|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||Page: 1 2||
|Talk about|| Rating:
|Posted: Mon Feb 19th, 2007 01:56 pm||
Now I want to give credit where credit is due. The currency that the Fed sponsors is passed from hand to hand the world over. It is not the first dominant global monetary brand – the pound sterling ruled the roost in the 19th century and for a few decades of the 20th. But the dollar is the first universally honored irredeemable paper currency. Not since 1971 has anything tangible stood behind it. It is uncollateralized – faith-based – yet the world accepts it. It is America’s greatest export. The United States consumes much more than it produces and discharges its foreign debts in money that it alone is allowed to print. If there were ever a golden age of paper money, this is it.
"Not since 1971 has anything tangible stood behind it."
The subject is "Dollar Hegemony" and the something that 'stands' behind "Dollar Hegemony" is Power.
Power stands behind "Dollar Hegemony" in the form of ‘capitalists’ who spread the infection of falsehood that destroys individual knowledge that is a vital power empowering any collection of individuals glued together by any form of currency (interaction).
Power stands behind “Dollar Hegemony” in the form of capitalist corporate ‘entities’ that profit from “Dollar Hegemony” enforcement by fraud and force including the destruction of whole civilizations like Iraq and soon to be Iran.
Power stands behind “Dollar Hegemony” in the form of nuclear bunker buster bombs ready to unearth nuclear radiation in Iran.
Power stands behind “Dollar Hegemony” in the form of oil to be supplied and priced at rates ensuring the maintenance of the power monopoly that is “Dollar Hegemony”.
The challenge to any proponent of the capitalist interest/profit/wage paying SYSTEM is here before you to ignore at will.
|Posted: Mon Feb 19th, 2007 02:01 pm||
Looking down with the nose up perhaps.
Readers please consider reading some old Wall Street news:
The advanced course is top secret.
|Posted: Mon Feb 19th, 2007 02:45 pm||
|I'm reading the rest of the 'capitalist' angle of view.
Meanwhile the readers (if any exist) can peruse an alternate viewpoint here:
And the next link requires the reader to search out and read "A New System of Paper Currency" (if the link doesn't go directly there).
This next one is precious if only for the description of the Parasite City:
This is of 'interest' to gold bugs:
Here is 'negative' interest:
Here for more on 'negative' interest:
Those scratch the surface of new and better forms of currency all competing for market share on the earth. Eventually, according to me, currency will be 'energy money' recorded and encrypted digitally and that 'discussion' will play out as time goes by even after 'we' are dead.
|Posted: Mon Feb 19th, 2007 02:59 pm||
I can dig this one:
Vampires, Money, and Economic Cycles
by Bill Walker
Then in a bizarre twist we have to suffer through the story of the Bank of Amsterdam and a 150-year period of perfect banking honesty. No panics, no cheating, no economic cycles, just steady economic progress through revolutions, wars, and disasters of every kind. (Don’t worry, it’s the only known example of such length).
"Perfect Banking Honestly"
That reminds me; I need to cut and paste something I read that really needs to be spread around some more - in my opinion.
It is really nothing but the free market as discussed in economics: if there is free and unlimited competition, no barriers of entry, all actors carry their own costs (etc, etc), then the prices would tend towards the cost of production. This cost really means the investment as well as the return necessary for the investment to take place. This is what economists mean when they say a free market with "perfect information" doesn't allow for profits. There is still return for the producer (he gets a living), but not "profits."
This is what economists mean when they say a free market with "perfect information" doesn't allow for profits. There is still return for the producer (he gets a living), but not "profits." (Per Bylund)
The important thing to understand, in my opinion, is this:
If production during 'perfect information' or even 'perfect banking honesty' for anyone or everyone combined (as a statistic) exceeds consumption (more valuable stuff is made that the valuable stuff consumed), then, purchasing power increases.
I.E. the same number of 'dollars' are chasing around more valuable stuff.
In other words: Everyone Profits.
Last edited on Mon Feb 19th, 2007 03:11 pm by Joe Kelley
|Posted: Fri Feb 23rd, 2007 03:58 pm||
Talk about monetary cranks!
There isn't anything to debate.
Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar
|Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 01:47 pm||
How to sell short?
I can't argue with falsehood. I can offer a perspective that intends to answer some important questions.
What is the actual, real, physical difference between saving and investing? The answer depends, of course, on what is meant by the terms being communicated.
Savings, if I have this right, is an investment of current wealth into a form of wealth that is different from the form of wealth that wealth exists previous to the conversion from whatever wealth was before it was saved.
Don't blame me for the confusion of words.
Wealth exists in some form previous to saving it.
Previous to wealth there is a lack of wealth.
This bring me back to energy.
Energy is a form of wealth like night is poor in wealth compared to day.
During the day a person can gather up the wealth provided by the sun and turn that wealth into electricity during the day.
When night time comes around there remains a need for energy wealth.
Did the economist save any of the energy wealth produced during the day?
Did the economist invest any of the energy wealth produced during the day?
What happens when too much energy is produced during the day?
Can too much energy be saved?
What happens to the purchasing power of energy when too much energy is produced, saved, or invested?
How much purchasing power is saved on one barrel of oil?
What happens to the purchasing power of oil when everyone has free flowing energy coming out of the Sun like water?
Answer: Oil wealth declines (less purchasing power) while all things produced with energy cost less.
What is meant by the term "Cost-less".
How much does it cost to produce anything while the price of oil increases?
While the supply of oil decreases and the price of oil increases what happens to the purchasing power held by anyone other than the people who control the supply of oil?
The purchasing power of the people who control oil increases while the people who require oil to produce everthing have a steadily declining power to purchase.
Wealth goes from everyone to the people who control the supply of oil.
As the supply of oil decreases the cost of everthing increases and the people who control oil gain more and more wealth while the people who need oil for production lose more and more wealth.
What happens if everyone invests (saves) their wealth in a form that produces more 'cost-less' energy?
A. The supply of energy increases.
B. The supply of energy increases while the supply of oil decreases
C. The price of oil decreases and the price of other energy decreases because the supply of energy increases.
D. Everything produced with energy costs less (greater supply of energy lowers the cost of production).
E. Purchasing power increaseas for everyone.
F. The value of human labor increases.
Two obvious problems exist for the people who control the flow of oil and the same people who control the flow of currency (dollars).
A. More energy production reduces their monopoly power over the energy supply.
B. More energy production increases the power of human labor.
Those two problems spell the end of Despotism. If you can see this, then, you end the power of falsehood - at the source.
Good Luck. The times they are a changin'
|Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 03:18 pm||
I'm going back to the above site to finish reading the entire series called: The Coming Trade War.
Here is a gem:
Here we go:
How can that be true?
Less energy surplus
Do you see this?
If the supply of energy is reinvested into creating an ever increasing supply of energy (electricity for example), then, the cost of everything produced with energy (which is everything) lowers.
Increased supply reduces costs.
Increased supply reduces price.
Increased supply INCREASES purchasing power.
That is opposite when economic calculation is applied to everything except energy because energy is POWER stored.
Purchasing is unleashing stored POWER.
Jump ahead 20 years from now and imagine what happens to the global economy if everyone stops 'saving' and starts 'investing' in Solar Panels, Wind Generators, Water powered vehicles, and all things that do, in fact, increase the total supply of ready energy (energy that can flow or stop flowing at the flip of a switch).
Very roughly speaking (for the sake of argument if you will):
In 20 years the supply of energy doubles.
What happens to two things:
The demand for human labor
Put on your thinking caps.
