Ron Paul: Don’t allow the Fed to destroy our money!

399 Responses



A Spooked Economy in October

by Ron Paul

Last week we received worse than expected unemployment numbers, challenging recent claims that the recession has come and gone. Also, as the economy continues to suffer the after effects of the Federal Reserve-created bubbles of the last decade, there is renewed interest in gold. Fears that the Federal Reserve will pump even more money into the system had caused the price of gold to reach new highs. Also contributing to enthusiasm for gold is continued instability in the banking industry, symbolized this week by fraud allegations that have caused many banks to halt foreclosure proceedings, thus further destabilizing the housing market. Yes, October has a reputation for being a scary month economically and this month is shaping up to be frightening, as well.

The Fed has been wreaking havoc and devaluing our monetary unit steadily since 1913, and greatly accelerating it since the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement in the 1970s. This severing of the dollar’s last tenuous link with gold allowed the Fed to create as much new money as it pleased, and it has taken full advantage of this opportunity.

In 1971, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $1.29 trillion. Today it is $14.6 trillion, nominally. But adjusted for all the inflating the Fed has been doing, it is only $2.73 trillion, which constitutes only a 1% real increase per year! So with all this extra money going around, we may appear nominally wealthier, but the reality is, we have barely moved at all. This is unfortunate especially for the prudent, conscientious savers, whose nest eggs are constantly being devalued. Unless of course, they have saved in something out of the Fed’s reach, like gold. While the economy has basically been in a holding pattern against the leeching of wealth by the Fed for 39 years, gold has seen an inflation adjusted increase in value of over 5% per year, if measured in 1971 dollars. This is due to the Fed’s ability to make dollars plentiful. And yet, this is the only tactic the Fed can come up with to rescue an economy already devastated by “quantitative easing”, as they call it.

The turmoil in the housing market demonstrates how disastrous it is to flood the economy with fiat money. Latest events with foreclosures are good examples of mistakes made in the market, in this case, by the banks, in the rush to soak up manipulated currency. This is why the truly free market depends on sound, honest money, free from false signals of artificially low interest rates.

The government finds ways to spend money even faster than the Fed can create it, bringing our national debt well past the point of the taxpayers ever being able to pay it off. Other nations who, in the past, have eagerly bought up any amount of debt we produced are now starting to resist. We are reaching a crucial point at which the dollar will no longer function, and in the absence of a functioning dollar, restoring sound money will be the only alternative.

The truly scary notion is that those in power might allow our system to collapse so chaotically to the detriment of so many people rather than simply obey the Constitution.


Processing your request, Please wait....

399 responses to “Ron Paul: Don’t allow the Fed to destroy our money!”

  1. TruthSeeker

    Suppose that we consent to make gold our standard as well as other metal; say silver, copper, tin, or some other alloys. We need to get rid of all banks and financial institutions still. I was not initially against banks acting like venture partners taking the risk on their investment. I am against the banks creating money, lending nothing of value, and lending for interest. If the banks decide to abandon all of that for venture partnership, banks are no problem. Is that possible though? I never think so unless angels from heaven replace bankers!

    So say that we have enough coin money to match our trade and productive capacity, and there are no more banks, and there is no more money monopoly, what would be a good amount of money in circulation to start with? I would say at least three times the current GDP value. I believe that initial guess is not too far from real because I think our productivity has been severely stagnated under the current monetary system and that the current level of productivity is by no means reflective of our true capacity. The method of continuous adjustment is ideal to experiment with. If the money happened to be too much, the government can buy the extra or seize it with non-monetary compensation in exchange. If the amount is still too low, more coinage is injected into the currency until the balance is achieved, per David.

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. Jake

      What they’re really telling us is they’re so f….g stupid they’re better off suffering their terminal failure. That’s their consensus of stupidity.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. Citizen

      TS,

      We the People have chosen to put our SAVINGS into BANKS.

      Your complaint is with Fractional Reserve Banking… “Money out of Thin Air” is what creates the DEBT and is what STEALS our wealth.

      SOUND MONEY, means holding our Government run banking system ACCOUNTABLE to a standard…. LIKE
      Gold and Silver that can not be COUNTERFEITED, as bullion metals they are “immutable”.

      The Constitution defines the Dollar as the United States Dollar was defined[4] as a quantity of 371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of pure silver, or 416 grains of standard silver (standard silver being defined as 1,485 parts fine silver to 179 parts alloy[5] 1792 Alexander Hamilton

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. TruthSeeker

        You the “people” chose to put your money in the banks? Also you the “people” chose to bailout the banks? You the “people” chose to go to war for WMD which turned out to be for oil dynasty? You the “people” chose to go unemployed? You the “people” chose to lose all your life savings? You the “people” chose to be” taxed by the bureaucrats so you could pay an annual interest on the national debt which is about 400 billion dollars on a pending balance of about 14 trillion dollars of national deficit? Well, you the “people” must be out of your mind just like an insane drunk who is waiving a knife in the middle of a crowd, unless someone stops him, he will injure others as well as himself. But you know what crusaders? I congratulate the banksters who victimized you and converted you over to defend them as well. Just remember, how many like you among our citizens who believe in the crap you are promoting? I do not regret these stupid posts of yours because it will be the very fuel which will burn you out and consume you. As far as I could see, your efforts on this forum are limited to distraction and bashing. You have no agenda besides preserving the status quo. I am positive all who read your posts and ours will see that clearly. It is enough to see through your greedy selfish souls that belittled the suffering of our people. You are not even thinking about them. All I hear from you is why not banking? Why not interest? Why not make people pay for their poverty which was not even their fault? Really who are you? We will find you and know who you are. It is just a matter of time.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. Daniels

          What does that even mean “we will find out who you are”? That’s creepy bro, let’s stick to a discussion of the issues..

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    3. Jake

      When it comes down to it, we can let them charge their interest; but they won’t get any but for a few extreme cases which yet subvert vital objects of economy. If they want to throw all the vital principles away, why do they even enter the discussion? why don’t they say, “We don’t give a flying f…k if there’s two or one or no solutions for inflation and deflation, systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and terminal multiplication of artificial indebtedness — THESE ARE THE VERY F….G THINGS WE WANT TO DO TO EACH OTHER!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      1. Citizen

        Evening Jake,

        Take a freaking break and read about
        Tulipmania circa 1630s
        “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania,

        Inflation and Deflation exist in nature and in economies where “Irrational Exuberance” overwhelms sober restraint.

        But MONETARY Inflation is deliberate government FRAUD of the citizens savings, when the FED engages in printing dilution, the debasing of our currency.
        Gold and Silver are the closest thing to your “immutable tokens” of currency, something the FED still can’t print “out of thin air”

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. Jake

          You also have to scrap the gold standard — gold and interest therefore are mutually exclusive, wholly incompatible principles. But you still have to do this if gold is your only other concept of an alternative, because a circulation restricted to finite monetary reserves cannot sustain an eventual greater volume of industry.

          So you’re basically f….d in all of these directions, because you’ve insisted on restricting the discussion to either gold, or interest, or a pretended combination of the two which honors no principle whatever.

          So because you refuse solution, you have the f…s in power you least want — doing all the things your adversaries in these forums want to do (even more effectively than they can rob each other). And what are they doing? All the things which we predicted so long ago — artificial sustention — purposely breaking the rules of the system — for themselves — to preserve the system of exploitation.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    4. Citizen

      Dear TS,

      You say…
      “method of continuous adjustment is ideal to experiment with. If the money happened to be too much, the government can buy the extra or seize it with non-monetary compensation in exchange”

      Its prophetic how you’ve stated almost verbatim the Federal Reserve Charter of 1913!

      The FED, Benny Berneke, is engaged in Real Time theft right out of your wallet and bank account.

      Listen carefully… do you hear that sucking sound? That’s the sound of the FED notes shrinking as we blog on this site. Yes your dollar is shrinking in value (purchasing power) every minute by authority of the FED Charter.

      What you’ve described is what the FED calls Open Market Currency Policy and Benny is now planning some more “QUANTITATIVE EASING” also known as GRAND THEFT COUNTERFEITING, to pay for their hyper debt system.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. TruthSeeker

        Citizen,

        If you stop using childish means like character assassination and twisting words around, I will debate with you. If you make a promise to stop doing that, I will minute your arguments and I will do it not to prove you wrong. I am as I called myself a “truth seeker.” I care less if I get credit or someone else for finding the truth. Be my guest and get the credit as long as you say something that adds up. My problem with you and Daniels is your indifference to the public welfare which has become so evident. You act like agents for banks and money monopolies. I hope to be wrong because I really do not enjoy judging people. I am more interested in ideas and thought, not personalities. So make a promise that you act civil and I will minute every little exegy of yours. Fair enough?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. Citizen

          TS,

          I agree, so I’m not a “stark idiot”? OK!

          You said:
          “our indifference to the public welfare which has become so evident.”

          Sir, I have 60 people on my weekly payroll, I am scrambling to bid and win the ever dwindling number of projects to keep them and myself employed every year.

          It irks me to see our Government bailing out big Risk Taking WS Bankers, the very same bankers WE mutually hate!
          But our Government forced those Banks to fund their Social Engineering agendas, the latest being their Deadbeat in Every Home program. Banks were threatened with Government Law Suite by Janet Reno if they didn’t MAKE THE LOANS! And Bawney Fwank used his political position to forced Fannie/Freddie into bundling those loans into Sub-Prime Mortgage Bombs sold to the Chinese and others. But I digress.

          My point being that Government’s well intentioned social programs have always backfired, with the poor taking the financial hits while the rich bankers get bailed out!. That’s not right!

          Our government has a long history of FAILED social programs,
          => 1935 FDR Social Security BANKRUPT!,
          => 1965 LBJ Medicare, BANKRUPT
          => 2008 GWB Prescription Drugs, unfunded and BANKRUPT
          => 2010 BHO, Government Health Care, unfunded AND ….
          We have $110 TRILLION of bankrupt Social Entitlements that have NO HOPE of delivering as promised. Government FRAUD!

          My Point;
          Government is and will always be the worst provider of social goods.

          I can’t speak for Daniels here, but history is replete with social programs gone bust. So NO, as a a Libertarian, I don’t advocate for Government solutions, they simply don’t work!

          But ALL of these unfunded failed social programs pale by comparison to the real social travesty… The FED’s deliberate and systematic theft of EVERY AMERICANS WEALTH via currency fraud!
          END THE FED, is where the public welfare rubber meets the road!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. TruthSeeker

    So the purpose of living is to pay debt according to the ill evil voices we continue to hear. As long as our babies are born with a negative balance on the plastic card, then they are forced to go to work on double shifts, to borrow more money to go to school, to borrow more money to buy a house, to borrow more money to buy a car, to borrow more money even to buy a fiancée a drink! So all our economical activities are sustained under the threat of debt—the hanging sword over our neck! What is the difference between this scenario and the scenario of the master-slave in the colonial times in this country? The slave was born with debt (slavery) to his master. The slave must work day and night to please and appease his master (pay the debt) under the threat of the whip. If the slave stops to work day and night, the whip is waiting for him. What a brilliant Rothschild! Not only Black slaves were once exploited, but now all the human race! Let’s put all nations into deep sinking debt. Let’s start them with debt, and let make all their lives nothing but effort to pay the debt! WOW! I am really impressed by such a great model of economy. I would rather die a hundred times before I endure such oppression. Is that what Citizen and Daniels are fighting for? Be my guest and join them you idiots, but not our smart citizens who are free and proud!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. Jake

      what they’re really telling us is they’re so utterly stupid they’re better off suffering their terminal failure. That’s their consensus of stupidity.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  3. TruthSeeker

    It is rather your case that gold is not scarce and that gold is the perfect money. I think gold is a hundred times better than this fiat money crap that we currently have, but like I said it will go back to the box and it will come short to match the capacity of our trade and productivity. Can I prove that? YES I can. Do I have to? No I do NOT because it is YOUR case and you need to defend it. It is YOU who must prove it since you are the advocate of the gold standard, not us. In any case, our main concern is you gods who will swallow our new standard in no time and corner us out like before and even worse.

    But say I agree with you on the gold standard, I demand that all the money that has been stolen from us through the banks be given back to us, and I would commend your high interest rate on it, along with all compensatory and punitive damages before we transfer to the gold standard. Is that fair? Also I have another demand: to make laws that prohibits the monopoly of gold on any level including but not limited to foreign investments and make the misuse and abuse of such a capital crime that warrants the death penalty. Under these conditions, I think I might be willing to explore the gold standard for the last time. But if you are asking for a free ride for your gods, we have nothing to say to you.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. Daniels

      You say: “It is rather your case that gold is not scarce and that gold is the perfect money.”

      I am not saying gold is the “perfect” money, I am saying it the best society has found throughout history. Silver is also good. Gold and silver have been chosen in the free market as the best currency available. There are a variety of reasons why this is true, and I have enumerated them in other posts so I will not do it again. Let me be very clear, gold makes a good money BECAUSE gold is scarce. So it is not my case that a currency must not be scarce. It is you, TS, who must defend that position. But I would advise you to rethink it, for it is not true.

      You say: ” it will go back to the box and it will come short to match the capacity of our trade and productivity. Can I prove that? YES I can. Do I have to? No I do NOT because it is YOUR case and you need to defend it. ”

      Like I have said every time the subject comes up: a currency does NOT need to grow in proportion to wealth and productivity. That, again, is your case TS. (it is also the Bernanke, Friedman, Keynesian view- I did not think you shared their position) Had you understood any of my posts you would have seen that that is one of the primary points I have argued against. You must prove it. I certainly will not make your case for you. But I would advise you to rethink it, for it is not true.

      You say: ” say I agree with you on the gold standard, I demand that all the money that has been stolen from us through the banks be given back to us”

      In general I share your view that stolen items should be returned to their rightful owners, and perhaps even something extra in the form of a time premium, or rent on the stolen property. And finally, perhaps even punitive damages ought to be paid. In practice that is a difficult task to accomplish, but perhaps a worthy goal. I dislike theft just as you do. Finally some agreement!

      Regarding monopolies: it is a very complex subject. If you would like to get in to the subject of monopolies we can. If ever there was a monopoly, I would probably object. However, I know you did not say this, but keep in mind that monopolies cannot charge “whatever they want,” and do not have “unlimited power,” they are limited to the “monopoly price” which is still governed by supply and demand, although it is higher than the competitive market price.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. Citizen

        Daniels,

        Are we wasting our time here… NO!

        I think these MPE Marxist sympathizers MUST BE challenged at every point they make, because they can’t defend those points. Their defense of MPE is to simply dismiss the questions and to defame the person asking.

        Cloward and Piven would be proud of these shills

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        1. TruthSeeker

          Before you condemn the poor for wanting to use “your” money Mr. Earned-it-all, give them their money back that your banks stole from them and we will discuss pride and self-sufficiency assuming your point is valid in the first place. If you give back only SS taxes, and since you believe in the time value of money, I expect each household to get a minimum of $500,000 on national average. After you give them back their money, stop taxing them, and if you continue to tax them, make their education, job training, and healthcare free. Thanks for nothing!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        2. Daniels

          My banks?? I don’t own any banks.

          I think the SS tax is deplorable.

          Again, you know nothing of my position, and I know everything about yours, comrade TS.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        3. Daniels

          You’re right Citizen, Cloward and Piven would be proud. Although perhaps TS, David, Jacktard et al. might be beyond hope of convincing, it is important for any others who find themselves reading this stuff to see the commies for what they are.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    2. Jake

      The fact is, they haven’t accounted for a further need for money… because the cases where that might *ever* arise are so extreme as to be virtually implausible. They have a foot stuck in a rut of “thinking” [failing to think] which presumes that something akin to pressures such as we presently suffer will persist. It’s just not possible. Practically any productive person will accumulate so much excess money that in half their working life they should be able to sustain their standard of living for the rest of their lives without working. Frankly, I would recommend that people make saving so much actually compulsory. But I can hardly imagine a case where further borrowing would actually be necessary. If you’re going to inherit an estate for instance, why not inherit so much immediately? If a venture needs funding, MPE makes it available. Anyone who has worked will have surplus to rely upon (in part because we ought to make saving for retirement compulsory, to eliminate social programs/intervention). Still, even for the non-systemic “borrowing” you’re proposing, interest is not necessary at all if you collaterlize the debt! What the f…, these people are just so f….g stupid *they have to be subject to interest*?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  4. TruthSeeker

    Only a stark idiot like you Citizen would consider debt to be GOOD for the economy. Is it good to pay 30 years of mortgage by the time you are done if you are lucky to get it done you would have paid more than double the principal? Is it good to pay $40,000 dollars on a car that continues to depreciate when you should be able to get it for $15,000 cash money? Is it good to buy your grocery on a plastic card and pay a monthly minimum in interest while the debt never goes away? What kind of a bastard are you? You can not even hide it anymore, ha? I tell you what citizen: I live to make sure that people like you are gone. This is what we are after. We have no debate with people like you who undermine the grief of our nation and our people. Go ask any idiot with a brain damage out there, they will tell you debt is the worst thing can happen to a human being. Debt is the ultimate goal of the NOW, the Rothschild, and the illuminati whom you worship and defend. You are not an American and I do not care if your ancestry goes back to 100,000 years on this land. You are a clear traitor, promoter of slavery, serfdom (to use some of your terminology) and oppression. Our goal on this forum is nothing but to eliminate debt of our nation, free our people, and secure the future of our children, and replace debt with prosperity and you are blatantly defending debt and misery? What kind of a creep are you? I am so glad that you are coming out of the closet as unconstitutional, pro-debt, pro-money monopoly, pro-misery, and pro-oppression. Let the people make that call though. We present out case; you present yours. Give me a plastic bag please, because I am about to vomit!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. Citizen

      TS,

      I agree that its not good to pay massive interest on your mortgage or car loan.

      So just save your money and pay CASH for your house or car.
      But until then RENT!

      Your MPE system is simply TAKING other peoples money to pay for your personal indulgence.
      Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free” (Dire Straights 1986) out of Thin Air

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  5. Jake

    The end of democracy and defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.

    The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The system of banking is a blot [defect] left in [unsolved by, and unfortunately tolerated by] all our Constitutions [state and federal], which if not covered [eventually solved and revoked] will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity [on the greatest possible scale].

    Thomas Jefferson

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. Daniels

      Michael Montagne and his Commy Con Game

      They call themselves the P.F.M.P.E.
      Obsession with unequal shares of pie,
      Is the foundation for their lunacy.
      Hard work? They’d rather sit idly by!

      Montagne runs a communist con game.
      Deep down, you see, he has a fear of banks.
      A central planning model is his aim;
      All interest rates he says we ought to thank.

      Squawk Squawk goes Mike’s parroting dupe named Jake.
      Devoid of economic literacy;
      He says no loans should people ever take,
      Other’s money should be completely free!

      False claims they make about equality.
      All freedom they would take from you and me.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    2. Citizen

      Jake,

      If your going to quote Jefferson at least do it right…
      its a “government run Central Bank” is more dangerous than standing armies.

      MPE is simply a Central Bank run by MARXISTS COMMIES attempting to dupe the Citizens into trying COMMUNISM as an alternative to the
      Rothschild style FED Reserve Banking system.

      FED equals MPE and vice verse. Banking Fraud is banking fraud no matter what you call it, MPE is more of the same.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  6. Citizen

    Hello David & Mr. Montagne,

    I’m appealing to your more sober sense of decorum in this debate about MPE.

