang-tzu was also the first to work out the idea of “spontaneous order,” developed particularly by Proudhon in the nineteenth and by F. A. Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth Century: “Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone.”
Chuang-tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the State as a brigand writ large: “A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State.” Thus the only difference between State rulers and out-and-out robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-as-robber was to be repeated, independently of course, by Cicero and then by St. Augustine and other Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages.
No.
Without order or government, the strong will dominate the weak and the law of the jungle will prevail.
We had a CONSTITUTION that provided courts, and who’s sole purpose was the protection of our shores and individual rights.
Besides an armed society is the most polite there can be. The misnomered Wild West had way fewer murders than any big city back East.
And as gun sales rocket these days, crime is in retreat.
Maybe YOU’D allow yourself to be dominated????
No. You make the intellectual mistake of believing, “it’s either ‘dominated’ or having no government. Libertarianism is utopian and extreme. Many Libertarian theorists proclaim, “Under Libertarianism the state will wither away.”
Who else speaks of the “state withering away?”
I subscribe to limited government, but not “no government”.
And, under that rubrix I do subscribe to various libertarian-like positions.
Libertarianism at its extreme theoretical extent (and many Libertarians do take it to the extreme as an ideology) is a false choice, just as communism is a false choice designed to divert the average person from supporting reasonable restraints on government and going radical with delusions of controlling, when they won’t.
Don’t buy into false choices.
I subcribe to the right of FREEDOM of all individuals from the coercion of others.
I dont believe the Tzu’s said there should be no reprisals for brigands breaking those rights.
They said man does not need his life controlled by others, or taxed by the few, which parasites have exited since antiquity.
America should have just corrected the small flaws of the AoC, vs falling for power elite shill Hamiltons govt of centralized power the VAST MAJORITY of Americans (Jeffersonians) were scared scheissless over, and correctly so as we see in todays snowballing police state usurping away what few rights we have left, beginning with Hamiltons army formation over whiskey taxes that bore mainly upon the common man and not eg the GW’s, the biggest distiller there was.
Do you not know that it was 100% Big Biz and the Banks that sought their own “regulations” to be staffed with their own insiders, which had ZERO to do with protecting the taxpayer, but all to do with stifling the competition that was increasingly nipping at the heals of their failed attempts at bloated and govt subsidized monopolies?
Go to Amazon and read the reviews of Kolko’s “Triumph of Conservatism”.
TR was Morgans bitch, who sicc’d em on Std Oil, before those two primary powers got married once their collusion to create a central bank was realized in the FED.
Rockefeller, b/c of oil became the head puppeteer under his bitch FDR, with Morgan the jr partners in crime.
well put!
Jim Evans said: ‘Without order or government, the strong will dominate the weak and the law of the jungle will prevail.’
Murray N. Rothbard said, and rightly so:
‘A common charge against the free-market society is that it institutes “the law of the jungle,” of “dog eat dog,” that it spurns human cooperation for competition, and that it exalts material success as opposed to spiritual values, philosophy, or leisure activities. On the contrary, the jungle is precisely a society of coercion, theft, and parasitism, a society that demolishes lives and living standards. The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits, and where everyone’s living standard flourishes (compared to what it would be in an unfree society). And the undoubted material success of free societies provides the general affluence that permits us to enjoy an enormous amount of leisure as compared to other societies, and to pursue matters of the spirit. It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity, notably under communism, where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially, but deadens their spirit.’
http://mises.org/daily/1973
Bravo Abu!!!
Look, I support the American Free Enterprise System and support minimal regulation, as part of a limited government approach and in an abstract sense I support this statement from Rothbard, “The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits…”
However, the truth of human nature does not support the notion that the market is always “peaceful” or always a “profoundly cooperative process”.
There are too many examples of monopoly capitalism, predatory capitalism, finance capitalism run amok, and crony capitalism.
There is a percentage of people, who because of their human nature will attempt to game the system — whatever that system is.
Private individuals working through private relationships and means (the market) as well as individuals working through government power will attempt or be successful in dominating others or unjustly self-enrich themselves in various ways that take advantage of others.
That is human nature.
Libertarianism ignores human nature and professes the belief in the perfectability of Man.
Not possible to perfect the human condition.
It is the classical Greek admonition, “the mean between two extremes,” which balances best and reflects the human condition.
In practical terms I think government is way over bloated and tyrannical. In other words, government is out of balance and needs to be down-sized as well as the number and extent of regulation.
Look at the success of the American System which took America to the pinnicle of economic power and living standards which created a genuine ‘middle class’.
And, why was that? Because the American government was cognizant that other governments don’t play by Libertarian rules.
In other words, humans in practical reality don’t correspond to Libertarian idealist views on human nature.
In that sense Libertarianism is no better than communism, both are false choices supported by those who want to divert the general population from a balance of competing forces that take into account the reality of human nature.
Yes, a percentage of humans left to themselves tend to take advantage of other humans — that has been recorded in the annals of human relations since the dawn of history.
Any ideology that fails to accurately appreciate human nature in all its manifestations is doomed to failure and will only lead to worse outcomes not better.
Tyranny by private parties or government in the end is all the same.
The Law of the Jungle.
The oligarchs AND the govt they now fully infest are ONE!
Regulations that stiffle small competiton are the PRIME enabler.
Still buying that “The Jungle” crap that Sinclair admitted was pure ruse?
Think small butchers wanted their clients dead from bad meat? NO, the biggest meat-packers are who wanted them to be dead meat and control the entire market cartel style. As we have in every major industry today at the expense in money and rights of the many.
And look up Roy Child’s “Big Business and the Rise of American Statism”, in which he also includes a wonderful explanation of just what the true histprical revisionism is REALLY about.
That is to say NOT about political rewrites by the court historians in service to piggish evil power.
Humanity will ONLY be free and prosperous when no one has a power advantage over others by the threat of force of the State.
Jim Evans said: “Private individuals working through private relationships and means (the market) as well as individuals working through government power will attempt or be successful in dominating others or unjustly self-enrich themselves in various ways that take advantage of others.
That is human nature.
Libertarianism ignores human nature and professes the belief in the perfectability of Man.
Not possible to perfect the human condition.”
—————————-
Abu Aardvark says: To claim that ‘Libertarianism ignores human nature and professes the belief in the perfectability of Man’ is not just wrong – it is the very opposite of the truth. Apparently you know nothing whatsoever about Libertarianism. In fact, you’re rather defining socialism with the above.
Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, voluntarists and the like do not at all seek to change, let alone ‘perfect’ human nature, but accept humans as they are.
You wrote that ‘individuals working through government power will attempt or be successful in dominating others or unjustly self-enrich themselves in various ways that take advantage of others’ – which is perfectly true and the reason why we are where we are – at the zenith of an unprecedented cult of the state and government. Think UN, NATO, WTO, IMF, WHO, BIS, World Bank … you name it. You may as well want to contemplate the real meaning of 80,000 pages – fine print – of new and proposed regulations in the US each and every year.
And since we are what we are Lord Acton was right when he established that ‘the danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.’
Hey, here’s something you might want to look at:
‘Anatomy of the State’
http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp
See also – for starters:
‘The Greatest Libertarian Books’
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella20.html
‘Myth and Truth About Libertarianism’
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard168.html
exactly.
Abu Aardvark says: “With people ‘in charge’ there will never be freedom.”
Tammuz says: Well you can always try using goats.
(-:
“This ideology that an unregulated “free market” with perpetual competition will indefinitely, by some ‘natural law’, sustain itself for the benefit of the majority is not only a falsehood but also a ruse to further consolidate power into the hands of the few.”
I agee, but with the strong caveat that ‘competition’ on a level playing field of equal ‘players’ is good. True competion of individuals is good. Exchanges or bargains at equal ‘arm’s length’ with full information and no deception is good. Or if the potential bargain is between strong and weak individuals or groups, then it must at least be ‘at arm’s length’ so the weak can say, “no,” and “walk away”, and then find another provider of that good or service.
At the extemes, both govenment and strictly private actions can thwart the benefit of competition.
Yes, the strong will often use government regulation to restrain their competition.
In sporting contests, there are rules so unfair advantage is not gained by one side or the other. In other words, to ensure ‘fair’ competition.