If the supply of ready energy doubles, triples, quadruples, and so on, in time, then, the cost of energy halves, reduces by 50% again, again, again, until energy is COST - LESS.
What happens to everything that is produced by Energy?
This isn't that tough.
For example: What happens when the price of gasoline (world wide) is cut in half? What happens if the price in gasoline doubles?
When the supply of gasoline reduces, then, the price of gasoline goes up. What happens if the price of gasoline double every year for the next twenty years?
This is simple. The price of everything made with the help of gasoline goes up and keeps going up.
Meanwhile the people in control of the flow of oil gain wealth while everyone else loses wealth. Does that look just a tad bit convenient and beyond coincidence?
What happens, instead, if the supply of oil (or Solar Electricity running electric cars) doubles every year for 20 years?
The cost goes down. The cost of everything goes down.
You have Solar Panels and a Solar Car as does everyone else. How much do you pay for home heating, cooking, washing cloths, drying clothes, and how much do you pay for fueling your car when the cost of electricity is steadily lowering. You can't give the stuff away because everyone is producing their own; and the few people not producing their own can buy electricity for practically nothing.
What does that do for the price of everything made with electricity?
Backing up slightly:
Material overcapacity is a result of mental undercapacity.
Suppose the entire population of the world woke up smart tomorrow.
Everyone decided to use a few new forms of currency; just to get things going in the right direction.
The first form of currency is issued by a few new businesses that no government forced anyone to use other than one 'legal' measure.
Anyone using this new form of currency can pay taxes with this new form of currency.
That is the extent of the "Law" for this new currency - for now.
Suppose California started things going by incorporating a new currency that can be used to pay California state tax and U.S. National tax and since the whole world signs on to this new currency idea the U.S. National government can use this currency to pay United Nations Taxes (If the U.S. joins the United Nations).
It may be a good idea to note how taxes are the same thing as insurance payments where many pay into a fund that accumulates wealth to be spent on security (or taxes are just a euphemism for extortion).
The California state currency corporation (or any name will do like the California Security Fund) begins the process of creating the new currency with a new web page, computer program, and numerous computers to store the program and the data. All transactions are encrypted and recorded on various hard drives within the system to ensure that the program and the data remain un-adjusted by any criminal element seeking to use the system for their own nefarious gain.
The initial public offering of the new currency is offered as a strict one time deal for any person alive anywhere on the planet to borrow the new currency to be paid directly to any mortgage company for the transfer of the title of one residence.
No one is forced to borrow the money and no one is forced to accept the currency with the exception of an agreement, in writing, for all governments of the world to accept the currency as payment of taxes (remember the part about everyone waking up smart tomorrow?).
Will any current mortgage company accept the new currency? Do you know what the term “competitive advantage” means? If one mortgage company did suffer from a tax burden and this one mortgage company did accept the new currency to help cover its tax burden, then, will this one mortgage company gain or lose more business compared to the companies that will not accept the new currency?
This brings us to the subject of interest charged for the new currency.
Suppose that California charges no interest on any person who is borrowing the currency to pay for their own residence within the boarders of California and California charges 1% interest on the new currency to any person borrowing the new currency anywhere within the United States and California charges 2% interest on the new currency to any person borrowing the new currency anywhere on the Planet (with the exception of anyone known to be currently torturing or mass murdering people = George Bush and Dick Cheney can’t borrow).
Now, knowing that the above is possible if not easy to realize, will you borrow any of the new currency?
This may take some thought. You borrow your one time loan and you pay off your Mortgage (including any charge for early pay-off) so you gain free title of your primary residence and you pay no interest if you live in California.
Do you know how compound interest works? With a 6% loan that is amortized for 30 years you will pay approximately twice the price of the home to the bank. At zero percent interest you will pay only the price of the home; therefore – that is not the same thing as cutting your payment in half. Just for the sake of argument, then, suppose that this does amount to cutting your monthly payment in half.
Now you have, say, 500 more dollars a month to invest, save, or spend.
The California Investment Fund Mutual Bank Currency Monopoly Corporation Business or whatever name is attached to this enterprise adds a few new products for reasons that may, or may not, become self-evidently doable.
Product A was the interest free primary residence mortgage get out of jail free card.
Product B is the ‘if you want to be a good boy, then, pay off your interest free loan – loan’.
Product B is a one time offer to any person with a good credit rating for the purchase of a fully functioning home energy generating unit complete with two electric automobiles. The loan is at 1% interest for California Residents and 2% interest for anyone in the U.S.A. and 3% interest for anyone in the world.
For the additional reduction of .5% interest on Product B the person borrowing the money must increase the output of his purchase to include enough energy output to provide enough current for one more residence two more electric vehicles and the person receiving this loan can sell the extra autos to anyone and sell the extra electricity to anyone at any price they so desire.
The stipulations of the loan are only enforced by the repossessions of any capital purchased with the new currency and a lowering of the credit rating of the person who does not utilize the new currency as stipulated in the loan document or in cases where repossession requires excessive costs – the person guilty of fraud must pay back all the stolen funds before any more currency loans can be borrowed. Call that the fool me once rule and don’t ask Bush to explain it.
Who would not borrow the new money and perhaps a more relevant question is; what happens if everyone borrows the new money?
Can you hear the neo-economists yelling “INFLATION” from the roof tops?
Note: The amount of new currency printed will be directly proportional to the wealth contained within primary residences; Energy producing home Power Generating Systems (including transportation) and this is only the beginning.
If everyone borrowed the new currency to the current limit (residential and Energy loans), then, how many people will be building new and better houses, how many people will be dumping old houses for sale to people who can’t afford paying high monthly payments, how many people will be starting solar panel business, production, installation, sales, maintenance. Etc.
How much more Energy will be produced world wide?
Will the new energy be clean?
What happens to the cost of everything produced with more and more energy?
What happens to purchasing power?
What happens to the demand for human labor?
What happens to the price people will pay to someone willing to work?
If you can’t answer these questions, then, you may have been educated by neo-economists. Don’t blame me.
Last edited on Wed Jun 27th, 2007 05:27 pm by Joe Kelley
|Posted: Sun Jul 1st, 2007 05:29 pm||
The global justice movements are an entirely new phenomenon, perhaps the seeds of the kind of international that has been the hope of the workers movements and the left since their modern origins. They are called “antiglobalizati! on” in the reigning doctrinal systems, because they seek a form of globalization oriented towards the interests of people, not concentrated economic power—and unfortunately, they have often adopted this ridiculous terminology.
Anything positive, such as federalists, or even capitalists (voluntary), are targets of criminals.
This is what happens:
The criminals take on the name of the positive (example: The Nationalist Alexander Hamilton taking on the name, and only the name, of Federalist) and the criminals then blame the real Federalists as being anti-federalist. When this works very well the actual federalists call themselves anit-federalists.
If that sounds confusing, then, simply think in terms of 'false flags' like the old Pirate and Privateer days on the high seas. A pirate (or "Privateer") would take down the skull and cross bones flag and fly a 'false' flag of the country of its next victim.
Imagine how much better it works when the pirates can get their victims to label themselves as being negative, bad, false, and criminal?
Positive becomes negative in 'our' minds.
Bad becomes good.
Right becomes wrong.
True becomes false in 'our' minds.
The crimnals are not fooled.
The victims become willing victims due to their foolish belief in a manufactured and propagandized falsehood.
The term "Democracy" has suffered a similar fate when the popular meaning has become 'the will of the majoirty' rather than 'individual sovereignty', where, the old 'everyone is king in their own castle', to the false version of democracy which equates to 'everyone must submit to the will of the majority'.