    Answer me these few simple questions. Please be CONCISE and BRIEF

    1. What form of CURRENCY (money) does “immutable tokens” take under MPE?

    2. Are CITIZENS permitted to ACCUMULATE, SAVE and STORE their excess earnings i.e. WEALTH?

    3. If yes to 2 above, how and where may they STORE their wealth?

    4. If CITIZENS are permitted to SAVE their excess EARNINGS under MPE, may they LEND that money to others?

    Again, your short answers are greatly appreciated

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    1. Jake

      1. Strictly… *enforceable* (and enforced) promissory obligations.
      2. Absolutely.
      3. Their accounts are automatically maintained by the Common Monetary Foundry — earnings fall into their accounts, payments are automatically paid, savings are automatically maintained. (And of course, no interest is paid on savings.)
      4. They CAN — but where THE PEOPLE can issue their own promissory obligations through the Common Monetary Foundry, no reasonable need to do so exists.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. Daniels

        You greedy commy’s want something for nothing, free money you didn’t earn, in order to buy real goods and services you have no claim to.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      2. Citizen

        Jake…

        1. Promissory Notes are NOT currency/money. Issuing IOUs to pay IOU’s is PURE Counterfeiting. We don’t need more Fiat Delusionary Notes.

        2. Absolutely NOT, absent real currency, all they receive is more debased “delusionary” notes from the Politburo Commie BANK System.

        3. You say the COMMUNIST Monetary Foundry will keep the peoples wealth! AND “savings are automatically maintained” how naive do you think the American Citizens are?

        4. So “The PEOPLE” (me and you) can issue our own LOANS through the COMMUNIST Monetary Bank, oops I meant “Foundry”
        Gee Wiz, why didn’t you just say so, Now even I can become COMMIE BANKER, like you Jake WOW!

        MPE is EXPOSED!!! Commie Banking System aka

        Commie BS!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    2. Jake

      Nobody really needs to “risk” their money to others (loaning it to others), nor are we restricted by having to have such sources; and furthermore, nor is the existent circulation asked to double for a legitimate further purpose — the additional circulation is always available, without cost.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. TruthSeeker

        Hi Jake,

        If you scroll back at a previous post of mine, I made this point clear. A healthy economy does not depend on debt. Debt is the exception and no one should be placed in the position to borrow money. The productive and trade capacity should allow people to earn enough money so that they do not resort to debt unless in exceptional circumstances. Apparently this system of self-sufficiency does not appeal to Citizen and Daniels because if there is no need for debt, there is no need for interest, and hence there is no need for banks which means: game is over!

        Why a healthy economy would allocate some much academic resources and construct complex models to just try to promote a false assumption—that the norm of economy is borrowing and lending? Why not the same genius invested in the innovation of ways to make sure that people never have to borrow or seldom do so? That is pure malice and that I never could understand, and we are not talking about Utopia here. I have personal plans that can eliminate debt altogether with some lifestyle modification under the current system. So imagine if we have a fair system that is free of the banking industry and it’s Fractional Reserve, its deadly interest, fictitious money, and the strong arm of the law which garnishes people sweat labor and valuable assets? I have spoken of those ideas before and I suggested some discrete idea to fuel our economy and improve our lifestyle. I even challenged my peers on this forum who share my views to implement it. The problem is we continue to see ourselves as helpless victims of our oppressive system without wanting to do something about it. Anyway this is another subject and our main subject is sound money so let’s stick with that.

        As for gold standard or any other standard, we are not against that. We are just concerned that whatever standard we pick for our money, it can not depend on scarce entity. Gold apparently does not meet that criterion and this debate has nothing to do with economics. It has more to do with mining, natural availability or harvest, and material science. I was shocked again to know that Mr. Hayek was proposing that the money value although dependant on gold standard should not fluctuate according to the current gold prices! He suggested instead that the gold prices fluctuate according to the money value! That would be a disaster which swallows the idea of gold standard altogether! Again for the benefit of whom Mr. Hayek was theorizing money? Apparently with his scheme, private industry would not only control the creation of money, but also the prices of gold! That is lovely! Wake up people and think more than you read. It does not matter if you read volumes of treatise on money and economics if you do not think. It is a waste of time and furthermore pointless.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        1. Daniels

          TS

          Borrowing and lending is a GOOD thing. It allows for the most efficient allocation of capital resources, so that society can be the most productive. I’m afraid I cannot call your lack of knowledge of economics ignorance any longer, you have been exposed to reality enough times. It is an insufferable obtuse unwillingness to understand the real world.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        2. Daniels

          Describe exactly how society can have a shortage of currency as you say we would have with gold. Give it your best shot. Be specific, what constitutes a shortage, and what would happen with said shortage?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  7. Jake

    WHY WE NEED TO ADOPT MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ IMMEDIATELY

    Across earlier history, it was possible at least for truly free implementations of barter to impose no imperfection upon their subjects. Free, unimpeded barter allowed people to produce to natural capacities, and to obtain for our own production whatever we deemed to be equal, undiminished measures of the production of others.

    These core objectives comprise the standards of any monetary “economy” which truly serves humanity, because contrary to the intended faults of imposed monetary systems, it is possible and obviously desirable to trade by universal tokens of wealth, without involuntarily sacrificing ever more to irreversible multiplication of debt by interest, and without suffering systemic collapse as an inevitable consequence of irreversible multiplication of debt.

    Virtually all modern “economies” have been imposed upon the subject societies; and we know this at least because in every case it would have been impossible for the subject people to have approved veritable, justified principles, because the means of taking from them is irreversible, unjustifiable multiplication of debt in proportion to the people’s means. That is, merely to maintain a vital circulation subject to interest, it is necessary to re-borrow whatever the people pay toward interest and principal obligations, which thus perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest. Incontrovertibly then, any monetary system subject to interest imposes upon its subjects an ever escalating dispossession which inevitably culminates in collapse: because debt is multiplied in proportion to means, ultimately a sum of debt is engendered which the system can no longer afford to service.

    So the faults of modern purported economies are intended to take from us exceedingly and without justification; and all of us can know this with certainty from the further obvious facts that we are persistently refused representation even while mathematically perfected economy™ is demonstrated to be the only prescription for perpetual full, unimpeded, undiminished, sustainable prosperity.

    WHY MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ IS VITAL TO RESTORING REPRESENTATION

    Thus representative governments have been usurped by the central banking systems of the world; and representation can only be restored by establishing mathematically perfected economy™, because mathematically perfected economy™ alone removes the usurpers and means of usurpation from the subverted political equation.

    HOW MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™ SOLVES ALL ECONOMIC ISSUES

    Interest is eradicated in mathematically perfected economy™. Thus there is no artificial multiplication of debt in proportion to the circulation, or inevitable collapse; and so, rather than dedicating the circulation ever moreso to servicing debt, the entire circulation is persistently available to the original purpose of sustaining intended commerce.

    As all production can be financed by mathematically perfected economy™, it is not even necessary to borrow money at interest, because mathematically perfected economy™ makes interest free obligations available to sustain payment for all wealth. Contrary to debts subject to interest, the obligations of mathematically perfected economy™ simply require that we pay for the related asset as we consume of it.

    Because mathematically perfected economy™ finances all wealth, and because the obligation is to pay at the rate of consumption, everyone pays for everything with whatever they deem to be an equal measure of their own production; there is no inflation or deflation; there is no multiplication of debt; there is always sufficient circulation to pay all debts; the system is perpetually sustainable; and, just as in perfected barter where the quantity and state of wealth represent the wealth, the circulation and rate of payment in mathematically perfected economy™ endow the currency with perpetually persistent value, because every unit of the circulation is always redeemable in the very state of the wealth it is intended to represent.

    EXAMPLE

    For example, a $100,000 home with a 100-year lifespan would be paid for at the overall rate of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month; and the earnings this alone would immediately free should we implement mathematically perfected economy™ immediately, reflect the degree to which we would prosper further, without any other improvement whatever.

    But at the same time we would be financially enabled to develop and succeed in far more industry and employment, with far more tolerance for earnings and success. Even college students for instance could afford new homes during their education for far less than they might presently pay for far less substantial accommodations.

    METHOD OF TRANSITIONING TO MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY™

    The general method of transitioning to mathematically perfected economy™ is re-financing all debt without interest, subject to a schedule of payment equivalent to the rate of consumption. It is possible therefore to immediately avoid economic collapse, or further economic injustice, by transitioning to mathematically perfected economy™.

    HISTORY

    I originally published mathematic proofs that any purported economy subject to interest inevitably terminates itself under insoluble debt, and that there is one and one only solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest (altogether which comprise mathematically perfected economy™) in 1979.

    ALTERNATIVES CANNOT SAVE US

    Many people adopt the mistaken disposition that alternatives can serve us, or that we are served by pursuing typical, incremental patterns of change. Largely, these attitudes only pave the way for persistence of the imposed systems, because one and one only proposition solves the breadth of issues, and because we need to solve them immediately.

    RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION

    The recommended course of action is 1) to proliferate our understanding of mathematically perfected economy™; and 2) to adopt a constitutional amendment immediately transitioning to mathematically perfected economy™. We can only secure economic justice by spreading this information ambitiously, and thereupon, by asserting our right to proper, true economy.

    Our necessary achievement of perfected economy therefore depends on you: It depends on your bringing everyone you can to this material; it depends on your understanding and prolific discussion of this material; and finally it depends on your asserting your right to it.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. Citizen

      Jake…

      I’m sorry, but your MPE rant continues to be nothing more than a diatribe of innuendos and hype.

      MPE has NO SUBSTANCE!

      Go Away PLEASE!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      1. Jake

        MPE is according to the Constitution.

        Austrian economics, and other private banking/currency is in TOTAL DISAGREEMENT with the Constitution

        Citizen/Daniels you are no more then TRAITORS, and your true colors have been exposed

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

        1. Daniels

          Counterfeiting is unconstitutional. That’s what fractional reserve banking is, and that’s what MPE is. Austrian economics rejects all forms of counterfeiting. Learn the constitution before you make assertions based on it.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        2. Jake

          Counterfeit money is currency that is produced without the legal sanction of the state or government. And yes, we know your position towards state or government.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        3. Daniels

          Once again your ingnorance of economics rears its ugly head. Move to North Korea if you want a state sanctioned life.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      2. Jack

        We won´t go away. We are sane, awake, angry & determined! If not for ours but for our children’s sake.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Daniels

    TS, David, Jack, Jake, Jacktr, Jacktard, Mike,

    I’ve done my best to explain economics to you. I started out dealing only with issues dealing out no personal attacks, focusing very specifically on ideas, trying to find common ground to build on. I kept my personal feelings and opinions out of my posts, and when I did voice an opinion, I openly stated that I was doing so. I learned your positions, what you stood for. It was met with evasion, dismissal, hostility, arrogance, profanity, envy, bigotry, and ignorance. You made zero effort to understand my positions. That is dishonest to me, be mostly to yourselves. You will go through life never learning a thing if you continue that way. This debate has given me practice expressing my position in words, so it was not all bad.

    If you ever want to have an honest intellectual debate, you will find that it is far more worthwhile.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. TruthSeeker

      Daniels & Citizens,

      For your information, the Rothschild is the most anti-Semitic. They sponsored Hitler and the Allies at the same time! They did not care about the little Jews, nor did they care about who wins the fight because their end was what? MONEY! They sponsored the Hessian soldiers who fought us during the times of our revolution against the royals of Britain. Out of a sudden, I hear snakes hissing like you criticizing our attack on the Rothschild as anti-Semitic? WOW! You people are willing to do anything to smear out your opponent, and now you want us to believe that you are rational folks who were just debating sound money? No thanks, we will pass!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  9. Daniels

    Why do you despise freedom? Is it because people are free to make successes or failures of themselves and you find yourself on the wrong side of that equation?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. TruthSeeker

      Daniels,

      You sound like the prosecutor who asked the accused of domestic violence: “How long have you been beating your wife?” The defense shouted: “objection your honor!” The Judge: “sustained!”

      Why do WE HATE freedom? Do we? Do really we? Played on different keys! LOL.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      1. David

        Hi Again TS;

        Just checking this thing before going to bed here.

        Well i guess it really does come down to an issue of who’s freedom.

        Citizen and Daniels have been supporting the freedom of banks to steal from the population, consume their prosperity, reduce them under absolute despotism with their religion of economics and bring about their final evolution of socialism where they become the lords with everyone else their serfs. Amazing how the pot likes calling the kettle black isn’t it ?

        We simply support the freedom of the population, and the right of the population to prosper and pursue happiness through their own individual efforts, which can only be accomplished by destroying banks and their ability to exercise the freedom that Citizen and Daniels so adamantly defend, and by willfully and deliberately engineering, as opposed to theorizing and philosophizing, a functional means to actually make this possible, on purpose !

        I guess we’ll see which freedom the American people choose, and i think we already know which it will be.

        I’m not big on revenge or retribution as it accomplishes little of practical value, and as long as we can destroy the problem, keep it from coming back, right the injustices done to the population to the greatest extent possible and actually make things work toward their freedom and prosperity, i’m happy, but, if it was put to a vote today whether or not to put every banker to the guillotine, what do you think the result would be ?

        If you watch the poor desperate, capable and talented people in Christine’s video who’s lives have been destroyed by them, i think we can make a pretty good guess, this is also what i’m hearing from pretty much everyone, everywhere i go as well, and if this should be the wish of the American population, i would be more than happy to design and build some very efficient ones and donate them to the American people to carry out their wish. I’m happy either way, as long as the culprits are gone. I strongly suggest that every banker in America pack their bags and leave right now while they still have a chance to do so. The people are coming for them, and when they do, whether by trial or force, the people will have no mercy, just as the banks have had none themselves.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSOwWDEtkh0&feature=related

        The name of the song is El Deguello, roughly translated it means “the slaughter” or “slit throat”. It’s an old Moorish bugle call, Santa Ana played it as he slaughtered our brave defenders at the Alamo, seems like it might end up coming into use again, only this time by the defenders of freedom.

        This nonsense is going to come to and end, it is going to end soon, we the people have had enough.

        Bankers Beware !

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    2. Jake

      We advocate TRUE freedom and TRUE free enterprise. And fyi; i´m not on the wrong side of the equation. Wow, that must be a surprise to you being an austrian gnome!

      It takes a very brave man to detect it´s own evil. But once detected evil melts like butter in the sun, when confronted with your own courage.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  10. Daniels

    The beauty of the Austrian way is that you are free to use whatever currency you choose. Go ahead and get to work, start using your “immutable” socialist “tokens of value” no one is stopping you.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. Jake

      Mr. Hayek, God of the Austrians tells us why they advocate interest and the current banking model — which are our very problem. See Hayek’s article at Mises org: “A Free Market Monetary System,” He thus justifies interest, that it makes banking “an extremely profitable business.”

      That’s right. There IS no justification, just an outright confession of the motive.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    2. Jake

      The beauty for banks is that Austrian (pretended) economics attract the brain dead.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    3. Citizen

      Daniels:
      Keep up the good work!

      These guys are hell bent to take the world down the Road to Serfdom.
      I’m pretty sure this is a Netherlands based tribal movement.

      Europeans have a penchant for Godless and ruthless government systems as solutions that only Liberty and Free Markets can achieve.

      Its incredible how these disciples are following the same crooked path that F.A. Hayek wrote about as he observed Hilter’s rampage of Europe in the 30′s

      Austrian Economics
      Freedom
      Liberty and
      Ron Paul 2012!
      Oh yes
      End the Fed!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  11. TruthSeeker

    Jake,

    My teenager son taught me an expression: “Lahoo-zaher!” meaning looser or you suck! That’s what I say to the ones who continue trying to smear us out that we are socialist, communists, and all that bulk wholesale crap loads of SH*T. Let the dogs bark and allow the caravan to pass through. We are going to win by the might of Mighty God. Death to all banks and banksters. Their time has arrived and we are not going back!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. Jake

      I´m not religious, but any war at any time with people like you!

      Thanks

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  12. Jake

    The cause of all economic and financial problem is Exponential growth! It is not sustainable! Earth is finite, by contrast the power of exponential functions is infinite! There can not be enough money being made to cover exponentially growing interests (at any rate)! Interest is a man’s greed, making money by having it! Ignorance will doom us all! Banking is steeling and owning ALL of the EARTH automatically! Wake up! This current (and austrian/paulian) economic and financial principle is THE biggest bullshit!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. Citizen

      Good grief…

      Now your morphing into environmental radicals?

      MPE is all things, anti interests, anti simetic, anti banks and now devout Sierra Club members

      Whew, I can hardly keep up

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. TruthSeeker

        Citizen,

        I could swear I could look through your head inside and see that it is made up of little square boxes cluster! You just can not see people for who they are. You have to box them out, and that will continue to make your life miserable. I am really having a good time entertaining you, but that is all you are going to get out of this. Add to your list: we are anti-idiots, anti-lunatics, anti people who can not think for themselves, anti people who are self-victimizers, anti people who are little clod of ailments unable to help themselves, and our list is dynamic. We will update you with more as we think of more stuff.

        Thanks Jake for being ready for a fight because I could see it coming because the bastards will not let go of their crowns voluntarily.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  13. Jake

    TS/David, this will put a smile on your face: http://www.prisonplanet.com/french-protesters-call-for-bank-run-dec-7-2010.html

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  14. Daniels

    Sorry to see you both go, I thought Cit and I were making at least a little bit of progress curing your ignorance. So be it. You will never get your socialist utopia established, but good luck all the same.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. TruthSeeker

      Daniels & Citizen,

      If what you call “ignorance” is what we presented to you, then we declare that we are the most ignorant people. Thanks for curing our ignorance about you. For once we thought that you were both decent people who were going to join our fight for liberty just to find out that we were “ignorant!” Thanks for making us aware of many things although things that do not and could not appease you.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    2. Jake

      and again (because of your socialist hint wherever that comes from)

      We are advocating public ownership and management of our public means of trade so that it can enable a rich and abundant “private” economy instead of being consumed by banks to evolve into the socialist police states they have established pretty much everywhere else in the world by this time as socialism / communism under the governments they establish is the final evolution of banking once they have consumed all the wealth in the so called “free market capitalist” system they create toward this final end.

      What were advocating is the exact opposite, where the people themselves own and manage the public currency so that it cannot be used to deprive them of private property or prosperity, and this is the only way it can’t be as well.

      If you object to socialism and communism as I do, then your your own worst enemy in promoting banks and interest as they have always been the means to its establishment.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      1. Daniels

        Jake says: “We are advocating public ownership and management of our public means of trade”

        You want public ownership, collective ownership, state ownership, of all currency. If there is public ownership of all currency, and you say there is enough currency to buy every asset simultaneously, there is public ownership of all assets.

        Marx and Engels say in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “centralisation of credit in the hands of the state”

        That, Jake is where I get this “socialist hint”

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. Jake

          Daniels, your just hopelessly trying to twist my words without any credibility whatsoever. Your on dupe dude, give it up.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    3. Jake

      We´re not going, we´re just not communicating with lemmings anymore. Go and join your fellow lemmings, but don´t ask people with common sense to join you in which will turn out in another journey to self destruction.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  15. TruthSeeker

    Great job David…my man!

    How stupid that SOB could be to ask for evidence that the sun is up when the sun is so bright he could not even open his eyes and look at it? Unemployment is not enough? Bailouts are not enough? War spending machine is not enough? Foreclosures are not enough? Bankruptcies are not enough? Where is the money gone? Look inside the gold vaults of the Rothschild and the stockholders of the Federal Reserve System. Go ask the bastards to put back some of that gold into currency and bail out the unemployed, the homeless, the hungry children when they are off school because they are not served lunch at home, the bankrupt businesses everywhere from K-mart, to Starbucks, to Blockbuster, to Albertsons, to many many and many more! What a stupid A** that is acting like a zombie who has a thousand souls!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. David

      Hi TS;

      Hehehehehehehehe, this is fun isn’t it ?

      Lol anyway, i have to get back to some productive work for the rest of the day, building some things, maybe fixing a few, then cook some food to feed someone, all things which their banks do not do, so i’ll leave the matter in your very capable hands from this point on.

      As you say, we are simply and only dealing with a Sociopath mentality trying to pretend to be something that its not, and simply and absolutely incapable of understanding anything other than their own greed and craving for power. Very well stated, once again, and so absolutely and clearly demonstrated by they themselves.