Unrestrained competition (or ‘ruthless competition’) between strong and weak individuals or groups where the strong always win can end up with the strong having all the “marbles” at the end of the game. While there generally are winners and losers in competition, a system where a small elite always win is fraught with peril for the mass of humanity.
That’s a game that leads to the authoritarian “ant hill” and sure as Communism / Socialism.
Geithner and Bernanke Demand New Mega-Bailout of Europe
June 26th, 2012 • 4:29 PM
Capitol Hill sources have confirmed that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are demanding that Congress prepare emergency legislation for yet another hyperinflationary bailout of the hopelessly bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system. For the past week, the two men have been meeting secretly with leading Congressional Democrats and Republicans, demanding that they draft new legislation to bailout the banks on an even larger scale than after the 2008 collapse.
According to several congressional sources, Geithner and Bernanke have pledged that they will do everything in their power to flood European banks with bailout funds through the Federal Reserve, but they candidly admit that it may be impossible, and that congressional action may be required. If the crisis hits, they warn, there must be legislation already prepared, because the speed and magnitude of the crisis may require extraordinary intervention to “save the system.”
The Bernanke-Geithner efforts are tantamount to treason.The current Trans-Atlantic system cannot be saved. The only option is the immediate reinstatement of the original Franklin Roosevelt Glass-Steagall Act. It must happen now. The entire European financial system will explode. “Either Germany will hold firm and refuse to surrender the last vestiges of national sovereignty, or Europe will go into a hyperinflationary breakdown. It all hangs on Germany.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel is under pressure from a swarm of British and Wall Street agents – from Geithner and Bernanke to George Soros – to agree to a German bailout of the entire euro system. The reality is that the gambling debts of the European and Wall Street banks can never be paid. The only option is an orderly cancellation of all those trillions of dollars of gambling debts by reinstating Glass-Steagall.
Watch this folks, they, I rest the libertarian/Austrian case. Central bank creation of fractional paper issue has always been the prep for war expenditure, and the interest slat on the wound – end that and the world may finally be at peace, and power disparity leveled.
A discussion on the history of the gold standard. Three panelists-including author Lewis Lehrman-debate the origins, benefits, and drawbacks of the system. They also discuss why the U.S. left the gold standard, and the arguments for reinstating it. Jim Grant of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, and Lewis E Lehrman, RWR gold commission member.
The New York Historical Society hosted this event and it’s just over an hour.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/GoldSta
And BTW youtube George Selgin, his excellent gold era vs post FED economic comparison is even doubly girded by Obama’s very own ex-econ guru Christine Romer’s 1999 paper.
Let the fireworks begin!!!
I only fear what tyrants do when in dire straights. A great discussion on Bradley Manning’s fate and secret non-transparent govt was also on today. Check chk the schedule. Click away. Good one on the morality of free markets was on at 7pm also.
“I agee, but with the strong caveat that ‘competition’ on a level playing field of equal ‘players’ is good. True competion of individuals is good.”
Yes… which is why at times regulation must be formulated to secure “a level playing field.”
I disagree heartily.
ONLY free enterprise is the voluntary, just and moral organization of the markets.
“Regulation” is precisely the elite enriching system of special privilege at mighty expense to all others that YOU claim WE need to protect us all, when in fact it does the exact opposite.
No book details the historical relationship between big business and the Federal government better than this one. Though confined merely to the so-called Progressive Era in American history (1901-1914), Kolko manages to overturn all the misconceptions about the formation of government regulation in America. Instead of accepting the standard view that federal regulation of business was inspired by the Progressive intellectuals and activist political leaders eager to put a check on the rising power of big business, Kolko shows that it was really inspired by the drive of businessman to limit competition and bring “stability” into the market. The result is what Kolko calls, appropriately enough, “political capitalism.” Some earlier reviews have attempted to draw an ideological lesson from this book. This is a mistake. If there is a lesson to be drawn from Kolko’s work, it is the failure of all ideologies (whether from the right, left, or center) to adequately explain the rise of political capitalism in America. Both the right and the left share the common assumption that government regulation hurts big business. Kolko proves that this isn’t the case, that Big Business is in favor of regulation and the throttling of competition. Kolko’s book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand what capitalism and politics is really all about.
You have to know the REAL history or risk viewing the whole world through other than clear lenses. Been there, done that.
FYI-
Gold – The apex of the pyramid
John Exter’s liquidity pyramid that is. Exter was a central banker who worked at the federal reserve in the 1940s and 1950s and somehow emerged with his intellect intact. He was on the inside, knew how the system worked and yet didn’t like Keynesian or Friedmanite economics. His concern about a global fiat money system, once it emerged, was that it would eventually blow out in a deflationary implosion rather than an inflationary one. This is the opposite of what most Gold bugs believe and yet results in a similar conclusion: Gold Gone Wild (i.e. strong bull market in Gold).
How can Gold have its cake and eat it, too? It’s actually quite simple. In a hyperinflation, almost every asset goes up in price. Bread, guns, real estate, silver, Gold, commodities, stocks. Almost anything besides cash and bond prices does well. So, really, Gold is not super special in a hyperinflationary blow-out, though as a currency that has high intrinsic value per unit of size, it can be transported across the border easily if chaos erupts (which it usually does during a hyperinflation) and used to make bribes along the way if needed.
In a hyperdeflation, Gold also does well, but in contrast to a hyperinflation, it is one of the only things besides cash that does well. This is why I keep pounding the table about Gold. I think we’re headed for a deflationary economic depression and in this setting, cash and Gold will perform similarly (at least for a while). However, if I am wrong and a geopolitical event somehow dethrones the U.S. Dollar, cash will be rapidly devalued whereas Gold will increase in value.
People who don’t understand that Gold is a non-debasable currency can’t understand the dichotomy. In other words, how can Gold bulls have it both ways? If you think of Gold as the strongest currency in the world that requires no faith in government, it is easy to see why this dichotomy works. In Zimbabwe, U.S. Dollars are “as good as Gold” (implying the strength of Gold, obviously) because they were recently in a hyperinflation. Zimbabwe dollars, however, were very close to completely worthless. In other words, think of Gold as a foreign currency that remains strong in the face of a domestic currency crisis (i.e. it’s not Gold that’s rising, it’s the local currency that’s sinking)
Now, in the reverse setting of deflation, people scramble down Exter’s liquidity pyramid:
(see link for graphic)
Exter hypothesized that as deflation intensifies, people “scramble” down the pyramid towards its apex to get “more liquid” during a deflation, since cash is king and other assets are all declining in price together in tandem. Those who are most liquid are most able to survive the asset price deflation and benefit from the massive asset price declines once the dust settles.
If the deflation we are in continues to grind onward, and I believe it will for a time, Treasury Bill (i.e. the 90 day U.S. government bond) yields will go negative as they did in the 1930s – yes, that’s a yield of less than zero percent. The 10 and 30 year bonds will fall out of favor as the longer term outcome becomes murky (i.e. their yields will rise) but the shorter the date of maturity for U.S. government debt, the higher the price (i.e. lower the yield) will go.
Once we get to negative yields on the T-Bill, people will just want to hold physical pieces of cash and stuff them under the mattress as the saying goes, because banks will become too suspect as the cascade of bank failures grinds on and the FDIC is unable to keep up with the demand for paper dollars. Electronic digital money can be created with a keystroke, but actually figuring out a way to print enough paper money will be problematic, as the government and federal reserve are currently unprepared……………
cont at
http://goldversuspaper.blogspot.com/2009/05/gold-apex-of-pyramid.html
Well, Anthony, at the end of the day it all boils down to this question, imho: Does one believe that people should decide for themselves how to live their lives – as long as they don’t harm others in the process – what to do with the products of their labor and whether or not they want to save money …
… or does one believe that there are certain aspects like the nature and handling of the means of exchange that need some kind of supervision by seemingly altruistic folk and fixed parameters like the ones you suggest.
If human history is any guide, it would seem that the latter (i.e. your) approach lead to catastrophe each and every time it has been tried, since there is NO way that a group of ‘wise men’ CAN have the same – let alone MORE – knowledge about peoples arbitrations than the people themselves, i.e. the entire nexus of added up human decisions – the marketplace, that is.