What a hoax. Don't you feel at least a little bit foolish for entertaining a belief in falsehood?
|Posted: Mon Feb 9th, 2009 12:42 pm||
|I not only "believe" in the free market, I understand it. I'm on the edge of my seat reading this latest news item, from Gary North (my favorite capitalist).
An example of the free market working can be illustrated with a walk-in customer at my wife's Real Estate business where I am currently being employed as an assistant (while I continue to recuperate).
The walk in is a Muslim who wants to buy an old building and turn it into a church (the building is the place where my Wife and I were married).
I find out that this Muslim person is short on cash and he has no credit with the dollar suppliers who supply cash. I ask if he has ever heard of Islamic Banking, and he reports that he has and that he is going to look into that source of cash.
I asked him to please return if he is successful.
I have not seen that Muslim person since that discussion; it has been a few months.
Islamic Banking may require many hurdles to jump, many strict requirements, qualifications, etc. to earn the credit to borrow money, and that is the cost, while Islamic Banking charges no interest.
In other words; a house will cost the buyer of the house the price of the house instead of the house requiring from the borrower of interest earning loans the price of two houses.
A. one house costing the price of one house (one house one cost)
B. one house costing the price of two houses (one cost goes to the seller of the house and the other entire cost of the house goes to the bank as “interest”)
Which is more competitive in a free market?
Not too long ago, I was watching this happen, anyone who could prove that they could not pay back a loan: received a loan. That was when the “boom” was booming. Call it a “loose” money policy, from the top down.
Now, and I see this happening with companies like Tesla Motors, a person (or a group of people) who can prove that they don’t need any money: can’t get a loan. That is called “tight” money policy, from the top down.
The top down method is gearing up to change back to a “loose” money policy soon. Who gets the money? How much does the money cost? Who decides who gets the money, and who decides how much the money costs?
In the case of “legal” money, the question of who gets the money is answered by the creditor as the creditor chooses who gets credited and who gets the money. If the case of the cost of the money, that is decided by the person having to pay the cost. Blood does not flow from rocks; no matter how hard you squeeze them – or crush them (I’ve done my share of rock crushing).
I’m not so close to the edge of my seat as before, yet I’ll read the rest of Gary North’s latest news item. I really like that guy.
The thought that commercial bank insiders actively demolished trillions of dollars of their own equity as part of a conspiratorial plan is so imbecilic, so outrageous, so ludicrous, that I am convinced that these conspiracy worshippers have lost whatever remained of their minds. They have been gutted intellectually, just as the banks have been gutted financially.
Here is where I get much of my confidence in the current situation being less than cataclysmic, not so much dooms day as it may be one doom day for one person, or two, and more than two, some people always find a way to suffer, some people are innocent victims too. The power to enforce false and misleading currency (of all forms) is becoming less powerful relative to the power to allow the free and unrestricted flow of true and productive currency. Did I just confirm, or say the same thing, in other words, as did Gary North in the quote above?
Not quite, but the reader has to answer the right questions to know the difference.
The American conspirators have lost the one thing that they thought they had: control over the nation and the nation's finances by means of the fractional reserve banking system. That system is coming unglued, just as Ludwig von Mises said it would, just as Murray Rothbard said it would, and just as those other Austrian economists who understand the enormous weakness of the fractional reserve system had said would eventually take place.
According to Gary North (in another article), Mises was for Free Banking and Rothbard was not for free banking. One, it seems to me, was for competition, and the other was for monopoly (removing competition). It seems to me that those two people were on the same side in their predictions, and on opposite sides in their “Austrian” theories. I can predict that the sun will stop shining, and I am right.
The thing to think about here, now, is to predict which currency or which currencies will replace the dollar as the hegemonic currency (the one that eliminates the competition effectively), or to predict a long run of competition as currencies compete for market share based upon their ability to offer higher quality at lower cost.
Will Gary North predict this type of prediction in his news item? My guess is that the age of currency monopoly is not over and the new currency hegemony will be the highest quality currency at the lowest cost long enough for it to grow corrupt and then the quality will reduce, the costs will go up, and then a new age of competition will emerge again. The time frame for this “cycle” of dominance could be in the order of 100 years.
How long has it been since the British pound was the dominant, monopolistic, world hegemonic currency?
The dollar hegemony has now a chance to reduce costs and increase quality relative to the competitors, so as to regain its power to enforce its currency monopoly, or blow up the competitors, torture them, and murder them. Here is where it is noteworthy to include the factor of “energy” into the equation because we all know (even us ignoramuses) that money without any backing is worthless money – less valuable than toilet paper.
Is the dollar backed by stupid people paying taxes to the U.S. National government, or is the dollar backed by oil, coal, electricity, natural gas, steel, uranium, wheat, corn, sugar, human labor, etc.? Think about that please as you contemplate wiping your behind with one of those greenbacks.
What can be done about it? Politically, nothing. The American political system has been soft-core fascist for almost a century. Liberals love to call conservatives fascists. The problem is, the liberals are right. Of course, well-informed conservatives like to call liberals fascists, and they are correct, too. Everyone who believes in the efficiency of the so-called government-business alliance is a fascist.
Note: Murray Rothbard was a fascist
For over a century, the best and the brightest of the students graduating from the senior universities of the country have been recruited into big government and fractional reserve banking. In other words, they relied on coercion to get rich personally and to direct the growth of American capitalism. They got rich, and capitalism grew, but it grew in terms of malinvestments. It grew because the fiat money was used to lower interest rates, and these lower interest rates led to malinvested capital. Mises showed how this system operated as early as 1912.
That is how Gary North confesses his ignorance concerning political economy. How, for example, does the lowering of interest rates lead to mal-invested capital? To explain that answer one must get Gary North to answer specific questions. That won’t happen.
Consider what would happen if Obama allowed free banking in the U.S.A. and consider what would happen if one new banking competitor offered no-interest loans of legal currency?
Think about that – please.
What would happen if the cost of getting one of those no-interest loans was a history of paying back every penny of every loan ever borrowed? What would happen?
Gary North is a scarce-economic capitalist, who bases his “theories” on scarce power economies. What happens when power is not scarce?
What would happen if the same bank that offers no-interest loans, on home mortgages for example, what would happen if that same bank were to offer 1% interest loans on power producing products like Solar Panels, Electric cars, Wind Generators, wave generators (lunar generators), etc.?
What would happen? Power would no longer be scarce, no longer held scarce, no longer crippled by people who “believe” in scarce-economic theories.
This is why academic economists are demanding even more Federal spending to bail out the banks and the other institutions associated with high finance.
I don’t think so. The reasons people embrace, the reasons people covet, the reasons people love to thing about, the reasons people employ, or the rationalizations people use to rationalize doing the things that people do, like invading places where oil is found, torturing, mass murdering, and such, are as varied as the number of people doing those things. What reason does Gary North embrace as Gary North embraces his scarce-economic theories? Am I able to put words in his mouth, and give him his reasons for reasoning? No.
There is real recovery and nominal recovery – recovery in terms of rising prices. Rising wages and rising prices give the illusion of prosperity.
I do not disagree with much of the scarce-economic theory as scarce-economic theory concerns scare things. Above makes perfect sense. When the growth of money is faster than the growth of valuable things the effect is an increase in prices on valuable things.
If that growth of money is invested in the production of power producers, then valuable things keep pace with the growth of money and the growth of power producers can exceed the growth of money, where the effect will be a lowering of prices.
If you do not see this, then consider re-reading Joe’s Law.
Power produced into a state of over-supply decreases the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
Suppose, for example, the 800 billion dollar bail out was spent on nothing but solar panels and electric cars for the top credit score home and business owners in the U.S.A.
