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



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.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

399 Comments:

  1. 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. 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

      • 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

      • 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

    • 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

      • 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

        • 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

        • 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?

          »crosslinked«

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  2. 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

  3. 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

    • 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

  4. 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

    • 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

      • 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

    • 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

  5. 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

    • 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

      • 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

  8. 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

    • 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

    • 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

      • 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

    • 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

  9. 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

    • 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

  10. 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

    • 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

    • 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

  11. 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

    • 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

  12. 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

    • 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

    • 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

      • 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

        • 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

        • 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

        • 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

        • 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

        • 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

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

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

      • 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

      • 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

    • 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

    • 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

    • 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

      • 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

        • 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

  15. 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

    • 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

      • 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

    • It´s not about economics Daniels.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      • 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

      • 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

        • 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

      • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

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

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  17. 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

    • 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

      • 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

        • 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

        • 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

  18. 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

    • 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

      • 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

        • 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

  19. 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

Leave a Reply