And that’s about it.
I also choose freedom Abu!
Anthony, at the end of the day it all boils down to this question, imho: Does one believe that people should decide for themselves how to live their lives – as long as they don’t harm others in the process – what to do with the products of their labor and whether or not they want to save money …
… or does one believe that there are certain aspects like the nature and handling of the means of exchange that need some kind of supervision by seemingly altruistic folk and fixed parameters like the ones you suggest.
If human history is any guide, it would seem that the latter (i.e. your) approach lead to catastrophe each and every time it has been tried, since there is NO way that a group of ‘wise men’ CAN have the same – let alone more – knowledge about peoples arbitrations than the people themselves, i.e. the entire nexus of added up human decisions – the marketplace, that is.
And that’s about it.
@ MarxBites
I’m not sure about Jefferson. I’m not American and am not too solid on the Founding Fathers, although it is clear who Hamilton was.
The basic issue is this: can your preferred means of exchange be offered interest free? This is not the case with silver either.
the problem with interest is, that ALL the interest payed eventually ends up with the money power. This is usurious usurpation. https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/usurious-usurpation/
Another important point is that Libertarianism is a corrupted version of classic liberalism. Free markets are ok, with limited state intervention. The Libertarian corruption is that it ignores the rape of the free market by omnipotent market players of the Money Power, which owns all the major cartels like oil, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, aviation, armaments, telecom, food, etc. Parading as ‘competing’ multinationals.
The idea of a free market is to offer all equitable access. This is not the same as state noninterventionism. Ideal is that the people themselves guard this, but there is no historical precedence for this.
Austrian Economics exists primarily to usurp the monetary reform movement, who understands that fractional reserve banking is a hoax. So the austrians suggest to replace it by full reserve banking.
But we would still be paying 300k interest over a 200k mortgage over 30 years, whereas it is fully possible to create 0% interest mortgages. Read this about that basic lie: https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/gary-norths-bluff-the-lie-hes-been-sitting-on-for-50-years/
A sound miney system does NOT imply interest expense on the currency.
I myself believe that if one risks his capital in a loan to others, he should expect a risk premium in its repayment.
One, he wont have use his money for the loan period. He may loose out on an opportunity.
The borrower may default, etc.
Nothing wrong with market rates of interest.
In a free market of free banking, the more people have saved the lower the interest rate will be as money is in less demand, and the converse as well.
THAT kind of interest is not predatory as is interest on money from thin air, the ultimate in criminal usury IMO.
For that kind of interest gets paid by people’s production, and miners mining if need be.
No sleight of hand involved, nor is it inflationary to others, as is fiats depreciation via monetary expansions from zero actual production but paper and ink.
In a truly free market, with equal access to all players, Mutual Credit facilities, offering credit at 0% would obviously win out automatically.
It’s quite clear that if you are looking for a mortgage and can choose between 0% Mutual Credit or 5% gold based credit which one you would pick.
The problem is, there will not be a free market. There will be a market completely dominated by Gold based banks, organized with the vast resources of the Money Power. Ie: there will be a free market only in name, not in practice. It is this that libertarianism and Austrian Economics try to hide.
Doesn’t HAVE to be gold, it could be silver or any combination of metals.
REAL money has NO counter-party risk. Is NOT defaultable at the whims of crooks.
Gold HAS ALWAYS been the last currency man standing all throughout history. It always no one an upper hand over others.
And as I have been saying, its the peoples gold they stole and I want it all back as is just.
Good stuff as usual Anthony. You mentioned “hoarding the means of exchange” and I think this potential problem is encouraged in our bizarre fractional lending scheme as depositors are paid a meager amount of interest.
“Potential problem..” Saving money by the general citizenry has never been a problem and never will be a problem. Show an historical example where saving money by the general citizenry has caused a depression or worse? It has never been a problem which is why the author has to create the illusion of a “potential problem” using word deception: Saving money is now “hoarding” to give the impression that saving is now a despicable and socially unacceptable behavior. Money is now the “means of exchange” implying that money no longer represents your personal property resulting from the fruit of your toils and sacrifice but a tool that is owned by an elite class (money masters who are smarter than everyone else who are too stupid to know what money is) on behalf of the “common wealth” (stupid slaves). Thus, saving the tool used for exchange purposes that is not the property of the stupid slave who toiled for it can now be called “hoarding”. This is the same elitist control freak rhetoric with different packaging. Instead of robbing your money by usury they rob it by decree.
The rest of your comment about fractional reserve lending and low interest rates encouraging the potential problem of saving money by the general citizenry makes no sense at all.
tammuz; I see your point and should clarify my comment. I am highly in favor of people accumulating wealth and being prosperous. Hopefully the bulk of that wealth will be stored in tangible assets and productive investments rather than sitting idle in bank accounts.
When people put money in banks they become assets to the bank and are used to leverage new loans. Other banks and bank creditors usually hold senior claims to deposits over the actual depositors which is why bank runs are so dangerous.
Creating money (debt) at interest is impossible to sustain mathematically. Interest should neither be charged nor paid by banks.
Dear Larry,
Great forum!
RE: [Hopefully the bulk of that wealth will be stored in tangible assets and productive investments rather than sitting idle in bank accounts.]
And just how LIQUID for emergency use or sheer convenience are hard assests like property?
I 100% agree fiat debt money at interest is a criminal fraud.
A free market of competing currencies is the TRUE solution that enriches NO ONE at others expense and NEVER has.
Only govt dictat and interventions allow that.
Its the very nature of our depreciating fiat debt money plus interest that FORCEFEEDS our savings to the WS HFT manipulated casino for any kind of return on one’s savings.
What is YOUR alternative to crooks on WS that can outrun inflation please?
Hello marxbites,
An interest-debt-money system must continuously inflate as it is inherently deflationary from a mathematical viewpoint. By that I mean that ALL money in our system is temporary – it is created by debt and eliminated as the principal on that debt is repaid (to a bank that creates money). A zero sum game so to speak – less interest.
Unfortunately interest is added which means that more will have to be repaid than was created – a perpetual and chronic shortfall. If more money can be created than is being destroyed, the economy runs better and we have “booms.” Interest adds an exponential element in that it will compound; forcing an ever greater amount of new money (new debt) until a bust occurs.
Exponential growth cannot be sustained in a finite economy and eventually the whole thing must crash with a huge amount of collateral (real assets) moving to creditors. A great transfer of wealth at the ruination of countless borrowers.
You asked what my alternative might be. I suggest that economics become an engineering discipline and that the creation of new money become a public utility. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Larry
I’m hip, exponential ruin, as demonstrated many of dozens of times this past C. alone.
What is is, vs a voluntary market chosen intermediary commodity of exchange (or it’s fully redeemable paper ticket), is pure property rights fraud, and as Keynes said not one in a thousand could detect.
I am 100% against greenbacking, etc.
There NEVER was a problem with Au/Ag as currencies except for GOVT’s fixing their prices, and esp the ratios of bimetallism, bringing Gresham’s into play whenever the MARKET is over-riden by statists.
IE the 1880’s pure gold std saw this nations highest growth rates ever.
My point being those falling prices of goods due to mass production and innovation redounded to the citizen in increased PPM. It was NOT the deflationary period associated with a monetray contraction too many economists still believe.
It was the NATURAL free market driven growth, that a relatively fixed amount of money supply grew slower than efficiency grew.
The fact is there is always “enough” supply of free market chosen money, for if its demand and ergo buying power increases, miners go a’diggin to capture the profit.
And had we just let either gold or silver be the std, as silver based on the Spanish milled dollar of specified weight originally was, letting the other metal’s price float, was the only corrective to bimetallism needed.
The Rothschilds have taken over the money issue of every major nation but for the rogues who defy dollar hegemon.
But for the Const’l specification of which metal and its fineness and weight, money would never have become the parasitic criminal global, eg drug money laundering, fraudulent wealth transference and control enterprise fractional reserve always was, from 1694 on.
Our founders UNDERSTOOD just who got KGIII in hock up to his 50yrs of fiat financed wars eyeballs and made specific law to avoid it here.
Hamilton and Nixon, our history’s greatest whores.