      Once again, thank you my friend :)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  16. Daniels

    TS

    Economics is about money. This discussion is about money. We are concerned with what money ACTUALLY is, not with some fictitious utopian communist money construct. You may say we are concerned with the utopian money ideal, but if you knew a little bit of ECONOMICS, you would understand why your utopian money is literally impossible. And, I would add, from a moral perspective it is wrong. People must work for their money. They must provide value to society for their money. Money is not something we should create out of thin air for free whenever we need it. You may be thinking this is exactly what the banks do, and if you had bothered to READ any of my posts, you would know that I agree with you. Banks create money out of thin air, which steals wealth from everyone else. I agree this is deplorable.

    I have gone in to considerable detail about the technical process of how banks conduct this theft. You say its by charging interest. That is absolutely false. It is about fractional reserve banking. Neither of us wants banks to steal from us. From a moral perspective we are on the same page (for this specific point ONLY). Because of your ignorance of economics you don’t understand that interest is not to blame. So it IS about economics. This scenario you and David keep referring to where “in 10 years at 10% interest the Rothschild’s own the world” is mathematically unsound, not is it in any way based on how money REALLY works. The Rothschild’s cannot simply introduce their own currency and suck up the rest. If they do that with paper money that would be counterfeiting, which is theft and illegal. More to the point however, I do not support government fiat money. If gold were currency (or silver platinum copper etc. whatever) counterfeiting would literally be impossible. The magical power you give the Rothschilds in your scenario does not actually exist. If it did, what’s stopping you or me from doing the same? Why don’t they own every asset on earth. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they have had plenty more than 10 years.

    gain, you admit you know nothing of economics. It does no one any good to ignorantly wish for utopia, and criticize everything about the current system because we are no longer in the garden of Eden. You can’t simply “throw out all that is known about economics” and start from scratch. Economics describes truths about the world. To discard them and replace them would be to discard truths and replace them with falsehoods. Don’t tell me everything about economics is false, you’ve already told me you don’t know anything about economics. That would be like me telling you everything about astrophysics is wrong. Perhaps there is more to the picture than is currently known, I don’t doubt that, but I know hardly anything about the subject so it would be ludicrous for me to make that claim. To further the economic discussion, you must build on specific concepts. You can either demonstrate why they should be discarded, or modified, or accepted, but you must KNOW WHAT THEY ARE to make those claims. It is unbelievably arrogant of you to argue about a subject you don’t know.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    1. TruthSeeker

      Daniels & Citizens,

      I decline to debate with you any further, because I have serious doubts about your motives and your integrity. I am sorry you did it to yourself. There is nothing to discuss. I suspect that you are on this forum to distract it, diverge it, and abuse it. I would not go to war with you on my side. This may have nothing to do with the merits of our debate, but it is necessary pre-requisite for any meaningful debate. You proved that you are willing to use any means from character assassination to blatant denial of facts that we thought all of us agree upon to win your argument. I am sorry but I have more class than to engage in dog barking. At this point, you need to find someone else on this forum or even better another forum to debate your views with. I have a lot to say about your postings, but I chose not to. In any case, I have said enough to articulate my views. If we just disagree, then we disagree, so be it!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    2. Jake

      Daniels

      It´s the interest, stupid. Fractional Reserve banking is the leverage they are using, nothing less and nothing more.

      and again:

      We need a competent and reliable means of exchange. We need to be able to distribute, to the whole human race, the quality of life that is now obtainable. No difficulty at all. Our only real difficulty is in confronting the extent of evil in the existing system. It takes a very brave man to confront evil. But evil melts like butter in the sun, when confronted with courage.

      Austrians are retained in fear of the loss of the psuedo status they have been placed into.

      We are advocating public ownership and management of our public means of trade so that it can enable a rich and abundant “private” economy instead of being consumed by banks to evolve into the socialist police states they have established pretty much everywhere else in the world by this time as socialism / communism under the governments they establish is the final evolution of banking once they have consumed all the wealth in the so called “free market capitalist” system they create toward this final end.

      What were advocating is the exact opposite, where the people themselves own and manage the public currency so that it cannot be used to deprive them of private property or prosperity, and this is the only way it can’t be as well.

      If you object to socialism and communism as I do, then your your own worst enemy in promoting banks and interest as they have always been the means to its establishment.

      Join the true resistance and advocate Mathematically Perfected Economy.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  17. Jake

    Tonight Mike is going to talk about how we the people are killing ourselves… what the effects of division are. He´s going to dispel all the plagiarism and contending theories — disprove all of them. Then in the third show, he´s going to round all this out into a firm understanding of solution. So, there will be three programs, the set of which are the whole picture — a complete prescription for how to do the revolution.

    http://www.tnsradio.ning.com at 3 PM to 6 PM Pacific Time

    Warm regards,

    Friends of MPE

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    1. Citizen

      Friends of MPE,
      Or should I say zealots? Whatever…

      I find it ironic how you MPE bloggers (TS, Jake, David, and Darth Montagne) invade the Ron Paul site with Utopian Socialist rhetoric and race baiting, stories of inequality, and jew bankers, to correct the wayward path of us misinformed Ronulans.

      How ironic is it that Dr Paul is a Libertarian and a scholarly advocate of Austrian Economics and you MPE “gnomes” have come along in the nick of time to preach reformation to save us from our errant ways!

      How moronic that the MPE storm troopers invade this site and cut and past pages (the same pages) of impassioned flowery socialist rhetoric on multiple topic pages and when challenged to produce real world facts, the troopers become cockroaches and scurry to the shadows of double talk, disparagement, name calling and REFUSAL to answer, claiming it’s beneath your dignity.

      Clearly you MPE gnomes are on the wrong blog site, Dr Paul speaks the truth
      and rejects Socialists agendas across the board. MPE is nothing more than a reworked collection of failed socialist agendas, definitely the wrong message here.

      May I suggest that your MPE message might be better received on Bill Maher’s web site were racism, expletives, fear mongering and utopian mantras are common and equally self serving.

      Gee guys, I sorry see you leave so soon, Daniels and I were just getting started.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. TruthSeeker

    Hi Everyone,

    I am so glad that we had this late clash with Citizen and Daniels. In fact I like to extend my thanks to both of them. As George Bernard Shaw once said: you never learn from someone you always agree with. That was the best that came out of the long yet futile arguments with both of them. What I just discovered to my dismay and outrage is that what Jake summarized in one short sentence, that money abuse has nothing with economics. The former is moral, philosophical, and political while the latter is simply economics—that is that. The biggest lie in any debate starts at the early state of the debate. Usually with false definitions and characterizations. I will give an example to illustrate:

    Say that we are debating homosexuality. It does make all the difference if we define homosexuality as inter-specie or intra-specie. Different definitions can lead to later troubles in the debate. Another but more relevant to our scenario, is whether we characterize homosexuality as a biological or social orientation. That could also make all the difference in the debate. You may ask how does that relate to the sound money debate.

    Here it is:

    Sound money is not a subject of economics at all. The minute you believe otherwise, you fall in the trap and you get nowhere. Now I am being accurate when I say “sound money” I did not say just “money.” The debate on sound money does not start unless and until we agree on one definition for what “money” is or should be. Apparently all along, we never had a common definition and you wonder why we never could agree? But let’s rewind for a second, is the definition of money exclusive to economics? I do not think so. Some may expand the role of economics to include that definition, but is that a mandate? I have a reason to believe otherwise from a plain reading of our Constitution. When Congress was delegated the authority to create money, there was no reference to economics whatsoever, and no reference to which school of thought should be involved. Our system of government could have been more inclined to Austrian, Keynesian, or Marxist, and in all cases the authority of Congress to issue and create money is the same. So the definition and the very creation of money are independent of any economics school of thought.

    What Citizen and Daniels insisted on is that we subject the concept of money including the very definition and function of money to their particular school of thought. That’s where they failed and that’s where they kept arguing something we never agreed on in the first place, that is the definition and function of money.

    They kept advancing the same issues of banking, interest, and scarcity claiming that their defense was armed with mathematical and technical equations, yet when they were just begging the question. You can not continue to argue something when you assume the same thing you are trying to prove. That is a well-known fallacy in logic. The issue which we split on is not how to provide a model of economics to make the cycle of money the most efficient and the most productive. We rather disagreed on the very definition of money and the function of money, something outside the scope of economics. This is a more philosophical and moral issue that needs to be settled in as much as other issues like abortion, wars, homosexuality and other similar issues need to be settled.

    We are of the strong opinion that our presumed definition and function of money has been very destructive to the public welfare and interest, which all the economical, political, social, and moral corruption has been caused by the abusive definition of and nature and function of money. That summarizes our position which needs no economical school of thought to discern. We are of that opinion based on facts and history analysis. So our argument is limited to the assessment of facts and history. In short: how did the notion of money and its function affected the status quo of our deteriorating condition.

    Do we really need the Austrians, Keynesians, or the Marxists to answer that? I do not believe so.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. jake

      Hi All,

      I have been interacting with people of various monetary dispositions for many years now, and all debates always boil down to this same question “Do you see money as a product?” I’m passing this answer on to this group, in part because i´m collecting answers for a potential FAQ application; in part so we all are exposed to these answers. A set of related questions exists, all of which must be answered to give a good answer:

      Is Money a (commercial) Poduct?
      Most people can’t give you a good definition of money — a definition which holds; and a definition which serves them.

      Yet if we ask the questions which develop a fully accountable answer, we readily arrive at a fact that the only definition of money which can inflict no offense whatever, is a currency which comprises immutable tokens of value.

      In fact likewise, most people do intuit that money IS a relatively immutable token of value — not understanding how the exceptions are engendered, or how the exceptions offend them. In other words, they recognize that immutability is a vital object; they likewise recognize that immutability of a promissory note is even vital to its facts of contractual obligation; but they do not recognize that one and one only monetary prescription makes good on this indispensable object of immutable tokenization of value.

      Both to tokenize value and to immutably tokenize value nonetheless are only TO REPRESENT not only however many different products, but necessarily, to likewise represent the volumes of such products, or we fail to keep the ostensible 1:1 relationship between circulatory volume and remaining value of all products, which is necessary to immutable value.

      The only way to immutably tokenize value therefore is if the units of value of the circulation are immutably linked to the remaining value of ALL represented property (not just to one or several of MANY products); and thus likewise, the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of the ALL the products which the circulation is intended to represent, or we fail to keep these principles. In fact then, the only way to maintain these equal volumes is to pay the value of the represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate. The only way you can do this of course, is if we pay monetary obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of depreciation or consumption of all represented properties.

      Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his “Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency,” that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.

      Why?

      They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin’s curiosity: If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, “inflated” circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.

      Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production. So, an “effective,” just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of ALL production (“products”).

      A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.

      1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.

      2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property.

      3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property (subject to promissory obligations), the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

      These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

      But our question asks if money is a product? Essentially, this is to ask if it MUST be a product in order to serve these vital purposes of a just currency, which of course must eradicate all potential for systemic offense.

      We can see however, even on an abstract level, that the concept of tokenization can only go awry if the need for tokenization must account for all products, and the concept of tokenization requires A product or a few products to do so. Yet even according to the concept of tokenization itself, the token is distinct from the product itself — unless to be an immutable token of value, “money” must actually exist in the physical form or instances of some such “product.” In other words, if just/”honest” money IS a product; how then and why would argue this restrictive concept of A product or products? How can either case serve the objects of volume equaling the volume of ALL products, if money “must” be A product or products; and if the volume of THE product or products must yet equate to the volume of ALL products?

      In fact, given the aforesaid observations, we readily recognize that nothing but ALL products CAN so represent all products; and the only reason folks like the Austrian “economists” are trying to insist on A product (or products) for their obfuscated claim to tokenization, is they refuse to acknowledge the very principles they pretend their ONE or few products somehow uphold — and yet are proven not to uphold.

      As Franklin likewise observes, never did their precious metal monetary standards result in actual consistent values of money; and the reasons are evident in these principles: There is no perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation: remaining value of represented property: and obligation, because the Austrians refuse to recognize that the only mathematic course to this perpetual relationship is to pay off promissory notes comprising obligations of principal only, at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property — with the payments thus retiring the circulation as the value of the property itself is consumed. In fact, only promissory notes of principal, paid at this obligatory schedule of payment CAN accomplish these purposes; and do so even without regulation.

      Thus we readily understand the problems of gold, which itself in fact perpetually violates our necessarily perpetual 1:1:1 relationship; and which further violates these principles when it coexists with interest, which perpetually disposes ever more of the circulation to servicing a perpetually multiplying sum of artificial debt — leaving ever less of the same circulation to sustain commerce.

      Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because A product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value.

      Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only mathematically perfected econom, because the only currency which CAN accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not A product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    2. Jacktr

      Hi All,

      I have been interacting with people of various monetary dispositions for many years now, and all debates always boil down to this same question “Do you see money as a product?”

      I’m passing this answer on to this group, in part because i´m collecting answers for a potential FAQ application; in part so we all are exposed to these answers. A set of related questions exists, all of which must be answered to give a good answer:

      Cont´d in next reply:

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. TruthSeeker

        Jacktr,

        Money should be a process, not a product. As such, money should be some medium of exchange to serve a specific function only, which is to provide an abstract and general alternative to the barter system, no less and no more. The financial capitalism which introduced all parasitic establishments in society was the end result of treating money as a product wanted in its own right. Instead of having industrial capitalism where everyone is busy producing and inventing, now we have more banks, creditors, insurance firms, money incubators, and money changers than factories, plants, farms, barns, mines, schools, hospitals, transportation networks, and all the useful things which makes a nation great. What happened? Total economical collapse because neither do we have enough goods and services, nor do have we enough money to consume our own products and services.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. Jake

          Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT
          BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because
          A product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be
          redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot
          provide a perpetual1:1 relationship between volume of circulation
          and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value.
          Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do
          not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only
          mathematicallyperfected economy™, because the only currency
          which CAN accomplish thispurpose of making the circulation effectively not A product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematicallyperfected economy™ — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        2. David

          Hi Guys;

          I fully agree. To illustrate, i have a shop full of tools, well over a quarter a million dollars worth of tools in fact. These tools serve an extremely useful and absolutely essential function, in that i can use them to manufacture useful and beneficial end products which people can actually use and which can benefit their lives.

          The single and only purpose of these tools, is to simply and only serve this specific function, and they can do no less and no more. Without this specific function to serve, they can serve no purpose.

          It’s about time that people got it though their heads that any medium of exchange is a tool which needs to exist for its intended purpose only so that it can actually be engineered to function as such. The sheer stupidity of regarding it as anything other than such is the reason why, as you say TS “Instead of having industrial capitalism where everyone is busy producing and inventing, now we have more banks, creditors, insurance firms, money incubators, and money changers than factories, plants, farms, barns, mines, schools, hospitals, transportation networks, and all the useful things which makes a nation great. What happened? Total economical collapse because neither do we have enough goods and services, nor do have we enough money to consume our own products and services.”

          How stupid can that be ? How stupid can anyone be who would regard it as anything other than the means to the simple end it is intended to serve ?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        3. Daniels

          WHOOSH! is the sound of everything I’ve said going in one ear and out the other.

          “nor do have we enough money to consume our own products and services.”

          That is simply and utterly false. Show me the evidence for this outrageous claim.

          once more for good measure: WHOOSH!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        4. David

          http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6987699n

          There you go Daniels, there’s your evidence, enough said.

          Time for you communists defending the root cause of it to simply go away, the people have had enough of you, and their not listening anymore.

          Again and as always, your accusation mirrors your own intent. “Simply and utterly false”.

          WHOOSH DANIELS, WHOOSH !

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        5. Daniels

          Thats a video about unemployment… not evidence there isnt enough money to buy the goods being produced. The idea that the workers can’t afford to buy back the products they make is a central theme of marxism. It has been disproven over and over.

          WHOOSH!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        6. Daniels

          That’s very sad. Why do you think unemployment is so high?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        7. David

          Rolling on the floor and laughing my ass off Daniels.

          How stupid do you expect people to be, of course there is enough money but no one can use it because it is all in the hands of your precious banks. Isn’t this what Marxism does, subject people to abject poverty so that they can maintain power and control over them, whats the difference ?

          There is absolutely no amount of lies or bullshit that you can feed people in order to alter this simple fact, nor any means you have to demonstrate that the end result must not be the same.

          You have tried, Citizen has tried, and you have failed miserably. Your attempts to do so are circulating among the American population as we speak and are being read and understood by them as well, and i simply cannot thank the two of you enough for giving us exactly what we needed in order to destroy this last and final attempt to accomplish this end result by your precious Banks.

          We really do owe both of you a great debt of gratitude LOL. I was going to drop the debate with you and i guess i should at this point too, but this is fun LOL :)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    3. Jake

      Part 1 –

      Is Money a (commercial) Poduct?

      Most people can’t give you a good definition of money — a definition which holds; and a definition which serves them.

      Yet if we ask the questions which develop a fully accountable answer, we readily arrive at a fact that the only definition of money which can inflict no offense whatever, is a currency which comprises immutable tokens of value.

      In fact likewise, most people do intuit that money IS a relatively immutable token of value — not understanding how the exceptions are engendered, or how the exceptions offend them. In other words, they recognize that immutability is a vital object; they likewise recognize that immutability of a promissory note is even vital to its facts of contractual obligation; but they do not recognize that one and one only monetary prescription makes good on this indispensable object of immutable tokenization of value.

      Both to tokenize value and to immutably tokenize value nonetheless are only TO REPRESENT not only however many different products, but necessarily, to likewise represent the volumes of such products, or we fail to keep the ostensible 1:1 relationship between circulatory volume and remaining value of all products, which is necessary to immutable value.

      The only way to immutably tokenize value therefore is if the units of value of the circulation are immutably linked to the remaining value of ALL represented property (not just to one or several of MANY products); and thus likewise, the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of the ALL the products which the circulation is intended to represent, or we fail to keep these principles. In fact then, the only way to maintain these equal volumes is to pay the value of the represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate. The only way you can do this of course, is if we pay monetary obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of depreciation or consumption of all represented properties.

      Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his “Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency,” that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.

      Why?

      They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin’s curiosity:

      If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, “inflated” circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.

      Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.

      So, an “effective,” just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of ALL production (“products”).

      A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.

      1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.

      2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property.

      3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property (subject to promissory obligations), the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

      These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected econom; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

      But our question asks if money is a product? Essentially, this is to ask if it MUST be a product in order to serve these vital purposes of a just currency, which of course must eradicate all potential for systemic offense.

      We can see however, even on an abstract level, that the concept of tokenization can only go awry if the need for tokenization must account for all products, and the concept of tokenization requires A product or a few productS to do so. Yet even according to the concept of tokenization itself, the token is distinct from the product itself — unless to be an immutable token of value, “money” must actually exist in the physical form or instances of some such “product.” In other words, if just/”honest” money IS a product; how then and why would argue this restrictive concept of A product or products? How can either case serve the objects of volume equaling the volume of ALL products, if money “must” be A product or products; and if the volume of THE product or products must yet equate to the volume of ALL products?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    4. Jake

      Part 1 -

      Is Money a (commercial) Poduct?

      Most people can’t give you a good definition of money — a definition which holds; and a definition which serves them.

      Yet if we ask the questions which develop a fully accountable answer, we readily arrive at a fact that the only definition of money which can inflict no offense whatever, is a currency which comprises immutable tokens of value.

      In fact likewise, most people do intuit that money IS a relatively immutable token of value — not understanding how the exceptions are engendered, or how the exceptions offend them. In other words, they recognize that immutability is a vital object; they likewise recognize that immutability of a promissory note is even vital to its facts of contractual obligation; but they do not recognize that one and one only monetary prescription makes good on this indispensable object of immutable tokenization of value.

      Both to tokenize value and to immutably tokenize value nonetheless are only TO REPRESENT not only however many different products, but necessarily, to likewise represent the volumes of such products, or we fail to keep the ostensible 1:1 relationship between circulatory volume and remaining value of all products, which is necessary to immutable value.

      The only way to immutably tokenize value therefore is if the units of value of the circulation are immutably linked to the remaining value of ALL represented property (not just to one or several of MANY products); and thus likewise, the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of the ALL the products which the circulation is intended to represent, or we fail to keep these principles. In fact then, the only way to maintain these equal volumes is to pay the value of the represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate. The only way you can do this of course, is if we pay monetary obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of depreciation or consumption of all represented properties.