And, don’t forget, those top credit score home and business owners no longer have to pay mortgage interest (they only have to pay off the price of their homes and business loans – not the “interest”).
How about some number crunching? Suppose each home and business owner borrowed that bail out money and each home and business owner would (low risk) pay back the entire 800 billion dollars in 30 years time, plus 1 percent interest on the portion of the loan employed toward the purchase of power producers (solar panels and electric cars).
Suppose half of the 800 billion loans went toward mortgage interest pay off and the other half went toward power producer purchases.
400 billion goes toward Solar Panels and Electric Cars, and that money returns back to the bank in 30 years with 1 percent interest extra.
Now cut that 400 billion down to 200 billion spent on Solar Panels and 200 billion spent on Electric Cars.
How much more power is produced by the Solar Panels purchased with 200 billion dollars?
Well…I’ve read that the latest Solar Panels are now capable of producing replacement costs as soon as one year. I can link that news if requested. Suppose, in a conservative measure, that it takes 15 years to produce the pay back costs of the 200 billion dollars worth of solar panels?
In 30 years, then, those Solar Panels make 400 billion dollars worth of power, and 1 percent of that power goes back to the bank, while the remaining “profit” goes to the home and business owner who can spend, save, or invest that “profit” into his or her or other people’s economy.
Now move onto the Electric car 200 billion dollars. How much less dependent is the U.S.A. on foreign oil as a result of that investment in 200 billion dollars worth of Electric car production as the home and business owners who benefit from this stimulus package generate their own motor fuel (electricity) and as these home and business owners drive past the gas stations?
Why do you, yes you the one with the brain, think that the U.S.A. are in Iraq, and why do you think that the U.S.A. doesn’t like Hugo Chavez?
Is this irrelevant nonsense?
The next college-level economics textbook that exposes the Federal Reserve System as the commercial bank cartel's enforcement arm will be the first one.
I really do like Gary North.
We were all dismissed as cranks.
Gary North dismisses me as a crank, before he even listens to what I have to say. What is that?
As the Internet grows in its influence, alternative views can get to a minority of educated people. The success of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in getting Austrian School economics in front of hundreds of thousands of young people, all over the world, who would never have heard about Mises or Rothbard had it not been for the World Wide Web, indicates that the foundations of the modern fascist economy are being undermined where it counts, which is in the minds of bright people who are no longer buying into the system.
That is funny to me. I’ve been banished from the “Mises Institute” forums, for doing nothing more or less than I’ve done on this forum. The powers that run that “capitalist” enterprise couldn’t stand the competition on a public forum. The “Mises Institute” dismissed me as a crank, then banished me, yet they still publish my work.
Here is an example:
Check out the charts.
Yes, I’ve been banished.
I read the rest of the news from Gary North and I hope someone else reads it too. The proof will be in the pudding, so to say, as a new form of currency replaces the old form.
The old form of currency was handed out to people who proved, beyond any doubt, that they were incapable of paying back the loan (never mind paying back interest on the loan), and this I saw personally as I helped my wife in her Real Estate business.
That is the old form of money being used to expand the money supply in that way. That is one of the ways that the old form of money was used to purposefully expand the money supply, and create an economic boom. Loaning money to people who prove that they cannot pay back the loan is one of many methods employed to make more money flow into circulation, and cause a boom in the economy, so as to increase prices on purpose.
You must, at least, read “Confessions of a Monopolist” by Howe – if you doubt what I am reporting.
Here is a link:
When the dollar hegemony wants to create a bust they take money out of the money supply and they don’t loan money even to the people who prove that they don’t need the money, and an example of that is Tesla motors, another example of that is seen from day to day in the Real Estate business – during the down cycle created by the dollar hegemony.
Gary North is reporting on the impending change back to a “boom” cycle from a “bust” cycle. If he knows when that switch will occur (from bust back to boom) then he can make a lot of “profit” from that accurate knowledge.
That is why the business cycle is created and maintained by the fascist state operators, to profit – and to profit from insider knowledge concerning when the cycle changes.
Buy at the bottom. Sell at the top. Rinse and repeat.
Don’t read Rothbard, unless you want more falsehood.
The creating of more currency can be a good thing as that currency flows to people who produce valuable things with that currency and when power producing things are produced with that currency the cost of producing everything goes down. Is that a bad thing or a good thing, and from which perspective are you viewing?
A. Profit at the expense of someone
B. Profit while everyone benefits
|Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 08:39 pm||
I'm going to work on this article. Before doing so I need to get some things, some words, accurately understood.
First on the list is Treasury Bonds.
Google sent me to Wikipedia for this:
The explanation of Treasury Bonds above is complicated. The simple definition is to say that Treasury Bonds are products offered for sale by the people who control the United States Money Corporation.
See how much easier it is to understand when speaking in plain English?
Still confused (like me)?
A Treasury Bond is something you or I cannot produce. You or I can’t sell something we cannot produce. If we buy a Treasury Bond from the people who produce the Treasury Bond, then we have a Treasury Bond and then we can sell it.
Doesn’t that make more sense?
Wouldn’t you want that power? Wouldn’t you want the power to produce a Treasury Bond, so you could sell it without having to buy it first?
Why am I the only one (the only one I know) who thinks the things through?
There was once a day when no one produced any U.S. Treasury Bonds. Then one day someone decided to produce U.S. Treasury Bonds, and now look at this:
Total--------- 1.8602 Trillion
Someone owes someone 2 Trillion dollars now.
See how that works?
Let me put that in perspective, again. You or I do not have the power to produce and then sell U.S. Treasury Bonds; if we did we would have sold 2 Trillion dollars worth of them, instead of the guys who did sell them.
What would you do with your half of that profit on that sale? You get 1 Trillion. I get 1 Trillion, because we have the power to produce U.S. Treasury Bonds.
Do you think I am on crack?
The producers of U.S Treasury Bonds sell the bonds at a lower price than what the Bond will pay at a later date, and that is why people buy them.
That is like you and I writing a personal check. You write 1,000,000,000.00 One Trillion Dollars. I do the same thing; I sell my same personal check. You sell yours to China for 500 billion because China thinks it can get 1 Trillion dollars later for a cost of 500 billion now.
I do the same thing. I sell mine to OPEC and Japan.
We both write personal checks. We both sell those checks for 500 Billion dollars, and here is where you can say that I am on crack because I said that 2 Trillion dollars was profit; not 500 Billion dollars.
Just add zeros dude, if you want more, add zeros.
What do we do with the money we get from China and OPEC? How about buying a house in the Bahamas? How about buying the Bahamas?
Do you think that I am missing something important here?
I wrote a personal check for 1 Trillion Dollars, I sold it to OPEC and Japan, you did the same thing; only you sold your personal check to China. We sold these personal checks at half price; we each have 500 billion dollars to spend on whatever we want. What did I miss?
Who pays the Chinese, Opec, and Japan when they return the personal check to the bank for their 1 Trillion Dollars each – 2 Trillion Dollars total?
We don’t have to, and that is the point. You and I can retire in the Bahamas, we have 500 Billion Dollars each.
Why, if we had 2 Trillion Dollars, if you think I’m on crack, would we sell 2 Trillion Dollars for 1 Trillion Dollars?
Why do it? Why not keep the 2 Trillion Dollars ourselves, why involve China, Japan, OPEC, or anyone else? Why sell someone something worth 2 Trillion Dollars for less that 2 Trillion Dollars?
That is a Treasury Bond.