Things will not be getting better until we have our freedom back, and free market money is the main key crooked statists revile.
BTW Larry,
I at first confused you with being the article’s author.
It seems you, Tammuz and myself have the correct understanding of the history and economics of money, that the author and others who think money needs some kind of govt control, do not.
Good article at lewrockwell.com today;
Are We Austrians Shills for the Bankers? So claims a money crank.
by Tom Woods.
http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods194.html
BTW- the authors disparaging of the Austrian School is just what drew me here.
hi marxbites,
If you’re actually interested in what I have to say about monetary reform, as opposed to looking through the pink spectacles that Austrianism has put on your nose (statist fiat money! Bad! Bad!), you may wanna read this:
The Swiss WIR, or: How to Defeat the Money Power
Followed by The goal of monetary reform
Hit reply to read squashed text
Already have Anthony. Even OUR fiat has lasted 100yrs, or since 1971, which ever way you prefer to look at the crime.
At least we are ALL enemies of the evil money powers, we just disagree which money serves humanity best and has the best track record and which is volunatry, or which is coerced upon us by the state.
No pink specs here Anthony, I believe its you who hasn’t really studied Austrian economics beyond what its statist detractors have said in service to their own power.
Mises, Hayek & Rothbard were NEVER shills for the banksters they saw right through.
Ludwig von Mises
“The cyclical fluctuations of business are not an occurrence originating in the sphere of the unhampered (free) market, but a product of government interference with business conditions designed to lower the rate of interest below the height at which the free market would have fixed it.”
“The classical or orthodox gold standard alone is a truly effective check on the power of the government to inflate the currency. Without such a check, all other constitutional safeguards can be rendered vain.”
Science is competent to establish what is. It can never dictate what ought to be.
Government spending cannot create additional jobs. If the government provides the funds required by taxing the citizens or by borrowing from the public, it abolishes on the one hand as many jobs as it creates on the other.
The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute preeminence of his own plan.
He who monopolizes all media of communication has full power to keep a tight hand on the individual’s minds and souls.
As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Economic Freedom and Interventionism,
Inequality of wealth and incomes is an essential feature of the market economy. It is the implement that makes the consumers supreme in giving them the power to force all those engaged in production to comply with their orders. It forces all those engaged in production to the utmost exertion in the service of the consumers. It makes competition work. He who best serves the consumers profits most and accumulates riches.
http://mises.org/document/879/Economic-Freedom-and-Interventionism
Von Mises was financed by the Rockefeller foundation.
von Hayek was made big by the Volker fund, which is also the fund that financed Rothbard’s (and gary north’s) early career.
Sorry dude, but Gold as currency and the Austrian school, which exists to sell it, are complete banker operations.
Yes I know that.
He had little other choices didn’t he?
And I’m all for the re-expropriation of humanity’s gold confiscated by threat of the bayonet too.
I am also fine with fully redeemable paper currency that precludes the non-market inflation of the statist induced money printing in excess of specie reserves kind as the fraud I think you & I both see it as.
But heres exactly why you are wrong that Austrians are colluding with the banksters, the banksters have been suppressing specie prices at least since the conversion of the currency as described by weight and fineness into a currency described only by name, ie the German Thaler cum dollar.
Hamilton was a Rothschild agent.
Do you not see the conundrum there, in their coercive attempts to keep lipstick on our pig dollar in earnest for 40 yrs now?
All I’m saying is let humanity choose vs having the state’s coercions – ANY commodity of intermediary exchange serves that human freedom purpose. Gold and silver were just the ones chosen over millenia to be the most highly and universally marketable for their properties that made them the money of preference.
The point is that NO state should control or create money from nothing without production.
Here’s a couple of great cspan appearances by author David Graeber;
Panel on American Debt
& Debt: The First 5,000 Years
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/search-results.php?keywords=david+graeber
All the gold is owned by the bankers marxbites. 40 years is nothing for their centuries long planning models. They don’t care if they are payed interest over gold based loans or fiat money based loans.
The future is interest free credit. We must get rid of interest payments on the money supply and that is impossible with gold based currency. https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/mutual-credit-the-astonishingly-simple-truth-about-money-creation/
hi Anthony do you know the Salvador Borrego’s books?
no, I don’t ron……
Hi Anthony,
I found this possible solution for the current money system:
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/video/
The idea is to see money not as a debt any longer and to let a ”independent” institute control the inflation rate. (A inflationary option, a possible concrete opportunity against the current deflationary problems). It sounds a bit like the ”helicopter Ben” option.
NEVER will power allow itself to limit its creation of money.
Inflation is NEVER good for the many, just the few.
Rothschild Brothers of London communiqué to associates in New York June 25, 1863
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages…will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests.”
Sir Josiah Stamp
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.”
Gary Allen
“If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting our nation’s well-being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We are not dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance.”
George Orwell wrote:
that the intelligentsia is “power hungry” and (individually) “is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakably certain of being right.” Orwell observed from a front-row seat as the apparently powerful shuddered under the heel and whip like cotton-picking slaves. Writing in 1944: “Hitler’s puppet government are not workingmen, but a gang of bankers,” and other specimens of the type under review.
Frank Vanderlip – Rockefeller agent
“Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs of corporations, there was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive-indeed as furtive-as any conspirator. I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyl Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System.”
Austrians HATE the FED and justly so, always have and always will.
They are NOT bankster shills, period.
BTW, has anyone here watched the youtube videos by Vanderlip’s grt grandson and non-Austrian Eric DeCarbonnell about the ESF & CIA?
What I have been afraid to blog about: The ESF and Its History_Part 1
Its a mind-blower.
Unless, of course, you hoard the means of exchange instead of some durable goods, including gold.
Interest is the problem with our money. Deflation is another major threat. Inflation is nothing.
I KNOW interest is the main fraud, right up there with fiat from thin air to begin with, ie it’s inflation/debasement. Same as Imperial Rome vs the Republic that had solid coin vs the silver washed base metals that helped bring it down.
And like I said we’ll re-expropriate our gold for all humanity from the subhumans that stole it.
Humanity is legion, they are few.
You have NO proof that fully redeemable paper tickets didn’t work, they did in fact work very well.
Another MAIN problem is that the banks aren’t individual concerns anymore (since the CW bank nationalization’s thin end of shylocks wedge) that live or die at the hands of their customers, they are now the fraud of socialized losses and privatized gains of TBTF.
I well understand where you Bill Stillians are coming from, and it would be better than what we have but STILL would be in power’s hands and ergo susptible to corruption just like every central bank we’ve had.
A FREE MARKET of money is the only honest system that enriches all vs some at all others expense. Our constitution was NEVER amended to preclude specie as the legal money.
Power simply cannot be trusted to run money, esp paper tickets.
What did you think of Decarbonnell’s history re ESF/CIA?
Gives me goose-bumps.
That’s why I suggest a combination of Social Credit (Govt creates teh money, but the people spend it, making it quite democratic) and interest free credit based free market players.
All fiat money.
All interest free
No centralized state power able to manipulate the currency or spend it into circulation to buy guns.
No ‘statist’ price manipulation.
no gold.
‘Inflation is nothing’, you say.
Well, go tell that salaried employees, savers, retirees and others on fixed income whose buying power is melting away like butter in the sun since their measly increases cannot keep pace with price inflation due to fiat-money credit expansion.
Collectivist approach by the book, and to hell with the people.
Great, Anthony!
as I said Abu: people are rather naive hoarding the means of exchange and being suckered into believing that money will have the same value 30 years down the road.
the way you are promoting that they remain dependent sheep, believing thus, enables our collectivist enemies. Awakening the multitude to the fact that the volume will ALWAYS be manipulated and that they should find more solid stores of wealth than the means of exchange would help more.
The way I’m ‘promoting’ it is that it is none of your or mine or anyone’s business to decide for others how to live their lives, what to do with the products of their labor and whether or not they want to save money.
Not with HONEST undefaultable non-debasable money Anthony.
Here’s my example.
In 1914, eg since the FED, one could have a $100 paper dollars, or 5 $20 1 oz. gold pieces.
According to our own bls.gov inflation calculator, if one kept the paper, todays buying power (PPM) would equal $4 and change.