      Cont´d in next post, Part 2

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    5. Jacktr

      Part 2 – Is Money a (commercial) Poduct?

      Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his “Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency,” that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.

      Why?
      They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin’s curiosity:
      If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, “inflated” circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.

      Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.

      So, an “effective,” just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of ALL production (“products”). A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.

      1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property. 2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property. 3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property (subject to promissory obligations), the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

      These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

      Cont´d in next post (Part 3)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    6. Jacktr

      Part 2 – Is Money a (commercial) Poduct?

      Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his “Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency,” that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.

      Why?
      They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin’s curiosity:
      If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, “inflated” circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.

      Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.

      Cont´d in next post

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. Jacktr

        Part 3 – Is Money a (commercial) Poduct?

        So, an effective just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of ALL production/products. A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible. A – The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property. B – The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property. C – Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property subject to promissory obligations, the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

        These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

        Cont´d in next post

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. Jacktr

        So, an effective just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of ALL production/products. A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible. A – The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property. B – The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property. C – Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property subject to promissory obligations, the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency. These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    7. Jacktr

      Part 3 – Is Money a (commercial) Poduct?

      So, an effective just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of ALL production/products. A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.

      1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.

      2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property.

      3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property subject to promissory obligations, the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.

      These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.

      Cont´d in next post (Part 4)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    8. Jake

      Hi TS (JackTR is me, Jack/Jake). It´s getting harder and harder to keep posting on this forum. I was trying to post a reply on the question ¨what money should be¨, but it keeps throwing me into Moderation mode for no clear reason.

      So, what i´ll do is to post the link here where we can read the full article which i think answers many questions.

      http://endtheecb.ning.com/forum/topics/is-money-a-product-what-should

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  19. TruthSeeker

    Hi David,

    What a wonderful article you enclosed!

    http://bankmonitoringservice.com/447270-The-Need-for-an-Economic-Renaissance.html

    I shall promote it as it says it all. The reason I have no respect for folks like Citizen and Daniels is because despite the atrocity and gravity of the banks caused us, they continue to talk about banks like our need for God instead of rebelliously reject them altogether. When you see a serial killer walking down the street, you do not greet them and invite them over for a cup of coffee! You handcuff them instead, beat the crap out of them if you could, and turn them in to justice. With all what the banks had done to us, they continue to argue for banks, interest, and money monopoly! I find this not only hopeless but a complete turn off. All you have to do to make banks your worst enemy is to realize that all the disasters and the misery we have today is nothing but the outcome of banking. They argue that there is something such as good banking in theory. Fine, then show it to me. I have not seen one good one yet. Am I supposed to believe out of a sudden that Satan is Saint? I find this to be absurd, distractive, and total waste of time and resources. I call it quit with Citizen and Daniels and respectfully ask that all others do the same.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  20. Citizen

    Looking for David
    To respond to my dissection of your lengthy post….

    You posts are very difficult to answer because you mix 2 or more subjects into each paragraph… Allow Me to respond to your post
    Para 1:
    GOVERNMENT LOANS: NO! The Treasury MUST NOT be issuing any loans… It is not the Governments duty to run private sector commerce!!! Government MUST NOT be given authority to set “Free Market” Rates of Repayment, principal or interest.
    LIKE it is currently doing using the FED as its tool to float its massive debt spending. It is NOT the Government’s MONEY, it belongs to the American Citizens who’ve worked hard to SAVE it.
    DEPRECIATION: The Depreciation rate is a Free Market force and is SUBJECTIVE at best. The IRS will “allow” certain rates for Tax discount purposes, but the real world dictates (Richie Brothers Auctions) what others will pay for your asset based upon market demand. Depreciation is not determined by some IRS formula!

    Para #05
    MONEY: Massive printing of fiat currency “Money”, “destroys” the economy, and is only possible with Fractional Reserve Banking [FRB]. Money DOES NOT DESTROY production. Excess PRINTING (FED credit creation) causes artificially low interest rates which causes Mal-Investment and THAT destroys production.

    BANKS: Banks do not “create the economics”! Banks do not have “all the wealth”! FRB destroys the economy by robbing the Citizens of THEIR wealth by DILUTION!
    LESSON/// A “BANK” is a grain elevator in Goodland Kansas, farmers joined together, pool their capital and built the elevator to store their wealth! Their wealth is 500 million bushels of red winter wheat! THAT’S MONEY. Not that crap that the FED prints!!! Have your heard the Water and Diamonds story??

    ECONOMIC SCIENCE: Economics is called the “dismal science” for a very good reason; it studies the aftermath of an economic crash and attempts to explain what happened. It’s an “autopsy” forensic science. The test of any good theory is how well it explains things as they really are (AE), and not how we’d like them to be (MPE).

    FORECLOSURES: are a fact of life, people have bad luck, over extend themselves, or simply refuse to honor their obligations. But the owner of the Note IS the American Public (you and me) who expect the note to be paid. The reasons for the failure to pay might be a sad story, but the note holder must be paid regardless and a dead-beat borrower must be evicted to pay the note holders.

    Para #6
    “..Throw out the window..” SAY WHAT? whatever
    MONEY: is both a commodity (500 million bushels of “natural” winter wheat) in the BANK aka silo. AND Money is ALSO fiat currency BACKED with BULLION! Give me silver and gold that I can BANK… buried in my back yard under the pissing angel statue, oops.
    Para #7
    MONEY: is simply a temporary TOKEN of WEALTH. 500 million bushels of winter wheat ($5.76/Bushel) is about $2.8 Trillion Fed Reserve Notes. But in 1933 those same bushels sold for $0.28/bushel or $140 million.
    QUESTION// Which one is the real money, Winter Wheat or Fed Reserve Notes?
    ANSWER// Making a BIG FREAKING HAMMER made of FED or MPE Reserve Notes won’t make one additional bushel of Winter Wheat.
    PAPER CURRENCY is NOT a “big hammer”, it’s a “shredder” of WEALTH!!!
    Sorry, I don’t buy this Central Bank wealth creation crap

    Para #8
    MPE for SIMPLETONS?
    No, real wealth isn’t “created” by the FED or MPE, its created by the hard work of those people you listed, their excess work is converted into SAVINGS and BANKED (SILO) for a rainy day (deflation) and traded for other real tangible wealth, a tractor.

    Para #9
    RESUMES’: I’ve taught HS math, programmed in Fortran77, Visual Basic and C++, and currently Design/Build Civil Bridge Projects, SO WHAT!!!
    ECONOMIST: I study, read and test economic theories; and I find that Austrian Economics offers the BEST explanation of how the real world functions economically. No smoke and mirrors, no hyperbole i.e. “no interest”, “no inflation/deflation”, “no banks”, “no Jews” oops did I day that?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. David

      Hi Citizen;

      Well there is little point in responding to this as all i can see at this point is, in the words of Shakespeare, “a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury and signifying nothing”.

      No solutions, no demonstrations of potential benefits to people, again simply an only an attempt to try to convince people to believe what you say by trying to impress them with your knowledge of the very thing which has brought them to the point which they are currently at.

      As far as i’m concerned, the objective has been accomplished and as TS said in his recent post, there’s little point in wasting any time and effort debating it any further.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. Citizen

        So David,

        You or other proponents simply can’t defend the indefensible.

        Your conceding the argument, there is no defense of MPE.

        I was hoping for a better response, but Liberals typically default to the SIN argument when their positions don’t have a substantive defense.
        S – Switch the argument to another rabbit trail
        I – Ignore the facts, when they don’t support your position
        and finally
        N- Name call your opponent when you’ve run out of ammo to defend your failing position and retreat

        Come On…. Man UP!
        Daniels and I are expecting a “substantive” response supported by facts, not emotional hype.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        1. David

          Rothschilds Citizen. With all your sound and fury you still haven’t provided a single solution to prevent exactly what we all predicted and which we all know will happen. LOL all Daniels can say on the matter is they won’t because Gold is Gold.

          AE has been throughly exposed for what it is, and since you can’t defend it, it is you who has:

          S – Switch the argument to another rabbit trail
          I – Ignore the facts, when they don’t support your position
          and finally
          N- Name call your opponent when you’ve run out of ammo to defend your failing position and retreat

          I haven’t seen this coming from our camp, but from yours.

          The debate is finished, you have been exposed for what you are and there is no way in hell that the American people are going to submit to another system of theft and fraud to consume their prosperity on the heels of the last.

          Time for the rest of us to move on to more productive things. You lost, badly !

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  21. Daniels

    Alas, it is my arguments that falls on deaf ears.

    TS: you say you are not economically literate, it shows. That you think I support the banking industry shows you do not understand my position. Economics may have moral implications, but it is first and foremost a description of the world as it actually is. You would know this if you had ever read any economic literature. You state that whatever currency we use the Rothschilds can simply introduce their own currency and suck up all the rest over time. That is not how the world works. Especially with gold. You cannot print your own gold. Because you are clearly so passionate about economic matters, you owe it to yourself to at least try to understand economics. It is foolish to discuss matters you admittedly don’t understand. You do yourself a disservice by refusing to pick up any books on economics. As for character assassination, TS, I find it odd that you think my pointing out your anti-Semitism is character assassination, because you are openly anti-Semitic. I simply pointed out fact, and that you are biased because of it.

    David, I tried my best to explain some basic economics to you. Over time as you think about these issues, I have hope you will come to understand economics better. As for inflation, you seem to want the definition both ways. You want it defined as every change in purchasing power out of our control, and at the same time you propose a human correction to it. It cant be both out of our control and in our control at the same time. Think for a minute on a practical level, who can regulate the supply of money and how can they do it? If there is someone omniscient enough to dictate the perfect amount of money, why can they not also dictate the perfect amount of cows, chickens, automobiles, and everything else? That is central planning, and it cannot work.

    If you both take up the position of MPE, yes, I do actually expect you to understand it and defend it. When you critique Austrian economics I don’t say “talk to Rothbard, Mises, Hayek et al.” I have taken the position of Austrian Economics, I have learned what it is, what it means, how it works, and I defend it. When you both criticize Austrian Economics, yes, I do in fact expect you to understand it to criticize it.

    If and when you decide to make an effort to understand Austrian Economics, and basic economics, this discussion has a hope of continuing.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    1. TruthSeeker

      Daniels,

      Who are you? And what exactly you want out of this? We already debated with you your issues and there is not much substance to them anyway. All I hear from you is terms like Austrian economics which I doubt that you know it well, banks, interest, individual freedom, time value of money and other dogmas you failed to articulate to yourself, let alone to others. So why do not you do your own homework before you ask others to do the same? You have failed so far to introduce one single mathematical formula to show how the Austrian economics would solve our deadly condition. I guess you do not need to because show me one single nation on earth including the Chicago School of Economics along with its masters like Hayek and Friedman that used the Austrian economics and fixed our economy. I was first shocked when I learned that Melton Friedman was an Austrian! The bastard actually was! Do you know enough about Melton Friedman? Oh I am sooooooooooooooooo sorry he happened to be also Jew to your pleasure! Not only the Rothschild was a Jew, but Karl Marx happened to be a Jew also! Does that mean that you and I who are clearly against communism anti-Semitic? You are a sick individual who spins his wheels for nothing. You are not an intellect and you make a very poor philosopher.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. Citizen

        TS,

        I’m sorry but you have NOT “debated” the issues, you and David have consistently DISMISSED our responses as lame and unworthy of ANY rebuttal.

        Daniels has been doing most of the heavy lifting here for the AE and Ron Paul position.

        At least you MPE disciples are consistent, i.e. you universally plead the 5th when you are confronted with real world economic challenges.

        I can’t speak for Daniels, but I for one have followed Ron Paul since the 80′s and found his economic policies to be sound. He has consistently advocated the FEDs dismantling and a return to bullion based currency.

        While MPE has yet to pass the simplest of economic scrutiny. None of you have been able to answer even the fundamentals much less been able to explain
        -Immutable tokens, no currency, just a national ID with debits / credits?
        -loans created out of thin air? Just what the FED is doing now?
        -No banks, only software managed accounts, with excess being redistributed to the needy?
        -No Jews, you kill all the Rothschilds
        -Immutable property, Static values??? Forced appraisals no real markets?
        -No personal savings? only a collective communal wealth! Gee that’s real motivating
        -No Personal Choice only government managed Mathematically Perfected MANIPULATIONS.

        Oh my…. I almost forgot
        NO Interest, just free money redistributed by Der Fuhrer!
        Can we have two rousing Sieg Heils!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    2. Jake

      It´s not about economics Daniels.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. Daniels

        I know it isn’t with you bankofobia types because you don’t understand economics. It’s all emotion. That’s why no useful discussion can take place.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        1. TruthSeeker

          You are finally and for once right Daniels: we are bankophobics and you are social justice phobic, so we are even! Done and no more dog barking please!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      2. TruthSeeker

        Thanks a ton Jake! You said volumes in one short sentence. Everyone including Daniels is pretending to argue economics. This is not the case. This is a power struggle. It is politics. Just like the Rothschild had no good intentions for humanity, everyone else who promotes banking and interest promotes selfishness, greed, impoverishment, and slavery of all nations through debt and oppression. I think this is a moral argument that has nothing to do with economics. You are damn right Jake. We are supposed to blindfold over that and start introducing some geek equations which does not impress any body let alone some one who knows what mathematics is. That is utter mockery!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. David

          HI Guys;

          This is wonderful and you define the objective so perfectly as well. This is not economics, its about establishing freedom for people, and in the process giving them the freedom and ability to benefit themselves and each other with every single ounce of prosperity which they are naturally capable of creating. Any form of economics which exists in the world today, exists for the purpose of consuming this ability through theft and fraud for the sake of establishing power. If we are to create an economic renaissance which will actually establish such freedom it will simply and only be a result of just as i said to Citizen throwing everything which is currently understood about “economics” out the window, and willfully, deliberately, and very simply and easily i might add, designing a new and viable system which is actually capable of accomplishing the objective.

          Going to post a link to an article which i found a long time ago, from a very knowledgeable and experienced individual who’s qualifications to discuss the matter i expect far exceed those of any of our opponents here, and i think you’ll both enjoy and appreciate it.

          http://bankmonitoringservice.com/447270-The-Need-for-an-Economic-Renaissance.html

          In the first sentence of the article, and i quote: “Economics is as simple and as easily understood as it is honest. Likewise, economics is as complex and difficult to understand as it is dishonest.”

          Once again, thanks guys.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      3. Daniels

        Because of your ignorance of economics you don’t even realize your methods you choose to accomplish your goals will only serve to undermine them.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        1. Jake

          We will leave economics to people like you Daniels, but with our true medium of exchange!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        2. Daniels

          Ignorance is bliss, eh Jack?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        3. Citizen

          Daniels,

          I’ve been reading your posts and you are RIGHT ON TARGET… But these MPE “gnomes” insist that they are creating a brand new wheel.

          Its the same old socialists mumbo-jumbo with lots of Touchly-Feely stuff to make it sound NEW, ITS NOT!

          Whenever Citizens hand over their currency to a Central Government control, they hand over their Liberty and Fortune with it.

          Keep up your well reasoned responses, although I don’t think its having much effect.

          Thank You!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    3. David

      Hi Daniels;

      Yes, i agree that any further discussion on this is pointless, as we are approaching this from exactly opposite ends of the spectrum, and there is no possible way that the two can ever meet. Lol now you state here that because gold is gold the Rothschild’s would not suck up our supply of it but this doesn’t alter the simple fact that by loaning and equal amount into circulation at 10 % interest they would still have it all in 10 years and the fact that you say they wouldn’t doesn’t alter the simple arithmetic, and under Austrian conditions they could do just that and would and we all know it too LOL.

      In terms of the central planning which you accuse us of and pretend to vehemently oppose, what you are defending is exactly that and constitutes central planning by a parasitic infection, banking, to consume our wealth and productive effort to the extent where 100 % of it rests in their hands resulting in the absolute power and control which must inevitably result from such a thing. The they create and employ government in their service to engage in more central planning to help them do this. What we are proposing, is a means to create and administer a means of trade in such a manner as where that means of trade would become sufficient to actually facilitate trade for all of the useful benefits which the population can create. In other words, where the creation and management of this means of trade, can be governed strictly and only by what the population and private industry themselves are able to create in terms of the useful production and services which they themselves can generate, instead of their ability to do this being manipulated currency and by the planned theft and fraud of banks and the central planning of governments established in their service.

      As you say, the argument falls on deaf ears. MPE is certainly not the be all and end all of establishing a functioning economic system, but if you had paid one bit of attention to what MPE is actually proposing then it would be obvious that it is simply a means to calculate such injection based on what the population itself produces, and hence completely negates the need for any form of central economic planning. Again, the only way that something like this can be accomplished though is for the people to own and administer this means of trade themselves and actually have the ability to make it work for their own benefit. Instead though you continue to promote the lie that anything involving the people managing their own means of exchange involves some form of central planning, while promoting the very thing which makes it inevitably so the final evolution of which is inevitably the socialist police state where all is centrally planned and the right of the individual to accomplish anything beyond such central planning is abrogated, which you claim to be trying to avoid.

      We only have two choices here, managing our own public means of exchange, through our elected representatives, and hopefully toward our own benefit and prosperity, which is the only possible way it can be made to accomplish this, or leaving this up to banks, who must inevitably consume this prosperity as since they contribute nothing to it, it is their only means to survive, and the only means to do this is through a planned and designed system of theft and fraud whether planned by government or by the banks themselves, to enable them to so this, which you and citizen attempt to convince people constitutes some form of freedom.

      Fortunately, the majority of the population is perfectly capable of understanding that the only way to sustain and prosper a free and abundant private economy is to put the essential public services which that they all need in order to function independently with each other under public control, and are capable of the simple arithmetic which would demonstrate this possible. There is no amount of theory, conjecture, accusation or argument which could demonstrate this otherwise, nor any motive for anyone to present such argument except in defense of banking to allow banks to continue to consume their ability to create this for themselves. None has been presented either and all we have seen are attempts to complicate incredibly simple issues in order to try and deceive people into thinking they are something other than what they are, and after all this argument, not one single demonstration has been made of how anything you propose can work towards anyone’s benefit except a Banks. All you ask is that the rest of us trust and believe this because you say it is so.

      Thank god that the American people are finally not trusting and believing anymore as they have already experienced the result of that, and are finally, at long last thinking for themselves and realizing alternatives which can work to their benefit.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    4. Citizen

      Good Evening Daniels,

      Well said!
      These MPE “gnomes” (their word) simply can’t refute AE much less defend MPE.
      When questioned about well established and simple economic concepts, they stumble and begin with the personal attacks, a classic Saul Alinsky strategy.

      You’ve made some very cogent Austrian Economic points to try and EDUCATE the MPE gnomes, but they continue to wander in the wilderness.

      MPE has been tried and has failed miserably, mainly because it relies on the 3rd Reich spending model, e..i. dupe the people into building a monster war machine and accept Fiat Script as payment, yea, Sieg Hiel and you betcha!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    5. TruthSeeker

      BIG difference between FACTS and CONCLUSIONS.
      FACTS are given.
      CONCLUSIONS are made.