Someone somewhere wrote a personal check for 2 Trillion Dollars and sold that personal check to someone else. If the buyer comes back to cash in the check can the producer of the personal check write another check as payment (just add zeros)?
If you think I am confused on this part of the fraud (legal crime), then tell me exactly where I am wrong, on this part (Treasury Bonds) and not on any excuse or apology for the fraud – such as “bringing democracy to Iraq” or “Funding the War on Terror”.
If the number goes up, someone is spending more than they are producing, just like any average Joe working man, or average Jane working woman, who buys too much and doesn’t earn enough income.
Who pays the bills? The average working Joe’s and Jane’s pay the bills. If you work hard enough to buy a house, the house is paid for by your work. If you need the house before working hard enough to earn enough income, then you sell Treasury Bonds to get the money to buy the house, it is the same thing.
Why are the legal criminals dictating to us how much credit we deserve?
Please answer that question, and if you can I will return here and finish translating the article above. So far one term has been translated. You can now know what really is a Treasury Bond.
Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 08:40 pm by Joe Kelley
|Posted: Mon Jun 8th, 2009 02:47 pm||
I did not return to the work of translating and deciphering that link where money was explained; from a fraudulent legal monopoly perspective.
My reasoning for avoiding the expense of figuring out what is meant when someone communicates ideas and actions concerning that falsehood of legal crime (the money monopoly extortion racket) is a judgment call concerning possible benefit being low.
What can be learned from careful study of legal crime? Is the idea such that the study will teach someone how better to manipulate the system to advantage? That is where I have a problem. I know the system is built upon the practice of gaining power at the expense of weaker people.
The idea is not a systematic approach toward greater prosperity while avoiding any injury to innocent people.
Learning how to better “game the game” is not a case of “choosing the lesser of two evils”, rather, the decision to “join them” (when they can’t be beaten) is analogous to walking through the “valley of the shadow of death” and not fearing any evil, because the intent is to become the most evil “SOB” in the valley.
Why do any of that when sunlight is gracing prosperous valleys every day.
Why choose evil at all?
Having those reasons in mind: my answer to the convoluted “financial markets” lesson, where ignorant people are given the opportunity to understand the intricate exchanges of wealth within a legal extortion racket system, my mind returns to illustrations that offer bright sunlight instead of dark evil.
Think, if you can go along with me, about two new products offered by The State (or anyone can offer these illustrated products, at least the idea here is that The State does not out-law these products under consideration now); where one product allows mortgage holders (people who owe money to banks for their homes and their business properties) to pay less money (interest payments) to the legal extortion racket.
Product one is a no-interest mortgage replacement loan offered to those people who have already proven their credit worthy-ness.
The reader may contemplate the reasoning behind this illustration of “what can be” and the reader may be inclined to ask questions concerning the possible “unintended consequences” of having this type of product on the market. How would I ever know what the reader thinks?
The result will be a transfer of ownership from the legal criminals to the producers of wealth. That is the reasoning, and that is the intended consequence. The unintended consequence is that the legal criminals will then be required to work and produce valuable stuff for a living because their extortion income stream will dry up.
The reader is asked now to notice the complete absence of any reasoned challenge to that last statement. I’ve been around to various forums, and to various places, where authoritative “experts” in “financial markets” could (logically) offer a challenge to that last statement; but no such challenge has materialized.
Product two intends to accomplish the same thing (with the same obvious unintended consequences) where product two earns the producers of the two products an income. The producers of the two new products must have an income or the producers of the two new products will fail to earn the power required to stay in business. Is that not simple logic?
So product two will cost the borrowers a 1 percent interest charge for the use of money; and that is one of the legitimate reasons for charging interest.
How about some numbers, for the skeptics, as the idea of the two new products begin to sink into the World View of the potential reader’s mind?
This is the part where the mind can see better; because numbers are tools by which human beings increase their ability to perceive reality more accurately.
Product one can be seen as a number of people living in the U.S.A who turn in their current mortgages for the new product and that number can be represented as 100 million people.
Anyone can argue as to the actual number of people who are proven to be low risk borrowers (people with good credit) and argue about the number of people who will turn in their mortgages for no-interest mortgages. Why argue? What is very difficult to entertain, logically, is an idea where someone argues that no one, or few people, would turn down the offer to change their expensive mortgage for an inexpensive one, especially when considering the fact that a typical interest mortgage costs the consumer twice the cost of the home.
Here then is the choice (based upon a 100,000 dollar home):
A. The home cost 100,000 dollars (No-interest charge on the mortgage)
B. The home cost 200,000 dollars (Typical cost of interest added)
Therefore the idea here is to pick a number of home owners from the number of people living in the U.S.A. where this number of people stop paying mortgage interest; based upon 300 million people living in the U.S.A.
I picked 100 million because it is an easy number to use in the process of seeing how those big numbers work.
100 million people stop paying 100,000 dollars to the Bank Cartel (and don’t even tell me that those poor bankers need their income, the average “worker” at a bank doesn’t make a lot of money).
For a period of 30 years (the average mortgage time period) the number of people (100 million poeple) pay that much interest (100 thousand dollars worth of interest) and that is a simple multiplication of 100 million times 100 thousand or a 1 followed by 8 zeros and adding another 5 zeros.
100,000,000 x 100,000 = 10,000,000,000,000
The zeros add up to 13 zeros. That number is then 10 Trillion.
Look at that please. Does that boggle your mind?
Product one transfers 10 Trillion dollars from the legal criminals to the people who make that much wealth; and that is the unintended consequence. The intended consequence is to allow the people who create wealth to keep what they create, spend it, invest it, save it, or take a vacation and stop working so much.
Poor, poor, bankers, stand to lose 10 Trillion dollars in 30 years.
Which ones; which poor bankers? Not the average bank employee. The idea here is to allow the bank owners to make money on product number two; and we can go through the numbers on that too. Please consider challenging the numbers offered so far – if you are inclined toward skepticism.
100 million people stop paying twice for their homes in 30 years time.
100,000 dollars is the average home price for each of those 100 million people.
100 million is 1 and 8 zeros. 100 thousand is 1 and 5 zeros. 8 plus 5 is 13.
1,000 = Thousand
1,000,000 = Million
1,000,000,000 = Billion
1,000,000,000,000 = Trillion (12 zeros)
10,000,000,000,000 = 10 Trillion (13 zeros)
That is roughly half of each individual paying a 1,000 dollar mortgage payment each month. In other words the idea with product one is to cut the monthly mortgage payment for each mortgage holder down from 1,000 dollars a month (average) to 500 dollars a month or the option to pay the whole 100,000 dollar (average) home mortgage off sooner will allow each of those wealth creators to keep 1,000 per month earlier (10 years roughly instead of 30 years).
Those are very rough, average, numbers meant only to bring the perception into view with greater clarity. Numbers offer greater clarity of perception; legal criminals know this.
How much would it cost to process 100 million new loans? The answer is easy to see, in modern times, each person could accomplish the purchase of this new loan on-line. The process could cost no more than the cost of using a computer program hooked up to the network. There isn’t any need for a building in every city for the new provider of these new legal monetary products. Think about how easily all those mortgages are swapped in “modern times” as “bundles” of mortgages change hands in current “global” transactions.
“They” have “us” by the balls (or other sensitive parts) not because they are so smart, so capable of processing the complexity of modern finance, no, that is a huge part of the falsehood, “they” have “us” because they control our money.
The cost to do this, this product one and product two thing, is negligible compared to the scale of the profits that are possible with just one percent interest charged to the customers. Product one is used to gain market share (from the legal criminals to the morally lawful new bankers who are licensed to produce both products) and product two is the “bonanza” and the incentive to become a new banker; in competition with the old bankers.