Whereas 5 gold oz’s today is just under $8000.
And todays gold price is no where near inflation adjusted yet, and neither is silver’s.
They should be at least double or more by now.
OTOH the ESF/FED and all CBs are complicitly working to keep gold and silver prices down as gata.org so voluminously documents per govts own statements and actions.
This keeps lipstick on their fiat pigs, for awhile, as they play extend and pretend, as if there is any way out of massive global banking failure.
They soon will run out of CRIMEX good for delivery bars with which to hide behind their illegally naked shorting of the prices down with.
Per CME Groups Jeffery Christians CFTC testimony, the metals are trading 100:1 paper to physical metals.
That means once the bank runs and closings go global who knows how high PMs can go.
Theorectically when fiats reach zero as it always has every time, PMs could go to infinity.
No fiats lasted much more than 40 yrs. 1971 was when Nixon repudiated redemptions, basically proclaiming US bankruptcy that only the printing press has kept going.
“…it is necessary to have a clear set of rules and best practices aimed at the common interest.”
Setting up rules that dictate to an individual or society to spend their savings is the same as dictating to an individual or society when to “buy or sell.” If they are saving too much then they will be forced to buy and/or reduce selling (or reduce their labor). And of course when rules are set up then penalties must be also implemented to enforce those rules when they are broken. In this case those who break the rules and refuses to buy goods, sell less or work less… the penalty may be to have a portion of their savings confiscated by brute force (stolen) by the rule-makers for the sake of the “common interest.”
One can clearly see that setting up rules over the natural and innocent buying and selling process permeates all aspects of human activity and behavior. It is for this very reason the elite robber barons want to control this behavior as their ultimate quest. I do believe there’s a similar monetary system described in the Book of Revelation that dictates to those who bear a particular “mark” (currency) the permission to “buy or sell”.
don’t make too much of it.
We also share the same roads. You stop when I come from the right.
Better this way, for all involved. When the rules are predictable, everybody can make the best of them. The rules are not intended to rip you off. Or better: in the current system they are, but the idea that this is automatically so is nonsense
It does appear that I’m making too much of it but that’s because I’m just disclosing it’s true intent and ramifications which takes a certain amount of elaboration.
Sharing the same roads is not the same as elitists know-it-all authoritarians sticking their nose into my bank account to monitor my savings or to come on to my property to search for illegal excessive currency and then ordering me to buy stuff I don’t want or need or to work less at a job that I enjoy. All at the risk of them stealing the money right out of my bank account or busting down my door to rip the money right out of my wallet or drawer. This is NOT a “better way for all involved” unless by “all” you mean those like yourself who are enforcing this nightmare society. Neither does it guarantee that no one will intend to use these “rules” (powers) to “rip [me] off.” This is just replacing one elitists control freak system with one that’s 100 times worse.
Anyway… it’s good to understand what “real currencies” is really all about.
well, clearly we don’t want all that tammuz. I don’t think I anywhere claimed we should have the NWO goons come on to your property and take that.
we’re just discussing monetary reform and innovation here, like a demurrage.
It’s not wise to ‘save money’. the system is screwed and money will always be unstable. It transpires that depreciating currencies are better as a means of exchange. So it’s not even bad either.
Just don’t hoard cash! If you don’t want to be ripped off by banks going bust or inflation, anyway.
Better to buy some Gold or other assets.
When you use the terms “rules” for the “common interest” you’ve veered far away from offering advice to protect individuals from being ripped off by inflation or banks going bust towards a model of dictates (“rules”) enforced for the “common interest” (benefit of the state)… or totalitarianism.
There is solid evidence, current and historical, that our current system of usury through the control of national currencies in elite private hands is a disease in any society but it has also proven itself to be especially harmful to those who have no savings… But there is no evidence of people saving money in a usury-free and sovereign currency system being a detriment to society or to the “common interest”.
Excellent comments and very eloquent debunking of the rather transparent statist, anti-freedom
approach of this outfit.
By the way, check out:
http://thedailybell.com
if you don’t know it already. They conducted some vigorous Migchels-Debunking, too.
Keep up the good work, Tammuz!
uhm….mmmm…..nice to see you here Abu……….I guess…………..:-)
We’ll leave it to the reader to decide who debunked who. The discussions with the daily bell can found in the ‘faux economics’ page (on your right)
I try to stay open minded about this topic (and any subject of importance). This is the only way to learn and to drop our prejudices. – – – I disagree with some of the basic premises of this article. Here’s a short example of why: – – Lets say an individual works hard in physical labor all his life. He is willing to forego some current consumption of goods so that he can have some savings of resources for the future. He knows that when he grows old and is no longer able to do hard physical labor, he will need something to be able to survive if he might rely on other human beings for his survival to some degree. (Even the mountain men of old needed supplies that they could not fashion themselves. They restocked each year after selling their furs.) Now the laborer will need to dedicate some of the rewards of his labor into something that is desireable to others. That is, it will need to be a good means of exchange. Chicken eggs might be desireable to others and easily exchanged, but they aren’t particularly good when stored over the long term. For this man’s purposes, he will need something that is both a means of exchange (generally desired and thus easily bartered) and that can be stored long term.
Various societies have chosen different items to use for exchange including furs, tobacco, various metals, colorful feathers, etc.
Thank you for this opportunity to learn of the views of others and to share my own thoughts on this important subject !
Just buy some Gold! Just don’t hoard the means of exchange…………You’ll get busted by inflation or you’ll have to get bailed out because the owner of the bank robs you, loses the proceeds in some casino gamble and comes howlering to me and my kids to get ‘rescued’.
“So what do we want from our money. Does it need to be a store of value, or a means of exchange? Because we can’t have both. Not in one unit, anyway.”
This is known by FOFOA followers as “FOFOA’s dilemma”.
FOFOA’s dilemma: When a single medium is used as both store of value and medium of exchange it leads to a conflict between debtors and savers.
http://fofoa.blogspot.co.at/2011/05/return-to-honest-money.html
It’s an interesting article. Both because of its candid approach to the primarily emotional (and not intellectual) problems that the issue creates, but also the idea of ‘honest’ money.
‘Honest’ Money is the line of the bankers promoting the Gold Standard in the ’20’s.
Except Anthony, the banksters NEVER intended to keep their word, it was pure ruse to win over diehard Jeffersonian hard money ltd govt Dems to the Rep side.
Its exactly why silverite inflationist Bryan lost his third and final time, despite farmers pref for inflation’s higher prices.
Do yourself a favor and read or listen this please kind sir.
The History of Money and Banking Before the Twentieth Century; THE COLONIAL ERA TO WORLDWAR II
Click to access historyofmoney.pdf
Or the free mp3’s, which I prefer myself at my age.
http://mises.org/media/search/1?q=The%2520HISTORY%2520OF%2520MONEY%2520AND%2520BANKING%2520IN%2520THE%2520UNITED%2520STATES%253A&aid=undefined&sid=undefined&cid=undefined
It will debunk the many inculcated myths we were all exposed to for you as it certainly did for me.
tu ne cede malis
Huh? You are trying to explain to me the bankers are lying when they talk about Honest Money when trying to plug their Gold Standard on us? You clearly have not read a word on this blog yet….
Sigh……..here we go again. The farmers wanted ‘higher prices’ for their produce. No Marx, they wanted an end to depression because of scarce money and deflation.
It’s amazing how Austrian afficionados are so easily fooled by Austrian Economics’s purely deductive appraisal of deflation (declining prices, great right?) in the face of the massive deflation and plummeting prices we see all around us every day.
Are we to believe that the deflation in Greece, or the destruction of the Housing market due to a contracting money supply and debt deleverageing is positive?
Why cannot Austrianism look at what is really happening, instead of playing silly mind games like denying Economics is real science which can be (at least) quantitatively analyzed?? Oh, I remember: because it is a banker mind control operation;
how the Money Power created Austrian Economics and Libertarianism
Like when the Bernanke told Ron Paul that gold isnt money?
Economics and money isnt about science, its about the freedom of humanity to choose and human action vs the coercion of states and their sanctioned private banksters monopoly cartel of mass global impoverishment.