      FACTS do not involve opinions; CONCLUSIONS do.
      FACTS are universally accepted as TRUE statements; CONCLUSIONS are claims, propositions, or theories that need proof and verification.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  22. TruthSeeker

    AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to your last post.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  23. TruthSeeker

    Daniels,

    I am not the author of the MPE model. I can not defend it and I would not even if I could. You need to address your concerns to either Mike or Jake. They are the ones who are in a better position to defend it as it is their work or promotion. However, you can be more specific with me about discrete issues and I will gladly discuss them with you.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    1. Daniels

      I am being very specific with you. In your posts you have vehemently opposed the charging of interest. You insist that not all inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, and therefore my post concerning inflation VS a chang in purchasing power is directed at you as well. Frankly, you don’t understand what money is, and how it functions. You are blinded by your anti-semetism, and you refuse to even try to understand how money functions. If you don’t support MPE, that’s fine. What do you support? What is your theoretical position? The only position I see you taking is an anti-semetic one. If you choose to clarify exactly what your position is perhaps others will better understand it. We both agree there is problem with the way banking is done today. Honestly, I think if you allowed yourself the chance to be open to new ideas, you might find you agree with a good deal of the austrian perspective. I think I see why you oppose austrian economics, however. I wiki’d Rothschild, and see that they are a family with ties to Austria. FYI, Austrian Economics has nothing to do with Austria. You are vocally anti austrian economics, what austrian economic work have you read?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. TruthSeeker

        Daniels,

        You are a loser and you know why? Because you started to use the race card. Daniels, dare you say I am anti-Semite you know why? Because this is the biggest bull crap ever pulled on this culture. Frankly, if you have nothing better to say, better not say anything, because you do not know who the hell I am and if you did, you would not say that at all. I know you are curious to know who I am, but I would not tell you until I know who you are first. In any case, I will not buy what you say who you are. You are making childish conclusions:

        “I think I see why you oppose Austrian economics, however. I wiki’d Rothschild, and see that they are a family with ties to Austria. FYI, Austrian Economics has nothing to do with Austria. You are vocally anti Austrian economics, what Austrian economic work have you read?”

        This is indicative that you have very trivial brain. A brain that is fixated on the assassination of character when you run out of substance and when you lose the objective argument. Our main debate on this forum is what the Rothschild did not that they happened to be Jewish. They could be aliens from Mars, and I still would be against them and what they did. As for them having ties with the Austrians, I was not aware of that, so thanks for the information, but that goes to say that you do not have the integrity for objective discussion or debate. Could I speculate and conclude that you are a Zionist, or some one from AIPAC? You sound like one. I am way above this dirty game of character assassination Daniels and I dare you to use it against me or any voice on this forum that you disagree with.

        If you have something intelligent say it. I just read what your definition of inflation which I did before and I gave you a credit on some of the points you made in regard to that post, so there is nothing new for me to think about.

        What I am against Daniels is exploitation not Semitism—the garbage you are trying to instigate. I believe in equality, liberty, and prosperity for all, not just for some. You made your preference clear on that. You support the interest of the few over the interest of all. Well, right there is the problem and you are free to pursue what you think is right. When we discuss solutions for our nation, I care less about the interest of the 1% elite. I care about the interest of the 99% who make up the true bulk of our nation. You seem to harbor an attitude of selfishness, greed, and indifference as long as you are doing OK. This is not what I am about. Otherwise, I would not be on this forum wasting my time and energy. I have too many other things to do and I am a man full of energy and creativity. I have ideas and projects for my family to keep them busy for decades to come. I can choose to be a little Rothschild and not give a crap about anyone else. I do not know why you are here on this forum and you are making me curious now even more to know. If you believe in gold and silver and interest to protect your own investment, go ahead, no one is stopping you. There is no need to get political about that because gold and silver will always be there and many people will agree with and encourage you. But if you are here to blow smoke for the interest of the bankers who robbed us in everyway they could, we are up this time and we will find out who you are sooner or later. For us even to negotiate with banks and consent to their further existence, we demand every penny they took from us. We can legally challenge them and demand that, but we choose not to because our game is much bigger this time. We will not rest until a sweeping revolution will uproot them forever. We do not and we can not and we will not negotiate with criminals, thieves, and traitors. Banks have been and this is not just an academic cold debate; this is a fire that is faming our passion towards change—a total change.

        Sorry Daniels, but you must take a break from me at least, because I lost my way with you. You are not a rational individual and you start to play your dirty game—the race card and the assassination of character, well-known to all who know what AIPAC, the ADC and many rabid Zionists stand for. This by the way does not interest me, nor does it get to my head. In time you will know who I am.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. Daniels

          You still avoid discussing the issues.

          Who is exploiting? How are they exploiting anyone? Who is getting exploited?

          I support the interests of every individual, not the interests of the socialist collective. Individual liberty, plain and simple. I don’t wish to take from those “1%” to line my pockets. That would be selfish theft. But you’re not for that right? If you’re curious why I’m here, I am interested in discussing Economics, not conspiracy theories. If you have no interest in discussing Economics, then you’re right this debate is useless.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

        2. David

          Hi again TS;

          Once again, your making some great posts and presenting the sensible and logical arguments here. All that i see in response is as you say, character assassination and attempts to impress people with knowledge of the current economic system without providing any tangible demonstrations as to how what they support can actually be made to work toward the benefit of people.

          Daniels, claims you are avoiding discussing the issues and states “Who is exploiting? How are they exploiting anyone? Who is getting exploited? ” which is exactly what we have been illustrating all along, and an issue which they have made absolutely no demonstration on how to rectify.

          He claims “I support the interests of every individual, not the interests of the socialist collective. Individual liberty, plain and simple. I don’t wish to take from those “1%” to line my pockets. That would be selfish theft.” and he claims this in the name of freedom. Under such a stone age mentality, the biggest neanderthal doesn’t have to hunt and fish because he can steal his sustenance from the rest who already have, and they consider his ability to do so “freedom”. To this i would respond how can any form of freedom exist unless it is enforced for the entire population equally ? How can any form of economic freedom or prosperity be established, unless the basic tenet of all men being created equal on which the United States of America is founded, is enforced across the board, and the ability of banks to do this across the board eliminated in the same manner that justice is enforced when an individual thief breaks into ones home and steals what has been rightfully earned ?

          What is the difference ? and this is a difference which they find it absolutely impossible to demonstrate, and there is no way in which it can be demonstrated because it is simply true.

          “We hold these Truths to be self evident” and the more attempts that are made in defense of the lie, the greater the self evidence of the truth seems to become.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  24. TruthSeeker

    Daniels,

    I scrolled down the whole page, and for some reason I could not spot your post you are making reference to. Sorry about that, but if you help me locate it; I would take a second look at it. As for you not wanting to hear the Rothschild argument, that is your choice, but the Rothschild is such a big issue in our life that we can not simply stop talking about it. In fact, if people wake up to what the Rothschild have done to us and the rest of the world, the world would set on a course of revolution and chase the last breed of the Rothschild to make sure that they can never be cloned again after killing every single one of them.

    I await your direction.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. Daniels

      Forget I mentioned Rothschild. All I meant was be specific in your critique. Focus on singular ideas. Don’t give me statistics, generalizations, steriotypes, or any broad stroke arguments. Try to find specific concepts I mention and tell me how I am wrong. Of particular importance is the MPE concept of “change in purchasing power.” Try to address this if you can.

      This link whould help you find my two part post to David.

      http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-10-11/ron-paul-dont-allow-the-fed-to-destroy-our-money/comment-page-5/#comment-138118

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. Citizen

        Daniels,

        Another valiant effort to pin the tail…
        You keep asking and they keep avoiding the issues.

        I admire your patience!

        Any good theory must have an explanation for the way things are, MPE seek only to create a Utopian world, no matter who’s money they have to re-distribute in the process.

        They use the common impassioned rhetoric of socialists to liberate the oppressed people suffering under the tyranny of INTEREST, Oh My!

        Yet nothing they say deals with the facts, they’re engaged in S.I.N.
        Allow me:
        S – Switch the subject when you can defend that point
        I – Ignore the facts, when the facts don’t support your position
        N – Name call when you can’t make your argument with facts

        Take Care

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. Daniels

          haha, you nailed it. they are engaged in SIN. doesn’t that make them SINNERS?

          S – Switch the subject when you can’t defend that point
          I – Ignore the facts, when the facts don’t support your position
          N – Name call when you can’t make your argument with facts
          N- Negate your own arguments with self contradictory statements
          E- Expletives expletives expletives to demonstrate your ignorant frustration
          R- Re-use and repeat old weak arguments once you run out of things to say
          S- Spam incoherent psychobabble in as many forums as possible

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  25. TruthSeeker

    Hi Folks,

    Do you trust our government to do any kind of reform for us? If you happened to think so, well think again. Watch…watch…and watch the following videos and make sure that you have by you a plastic bag in case you could not hold the vomit:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5r3HELQBXI

    Watch the whole series

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  26. TruthSeeker

    Citizen,

    You continue to over-preach your defense of gold currency, banks, and interest. Unless you bring new arguments, I am afraid that re-hashing your old argument will not do it. I hate for you in as much I hate for myself to go through the agony of converting over someone who is not convertible. I appreciate your zeal about your convictions which apparently you strongly believe in, but man there is no point in beating the dead horse.

    I have few questions for you I would like you to think about:

    1. If banks were such a great idea, how come they fell out and had to ask help from the public money (bailout) or as I call it daylight robbery?

    2. If the interest business which is the main operation of banks (abusing and exploiting deposits of innocent consumers, amplifying it through Fractional Reserve practice, and loaning it irresponsibly to other consumers) were such a great benevolence, then why our economy did not pick up? In fact, it has been going in the hole without hope in sight, and we can not even figure out a solution. And please do not tell me that just replacing the treasury notes with gold coin is going to magically solve the problem unless you want to treat me like a kindergarten child. I even argued this point with David before whom I agree most with on this forum. Although I highly respect his views, I still feel like standing in a blind spot when the subject of Sound Money presented as an ultimate solution of our problems. I already argued that without a great deal of reform that must go along with Currency Reform, it will not work the way we would like it to work. Definitely it will help, but we will deal with the same issues that we have been dealing with for a long time such as unemployment, social injustice, monopoly, prohibitive education and healthcare cost, just to name few. So our situation is already too complicated my friend.

    Financial Capitalism v. Industrial Capitalism: even if your model ideas are trouble free, the essence of it is based on financial capitalism which is the reason why we are behind China and Japan in productivity while we continue to borrow money from them! If our financial capitalism were such a success, then why the hell we continue to trail behind them?

    What we need Citizen Brother is a chance for everyone to be educated, to be healthy, and to use their maximum potential whether they happen to be employed or self-employed. This will never happen unless there is an opportunity. With this caste system which keeps the poor poorer and the rich richer, there is no hope of any change. Unless we make education of a high quality, skilled job training, sound health care, and venture money for small businesses and new technology, we will never accomplish anything regardless of what currency we use. The gold standard will only help the ones who already have gold or able to own gold. It is no good for Joe Blow who has been unemployed for years, and has been living in the basement of his mother. Enough is enough guys. We need to stop being tunnel vision-ed focused on trivial issues with rehashed debate. Let’s agree on one thing that we can see as progressive and work on it collectively. I am afraid we are wasting out time in barren debate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI3ueFy1N4E

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4lgQVMCcwM

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. Daniels

      TS,

      Take a moment or two to read my arguments in the two part post below. Try to find a single concept I mentioned to challenge. I don’t want to hear broad brush stroke condemnations of “the banking Rothschild elite.” Actually consider my position point by point and tell me where I went wrong.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    2. Citizen

      Hello TS,

      Its not good to “hate”, it just give you indigestion.
      You Answer follows…

      #1 Banks and “daylight robbery”.
      Yes that’s what you get when you marry crooked politicians with crooked bankers. The FED is just what Ron Paul is telling us that needs to be STOPPED! Whenever you give politicians the keys to the vault of public currency, they become Rock Starts and trash the economy. Drunk reckless spending with “out of thin air” money is underwritten by the FED, who monetizes the Federal Debt which DILUTES OUR collective wealth.
      TARP, is simply a massive bailout of SOCIAL spending plans gone horribly wrong. Our government sponsored Free Home Loans for 15 years estimated to be 4 Trillion Dollars given to people without jobs or income. Massive MAL-INVESTMENT, sponsored by our Government.

      #2 “such a great benevolence” NOT!!!
      Its a RUTHLESS business when our government engages in Fractional Reserve Banking and sponsor wealth destruction. It destroys private savings, devastates business investments and enriches only the Government and the select Elites with connections to the FED.
      YOUR RIGHT… gold is not the simpleton solution.
      But Sound Money means money not MANIPULATED by bureaucrats, diluted by government thieves operating under the charter guise of banks! The FED must be stopped, this is a FUNDAMENTAL “Change We Can Believe In”
      ALL economic theories go out the window when your government is hell bent on “daylight robbery”

      Capitalism is the Free Market engine of growth, it encourages people to invest their money in hopes of making more, it allows FORMATION of capital wealth.
      Socialism utilizes its favorite tool, “Fractional Reserve Central Banking” to REDISTRIBUTE the wealth of the citizens to favor the select ELITE. Banks are in bed with the political elite, thus it’s essential to BREAK THE LINK, between the Banks and the Politicians.

      INTEREST is what retired people EARN on their SAVINGS, to live out their final years. It is not usury to pay them a reasonable return on a life time worth of savings. They saved it, and we can use it for growth for future generations.

      SAVINGS is both essential and critical to economic growth. It LIBERATES individual people from becoming captive slaves to other peoples hostile intentions. It FREES individual people from the slave wages of minimal payments jobs. Savings is OPPORTUNITY to take advantage of low ebb market conditions, it offers hope of future reward and benefit for CONSERVING ones energy.

      BUT when Government Social fiscal policy DILUTES the currency (inflation) it uses Fractional Reserve Banking, THE FED, to distribute its DILUTION CURRENCY POLITION.
      It DESTROYS the elderly’s savings, making savings a worthless endeavor and encourages a Credit\Debt based culture… where we are today!

      Returning to a bullion based standard (gold/silver) tactically removes the governments ability to DILUTE the currency. That’s why FDR confiscated the gold… he knew full well that a bullion based currency “Sound Money” could not be DEBASED as his PROGRESSIVE agenda required. Progressives don’t want sound money, it ties their hands from SPREADING YOUR WEALTH, into other Congressionally Unauthorized spending schemes.
      I’m tired of letting Bawney Fwank and his Ultra-Liberal buddies fund their Social Agendas by stealing MY hard earned SAVINGS

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  27. Daniels

    David,

    This is the most productive thread I’ve participated in so far. I’m going to divide this post in to multiple posts because it is long, and I don’t want it to get held for moderation. I have tried to make this as clear and concise as possible, I know people’s time is valuable.

    I would like to demonstrate that whatever the definition one uses of inflation, referring to the concept of a change in purchasing power is too vague to be useful. Also, even though inflation and deflation are used incorrectly in the media, is critical that the precise definition be used. Finally I will touch on the idea of a shortage of purchasing power and booms and busts.

    I’m glad to see the Ford example went over well. We are definitely in agreement that the ultimate worthy goal is to increase productivity so that natural resources and labor can be combined to make finished goods as efficiently as possible. Being an engineer I’m sure you appreciate efficiency more than most.

    As an aside (which we really need not get in to), from a moral perspective I value an individual’s freedom to make his own choices more than I value any collective measure of prosperity. If an individual wants to be lazy and unproductive that’s his choice. If Larry Ellison had chosen to be lazy and unproductive we wouldn’t have had Oracle, and society would have been worse for it, but it is still his choice. Whether or not freedom and prosperity must go together is a separate debate, but I think they do.

    Regarding my knowledge of various economic schools of thought and terminology, I have had the opportunity to read a great number primary source documents from many schools of thought. As it happens I did not always hold the views I do now. The point I am making in referring to schools of economic thought is that these theories have a significant amount of theoretical backing. It is not sufficient just to say all “mainstream economics is wrong.” While the schools share some basic building blocks, they are substantively very different. For any meaningful critique one must pick out specific aspects upon which the theories build, and show why they are wrong. This is why I have spent time reading all schools of thought, including MPE. And I have been very specific in critiquing the problems of MPE. I am demonstrating that certain building blocks of the theory are unsubstantiated, if not outright false.

    You’re right that most people think only of a change in purchasing power of currency when they hear inflation/deflation (I/D). It doesn’t really matter what concept is called by what name, but in order to be precise and specific, I/D has been defined as the change in purchasing power that is directly the result of a change in the quantity of money. In economics it is important to isolate different causes and effects, and a change in purchasing power has a myriad of causes. Ceteris Paribus, meaning “all else equal” is commonly used. When referring to inflation or deflation, this must be the meaning intended. Calling any other phenomenon inflation would be to call an apple an orange.

    It is unfortunate that when one hears I/D in the media or in conversation the precise definition is not always what is meant. People do use inflation/deflation to refer to any change in purchasing power. Using it this way is problematic because a change in purchasing power is not specific. Purchasing power changes for many reasons and it is better to refer specifically to the cause of the change that is being considered. For example, here is one statement that describes three (or an infinite number of) very different events. “the purchasing power of my dollar relative to oranges has gone down.” This could be because of winter snows in Florida. It could be because there is a new tax on oranges. It could be because the government has doubled the money supply. It could be because new evidence shows that oranges cure cancer, so now more people want to buy a limited supply of oranges forcing prices up. (it is also important to note that in every scenario except the magical increase in money, peoples lives are really affected) Therefore, if the word “inflation” is used, as it is in MPE, to refer to a change in the purchasing power, it is an impossibly vague statement that “the people must stop the inflation.” Stop the winter snows in Florida? Reduce taxes on oranges? Make oranges not prevent cancer? Those scenarios can’t all be what is meant.

    continued in next post….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    1. Daniels

      You can now understand my confusion concerning what MPE seeks to solve, or any theory that seeks to solve inflation as defined as a change in the purchasing power of the currency.

      Another important point to note is that the purchasing power of currency can change simultaneously in opposite directions for different goods. It can go down for oranges, and up for Model T’s at the same time, or down or up for both but by different amounts. If on the other hand now every dollar magically gets doubled instantly ($20′s become $40′s, a $1 now reads $2), then the purchasing power would certainly move in the same direction for all goods simultaneously.

      Whether or not inflation were defined so precisely, it communicates little information to say that the purchasing power of currency has changed. That one of my primary objections to MPE. The language used is not precise enough to convey the intended meaning.

      Regarding a “shortage of currency”:

      I will admit that the various schools of thought are divided on the issue of whether or not a shortage of currency is possible. The Keynesian, Classical, and Monetarist schools all believe that it is possible, but differ on what society should do to ensure it doesn’t take place. The Austrian theory (I believe conclusively) demonstrates that once a substance is available in sufficient quantity to be adopted by the people as currency, that there cannot be a shortage of it. As productivity increases, the value of every unit of the currency increases as well. For an in-depth look at why this is the case, Murray Rothbard’s work “what has government done to our money?” is unmatched. If you find time, that is far and away the best introduction to Austrian Economics (on the subject of money) in my opinion.

      Regarding a “shortage of purchasing power”:

      A shortage of purchasing power is a separate issue from a shortage of currency. I also don’t believe a shortage of purchasing power is possible. Purchasing power is what it is for society based on technology, resources, intellectual innovation, organization etc. I would like to see purchasing power increase a million fold. But that takes time. Purchasing power has been increasing throughout history, and will continue to increase barring systemic natural events. There can never be a shortage, however, only not as much as we wish we had. I bought a one scoop ice cream cone. I wish I had two scoops but I was not able to be productive enough for my fellow man in order to earn the wage to buy two scoops. I don’t have a shortage of ice cream, only not as much as I would like. Likewise I don’t have a shortage of purchasing power, only not as much as I would like. I always want more purchasing power, but in order to get it I must be more productive.

      Finally, I would like to propose the reason why there appears to be a shortage of purchasing power relative to the productive capacity of society. The system responsible for it is fractional reserve banking. The entity responsible for it is the Federal Reserve. And the concept behind it is the misallocation of capital resources.