Product two is like “the razor blades” and Product one is like “the razor” where the razor is given away so as to sell razor blades.
Product two is a one percent interest loan sold to the same credit worthy consumers who buy or produce power producing products like Modular Vertical Framing Green Houses, Solar Panels, Wind Generators, and Electric Cars (to name only 4 possible things on the list of things that fall into the category of things eligible for Product 2 loans).
The idea here isn’t to offer loans to anyone for anything. Credit worthy people can buy one percent interest loans for proven things that prove to be capable of producing more (or saving more) power.
The Solar Panel is a very good example of the type of thing that product 2 intends to produce, in much greater numbers. How about some numbers?
Take the same 100 million people and average the amount of money borrowed by each individual as an average of all the things that are on the list and I am going to pick 100,000 dollars as that average.
100 million people borrow an average of 100 thousand dollars to turn their homes into electric power producers with one electric car in each garage. Each borrower now has less monthly costs because they pay less for the loan payments per month than they currently pay for electricity and gasoline (not counting the cost of a new car). The percentage less per month for going Solar is more than 1 percent. In other words: if the current electric bill is 100 dollars per month the new loan payment will be about 80 dollars per month, it will be less, and that is why Solar Panel Installing is becoming profitable. That is because a Solar Panel makes more power than the Solar Panel costs to build it, assemble it, sell it, transport it, install it, and maintain it. The Solar Panel turns sunlight into usable electric power. The Solar Panel generates purchasing power.
The average savings for an electric car is currently 2 cents per mile compared to the average gasoline powered car being 10 cents per mile so that too is a net reduction in monthly costs; and here things can be more confusing than necessary (when is it a good time to upgrade your car?).
Product two saves each consumer about (rough average) 10 percent less cost per month even when 1 percent of that savings is sent to the new bank as a cost for borrowing Product two.
So far the consumer of products 1 and 2 have reduced their monthly cost of living down to 500 dollars per month from 1000 dollar per month; and product two reduces that cost of living even further.
If the average monthly electric and gasoline cost per month is 200 dollars the idea here is to know that the consumer of product 1 and product 2 no longer pay any electric bills and no longer pay any gasoline bills, and instead of those costs the new home power producer only pays about 500 dollars per month to pay for the product 2 loan. Now the reader is going to ask why anyone would pay 300 more per month for this raw deal; to which I have to ask if the reader has been paying attention.
Product 1 cut the monthly cost of living down by 500 and product 2 increases the monthly cost of living by 300. That is a net reduction in cost of living by 200 dollars per month right now. What is not seen in this viewpoint of today is tomorrow. The 100 thousand dollar loan at 0 percent interest, at 500 dollars per month, is paid off in how many years?
Divide 100,000 by 500 and then divide that by 12 to find the number of years the consumer will pay for the average Product 1 and the average Product 2 loan. I get: 16.7 years.
So product 1, seen from a long term perspective, results in no mortgage payment after 16.7 years compared to the current debt based criminal extortion racket loan monkey business where the mortgagee pays 1000 dollars per month for 30 years (11.7 percent).
At this point the reader may challenge the average 11.7 interest rate by letting me know that the current interest rate is 6 or even 5 percent on home mortgages. That is not true when the reader understands that the extortion racket criminals “inflate” or “deflate” the money supply at will to cause “higher prices” and “lower prices” during that self-made, man-made, criminal “business cycle” where the “insiders” know when to trade, when to sell (at the top) and when to buy (at the bottom).
The current interest rate, in the current extortion racket money business, must be adjusted for inflation to have any meaning whatsoever. The current interest rate is currently less than the average over time. My expose here, this illustration, intends to employ averages so as to allow the reader to conceive of a “global” perspective.
Would the reader prefer a no interest mortgage or a mortgage that requires the reader to pay the bank twice the value of the home over time? That is the “big picture” choice.
Here is an average of “interest rates” over time:
The idea here is to see the big picture. The home owner will be paying less per month if the interest rate goes from 11 to 0 or if the interest rate goes for 5.24 to 0. The unintended consequence of the banking frauds having their income stream dry up is also the end of the “business cycle” so the need to “adjust for inflation” is no longer a “trade secret” operated by the “insiders” who do their “insider trading” stuff.
Back to the 16.7 years that it will take to pay off the Solar Panel and the Electric Car loan, at 500 dollars per month (and that is based upon 100,000 dollars spent on the Solar Panel System and the Electric Car which is a high estimate now and those prices are going lower due to advances in economic efficiency) we can now look again at the long term benefits.
Current Extortion Racket Victim-----------------New Banking Customer
1000 per month for 30 years--------------------500 per month for 16.7 years
200 per month gasoline/electric bill-------------500 per month for 16.7 years
1200 per month cost of living------------------1000 per month cost of living
That is the first 16.7 years.
What about the next 10 years; where the Solar Panels are still making electricity (guaranteed for 25 years).
Current Extortion Racket Victim-----------------New Banking Customer
1000 per month for at least 10 more years-----No mortgage payment
200 per month gasoline/electric bill-------------No cost
The reader can challenge me on the electric car wearing out before the 16.7 years are up; but what happens to the Current Extortion Racket Victims car? I didn’t count any loan payments on any gasoline car because the assumption is that an Electric Car is an investment that earns back the cost of gasoline over time. The gasoline car “investment” is a case of the consumer buying the razor blade (at a high price) so as to allow the consumer to buy the gasoline (at a price that can get very high).
Moving, at last, onto the big numbers showing the “profit” to the New Bankers; we can look at the same (rough estimate) of 100 million people borrowing 100 thousand dollars at 1 percent interest for the Solar Panel and the Electric Car investment.
How much money goes to the New Bankers so that the New Bankers can run their on-line banking business (where they trade numbers on digital accounts just like the other bankers do).
10 Trillion (already calculated for the 100 million people and the 100 thousand dollar loans) is interest earning principle – from the banks perspective. What is 1 percent of 10 Trillion? Take away two decimal places; which is 11 instead of 13 zeros?
That is 100 Billion flowing from the Sun, to the electric power grid, and back to the New Bank as a portion of the new power created by Product 2. Is 100 Billion dollars enough to cover the cost of the New Bank for the supply and maintenance of products 1 and 2?
How much per year?
I get 5,988,023,952
That is almost 6 Billion per year to run the New Banking business if the “government” (of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the fraudulent criminal bankers, by the fraudulent criminal bankers, and for the fraudulent criminal bankers) gives a license to someone, anyone, or any group of people, who can supply something similar to Product 1 and Product 2.
The idea here is to show how competition is supposed to work. Competition is supposed to force suppliers into offering higher quality stuff at lower costs – and that is how it works in competitive reality. In competitive reality quality goes up as costs go down for the consumer.
Who doesn’t consume?
Who doesn’t produce that which we consume?
Who are the legal criminals?
You don’t know yet?
Last edited on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 03:17 pm by Joe Kelley
|Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 05:54 pm||
Farmers cannot get loans for fertilizer?
Isn't it important to know who recieves the "money for nothing", and what is done with that money? The first spenders of the "bail outs" (Trillions) gain at the expense of the people who are targeted as debtors.
Isn't it important to know who receives the "money for nothing", and what is done with that money? The first spenders of the "bail outs" (Trillions) gain at the expense of the people who are targeted as debtors. See this? The supply of money is x this morning, then the supply of money is twice, three times, four times, five times, and six times as much by noon today. Who has that money? Who spends it? What is it being spent on? Who owns the things purchased with the money? Who has to pay off the debt? Where did the money come from?