The very BIS-centric (now) cartel Austrians have railed about and against since Menger and the philosophes before him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics
by Murray N. Rothbard
This article originally appeared in Review of Austrian Economics 3 (1989): 45–59.
Introduction
Incomprehensibility
Collectivism
“Openness” and Keeping the “Conversation” Going
Hermeneutical Economics
Notes
In recent years, economists have invaded other intellectual disciplines and, in the dubious name of “science,” have employed staggeringly oversimplified assumptions in order to make sweeping and provocative conclusions about fields they know very little about. This is a modern form of “economic imperialism” in the realm of the intellect. Almost always, the bias of this economic imperialism has been quantitative and implicitly Benthamite, in which poetry and pushpin are reduced to a single level, and which amply justifies the gibe of Oscar Wilde about cynics, that they [economists] know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The results of this economic imperialism have been particularly ludicrous in the fields of sex, the family, and education.
So why then does the present author, not a Benthamite, now have the temerity to tackle a field as arcane, abstruse, metaphysical, and seemingly unrelated to economics as hermeneutics? Here my plea is the always legitimate one of self-defense. Discipline after discipline, from literature to political theory to philosophy to history, have been invaded by an arrogant band of hermeneuticians, and now even economics is under assault. Hence, this article is in the nature of a counterattack……………
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard127.html
Von Mises may have had little choice, the Rockefellers sure did.
They supported him because he was doing their work.
Rockefellers, like the GOP TP posers vis Ron Paul, needed to coopt Mises as a figleaf for doing exactly the opposite of Mises prescriptions.
Power also made Brandies and Greenspan offers they couldn’t refuse.
Read Brandeis Other People’s Money…from 1904?
Or Greenspan’s “Gold and Economic Freedom” essay from 1967?
Against both their prior convictions they joined what they couldn’t beat and were shut up.
Nick Rockefeller made Aaron Russo (RIP) a similar offer.
Market money under no one’s control IS freedom, where anything less isn’t, JMHO.
BTW since W forced me to it, I’ve spent over 2500 hrs studying this from all sides since 2004.
They are ALL criminal puppets.
Check out Lysander Spooner’s bankster rant in section XVIII of his No Treason essay of 1869:
lysanderspooner.org
My friend, during your studies, you seem to have missed out on the concept of the dialectic.
They own both opposing sides of the conflict.
Do you really believe Greenspan was Ayn Rand in 1967, became Mr bubble in the 90’s and then started pleading for a Gold standard again after he left office?
No, these people are pathological liars and they are masters of double speak and double think. They can believe two opposite view points at the same time.
Libertarianism is just the other side of the Marxist coin.
Hit reply to read squashed text
No, I believe Sir Alan to be the scumbag he’s proven himself to be DESPITE his sound money rhetoric.
AFAIK nothing about libertarianism has anything to do with other than the non-aggression axiom. IE “Harm no man, then do as you will”.
Individual Freedom is the only antidote for Marxism or fascism, both of we are mired within today thx to the cartel.
The power to create money from nothing sans production is the long known road to tyranny, from Rome thru today.
Real money, or its fully redeemable substitutes, is just another good.
Thanks for squashed text tip!!!
no. You’re clearly missing out on the dialectic.
Read the articles in the faux economic page about how the Money Power created libertarianism.
Extreme individual freedom is just the opposite of extreme collectivism and extremes meet, are quite close if you project them on a circle instead of a straight line.
They created both marx, check it out, don’t reject it, study it. If you put in 2500 hours, you can miss a few more.
This is my business: I run an interest free currency in the Netherlands, I’ve been in this for 10 years.
2500 hours is nothing for me.
Anthony
Well I’ve been self employed since 1989, so 2500+ hrs IS something for me.
I will check out Faux.
Personally I’m not that big on gold per se, silver is my preference.
Is it your opinion that Jefferson was in the banksters, that he abhored, pockets too?
For he IS among the original libertarians of our founding, as opposed to Rothschilds boy Hamilton.
Just more dialectic vis TJ vs AH?
I’m not sure about Jefferson. I’m not American and am not too solid on the Founding Fathers, although it is clear who Hamilton was.
The basic issue is this: can your preferred means of exchange be offered interest free? This is not the case with silver either.
the problem with interest is, that ALL the interest payed eventually ends up with the money power. This is usurious usurpation. https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/usurious-usurpation/
Another important point is that Libertarianism is a corrupted version of classic liberalism. Free markets are ok, with limited state intervention. The Libertarian corruption is that it ignores the rape of the free market by omnipotent market players of the Money Power, which owns all the major cartels like oil, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, aviation, armaments, telecom, food, etc. Parading as ‘competing’ multinationals.
The idea of a free market is to offer all equitable access. This is not the same as state noninterventionism. Ideal is that the people themselves guard this, but there is no historical precedence for this.
Austrian Economics exists primarily to usurp the monetary reform movement, who understands that fractional reserve banking is a hoax. So the austrians suggest to replace it by full reserve banking.
But we would still be paying 300k interest over a 200k mortgage over 30 years, whereas it is fully possible to create 0% interest mortgages. Read this about that basic lie: https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/gary-norths-bluff-the-lie-hes-been-sitting-on-for-50-years/
Anthony,
Libertarianism does NOT allow the multi-nat’ls to rape us as they have since our RRs lobbied for govt regulation as the corrective for their failed attempts at monopoly – for competition was cleaning their clocks, and the oligarchs HATE competition most of all.
From an Amazon review of Kolko’s “Triumph of Conservatism”
No book details the historical relationship between big business and the Federal government better than this one. Though confined merely to the so-called Progressive Era in American history (1901-1914), Kolko manages to overturn all the misconceptions about the formation of government regulation in America. Instead of accepting the standard view that federal regulation of business was inspired by the Progressive intellectuals and activist political leaders eager to put a check on the rising power of big business, Kolko shows that it was really inspired by the drive of businessman to limit competition and bring “stability” into the market. The result is what Kolko calls, appropriately enough, “political capitalism.” Some earlier reviews have attempted to draw an ideological lesson from this book. This is a mistake. If there is a lesson to be drawn from Kolko’s work, it is the failure of all ideologies (whether from the right, left, or center) to adequately explain the rise of political capitalism in America. Both the right and the left share the common assumption that government regulation hurts big business. Kolko proves that this isn’t the case, that Big Business is in favor of regulation and the throttling of competition. Kolko’s book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand what capitalism and politics is really all about.
~~~~~~~~~
So you see, had our founding libertarianism, vs corp socialism & fascism, reigned per our constitutional limits, the corps never would have been able to become the certifiable criminal monster powers they are today.
Between the private banksters of currency issue and the corps they grew up around themselves, has resulted in exactly what Jefferson warned would happen; that Americans would one day become homeless in the land their forefathers conquered, by constant inflations and deflations, which of course TPTB frontrun with aplomb to the detriment of all others.
Of course these days all govts are captured by these gangsters to some, or great extent, as here in the USA.
I fully agree with the below assertion. I’m not saying that Government intervention would automatically reduce further centralization of power, quite the opposite. What I’m saying is that is not Government that is the main centralizer of power, but the Money Power behind it. Government has always been a tool of the ruling Plutocracy. That’s what it’s all about.
So the problem is not Government intervention as such, but government intervention at the behest of the enemy.
In general I’m quite keen on limiting Government intervention, btw. I think Libertarianism has overstated the case, but it has made quite clear that on the whole most Government interventions have many intolerable perverse ‘side’ effects.
RIGHT!!!
Then lets take away all the regulators that are merely the industry’s own insiders and use our courts when the banks/corps commit a crime vs always hiding behind govts bought skirts?
In a FREE market they DONT get the upper hand without satifying consumers, else they die as is right and proper, whether banks OR corps.
I say ICELAND them all!!!
Well, I fear it is not so easy.
The Money Power has the top lawyers and it is clear that the court system is inaccessible to people without major resources.
The Courtsystem is just another hoax provided by the strong to lull the weak asleep.
The only option is ‘human action’ (!!!!) Yes…….sigh…………
Individuals realizing what’s at stake and building interest free currency. But they need the support of as many as awake people as possible and one of the problems is that Austrianism is leading many potential adversaries of the Money power into a blind alley.