      As you mentioned there have been times in history where there has been what appeared to be “a shortage of purchasing power,” Like the great depression. The current recession is another example. In these cases there are factories with the ability to produce goods that no one can buy, there are buildings that have space that no one can afford to rent. If only the people had more currency, the productive capacity of society could be benefitted from. This is only an illusion created by easy money (artificially cheap loans available.) Fractional Reserve banking and the Federal Reserve Bank are responsible for too much easy money. When the FED prints money and the banks loan it out to businesses, this sends the signal to businesses that there is a demand for long term investment. Capital is available for them to build more office buildings and more factories so that in the future they can produce more goods. The problem is that the capital resources are not actually there. People in society have not actually been able to save their resources to make the long term investments by businesses a good idea. The FED simply prints the money and loans it out. Therefore it is easy for businesses to get the wrong signals, and do too many long term investment projects. During this build up process as businesses increase capacity, life is good, this is the Boom phase. The Bust phase comes when the projects have been completed, and the businesses realize that people cannot afford what they produce. This is entirely because individuals did not save their resources to be able to buy goods in the future. If they had done so, there would be no bust because they would have the savings to buy the goods produced. Therefore it seems like society has a shortage of purchasing power but this is not true. It never had the purchasing power to be able to consume all the goods and services from the business investments. Capital resources were stolen from the people by the FED and the fractional reserve banks, and lent to businesses to produce goods that the people could never afford in the first place. Capital must be toiled for and actually saved and lent in order to insure no boom and bust cycle takes place, not simply fabricated out of thin air as is the case now.

      That was a lot to write, and I’m sure it is a lot to take in. I hope you are able to find specific concepts that I refer to that either you don’t agree with or don’t make sense. Please let me know what they are, as it helps me identify where I am not explaining things clearly.

      Thanks.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      1. David

        Hi Daniels;

        It’s good to hear back from you, unfortunately i’m in the middle of things here and was just checking on another post during a break. Lol i’m going to have to get back to a few things with the business here for the next few days, Have been putting in way more time than i could afford to in here for the last few so i apologize for the present.

        I just managed to download and listen to Montagne’s audio presentation on MPE that jack posted on the weekend, http://www.zshare.net/audio/820088191e550288/ and found it absolutely fascinating, its a long presentation almost 4 hours worth, but it did present the hard evidentiary arguments as to what many of us have been discussing here as well, and i now have a clear understanding of his thoughts and line of thinking which aside from a few inconsequential differences in method of application are pretty much what most who have given independent thought to this issue have ended up concluding ourselves. Was actually amazed at the number of similarities in fact in view of the fact that i had not hear of MPE until a few weeks ago when Jack started posting on it here and that our discussions have been evolving completely independently of it until now. Anyway, it will probably take you awhile to find the time to listen to it as it did me, but when you can do, and let us know what you think. I know for a fact that once you find the time to listen to it you will find it absolutely fascinating.

        You take care and i’ll try to get back on here over the weekend sometime :)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      2. David

        Hi Daniels;

        Okay i finally have a little time here. First, in terms of the specific inflation that MPE refers to, its obviously the definition i provided which i was using in my previous discussion, which is decrease in value relative to all that it is designed to trade for. In terms of economic systems this would seem to be the only relevant definition as well as all other forms will fluctuate beyond anyone’s control.

        Again, just as TS said in one of his posts to you, it is up to Mike to defend MPE, but i think i finally have a fairly good understanding of it, and all that it is, is a method of eliminating exactly the problem you state in your second post here, and provides a system of calculation which would at least come close to regulating the amount of currency in circulation according to the actual value of the goods and services it exists to trade for, and this would seem to be the single and only thing which could possibly establish a stable value for it.

        Re: your second post here. As i said in a recent post to Citizen on the matter, the problems you are describing do of course occur just as you say under the present system, but i don’t see any solutions being proposed which would actually rectify them.

        We can either treat money as a religion and a philosophy, expect it to evolve like an entity doing absolutely nothing in order to manage it and make it beneficial to us, in which case our productive efforts will always be consumed by those wishing to use it to exploit the productive efforts of the rest, and in which case one can spend years trying to study and learn its function as such and still not come up with any viable solutions toward actually making it function. Case in point is Citizens complete and abject failure to demonstrate how under Austrian terms how the Rothschilds could simply not match our circulation of hard currency with theirs and in 10 years at 10 % interest consume all of our hard currency as well. He tried at one point, but all he could do is try to feed us a bunch of gibberish to impress us with his knowledge without providing any tangible explanation of anything which would prevent this from happening.

        If on the other hand, we simply throw everything we currently think is known and studied about money out the window, disregard the religion and philosophy, forget about money as an evolving entity and consider it a tool instead. Once it is a tool, then we can, using simple science and calculation, willfully and deliberately create and manage it in order to make it perform its only useful function, which is to facilitate trade of the useful things we can accomplish for each other, to the greatest extent that we possibly can. Then our prosperity is contingent simply and only on what we can do, can be maintained and increased with stability and consistency according to what we are physically capable of doing as opposed to having that productive effort restricted by money. Again to accomplish this means that this tool has to be created and administered as a public service as opposed to a business so that it actually can function efficiently and adequately to facilitate private trade and production to the greatest extent possible. Simple common sense dictates that the two must be mutually exclusive if either is to work. In such a case, any extensive economic study becomes redundant as the system would be simple enough for most children to understand, and in fact these are often the ones to whom the sheer stupidity of the current banking economy is most apparent once its illustrated as they have not yet become “educated” into thinking it can work.

        In terms of any form of banking and interest, Jefferson already stated the inevitable conclusion of it “the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

        Interest consumes the populations productive effort by consuming its means of trade + banks use that interest in order to progressively buy up ownership of the public corporations they sponsor, using control they establish over government though their control of the means of trade to progressively eliminate independent business in competition, and end up controlling all trade and production as well = Complete, total and absolute power for banks with 100 % of the wealth resting with them and absolutely none in the hands of the population.

        As an immigrant from one of the many places which has experienced the final result of this, i can promise you that there is absolutely on other possible conclusion to this as long as this is tolerated, and there is absolutely no amount of knowledge, education or theory of any form of economics involving banking which will ever change this as well.

        In terms of my present take on MPE, from what i’ve seen of it so far, it simply provides one viable method of calculation currency circulation VS capacity for the population to provide useful benefits of which there would be several alternatives as well. It does have the two basic concepts on making an economy function absolutely correct, but i’m not seeing anything beyond this simple calculation yet toward managing other aspects of this economy, so we’ll see what develops from this point on. There can be no such thing as a perfect economy, and unfortunately the name of the model seems its own worst enemy in this case, but if the creation and management of an economies means of exchange is simply done on the basis of science, reason, common sense and calculation, and for the sole and exclusive benefit of the economy itself, as opposed to philosophy, evolution, economic religion and theory, then it can be made to work, and work very well. It has been done before, and when it has, it did, and is the only thing which can work too.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        1. TruthSeeker

          Hi David,

          Thanks for responding to Daniels. I was hoping you do that, but with all honesty, how many times you have said what you just said? Why do we have to act like we are addressing deaf folks on this forum? If people do not read, understand, or better pretend that they never heard a response, or what constitutes a response to them, I think it is a waste of time and energy to keep rehashing responses to the same issues raised. While repetition can serve sometimes as a learning tool, in some circumstances it can be annoying and wasteful. With the exception of your comment on the MPE which you did not have to give any away because as I mentioned to Daniels that Mike rather should, you have said nothing new to Daniels. How many times you have said that we need to treat money as a function, not as a commodity in itself, and why you think we should do that, and what happened when we did not? I heard your argument a hundred times, so why can not Daniels? The answer is Daniels does not accept it. That’s perfectly fine. That’s why we have few billion people on this planet so that you could change faces, groups, and discussion forums as well when you do not like some. My suggestion to Daniels is to find another forum that is more compatible with his attitudes and thinking mode and experience the joy of utter agreement with others. I most often like to quote George Bernard Shaw who once said: “I never learned from a man I totally agree with.” As for me, this forum did not seem as easy at first because like I said clearly I was not schooled in any economics. I am a mathematician that likes to think for himself and assess the truth of matters. So I care less what the Austrians, Keynesians, or Marxists says. I know enough about all of them and their moral philosophies, but I do not consider myself a “technician” in their fields. So far I disagree with much of their philosophies rather than their methods of arriving at things so the latter does not interest me as long as I have a trouble with the former. They all as you said many times over and over promote the banking industry which by all means has been nothing but parasitic. Daniels seems to want us convert over to accept banking as great and necessary in its own right. I did not, could not, and will not agree with Daniels or Daniels’ type. That is the end of our debate. Can Daniel finally accept this fact as well as other who try to do the same? Let’s say it loud enough so everyone can hear it one more time: WE ARE ENEMY # 1 TO ALL BANKING ESTABLISMENTS. THE ONLY GOOD BANK IS A DEAD ONE! Is that clear enough? Until and unless someone show us how noble banks are or could be, this will remain as our position. End of debate.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  28. David

    Hi TS;

    This is absolutely brilliant, and you provide a clear and absolute definition of what any true form of currency really is according to its only useful function as opposed to the fiction of what it is pretended to be by those needing to turn an economy into a system of exploitation. Whether currency is true to its function or a means of exploitation depends simply and only on whether we simply use it as currency in order to facilitate the trade of the things it exists to trade for, or whether we allow it to be controlled and perverted into debt by thieves and scam artists in order to regulate the trade of these things in the interest of consuming the wealth of the country and population while contributing absolutely nothing of value to it. In other words Banks.

    The money itself is nothing, the money itself is worthless, the money itself is useless, even if its gold or silver, of absolutely no tangible value unless you melt them down and convert them into something of practical value. The money, real money can only represent value. The only value exists in the tangible goods and work that it represents. Its function is to enable me to build a tractor for the farmer when i don’t need his grain and chickens. It enables the farmer to trade for what he needs from me and enables me to trade for what i need from someone else. It exists as the tool to regulate this exchange in a fair, just, orderly and efficient manner where the value of each exchange is naturally regulated by the value of the items exchanged to the people making the exchange themselves.

    This is not money as people understand it today, and no one alive today has ever experienced what they think is money as anything but a means of exploitation. The reason it exists as a means or exploitation is that thus far the people have failed to question and examine the lie created by those who need to exploit that the money itself has value. Their questioning now finally, all of them too. Christine has been advocating the abolition of money and i’ve been trying to explain this difference to her, and maybe this can help clarify this as well, but what we propose as a means of exchange becomes the very means toward facilitating the free abundant and absolutely unlimited exchange of everyone’s useful effort with each other that she along with the rest of us wishes and regulating it in a completely fair, honest, just, and efficient manner in order to enable that exchange to exist and grow to the maximum possible extent of all of the wonderful things each of us is capable of creating to enhance the lives of the rest.

    The solution as you and i and so many others understand it, is simple beyond comprehension. Simply get rid of this ass backwards perversion of money and the parasites who have perverted and corrupted this concept and made money a means of exploitation, condemn and eliminate this practice so that it can never be made so again, and restore money to its true function so that its only function can be the means to exchange these useful benefits to everyone’s benefit instead, with money serving absolutely no other function than to represent the value of those benefits exchanged.

    How do we accomplish this, change economic principle and management from religion, entity, philosophy, and theory to science so that we can actually make it perform its function. Who will accomplish this ? those of us who have the simple sense to just put the horse in front of the cart so that we can actually pull it, instead of spending their lives studying why the horse is behind and trying to figure out why we haven’t gone anyplace LOL :)

    BTW, was over at the neighbors last night, guzzled 4 pots of coffee between 3 people LOL, still up since my last post and been tinkering in the CAD program since then. I finally downloaded Mike’s audio broadcast and have been listening to it during this time. Its almost 4 hours long, but strongly suggest that if you haven’t already, to try to find the time to download it and listen to it soon, you will definitely not regret having done so. Its absolutely amazing how absolutely everyone who has sense enough to put the cart in front of the horse arrives at exactly the same conclusions, and the more those conclusions are studied the greater the confirmation of the need to do so as well. Different terminology sometimes, maybe slightly different methods and thoughts toward hooking up the harness but always arriving at the same end, the horse has to go in front LOL :)

    BTW It takes a brilliant mind to just as you say, think, question, analyze and observe, and realize the very simple solutions to complex and seemingly insurmountable problems, and a just and courageous heart to act on these realizations, you have both !

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. TruthSeeker

      Hi David,

      So our motto from now on should be: STOP ABUSING WOMEN AND MONEY. Women on one hand were created to be mothers, sisters, and loyal wives, but through our evil and greed, we abused them and made them tools for our perverted libido and commercial greed in the name of liberating women and putting them on the pedestal which we never done anyway. As for money, we turned it from an innocent mean to facilitate trade and productivity to a means for unjust enrichment and exploitation. We turned the cow from a cow that we should drink its milk and eat its meat to a holy cow that we worship as a god. Simply stated. Makes me kinda laugh when I realize the parallelism between what the early Israelites did and what the Rothschild did. It must be in the genes! Oh God, someone will call me anti-Semitic soon if has not already!

      As for posting the DEMAND on the Petition Site, I have done so but I am not happy with the layout which keeps inserting strange markup characters inside the text. I am still trying to fix this technical problem. I may have to contact their technical assistance, but give me a free minute to do that. I am downloading Mike’s broadcast now and will be listening to it today. Take care and get some rest if you could. I do not want you to become insomniac like me. It is not funny.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      1. Daniels

        TS,

        You lose credibility when you stray from the issues with ad-”ethnicitem” attacks. You, TS, are the one unwilling to think outside of the circle you are so concerned with the “greedy money lender.” If you actually took time to read my posts you would see I am not defending our current mess of money lenders (banks). Seriously, read my posts and actually think about the concepts involved in the economics of money. Money does have value. Its existence creates value. It IS a commodoty. I won’t re-explain it all, because I have done so very recently, but seriously, take the time to think about it. Step outside of your circle.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

        1. TruthSeeker

          Hi Daniels,

          I have read most of your posts but you tend to think that mere repetition of an argument gives such an argument a new force my friend. As for the international Jewish mafia causing all the mess we are in today, I have no apologies to offer for that. I have some great Jewish friends and by the way they are true Jews, not some colonial Zionists who see gentiles as two-legged beasts and they perfectly understand where I come from. I am by no means to all who know me a racist. In fact let me state one more fact. The Rothschild were not even Semite Jews; they were left-over ghetto residents of the Khazar tripe that were a mix of Mongols, Turks, and central Asians. Probably any one from a European decent had more chance to have had Semite blood in them than the Khazars. So let’s not even go in there because this was never our subject to start with anyway.

          Going back to your post about the precise definition of inflation/deflation, I appreciate some of the points you were making. Indeed, not all inflation is born equal. Regardless of what definition you chose for inflation, it is not all caused by the increase of the amount of money. That is understandable, but what is not is the kind that is a result of abusing the function as well as the management of money. When you first treat money as the exclusive creation of some segment in society which has total authority over its management as well, we will always have problems. Unexplained inflation and deflation can become a fair game that could be use to manipulate trade and productivity. When we say that the Federal Reserve just lowered the interest rate that is just a sad joke. Who gives them that authority to do so? And when they jack up the interest rate, who allows them to do so? But once again, where this power comes from? Well, if someone has the authority to create money from thin air, then I guess that same one also could do that. I meant we sadly allowed them to do that.

          As for the banking industry duplicating the FED in their money game, we ended up with the outrageous Fractional Reserve practice which is nothing but exact manifestation of the same philosophy: we meaning (them) have the power to breathe life into a fictitious entity and make it appear alive.

          Interest? Again it is the presumption that money can grow on its own without the investment of the human expression in it. Money as a means of facilitating trade and productivity picks up its value when such trade and productivity are incorporated into the money. Even if that money happens to be gold it should not be allowed to increase in value unless gold itself as a precious metal becomes more in demand, but not as currency! There is a huge difference between the two. If treasury notes are allowed to grow in value on its own and with the scratch of a pen from the FED and the banks, then why not you and me are allowed to do the same? You see the injustice? If they are allowed to create that money from thin air, why not you and me are allowed the same privilege? This master-slave society we all know is nothing but a big joke Daniels. We have dealt with it before, we know it does not work, and we more importantly know it is unfair. The reason I am against banks and interest is because it gives establishments some power that is not available to the normal little guy. Further, it encourages airhead bums to control our destiny while the hard working little guy like you and me never gets anywhere in life. Is that fair? When someone with a huge capital, God only knows where and how he got it from, is allowed to be on the top, while the orphan that inherited nothing but the ugly reputation of his parents is destined to be broke all his life making minimum wages although working too hard, I think that is clearly unfair. I hope that I am not repeating my thoughts.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      2. David

        Hi Again TS;

        LOL well in regards to good use and abuse, in terms of my fiancee whom were hoping will be moving in around the end of this year, my purpose in loving her is to bring her happiness, and it’s through her happiness that i accomplish the same for myself. She’s such an absolute pleasure to do this for and its so easy as well as she loves and appreciates everything little thing so much. I simply could not imagine a more precious and wonderful girl, nor, to myself, a more beautiful one as well.

        Again, i am just so happy and thankful that we finally have such an array of so wonderfully talented people working on this now, and i think if we get this right, then we can finally and at long last create a means of trade to enable us all to do for each other economically what i enjoy doing for my girl in terms of our relationship :)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. TruthSeeker

          Hi David,

          I wish you and your fiancee the best in your relationship. You are a good man and you deserve good things in life.

          Cheers,

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  29. TruthSeeker

    Hi David,

    I had to go to sleep for few hours to get some rest and I am back up again. I missed your last post on time. First let me thank you again for thinking highly of me, but I really do not deserve much of that credit as the issues involved in this debate are very simple if you stop thinking schools of economics. If you just get out of that tiny circle and look at it from outside, you will see it as is—circle instead of seeing it all kinds of different geometries. As you persist to stay inside that circle, you will continue to see it as a curve, a straight line, or even a point if you are too close to it from the inside!

    The reason I am hesitant o get involved in the minutes of this debate is that people fail to take account of the very simple things which forms the foundation of this debate. In mathematics, unless you have the ability to doubt any proposition, you will never become a good mathematician. Asides from what we call axioms or definitions, everything must be proved or else it is good for nothing. My biggest problem with the current monetary system which I think makes the biggest lie and rip-off of all times is the simple fact that when the money is created out of thin air, it is worth nothing besides the paper and the ink it is printed on. So how in hell it picks up a value when it gets in our hand? That is the trick of the trade of the Rothschild dynasty, unless you are mindful of this fact, you will continue to spin in circles until you die without going anywhere. How can we put an end to the whole game of the Rothschild? Simply do not fall in the trap. Resist the notion that such treasury notes (worth nothing as it is made out of thin air) have any value in themselves whatsoever. Therefore, it should never be allowed any time value as some argue (interest.) Now you see why the good God prohibited usury! So as you said in many ways, stop placing the cart in front of the horse, stop thinking of money as a commodity that has an intrinsic value in itself. Once we do that, the only thing remains that could possibly make money worth a crap is what I termed before as the human expression which I defined as the employment of time, skills, talents, energy, and effort in the creation of goods and services needed by the human family. So this so called money which many treat like a holy cow (good for nothing unless it used for milk, meat, and farm work) is indeed worthless unless it can be used as a medium of exchange to facilitate productivity as you termed many times over and over.

    Once we stop treating money as valuable commodity in itself as Christine severally has presented many times, which explains her total rebellion of the idea of money altogether, then we will never understand how they got us into this barren debate. I am shocked and appalled that most of us have failed to see that simple fact. If the money had any value when it came out of the print shop, then why the Rothschild did not just keep it to themselves and declared themselves wealthy just for having it???????????????!!!!!!!!!!

    The answer which may shock everyone is that the Rothschild know by simple intelligence yet attended with a great deal of evil and deceit that their money is worth nothing unless it is forced onto the population (nations) and put into circulation to pick up value as it exchanges hands. I guess that was the original thought of postulating that the value of money depends on how many times it has been circulated (changed hands over.) So herein we continue to debate side issues like interest and banks buying into this evil trap. If for nothing else, my intelligence, pride, and liberty should resist being used by folks like the Rothschild to turn their calf into a real GOD! Oh my God, how could we be so naive to fall in for the trap? If their money did not have any value to start with, how in hell they expect me as well as others to give it some value? This is I think the problem David. As for the gold advocates who may see this argument in their favor, I continue to say that even gold could clone the same trap if we treat it as a valuable thing in itself that should earn even more value over time just because it sits there in the safe box for years and years. That’s why some folks like Citizen and Daniels persist on seeing money in itself as wealth and therefore qualified to earn interest over time. That is where the biggest lie of the banking industry started when they maliciously crafted the art of fractional reserve and interest. It is a whole scam into scam into another scam raised to the nth power as n goes to infinity! This is a horrible situation that a sound mind should never fall for. What is based on a lie to start with will never be good for humanity. It is only to the fact that God is good and also was the originator of this universe that we continue to have hope in goodness. Otherwise, we would all turn into devils because the temptation is so great!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  30. Jake

    I repost this reply i gave to Citizen in the other forum:

    Citizen, as i said you clearly have no idea what MPE stands for. I will try to explain it as simple as possible.