Answer any of those questions, accurately, by following the money, and the inevitable conclusion will be the justified and accurate identification of legalized crime perpetrated by legal criminals who plan on and then execute their plans to injure innocent people for fun and profit.
Why not spell it out, loudly, precisely, accurately, simply, merely, concisely, truthfully, without reservation, without holding back, without half truths, without misleading, without misrepresentations, without euphemisms, without spin, without plausible deniability, and without falsehood?
|Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 06:07 am||
Pricing at cost is profitable for anyone so long as cost is accurately known; it is a competitive pricing scheme having no other connection to the consumer besides affordability (not "value").
If the cost/price is too high then certainly the value/price (even lower) is unsustainable.
Cost/price (the lowest affordable price for the seller) is the most competitive price; again assuming that the cost is accurately known.
Supposed “monetary” geniuses spend a lot of time and effort psychoanalyzing their potential victims (customers) so as to squeeze out every last drop of “value” (price) while their power is also expended in eliminating competition. That is why any words expressing a principled (cost principle) approach to economy inspires venom from the “experts” as competition for accurate marketing is mislabeled as “monetary crankism” or other such negative press – false propaganda.
A very good example is the following well thought out competition in monetary knowledge (often demonized by supposed monetary “experts”):
|Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 12:27 pm||
This graph tracks what is sometimes referred to as the velocity of money. It is an indicator of the number of exchanges for money per unit of time. A dramatic increase or decrease in this statistic is rare. People stick to their budgets pretty closely. Bills get paid monthly. Expenditures reflect closely people's monthly incomes.
Why? It was not that people stopped spending. Bills must be paid. Companies still meet their payrolls. The basics get taken care of.
What happened is that banks stopped lending.
Before I go on and read the rest of the latest news from Gary North (my favorite Austrian Economist), my intention is to communicate two things about money.
Velocity is very important in any power circuit, such as a hydraulic circuit, an electrical circuit, and an economic circuit. Velocity measures the vital factor of time and without that vital factor of time the measure of power is meaningless as power.
Two things are next to each other. One thing is 1 hundred times more powerful than the other thing. Both things are seen this way without any measure of time.
A. Power is 1
B. Power is 100
The obvious meaning of that observation of power (without time) is that B is more powerful than A.
Now add time.
Power A is 1 for every second in time and Power B is 1 for every year in time.
Now see how the meaning of time changes the observation of power. Which is more powerful A (1) or B (100); when A is 1 per second and B is one per year?
Velocity or time factored into hydraulics can be seen as the difference between filling up a bucket of water with a small hose or a big hose. Hose A is 1 pound per square inch pressure power hose, where a small pump is pumping a little bit of pressure to fill up the bucket. Hose B has 100 pounds per square inch of pressure pushing the water out, so hose B has a very powerful pump that is pumping water through the hose, to fill up the bucket.
If pump A is pumping out 100 gallons per minute at 1 pound per square inch pressure it is a high velocity hose, lots of water flowing in a short amount of time.
If pump B is pumping out 1 gallon per year, even though it has a lot more power at the pump, at 100 pounds per square inch, the velocity is negligible, the bucket takes a year to fill up.
The obvious difference in that bucket filling power illustration is hose size. Hose A, with 1 pound per square inch pressure (low power pump), could be a very large hose, like a fire hose. Hose B could be a very tiny hose, even with its powerful pump, the water cannot flow past the restriction of the small hose, not fast, not a lot of water in a little time.
Electricity is also time dependent, for similar reasons, the resistance to the flow of electric current causes a reduction in the flow of current, or causes a need for more power to push current through the resistance. A very large electric generator may not move as much current as a lower powered generator when the large powered electric generator is pushing current through a very large resistance, compared to a small and less powerful generator pushing current easily past a miniscule resistance.
Time in economy can now be seen as a similar relationship as the power behind the economy is identified, and the resistance that cause the economy to slow down is measurable with velocity.
Gary North points out the resistance, the control, and the governing power that causes the economic to slow down, where buckets of water are no longer filled up as fast, since that power to govern the velocity of water, by restricting the flow of water down to a very small hole, causes the compete waste of power, as power is expended in the work required to overcome the resistance.
How is that seen in reality?
Return to Gary North's statement first:
The Banks Stopped Lending
How is that seen in reality?
I can show two examples.
The first example is from Tesla Motors as that electric car manufacturer expending power toward the production of a new all electric Sedan, just like filling up a bucket of water, only the power fills up garages around the world with electric cars that can run on Solar Power made at home.
If money is allowed to flow to Tesla motors, then cars end up driving around on roads, everywhere, and those cars can be fueled up by the Sun Power.
If money is not allowed to flow to Tesla motors, then cars are not made by Tesla motors and gasoline fuels gasoline powered cars on roads everywhere instead.
Example two is a venture like filling up a bucket where the idea was to farm at home with Modular Vertical Green House Farming Units. Filling up those buckets of water would end up populating the world with home grown foods everywhere around the globe. If money flows to that producer, the end result is more and more people growing their own food at home, or their own gasoline grown at home, since that business also figured out how to turn Algae into a bio-fuel as good as gasoline.
There are two, and only two of many, examples of how money (purchasing power) can flow in time (faster or slower) to economic empty buckets and those buckets can be filled with economic water, not water in those two cases, the empty economic buckets will be filled with more and more electric cars, more and more home farms, and the obvious third bucket to be filled would be more and more solar panels.
The Banks Stopped Lending
Now is as good a time as any to interrupt this (my) version of MONETARY CRANKISM to point out an obvious problem with that statement above. The Banks did not stop lending to everyone. The Banks did not stop lending to the people who the Banks wanted to remain powerful. The Banks kept the flow of water to fill up, and overflow their favorite buckets. While Tesla is dying of thirst, the water flow goes somewhere, and it goes somewhere fast, with great velocity, because the power to govern the flow of money is a criminal enterprise.
The power to create power is not, and this is very important, the power to create power is not in the hands of the criminal enterprise. The power to create power is in the hands of people like Elon Musk of Tesla motors. So the effect of governing the flow of money away from Tesla motors merely changes the cost of making those electric cars. Now Tesla motors must expend more power on acquiring more money. The cost of making each electric car goes up, because more power is expended in the work of financing.
What would happen if Elon Musk were to collect money from potential customers with a down payment option, where the customer can pay 5,000 dollars up front for a car that is not made yet? Elon Musk is then expending power in the process of becoming a banking business. How is that any different than Elon Musk expending power becoming a farmer so as to pay his employees with food? There is no difference in principle. The principle here is that the Banking Business is a criminal operation and as such the cost of dealing with that criminal operation is greater than the cost of creating an alternative (finding a way around the resistance imposed by the criminals).
The Banks Stopped Lending
The power to stop the flow of power to competitive economic powers is abused in exactly the way I've just described. The power to cause a restriction in the flow of power to the competition and at the same time the power to open the flow of power to favored "insiders" is accomplished in time. This is happening right now.
The legal tender banks stop lending to their victims. Please understand that the competition does not stop lending. The power to govern the flow of legal money is only as powerful as the victims allow it to be, because the victims create the economic power that the criminals control.
See how that works, because that understanding illuminates the solution. There isn't any need to starve out the criminals when the solution is merely to ignore them. The solution is to borrow money from the competition, or create your own money at home, to bypass the resistance imposed by the legal criminals, to find a way around that imposition, and then use that alternative source of purchasing power.