Au contaire Anthony,
After a few years post my 2004 wake up that BOTH our parties are perpetually infested with war mongering vermin, I stumbled upon Rothbard, he nearly alone is responsible for leading ME OUT OF the blind alley of state serving “intellectuals” put me in, who have compulsorily “schooled” us Bismarck style for 100yrs now.
You should read his essay and see what a righteous man Murray was, who spent his entire life sussing out the nexus between govt policies and self enriching power elite scum.
The bastards we BOTH, you & I, justly abhor.
Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
Some “shill” for the banksters indeed. He bares their very nerves.
Read any Albert J Nock? A hero of Murray’s.
Our Enemy, the State
by Albert Jay Nock
If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price-fixing, wage-fixing, inflation, political banking, “agricultural adjustment,” and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing; which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power.
It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.
Moreover, it follows that with any exercise of State power, not only the exercise of social power in the same direction, but the disposition to exercise it in that direction, tends to dwindle. Mayor Gaynor astonished the whole of New York when he pointed out to a correspondent who had been complaining about the inefficiency of the police, that any citizen has the right to arrest a malefactor and bring him before a magistrate. “The law of England and of this country,” he wrote, “has been very careful to confer no more right in that respect upon policemen and constables than it confers on every citizen.” State exercise of that right through a police force had gone on so steadily that not only were citizens indisposed to exercise it, but probably not one in ten thousand knew he had it.
Heretofore in this country sudden crises of misfortune have been met by a mobilization of social power. In fact (except for certain institutional enterprises like the home for the aged, the lunatic asylum, city-hospital and county-poorhouse) destitution, unemployment, “depression” and similar ills, have been no concern of the State, but have been relieved by the application of social power.
Under Mr. Roosevelt, however, the State assumed this function, publicly announcing the doctrine, brand-new in our history, that the State owes its citizens a living. Students of politics, of course, saw in this merely an astute proposal for a prodigious enhancement of State power; merely what, as long ago as 1794, James Madison called
“the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government”;
and the passage of time has proved that they were right. The effect of this upon the balance between State power and social power is clear, and also its effect of a general indoctrination with the idea that an exercise of social power upon such matters is no longer called for.
It is largely in this way that the progressive conversion of social power into State power becomes acceptable and gets itself accepted.1 When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps toodepleted for the like exercise, but the general instinct would be to let the State see to it. Not only has social power atrophied to that extent, but the disposition to exercise it in that particular direction has atrophied with it. If the State has made such matters its business, and has confiscated the social power necessary to deal with them, why, let it deal with them. We can get some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to refer him to the State’s relief-agency. The State has said to society, You are either not exercising enough power to meet the emergency, or are exercising it in what I think is an incompetent way, so I shall confiscate your power, and exercise it to suit myself. Hence when a beggar asks us for a quarter, our instinct is to say that the State has already confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and he should go to the State about it.
Every positive intervention that the State makes upon industry and commerce has a similar effect. When the State intervenes to fix wages or prices, or to prescribe the conditions of competition, it virtually tells the enterpriser that he is not exercising social power in the right way, and therefore it proposes to confiscate his power and exercise it according to the State’s own judgment of what is best. Hence the enterpriser’s instinct is to let the State look after the consequences. As a simple illustration of this, a manufacturer of a highly specialized type of textiles was saying to me the other day that he had kept his mill going at a loss for five years because he did not want to turn his workpeople on the street in such hard times, but now that the State had stepped in to tell him how he must run his business, the State might jolly well take the responsibility……………..
………….Thus the State “turns every contingency into a resource” for accumulating power in itself, always at the expense of social power; and with this it develops a habit of acquiescence in the people. New generations appear, each temperamentally adjusted – or as I believe our American glossary now has it, “conditioned” – to new increments of State power, and they tend to take the process of continuous accumulation as quite in order. All the State’s institutional voices unite in confirming this tendency; they unite in exhibiting the progressive conversion of social power into State power as something not only quite in order, but even as wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Click to access ourenemy.pdf
Re: the term State, it is not meant self govt as was our design, but the sef serving confluence of corps and govt in a mutually benefical collusion.
This is how we do it Anthony!!!!
This really gets me positive!!!!
Soccer Riot from Police Brutality
:-)))))
HEY, that looks like K Marx! ;>)
I knew you’d like that mon ami!
part of what follows is an embellished earlier portion, a sort of repeat, iow, the next comment includes a slightly tweaked and gracenoted (gracenotated) rewrite .. for emphasis .. killing .. nag nag time naghag, quit poking that clock, coach! .. .. sorry, laughs for the real gallics only here:
een knaagdier van jewelste
= wellness jewels, here’s that rattleram horning in again, free today, locked up tomorrow, the beers are loose and his balls are bigs .. een laatste sidderzang seder gefluister voordat de windfilter het op geschieLIJKtverbordje SCHOKKESCHROKT
filter de wind nu voordat je de heroverwegingswegweegbrug op moedprikstekertjes moet prikkelen)
.. worse than futile, .. way more toxic than just water under the bridge i know (and very rare the one who stays alive until FAMOUSLY CURIOUS enough to fetch a higher price than was ever paid for writing ..
last nite i watched the second hour of
Crop Circles Quest for Truth – Theatrical Feature Film
and tried to remember when and retrieve it from where i wrote about my plans to do a guerrilla gardening type and postal service date stamp kind of right/rite law/side up/ping, .. but searching with:
dust in the form of words
legible landscape
written into/onto the landscape
readable from above
legible from above
.. i came up empty and agasp at the transience of my tangentiality … writing …. guided by the hands of ghostily hostily undead ‘jesus’ himself? Founding father of the original pre-adulteration Al-Qaida don’t you know … druid eintopf with nimrud, cernunnos and a host of others into the mix, the very stars fit themselves in somehow .. Al-Qaida don’t you know .. ow owe grow growho O O? Potty trainerdz par excellence .. none of that gunny money honey resistance pot jackery such as newwage sewage bookshelf gulper & remixer beast1333 and/or the plagued alike … like truthergirl who took perpetually drunk and wheelchaired vet hubby and ‘gunner’ (really? prolly the sickened imagination of ‘icke3114’ who sees manchurians all over, then again, she did circumcise him) to the Toronto Formula 1 show … trying to hide from chemtrails (absent that day she notes cheerily) in the F1 fumes .. hey, that’s brilliantly counterintuitive .. they’ll never find us!!!
… but i am an addict so play that ‘loser’ song by mcreynolds or the much younger fella i found recently (who tacks a few bars of ‘i’m a loser baby’ on either side of it oddly enough).
‘next’ portion of this comment (already pushed down by the preceding ones ((and so now final part))) is the slightly tweaked rewrite:
I find it significant that those who bear Silvio Gesell ill will (TRY/pretend to) read a race, class narrative into and out of it .. but such leftie morons and jews can be taken by the hand(cuffs) to reservation just as easily … after you immunize against their subcutaneous genocidal vectors, tenders and other – reversals of tenderlovingcare gone inwards and navalgazhaybowire – tendencies … don’t forget now ….
The word “hoard” when it comes to money is simply sticking ones nose into people’s personal finances… what people do with their money should be of no concern to anyone unless it’s used to rob from others through the practice of usury. If people can get their hands on money through honest means they are free under God to do what ever they want with it and it’s nobody’s business what they do with it except if they use it to harm others. Blanketing savers with the word “hoard” makes them out to be some sort of negative in society when it’s not they who are the evils of society or our monetary system but the money power robber barons that have enslaved a large portion of humanity through usury. You do what you want with your money while others do what they want with their money and absent of a usurious private banking cartel everything will workout just fine.
Well, the basic point of the article is to show that the Money Power has brainwashed us to believe we should or should want to ‘save money’. This is not the case: there are plenty other ways of accumulating wealth.
hoarding cash hinders circulation and is thus detrimental to other users of the monetary system. to say it is nobody’s business is clearly wrong: when you use facilities that are part of the common wealth it is necessary to have a clear set of rules and best practices aimed at the common interest.