    MPE is a currency (our public medium of exchange) not subject to interest and backed by our labor/production/products or anything else we are capable of.

    That´s it.

    Anyone objecting to this is either a banker, or just plain stupid.

    Moreover, I think that you guys are making the same set of MISTAKEN assumptions, about Mathematically Perfected Economy, that many are making, BECAUSE OF THE NAME.

    Here is what people think: When they hear the name—Mathematically Perfected Economy— visions of a Hungarian Central Planner enter into their head. …But that’s just a misintepretation/false assumption.

    What I think has happened here, is that you guys have made the same mistakes that many people once made. Well. Ignorance, once cured, returns for no good reason. So, here is what Mathematically Perfected Economy REALLY IS:

    (1) Principals for loans, are created out of thin air, as debt. …Our current monetary regime does this anyway.
    (2) But the loans are interest-free. …Why would you pay somebody big bucks to do something that you could do for yourself, for nothing?
    (3) The ELIXUR: Loans are paid back, and the money is RETIRED from the circulation, in a time-based manner which is the mirror-image of the depreciation of the product. Why? So there can be no inflation or deflation. …And, yeah, I know that stuff happens.
    (4) Otherwise, there is NO government intervention in markets! No central planning. No regulations or manipulations or market distortions—-the invisible hand rule the day.

    Here is a simple example: A car dealer decides to lend you money for a car which free markets have decided is worth $20,000. And this car will last for 10 years. This car will depreciate in value in a linear, straight-line fashion—-that is, it will lose, on average, $2,000 in value per year.

    (1) $20,000 are created out of thin air as debt.
    (2) The car dealer recieves $20,000—-a trade of equal measures of production in exchange for equal measures of production. Why? Because the invisible hand says so. That’s why.
    (3) $2,000 per year are retired from the circulation as the loan is paid back untill, in ten years, ALL $20,000 have been retired from the circulation.

    The result: After year 1, there is $18,000 left in circulation, and the car is worth $18,000. After year 5, there is $10,000 in circulation, and the car is worth $10,000. And so on and so on.

    Get it? Under Mathematically Perfected Economy, (1) There is always enough money created out of thin air to cause full employment—-there is always full employment. (2) But, at the same time, there is always, on average, an inflation rate of ZERO. (3) And there is no more business cycle.

    Well, now you know. And you guys are making the same exact mistakes that many people originally made.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. Citizen

      Jake,

      Excuse me for my apparent ignorance of MPE,
      But what I’ve read about MPE and the associated comments in this blog site simply doesn’t square with any of the Well Established and Time Tested paradigms of Classical Economics.

      I’ve studied graduate level Micro and Macro Econ, Money and Banking, Monetary Policy and History of Money, MPE does not square with any of the STANDARDS!

      Your $20K car example doesn’t pass the straight face test. No PRUDENT (emphasis added) manufacturer will sell products on a fixed pricing structure only to tie up their production capital for years while they receive back the Principal ONLY!
      So LOANS are the essential instruments to facilitate the transactions.
      Loans come from Saved (hoarded) Capital NOT from printing money.
      Sane people don’t loan their wealth out on risky loans without expectation of return for their risk. Do you honestly believe that MPE entails NO risk to personal wealth?

      Citizens only choose to use the State printed Fiat Currency when there is reasonable expectations that the value of their Capital, while in the form of Fiat Currency, will not rapidly deteriorate while in transition from currency to commodity.

      Currently, the USA has the wonderful FED counterfeiting the Dollar at a record pace. The FED is a “private” bank given a monopoly charter to Inflate or Deflate the Dollar as they SECRETLY determine who the winners and losers will become.
      They are a quasi-government Central Bank, their tools include, discounts, interest rates, fractional reserve edicts and open market policies to manipulate our lives.
      WE apparently agree on these facts

      Where we diverge is
      You MPE “gnomes” are convinced that “spooky dude” Montagne aka the Wizard of MPE is somehow a benevolent dictator, a Saint who is completely above earthly temptations and could not possible become a Ben Berneke style chairmen.
      I quote him “Grow the F** UP!”
      OR
      You honestly believe that a software algorithm will magically deliver a “perfect” balanced economy, no Inflation/Deflation, because a super-computer can re-calculates the worlds net worth every 60 seconds.

      You wrote: “seems a very simple thing to accomplish too if we simply establish this as the objective and create and manage some system to make it do that”

      If true, you’ve been playing way WAY too much World of WarCraft.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. Jake

        Hello to all,

        I hope you didn’t miss Saturday’s first broadcast on MPE. Mike was still taking calls to the wee hours of the morning after the show. I’ve arranged at least for now, for show archives to be hosted at ZShare. The link to listen to the first broadcast is:

        http://www.zshare.net/audio/820088191e550288/

        If you really want to succeed in getting the banks out, it’s time to start going viral. I leave it to you to spread this as you see fit.

        Warm regards,
        Jack

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. David

        Hi Citizen;

        You do actually pose a good question here because the exact function of this hasn’t been completely clear to me until now as well. I went back and reread the post and i think i’ve got it at this point, correct me if i’m wrong Jake.

        The guy wants to buy the car but needs to loan the money for it, the department of the treasury issues the loan for the purchase price of the car which he pays the dealer, and determines his rate of repayment at exactly the depreciation rate of the car right down to zero value. Hence obtaining Mikes objective of maintaining the exact amount of currency in circulation to pay for the remaining value of what it purchased and hence the extra 1 in the 1:1:1 relationship that i’ve been wondering about.

        I find that i have to look hard and generally read a couple of times for some of these aspects to become clear, so the posts do need a few more words or a few less more organized words but this is finally making perfect sense.

        Re: Classical Economics, Micro and Macro Econ, Money and Banking, Monetary Policy and History of Money, now i understand why we have a problem too.

        To me it would seem that all of these are based on putting the cart in front of the horse, and regulating useful production with money and this is why MPE does not square with any of the standards nor do the standards square with anything else that the rest of us have been discussing here. This is also why money ended up destroying production for no reason whatsoever in the 1930′s, 1970′s, 2000′s and every 40 odd years and economics sure as hell ain’t going to fix this nor is it capable of even restoring another cycle at this point just as it hasn’t been anywhere else in the world ether after the final crash. Bottom line is that because of such economics, because of putting the cart in front of the horse, the banks who create the economics to study have all the money and all the wealth leaving nothing for the people to restore it with, and why can’t they?, because as a result of economics they have no money to trade with and according to the foreclosure section in every local newspaper, all but a precious few won’t even have homes to live in anymore as well. This is the result of the standards which MPE, Ben Franklin, the simple functional ideas which so many of us have been discussing on here do not square with.

        This is exactly what we need to throw out the window. Money is not an entity, money is not a natural thing, and in considering it otherwise classical economics has had us hunting around for rocks and sticks for the past god knows how many centuries in order to try and pound in a simple nail because they think it needs to be done with a natural thing. The sticks keep breaking the rocks keep shattering and then when we finally do get a solid hit on the nail with a big enough rock its face isn’t square and we just and up bending it over and ruining it instead of driving it in. The cart is still in front of the horse so the horse we still can’t go anyplace, and why would anyone want to give any credence at all to the study of such nonsense.

        If on the other hand, we determine the only possible useful purpose of money, which can simply and only be a tool to facilitate trade between the population for its useful production and services, and then we purposely, willfully and deliberately create a tool which can actually accomplish this, we can make ourselves a hammer, with a handle, a solid heavy head and a square flat face, we can swing it 3 times in 1 1/2 seconds and have that nail driven home as oppose to spending god knows how many centuries fighting with sticks and rocks only in the end to bend the nail and destroy the objective itself. Now, we have the horse in front of the cart now finally we can start moving instead of standing in one place and after all these centuries of never being able to do so, in the course of one day, we can finally get where we need to go.

        This is exactly why the discussions on here have made perfect sense to farmers, shopkeepers, engineers, mathematicians, construction workers, truck drivers, mothers who stay home and look after their kids, and one of my dearest friends who is a retired cowboy with a grade 6 education and an awful lot of wisdom and common sense who thinks he learns a lot from me but from whom i have learned as much as well. Every single one of them simply knows to put the horse in front of the cart instead of studying why the cart is in front of the horse instead :)

        Mike is a mathematician, so is TS, i’m an engineer. Not sure what Jake and Douglas do for a living nor Alvie or James, but if any of them are economists they know how not to think like one and i would hazard a guess that about 99.5 percent of the American population knows how to think like us. I believe i was the one who posted the statement you quoted “seems a very simple thing to accomplish too if we simply establish this as the objective and create and manage some system to make it do that” unless Jake has stated the same, and simply moving the horse to the front of the cart, or providing ourselves with a simple hammer to pound the nail is indeed a very simple and easy thing. Unless of course a banker can convince us otherwise. Oddly enough the have for the past several centuries but there aint no one believing them anymore.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        1. Citizen

          David,
          You posts are very difficult to answer because you mix 2 or more subject into each paragraph… Allow Me /
          Para 1:
          GOVERNMENT LOANS: NO! The Treasury MUST NOT be issuing any loans… It is not the Governments duty to run private sector commerce!!! Government MUST NOT be given authority to set “Free Market” Rates of Repayment, principal or interest.
          LIKE it is currently doing using the FED as its tool to float its massive debt spending. It is NOT the Government’s MONEY, it belongs to the American Citizens who’ve worked hard to SAVE it.
          DEPRECIATION: The Depreciation rate is a Free Market force and is SUBJECTIVE at best. The IRS will “allow” certain rates for Tax discount purposes, but the real world dictates (Richie Brothers Auctions) what others will pay for your asset based upon market demand. Depreciation is not determined by some IRS formula!

          Para #05
          MONEY: Massive printing of fiat currency “Money”, “destroys” the economy, and is only possible with Fractional Reserve Banking [FRB]. Money DOES NOT DESTROY production. Excess PRINTING (FED credit creation) causes artificially low interest rates which causes Mal-Investment and THAT destroys production.

          BANKS: Banks do not “create the economics”! Banks do not have “all the wealth”! FRB destroys the economy by robbing the Citizens of THEIR wealth by DILUTION!
          LESSON/// A “BANK” is a grain elevator in Goodland Kansas, farmers joined together, pool their capital and built the elevator to store their wealth! Their wealth is 500 million bushels of red winter wheat! THAT’S MONEY. Not that crap that the FED prints!!! Have your heard the Water and Diamonds story??

          ECONOMIC SCIENCE: Economics is called the “dismal science” for a very good reason; it studies the aftermath of an economic crash and attempts to explain what happened. It’s an “autopsy” forensic science. The test of any good theory is how well it explains things as they really are (AE), and not how we’d like them to be (MPE).

          FORECLOSURES: are a fact of life, people have bad luck, over extend themselves, or simply refuse to honor their obligations. But the owner of the Note IS the American Public (you and me) who expect the note to be paid. The reasons for the failure to pay might be a sad story, but the note holder must be paid regardless and a dead-beat borrower must be evicted to pay the note holders.

          Para #6
          “..Throw out the window..” SAY WHAT? whatever
          MONEY: is both a commodity (500 million bushels of “natural” winter wheat) in the BANK aka silo. AND Money is ALSO fiat currency BACKED with BULLION! Give me silver and gold that I can BANK… buried in my back yard under the pissing angel statue, oops.
          Para #7
          MONEY: is simply a temporary TOKEN of WEALTH. 500 million bushels of winter wheat ($5.76/Bushel) is about $2.8 Trillion Fed Reserve Notes. But in 1933 those same bushels sold for $0.28/bushel or $140 million.
          QUESTION// Which one is the real money, Winter Wheat or Fed Reserve Notes?
          ANSWER// Making a BIG FREAKING HAMMER made of FED or MPE Reserve Notes won’t make one additional bushel of Winter Wheat.
          PAPER CURRENCY is NOT a “big hammer”, it’s a “shredder” of WEALTH!!!
          Sorry, I don’t buy this Central Bank wealth creation crap

          Para #8
          MPE for SIMPLETONS?
          No, real wealth isn’t “created” by the FED or MPE, its created by the hard work of those people you listed, their excess work is converted into SAVINGS and BANKED (SILO) for a rainy day (deflation) and traded for other real tangible wealth, a tractor.

          Para #9
          RESUMES’: I’ve taught HS math, programmed in Fortran77, Visual Basic and C++, and currently Design/Build Civil Bridge Projects, SO WHAT!!!
          ECONOMIST: I study, read and test economic theories; and I find that Austrian Economics offers the BEST explanation of how the real world functions economically. No smoke and mirrors, no hyperbole i.e. “no interest”, “no inflation/deflation”, “no banks”, “no Jews” oops did I day that?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  31. Jake

    The libertarian austrian ideology is so self contradictory that it can both oppose ‘big’ government and support fascism at the same time.

    The fundamental element of Libertarianism and also Austrian economics is that everything ought to be privately owned. If an individual or group of wealthy landowners owned all the land in America and rented and leased it to everyone else and imposed the exact same conditions that the state imposes and had ‘charges’ instead of taxes, then the libertarians would have absolutely no problem with supporting such a system. They would merely call the ‘laws’ ‘free contracts’ and the taxes ‘service charges’

    Libertarian austrians are in favour of absolute tyranny and dictatorship, just as long as it’s a private individual or corporation doing the oppressing, and not a democratic nation state, even where the outcomes are exactly the same.

    A libertarian world dominated by an association of very large corporations would function very very similarly to the fascist states of the 20th century.

    Friedman was a huge supporter of Pinochet’s economic policies, he engineered most of them, either directly or indirectly through his students who were dominating chilean economic policy.

    He endorsed the military coup that got Pinochet into power by implying that if Allende had not been overthrown there would be torture imprisonment and political repression in Chile, he said this while pinochet was doing those very things.

    Another on von mises’ proteges, Hayek was another huge supporter of pinochet, Hayek used the fascist dictatorship as the model way all governments should behave to introduce the kinds of economic reforms necessary for a libertarian utopia. Hayek wrote in a letter to the london times saying he had “not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende.”

    Both Friedman and Hayek believed Pinochet was just a stepping stone towards a libertarian free market economy.

    And that ladies and gentleman is what austrians and libertarians really stand for.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  32. Jake

    Our faschist austrian Citizen doesn´t understand the first thing about Mathematically Perfected Economy for if he does he wouldn´t come up with these false assertions which he can NOT proof simply because MPE and Mike is 100% correct on every count. The fact he judges a book on it´s cover tells you the fool he really is.

    You are done faschist gnome(s), and you know it…..We´re going to smoke you out of your miserable little faschist gnome dream and kick you out of this country for this country to return to it´s constitutional values found by our fathers. MPE is what OUR founding fathers stood for.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  33. Citizen

    DANGER: Mathematical Perfected Economy (MPE)
    IS World Socialism on Steroids
    IS neither mathematical and is far from perfected by any stretch of one’s imagination.

    Under MPE, A person who accumulates capital and wishes to earn interest on their savings is summarily labeled a “Jew” or “Banker”

    Under MPE, ALL concentrations of wealth are systematically “redistributed” in the form of “interest free” principal only loans made to anyone who has a “need”.

    Under MPE, Darth Michael Montagne Vader, writes and manages the software source code that instantaneously redistributes the world currency. Never mind that Darth Montagne lives in the shadows, a spooky dude shown in a back lit hunting photo reminiscent of a fugitive poster on the Post Office wall. “this is not the droid you’re looking for”

    Under MPE, SOFTWARE becomes the cyber math tool used to re-balance inequities in the world economy. As soon as any inflation or deflation is detected, the offending area is targeted with account transfers out or in, as the case may dictate, to correct the imbalanced condition. I admit that Fortan77 or C++ are both capable programming tools able to produce scalable code to manipulate the entire world economy, but WHY would anyone choose to implement such an inherently amoral and inhuman system of wealth redistribution?

    Under MPE, personal WEALTH is discouraged, only the STATE holds the wealth and individuals are summarily stripped of any excess savings (hoarding) they may have earned over a lifetime of hard work. Everyone’s wealth is absorbed into the “COLLECTIVE”. Corporations are deemed to be “interest earning usury banks or Jews, hoarding the currency and thus are targeted and stripped of any of their excess capital which is reabsorbed into the collective and redistributed by the MPE software model.

    Oh and yes Darth (Michael Montagne) Vader
    IS the Man Behind the Curtain (The Mighty OZ) who is in charge of the algorithm code.

    Can we all give a rousing Sieg Heil here!

    I DON’T THINK SO…
    Austrian Economics dismantles MPE at every key point of applied economics and IS NOT Socialism on Steroids

    Ron Paul is an AE Libertarian that RESPECTS human action and liberty.
    MPE is computer driven socialism, TOTALITARIAN hack code

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

    1. Daniels

      That is a great explanation of
      MPE! The only point I would contend is that MPE is immoral rather than amoral and not only is it inhuman it is inhumane.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. Citizen

        Daniel,

        These MPE zombies have locked the Sound Money link up so I’ve not been able to post on that site to refute their NONSENSE.

        When anyone with half a brain reads this MPE drivel, it becomes clear that its National Socialism run by computer hacks.

        Maybe if we ask nicely, they might send us some brown shirts?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    2. David

      Well Citizen, this post is unfortunate because at one time i did have a lot of respect for you, unfortunately i cannot anymore.

      Instead of answering the question which several of us have posed numerous times in that what would prevent the Rothschild’s from loaning an equal amount of hard currencies into circulation and in 10 years consume all of our hard currencies in interest which you cant as we all know this is exactly what would happen, you post what anyone who has been reading and following these conversations knows to be outright lies supposedly in defense of your “Theory”, and consequently the “Theory” has now lost any and all credibility which it could possibly have.

      I’ve been waiting for Mike to respond do this, as he is the one best qualified to defend MPE itself, and although i don’t consider MPE to be the be all and end all of establishing a free economy where the people have the right to keep and benefit from all of their own efforts it does contain the essential elements toward establishing this. I simply want to see something which can work toward everyone’s freedom and benefit and MPE along with the simple discussions many of us have been having on here, and the reasonings of Franklin, Lincoln, and many others would and could.

      In terms of wealth distribution, here we go:

      So called “free market capitalism” is the ultimate form of wealth redistribution, as it allows a parasitic infection which contributes absolutely nothing toward the benefit of the population (Banks) to progressively consume all of the nations wealth in interest to the extent where 100 % of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few banking families with nothing left for anyone else, so this is the ultimate form of wealth redistribution.

      “Austrian economics” also constitutes this same ultimate form of wealth redistribution and is the back up plan of the banking system in case they fail to consume all of the wealth through “free market capitalism” It restricts us to finite currencies which cannot be replaced once consumed, and leaves the door wide open for banks to consume these currencies in interest without a federal reserve bank, and without fractional reserve banking as well, just as i said, the Rothschilds have literally all of the worlds gold supply secured in their vaults under London, with the exception of that which is supposedly secured in Fort Knox, and under the Austrian terms and conditions they will have all of that gold to within about 10 years. Again this allows a parasitic infection which contributes absolutely nothing toward the benefit of the population (Banks) consume all of the nations wealth in interest to the extent where 100 % of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few banking families with nothing left for anyone else, so this is the ultimate form of wealth redistribution and you call giving them the right to do this freedom ??????????????????????????????

      Socialism does not even constitute redistribution of wealth as it is simply the means to secure absolute power and control over the population by the banks through their puppet governments once they have consumed 100 % of the wealth through the wealth redistribution process, in order to prevent any attempt by the population to get it back, so it is simply the final consequence and the means to permanently secure the wealth redistribution promoted by the former.

      What you are defending as “Freedom” amounts to removing from the people the right to acquire and hold property and giving thieves “free” reign in order to steal from the entire population at will until there is no more property left for them to steal. There is and can be no disputing this, and in the end this is the only end result which can be accomplished with any form of Banking and private interest, as an economy simply cannot exist to serve a parasitic infection as opposed to those contributing to its useful production. Any 3 year old child can figure this out and anyone who would maintain that it can, can only do so as a result of trusting and believing in a theory to the point where it becomes a religion and makes them incapable of any form of sense or reason which would enable them to see beyond the lies they’ve been fed. I’m actually very surprised that throughout all of the discussion which has taken place here you have not begun to see this by now yourself.

      What we have been promoting instead, what Mike and Jake call MPE, what i have been calling Ben Franklin economics, etc., is a means to permanently eliminate any form of wealth redistribution by simply eliminating the parasitic infection which must make complete and total wealth redistribution inevitable, Banks and private interest.

      What we are promoting is a completely free and private enterprise system and economy, where the people themselves create and manage their own means of trade for their own benefit independently of the parasitic infection which must and has always consumed “redistributed” 100 % of the wealth into its own hands in order to maintain its ability to survive. What we are talking about, is giving each and every member of the population not the privilege at the mercy of the banking system but the “right”, to keep and prosper privately, not publicly, from 100 % of the useful efforts which each and every one of them is willing and capable of contributing to the rest, and providing an equal chance for every single citizen in order to do so according to the basic tenet on which the United States of America is founded, that “all men are created equal”.

      If this is done wisely, it can even eliminate the final form of involuntary servitude which would still exist after the elimination of banking and interest which is Taxation, again establishing “Freedom” where there was none before. If it is done wisely, it can completely and totally eliminate poverty as well where the excess injections of currency which will be required to make up for economic growth that the population generates, can be used to provide a more than adequate existence even for the people not capable of contributing to the productive effort of the population at absolutely no cost to any of those that do.

      If done correctly this can establish what today would be considered a Utopian dream where the standard of living of the population in America would be so far beyond anything which we have experienced in the past, that it would be impossible for most to comprehend until it is actually established. Instead of being a Utopian dream, it is simply the natural state of prosperity which the people themselves would have been capable of creating all along except for the fact that the vast majority of their productive effort has always been consumed by the parasitic infection which both “Free Market Capitalism” and “Austrian Economics” exist to feed. In other words, it will be the restoration of their natural ability to create prosperity for themselves and each other, absent of the unnatural redistribution of wealth which this parasitic infection must inevitably generate to the point where that unnatural distribution becomes complete and absolute resulting in the final evolution of Socialism to secure that distribution.

      Freedom is the absence of power and you can only have one or the other as the two cannot exist within the same space except at each others expense. I need no power in order to sustain myself, because i contribute useful and beneficial things to the population for their own benefit which they willingly obtain from me because what i create for them will enhance their lives, their enjoyment of freedom, and their pursuit of happiness. Banks on the other hand contribute no such thing, and must establish power in order to survive and sustain themselves as they have absolutely no other means to do so, neither does a thief who violates the rights and freedoms of his fellow citizens and sustains himself by stealing from them that which they have rightfully earned.

      It is about bloody time that absolutely everyone came to understand that difference so that freedom can be established and finally secured, as opposed to trusting and believing more idiotic bullshit invented by this parasitic infection which survives on power and digging both their own and everyone else’s graves ever deeper in the name of false “freedom” to the extent where there will be absolutely no way for any of us to climb out of them anymore.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. Daniels

        David, you write : “Well Citizen, this post is unfortunate because at one time i did have a lot of respect for you, unfortunately i cannot anymore.”

        If you are so concerned about respect and credibility, check out what your hero Mike Montagne said in response to my post on inflation/deflation. I pointed out a legitimate consideration if not flaw with MPE regarding the definition of inflation, and Mike the Intellectual Mountain Montagne responded with one sentence “grow the f*** up.” Afterwards he regretted his decistion and changed it to “grow the you know what up.” But he still would not discuss the issues, he said inflation and deflation are defined in the dictionary- which is far from accurate, and is not an honest debate.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. David

          HI Daniels;

          Well, im not one to worship heroes, but i do appreciate Mike’s efforts and the contribution of his knowledge toward the establishment of a free and functional economic system, along with those of many others on here toward this end, along with those of many who have gone before us and established the basic concepts on which all such reasoning is based, so if it is accomplished it will be a result of the combined efforts of a great many people.

          I think the conversation your referring to is on the sound money blog and that one is down on my end again since yesterday, so i haven’t had a chance to read it and see what the question is which was posed. I’m sort of expecting that i answered it in another one of my posts on the blog before it went down as well, and if it is a legitimate question as opposed to more BS like citizens post on here, then Mike does need to respond as well.

          I do sense you thinking very hard on this matter which is good, and as long as you remain willing to think outside the box and understand new (or very old and forgotten) concepts and ideas, then id consider discussion with you an extremely worthwhile effort. It’s also easy to form mistaken impressions of people with some of the discussions on here and there have been times where i simply did not want to put in the time and effort to respond to some, but i did anyway, and the effort in doing so was extremely productive and has been many times as well. I do sense in Mike a man of great abilities especially in this field and along with this can often come a lack of patience in explaining things to others as we sometimes expect what seems obvious to us to be obvious to them as well. I have had to stop myself from just brushing things off many times in regards to the engineering work i do as well and that effort has generally been worthwhile.

          Anyway, for the time being the sound money blog is down, but i want to see Mike’s response in terms of inflation as well. I already read something he had about it on his website http://perfecteconomy.com/ which in and of itself takes some time to sort through, but i expect his response will be something similar to which i’ve already detailed and real world experience in terms of the mechanics of actual production and its interaction with currency does indeed bear this out.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        2. Daniels

          Yea, it is frustrating Sound Money keeps locking up. The point of my post is that what Mike calls inflation/deflation is not the accepted definition of inflation/deflation by any of the major schools of economics (Monetarist, Keynesian, Classical, or Austrian). He says:

          “Given the traditional definitions of inflation and deflation are respectively, increases or decreases in circulation per represented wealth”

          Now it is true that the Keynesians and to some extent the Classical school believe this is true in the short run only, but the “traditional” excepted definition of inflation and deflation in the long run is unanimously the quantity theory which states that inflation and deflation are simply increases and decreases in the money supply period, not their change in value relative to wealth in society. Now I would argue that the quantity theory is the only theory in the short and long runs, but that’s more of an aside.

          My point is that Mike defines inflation/deflation incorrectly. If he wants to prove the major schools of economics wrong on this definition, that would require a piece of work dedicated to the actual definition, but as it is, he takes inflation and deflation as already defined.

          Theoretically, Mike could show that it is irrelevant that the concept he is referring to (change in money relative to wealth, I’ll call it CM/W) conforms to the definition of inflation/deflation, it is still an actual phenomenon, so name it something else, I dont care.

          Again, if he takes this route saying his concept CM/W, while not inflation/deflation, is a real problem that must be addressed, that’s fine. But again, he has not shown that it is a problem. He starts his arguments assuming it is a problem.

          I was calling on Mike to start his arguments at a more basic level. It is true that CM/W occurs, I don’t think it is as simple as he describes it, but it occurs. Before proposing a drastic change in the monetary system, the burden is on Mike to show that CM/W is a problem.

          Finally, it is incorrect (or even dishonest) to call CM/W inflation/deflation using the “traditional definitions.” He is buildintg his argument on something that is not true, but as I said that alone doesn’t prove him incorrect, but it requires him to begin his argument one step before he does, demonstrating that CM/W is a phenomenon that causes harm to society.

          I have read most of the posts on the Sound Money board, and if you or anyone else has answered this I missed it. It has probly been answered indirectly, but a direct answer is needed for such a fundamental building block of MPE, so I hope that you or Mike can provide that. It is true I havn’t read everything on the MPE website, but I will say that every time it appears Mike is getting close to answering this question, he skips over it. So for the benefit of MPE as a theory, a good answer to this question is a must.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        3. David

          Hi Daniels;

          LOL your making me take a long coffee break here :)

          Yes, hopefully the sound money blog will be back soon and you can at least catch my post in regards to this matter, i think you’ll make perfect sense of it when you do as well.

          What i’m terming inflation is a decrease in the value (purchasing power) of currency, it has nothing to do with the amount of currency in circulation and the established money theories have this completely ass backwards as they simply do not take the real world considerations of actual useful production into account, nor do they acknowledge the practical consequences in regards to this which we have seen evidenced in front of our faces throughout our lifetimes.

          I guess that as someone who owns and operates an engineering / manufacturing business and is actually involved in this useful production in various ways i am able to see this as i can understand the relation to purchasing power, production volume and production cost as well as any could, so hopefully these thoughts can be useful towards others considering and figuring this out as well.

          What actually exists is an enormous buffer zone, where inflation (again decrease in value of he currency) comes about as a result of a shortage of purchasing power dramatically increasing the cost of production due to decreased quantity, and conversely a point at which the value of the currency decreases because there is more currency in circulation than is needed to pay for what the actual combined production capacity becomes.

          All of the inflation which any of us have experienced in our lifetimes is actually a result of a shortage of currency limiting production and increasing its cost, as far as am aware the only time when inflation existed due to an excess or currency to the production capacity was during Franklin’s time when several of the colonial governments went on spending binges and actually injected more than the people were capable of producing for trade at which point if you double the circulation you will half the value. The thing to consider here too though is that maximum production and tangible prosperity had still been generated regardless of what happened to the medium of exchange.

          With our modern technology and what our actual production capacity could become given the ability of the population to purchase the full extent of it, we have an awfully long way to go before even coming close to reaching that point, so i hope that those reading the post can actually begin to comprehend the absolutely enormous potential for prosperity which can result from simply giving ourselves the ability to buy up the full value of what we can produce for each other.

          This is my objective in being involved in this thing, as i can see the potential for such rich and abundant prosperity so far beyond the wildest dreams of anyone in America today as it would be impossible for them to comprehend until they actually experience the end result. The question to pose is, are both myself and every single other person in America who is involved in providing any form or useful production or service today, right now, this minute, capable of producing an extra 2 0r 3,000 dollars worth of really cool and useful stuff for every person in America each and every month given them having the ability to obtain it from us ? Of course we are. What happens when 10 X more Americans become involved in independently contributing their own ideas and efforts toward more new and useful production and services given both the freedom to do so and the ability of the population to obtain them ?

          This is where my faith and hope lies, in the free and natural ability of the American people to create useful benefit for themselves and each other. My single and only objective in this issue is to try and come up with a means to enable them to finally do so to the fullest extent that they can.

          If i remember correctly Mikes statement on his website about this indicated that experience demonstrated the conclusions of economics on inflation to be wrong which is true, but didn’t speculate as to why, so maybe this can provide some additional information for him to use as well.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        4. Daniels

          I understand what you and Mike are calling inflation. I hope you will take the following post seriously, and consider the points I am making carefully.

          What you refer to as inflation has many causes, one of which is changing the supply of money. When discussing this issue it is vital that when referring to a change in the purchasing power in money, we identify what specific change we are concerned with.

          The purchasing value of the dollar can go up or down for a variety of reasons. When Henry Ford automated the production line for cars, cars got cheaper because they used fewer resources to make. They really got cheaper. When this happened, the purchasing power of the dollar relative to automobiles got stronger. This is not deflation. This is Henry Ford making cars cheaper in real terms. The point I am making about inflation and deflation is that those terms refer very specifically to the change in purchasing power of the dollar (or whatever currency) associated with the change in quantity of that currency. If you double the amount of dollars everyone has instantly the dollar becomes half as valuable. That is inflation.

          When Florida experiences sub zero temperatures and all their orange crops fail, oranges become more expensive (in real terms, there are fewer oranges produced, oranges are more expansive to produce, they take more real resources to be produced). The dollar now has less purchasing power relative to oranges. This is not inflation. This is oranges getting more expensive.

          So, when speaking of the change in purchasing power of currency, the different influences must be separated to have a meaningful discussion. Inflation is simply the change in the purchasing power of currency directly caused by the change in the quantity of money. All other factors that affect the purchasing power of currency have different names, and must be refereed to by their names in order to be precise about the real phenomenon taking place.

          A final example (it is an over simplification, but I believe it illustrates the point) The FED doubles the supply of money, each dollar has half as much purchasing power. Henry Ford makes efficiency improvements to the production of the Model T, so it now takes half as many resources (materials labor time etc) to produce. The result is that the dollar now buys exactly the same number of model T’s it did before. Has inflation taken place despite the fact that the purchasing power of the dollar relative to Model T’s has not changed? Yes, inflation has taken place while simultaneously productivity has increased.

          I hope this helps separate the various causes of a change in the purchasing power of currency.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        5. David

          Hi Again Daniels;

          Yes, this is turning into a great discussion here. I guess in terms of definitions, your obviously much more versed in standard economic theory and terminology than i am, but should we simply use the definitions of decrease or increase in the purchasing power per unit of currency which would seem the apparent definition to most people for inflation and deflation ?

          I loved the example of Henry Ford which you used and it illustrates perfectly the “buffer zone” i was referring to, and actually demonstrates how the purchasing power of a currency can actually be increased regardless or circulation given the ability of the population to buy up and increase the volume of production. Technically this could be termed deflation, but as you say it has nothing to do with the currency itself, it is simply an increase in the efficiency of production making the product more affordable to the consumer due to that increase in efficiency and as such it becomes a very good thing toward everyone’s benefit as each can now have access to twice as much as a result. Again the objective is coming up with a way to max this process out to its maximum potential level and benefit to the population. Something which should be easy to accomplish.

          Again, your orange example illustrates the cause of inflation under the current definition we’re using in indicating how decreased production, due to either a shortage of currency as well as natural disasters will result in increased cost due to shortage or decreased production demand as well. Where this is caused by a natural disaster, it will result in a temporary increased cost on one particular item which again has nothing to do with the currency itself. Where it is caused by a manipulated shortage of currency it will result in a decrease of the purchasing power of the currency on all items. Once again the objective becomes trying to minimize his process to the extent where the only possible way for it to occur is due to circumstances beyond control where such occurrence can only result in a temporary condition on certain items and not degenerate into a long term or permanent condition. Again something which should be easy to accomplish.

          Re; your last paragraph, and i addressed this issue on the sound money blog, but do consider the specific timing of this as we all have experienced in our own lives in accordance with what we ourselves have paid for the things we use. This can very well illustrate the cause of the long term effects of this by examining the specific timing of events in relation to the state of currency. It is always an extremely difficult thing in order to bring prices down once they have stabilized at a high level as it would essentially take some form of unanimous agreement between everyone to simply drop a zero and keep on going, but i think that you’ll determine for yourself that the price increases have always occurred under a shortage of purchasing power, i.e. during the busts, and then carried over into the next boom, and not while the economy was being flooded with credit. I don’t know if your old enough to remember the massive inflation and recession we experienced in the 1970′s but it was in the latter 1970′s when the debt from the massive injection of credit which had been put into circulation in the earlier part of the decade and before became due and the supply or currency diminished that the inflation happened. The Reagan administration managed to entice the banks into injecting another massive volume of credit into circulation with its 20% interest rate policy at which point prices once again stabilized and at least some form of production was restored. Today we are paying the price for that again as those debts have now become due, only now are ever more insurmountable than before, and there is absolutely no way that the population can contend with a 40 % interest rate in order to entice the banks to inject more credit again.

          Prices do eventually come down due to a shortage of currency as well, as they eventually did in the 1930′s depression, but until such a time as more purchasing power was injected into the population they still existed in the worst state of abject poverty and hardship which this country had ever seen. Again, although there were some small natural elements involved, the depression was created primarily by banks artificially removing the means of trade, and ended by banks artificially injecting more means of trade in order to fund the war effort, without which the result would have been permanent, resulting in the final objective they are still trying to accomplish today per: Jefferson’s statement on the matter.

          I guess if we were to define in simple terms the objective which needs to be accomplished here its to remove banks and their ability to artificially manipulate economic conditions in order to create these cycles and inevitably bring things to the point where things can no longer be restored, and give the people the ability to manage the system in order to establish stable and consistent and reliable trade and production and allow that capacity to perpetually increase instead of simply being torn down in cycles as it has been in the past and eventually eliminated as well. Also seems a very simple thing to accomplish too if we simply establish this as the objective and create and manage some system to make it do that. It’s called economic renaissance and will simply involve directing our thoughts toward creating something new which can as opposed to clinging to antiquated ideas which guarantee it won’t.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  34. Douglas

    James Madison said instead of listening to idiots in the media:

    “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these precede debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

    A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against. Foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

    Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country”.

    What would James Madison say now? He would see how the Military Industrial Complex born out of WWII through the Private Owners of the Western Central Banks. After they lost control of Hitler they had to stop him. So, the whole disproportional build up of Hitler’s Army was multiplied by the effort to stop him.

    After, the whole world was either blown up, big in dept or left with a huge Industrial Complex that either had to keep going or be converted into peace time productions. For example, the ‘Space Program’ was implemented in full force as a way to offset the economic dependency on the Industrial Military Complex.

    What Eisenhower realized was that the same people who gave rise to the Axis of Evil were the same who profited off its destruction. The fact that they lost control of Hitler is not the main issues. The issue is what they where planning on doing with Hitler’s massive Industrial Socialistic Complex before he turned on them.

    David, what we are dealing with here will take much more than a public effort to sway the general population to decommission the private ownership of The Federal Reserve. It would be much more to do the whole operation covertly without the Public Knowing. Our enemies simply have too much power over the Media and thus the Minds of the Public to be effective on a Political Scale. Nor, will some brilliant economic genius single handedly be able to neutralize such a Power.

    For example, the Private Central Banking Families have already placed ‘check mate’ into position in the event the US Government oust their power and influence over US Monetary policy. Why do you think the Power of the US Government is so cooperative and easily manipulated by such a Powerful Unconstitutional Force? It is called Global Multi-National Economic Interdependency. Yea, the US could easily brake off and take care of our own economy; However, not without a great deal of turmoil, public misunderstandings and China coming to claim their share of US Securities in the form of Land, Real-estate, Production and Labor.

    “Check Mate”!

    So, it would be better to covertly weed out all the Private Central Banking Families ‘AGENTS’ operating in the US Government, CIA, Pentagon, FBI, IRS, FDA, etc. Then slowly restore the economic independent sustainability of the US as nonchalantly as possible. To keep the publics Media Mind in the right direction we will have to put CFR members and organizers on public trial.

    On the Other Hand, we could make an International effort. This is an approach typical in many college political fraternal orders. What they promote is the International expansion of US principles such as Democracy, Free Markets and other Humane Rights. However, history shows that they are all used primarily to spread the power and control of the Private Central Banking Families.

    Our International effort would be impossible to implement without the Internet. In this case we would require a team that just focused on the Internet System of Alliances. We would simply promote that each Nation join together to keep and preserve their Independent Economic Sustainability with a proportional amount of trade.

    It was interesting to read how G-20 gathered and hashed out the exchange rates and the prospect of sustainable trade. Meanwhile, The Private Central Banking Families stand to benefit know matter who walks away with the best deal. How can G-20 pretend to figure out trade and exchange values when they have know audit or control over Private Central Banking Issuance.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  35. Jake

    This message is to notify all of us that Saturday will be the first broadcast live of my new radio show, “mike montagne on mathematically perfected economy and absolute consensual representation.” The 3-hour broadcast will be available live from http://www.tnsradio.ning.com at 3 PM to 6 PM Pacific Time. Please notify your friends, who can listen in from a live link at the top left-hand corner of the TNS Radio home page. You can also tune in directly from any iTunes installation by clicking the Advanced menu… Open audio stream… and tuning in to the URL: http://184.82.19.16:8300/listen.pls.

    Warm regards,
    mike montagne — founder, PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy™; author/engineer, mathematically perfected economy™ (1979)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

Leave a Reply