Saving, not “hoarding,” money is something man has done for ages… Abraham and his children saved money so they could buy things when he needed… Christ and his disciples saved money so they could use it when needed and what a private person does with their private money is none of your business or the business of the “common wealth.” You should stick to focusing on the real criminals who have proven with demonstrable evidence over several hundred years their destructive aims towards the “common interests” instead of trying to replace them with another horde disseminating dictates to the citizenry about what they should do with their private and personal finances.
And by the way… just because people do not want to handle their personal and private holdings the way someone else thinks they should doesn’t mean they are brainwashed… it means that they are independent thinkers. Currency does not need to be micromanaged by a few arrogant know-it-alls right down to the amount of meager savings held by every peasant
I think you make very good points. Free people should be able to use their resources in the manner they wish, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Terms like ‘common wealth’ , ‘common interest’, and ‘hoarding’ are too much like the rhetoric of tyrants IMO. (No matter how good intentioned they may be.) – – – Remember the story of the Grasshopper and the Ant. One played in the summer and one chose to work to save for the winter. As winter approached would the Grasshopper accuse the Ant of being a ‘hoarder’ of the ‘common wealth’ needed for the ‘common interest’ ? Would the Grasshopper use violence to take the Ant’s ‘hoard’ of wealth? This approach hasn’t been shown to work. It creates poverty of material wealth & individual liberty.
Thanks for adding that excellent analogy. I look forward to the time where we live in a world where the fruits of one’s labor, the reward for one’s sacrifice, toils and creativity are not constantly preyed upon by lazy control freak elitists and their small army of psychotic economists using words and theories purposely designed to be incomprehensible to the butcher, the plumber, the steel worker, the electrician, the entrepreneur, the musician and all other persons of such. For it’s these such persons who have to live with the ramifications of these incomprehensible theories that only serve to cloak the siphoning of wealth from the large productive and creative class to the small lazy, parasitic and psychotic class.
wow!
Big words, none of them have so far littered Real Currencies’s pages, but clearly this topic (or my handling of it) generates strong emotions.
Well the “big words” comment wasn’t directed at Real Currencies but this topic does draw out my aversion for the deceptive use of word supplanting to manipulate perception which is a common practice among our current ruling parasite class. In this case, taking a common practice like “savings”, an innocent, prudent, beneficial and lawful function and supplanting it with the word “hoarding” which now carries a guilty, imprudent, unlawful and damaging connotation is a similar deceptive and manipulative word supplanting practice used by tyrants.
For example: taking a word to describe a common dwelling place for innocent humans to live with their families (a home or a house) and supplanting it with the word “compound” which now implies that its occupants are no longer innocent humans with their families but wanted criminals. This supplanting word tactic in this case was used to manipulate the perception of the observer so that they can be conditioned to accept unlawful entry or destruction and seizure of personal property for the benefit of the public.
The supplanting of the word “savings” with the word “hording” is serving an identical function: to manipulate the perception of the observer so they can be conditioned to accept the unlawful seizure of one’s personal savings for the benefit of the public or the “common interest.” These deceptive supplanting of word tactics to manipulate perception does not originate with the commoners but is a common practice of our current ruling parasite class.
Now I’m not saying you are of this parasite class… I’m just saying you’re employing a similar tactic. And when you combine the word “hoarding” with “rules” for the “common interest” … it doesn’t really leave much to the imagination to know where you are coming from.
hmm……mmmmmmmmm And could it be possible I have a point when I try to poke a little fun at the vice of saving money?
How about this, for instance?
January 5 – Hoard Nothing
Love Me and do My Will. No evil shall befall you. Take no thought for tomorrow. Rest in My presence brings Peace. God will help you. Desire brings fulfillment. Peace like a quiet flowing river cleanses, sweeps all irritants away.
You shall be taught, continue these prayertimes, even if they seem fruitless. The devil will try by any means to stop them. Heed him not. He will say evil spirits may enter in. Heed him not.
Rest your nerves. Tired nerves are a reflection on, not of, God’s Power. Hope all the time.
Do not be afraid of poverty. Let money flow freely. I will let it flow in but you must let it flow out. I never send money to stagnate – only to those who pass it on. Keep nothing for yourself. Hoard nothing. Only have what you need and use. This is My Law of Discipleship. http://www.twolisteners.org/January%201%20-%2015.htm
It transpires that both Satan (see the protocols quote in the article) and the Christ reject the hoarding of the means of exchange.
Well in my decades search through the scriptures I’ve come across many things that are repugnant to God including the practice of usury but saving money was not one of them. And I don’t think the words “hoard” or “hoarding” can be found in the scripture. But there are numerous instances in the scriptures where money was needed and very useful which implies savings. In fact Jacob and his sons used their savings of money to buy grain from Egypt during a famine even though eventually it became unnecessary under the circumstances. And as I said there is no historical evidence to show that saving money, even in this modern usurious system, is a detriment to society and judging by some of the pictures of the great depression those people standing in the bread lines looked like they could have used a little savings.
while the Old Testament was all about the gathering of wealth, Jesus clearly was not. The gospels make this quite clear, time and again.
*Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.*
*..No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.*
Regarding your comment below which has no reply option: All believers know Jesus was not about material wealth but those scriptures you posted below have nothing to do with saying that saving money or being wealthy is a sin but have to do with where one’s loyalties lie… To use those scriptures and twist them to mean that it’s a sin to save money or to be wealthy is a perfect example of how tyrants, false prophets and false ministers use the scriptures to control and manipulate the wealth of others. The bible is filled with men who are loyal to God and have plenty of money. Abraham was very wealthy and he was ready to offer up his own son Isaac to demonstrate his loyalty to God. And in those days, if someone like yourself came around telling Abraham that his wealth was and offense to God he would have singled you out as the village shyster.
Beauty in simplicity, the very thing TPTB abhor.
yeah, … Silvio, grand inspiration in so many ways, specially his last book dovetailing with other strands, ‘kinacting’ to essentials and basics; he for instance, in his last work, made a clear point about
1 – the role of women
Not even the feminists are able to retrieve this aspect of the six nation federation rules which the US Const. was modeled on/after – was supposed to taken on/after instead of setting it up for serial ‘close calls’ (hear that bookie hollerin?) barely short of fatal, interminable torture – but it’s described rather anecdotally in the 600 page work ‘The Tribes and the States’ by WJSidis* but instead we got the metastatization of ownage into pownage .. proost, but no thoinks
* – http://www.sidis.net/TSContents.htm – 1935
2 – ownership (what natives are known for, preferring to fight FAIR over rather than sell UNFAIRground).
Getting rent/interest to benefit the commons, in safe hands (of those at the spigots, boxweezes and squeezeboxes of nurturance and ‘demographlux’, proved his last point (rather than a point which happily stuck and lasted. I find it significant that those who bear him ill will read a race, class narrative into and out of it .. but leftie morons and jews trying to conceal their (epi)genetic defect and epic gene neglect respectively .. oops, .. in reverse .. or ..?? .. never mind .. dogtail story .. with a scatter effect (come get your lottery stub now, grand prize is THE ONE way to hollywood uppery fucks) .. come to think of it, interest is cure for hoarding ..wink, nudge, .. dig?
Your neighbourhood show an interest in community gardening and fighting developers off, even for a little while .. or ‘event’ (ritual sacrifice, OWStreetStylie??
Any jews remember Franz Oppenheimer????
How about land trusts?????
Wall Street keeps book for fascism and specializes in fucking money up as across the board as the ever financializing fantickles of duh fa foem fionismz dicktotet all the ways from&since Babylon .. so it stands to reason they will have their people in the Fed to feed them the copious ‘war on grand scale enabling’ larger and larger denominationz, it heightens and powders their rises, pump dump, shoot kill, .. fake money for fake trade scamz.
De ‘Beurs’ (their frenzy trough, war and luxury onwards wratcheting industry indicator, holy haai altar, the word also means bruise in dutch, home of the ‘first’ one of them (in living memory that is, same way we remember the hollowcost but none of the expulsions, nor their reasons) lets their feelings be known on national news and by no means via just ‘the (up-front, shamelessly) commercials’ (without any ambition to guide and nuruture people back to sane modesty) either.
Great great; i ve been trying to explain this to some friends last week.But is really dificult for many reasons that we know, and the conception of money sheep people have
Hopefully this helps Ron!