Last edited on Sat Jun 13th, 2009 12:43 pm by Joe Kelley
|Posted: Sat Jun 20th, 2009 06:41 am||
|HUMANUM EST, SED PERSEVERARE DIABOLICUM
I chose the above as the title to this report since the warning of that title applies now as it did when an observer noted the significant process being played out in clear view awhile ago.
I will not quote the reference, instead I will rewrite it. A boy saw two oddly dressed German men meet in the street; both men raised their hands in a salute to praise their leader. The comment, in Latin, is a reference to that odd event, an event that appeared to be laughable folly – error. To err is human, to persist is diabolical.
My inspiration for this report passes by my desk in the form of another financial report by my favorite Austrian Economist: Gary North. I’m not going to link Gary North’s article in this report; my writing will be the only link here to there; this time.
Gary predicts price inflation, or so the story goes as far as I’ve read it, up to this point in time, where I began this “passing-on”; like a link in the chain or a passer of buckets in a bucket brigade.
The prediction for price inflation is measured against the opposite prediction: price deflation. The obvious thing to note, at least from my understanding of what is obvious, what is important, what is significant, even what is vital, is a notation concerning who, pray tell, has the power to cause either of the measurable future economic conditions: inflation or deflation?
Once the observer has that power clearly in view, because the observer accurately finds the person or persons who control that power, if you have already forgotten I’m speaking of the power to inflate or deflate “the economy”, once that power is clearly in view: please ask yourself what would you do with it?
What would you do with that power? Ask yourself, and then get back to me; I’m running a poll. I’m running an informal poll. What would you do with that power to inflate or deflate “the economy” and once I know what you would do with that power, I can judge, in a relative way, what “they” will do with it. They are as human as you or I, perhaps without the moral compunction, that onerous conscience anchor, perhaps they are human animals. I’m speaking again of the torturing mass murderers, the ones with the power to inflate or deflate the economy.
What would you do with it?
I’d like to know.
Last edited on Sat Jun 20th, 2009 06:41 am by Joe Kelley
|Posted: Mon Aug 31st, 2009 12:16 pm||
|Posted: Fri Jan 7th, 2011 12:26 pm||
|What did he say?
Without a doubt, the existing global financial system depends on the widespread use of fiat currencies issued by insolvent governments. The wealth of the world’s large financial institutions requires that there be currencies with sufficient size and circulation to absorb massive capital flows. The current system is based primarily on the dollar; with a $14 trillion economy, the United States was for years the only country in the world with a sufficient money supply and financial infrastructure to take in the preponderance of the world’s wealth. It is for this reason commercial loans, commodities contracts, international reserves, and cross border settlements have traditionally been denominated in US dollars.
That is an interesting take on the power behind the people who produce the dollar unit of currency. My thinking is such that mere quantity is not the power behind the people who produce the dollar. Military (including oil), and Political (including falsehood) are the powers that "back the dollar" into a state of effective monopoly.
By monopoly I mean: Sufficient power employed in the effective weakening of competition to a level by which the producer of the monopoly product is no longer forced (by competition) to increase quality and lower price.
I'll read on - in this report on the money power.
For example, large corporations or banks that are sitting on billions of dollars in cash typically purchase short-term US or European government bonds because the low default risk.
That is a case of mistaking a cause for an effect. Any quantity of power collected by any means whatsoever and then controlled by some human being, or some group of human beings, will be a moment in time, and place, where the power is altered in form, by a decision, by a human being.
This is important.
Call the person collecting a very large amount of power person X.
Person X (or group X, where the decision making power is not one person's decision alone) gains control over a very large collection of power and then this person accurately measures that large sum of power.
What is the power collected into a large sum?
If it is money, what was it before it became money, or why did the person (or people) sell a large sum of something so as to "cash in" that large sum of power and by that decision, and that act, the large sum of power became money (became: the power to purchase - and note that money isn't money if it has no power to purchase).
That report is speaking about billions of dollars worth of purchasing power.
Why wouldn't those people buy Oil, if the idea is to "cash in" on all that power before all that power evaporates?
That is why it is important to understand how someone or how some group of people managed to get billions of dollars worth of purchasing power in the first place.
If this guy, with this report, is going to educate people with pertinent facts and useful commentary, then ignoring the facts that explain how someone, or some group, manage to collect very large sums of purchasing power, billions of dollars, where this person, or these people, are "sitting on billions of dollars in cash", then to me the person has placed the cart before the horse.
In any case where any person, or group of people, are selling any product, without an enforced monopoly, the result will be a price that has been forced down to cost by competition. What other possibility explains the flow of power into the control of one person, or one group of people, who are now "sitting on billions of dollars in cash"?
An example is required.
How about a Rock Star/Movie Star such as 50 Cent?
Suppose 50 Cent were sitting on billions of dollars in cash, because he is the only one - every other copy of 50 Cent is pitifully unable to life up the the standard: a monopoly of one.
How about Bill Gates?
Can you see how this works? As soon as a producer of something capable of causing large quantities of power to flow to the producer from the buyers of the product starts to produce a lower quality product the flow of power diverts to a higher quality product, and the producer reaches a limit, no more power can flow to that individual or that group.
How about the Rolling Stones?
How many billions of dollars are these people sitting on?
How did they get those billions?
Why did they buy dollars, why didn't they invest in tax avoidance lawyers, homes in countries that have no taxes, safer places to live, bigger houses, more cars, a personal recording studio, or "Record Label", a political lobby to out-law the competition?
Why are billions of dollars flowing to this one group, or one person, to a point where this one person, or this one group, are "sitting on billions of dollars in cash"?
Back up some?
Why would a producer of the dollar, or a producer of a euro, or a producer of a Yen, or a producer of any legal money produce more dollars, and more, and more, and more, until there are so many dollars that large piles of dollars, of billions of dollars, are being sat upon by one person, or one group?
The reporter confuses the effect for the cause.
I will read on, and I have so many other things needing to be done.
On second thought - I'm done with this for now.
|Posted: Wed Mar 9th, 2011 10:56 am||
|End the FED
But as criticism spreads, there will be more voters who figure out what the FED is and has always been: a government-created cartel of the banks. It operates for the benefit of the largest banks.
It operates for the benefit of the people who have the power to run the largest banks.
The largest banks are legal fictions. The people who have the power to run the largest banks are legal criminals, who commit crimes like fraud, theft, extortion, and even greater crimes, by way of their connection to the law force, where the people who run the law force enforce those crimes, by covering them up, and by issuing a license that prescribes those crimes to be legal.
This will result, ultimately, in the abolition of the FED. Whatever replaces it will decide the economic fate of Americans: Congress (hyperinflation) or the free market (economic stability).
The "free market" cannot do anything, it can't make economic stability, or unmake it, and what those code words mean is this:
Competition is a force by which the production of things, including the production of services is forced into a higher quality production, and the same force is a force that forces the cost, or the price, to be lower for those higher quality things produced, including services.
If the "free market" isn't understood to be "the force of competition", then the "free market" can be misunderstood to be "a market free from the force of competition".
A cabal is a monopoly, a single producer of a single product that is free from the force of competition and therefore the quality is not forced up and the cost, or price, is not forced down by competition, since a cabal is a monopoly and therefore a cabal is free from the force of competition.
Any consumer of the thing produced by a monopoly has one choice:
When the thing produced is a necessary thing, then any consumer of the thing produced, by a cabal, or a monopoly, is one choice:
When the thing produced is produced by more than one producer, and therefore neither producer is free from competition, the the consumers of the necessary thing produced, or even the unnecessary thing produced have more than one choice:
The force of competition works as a force, a real force, a powerful force, as more consumers, more buyers, more people wanting, needing, and then getting the higher quality product, at the lower price, or lower cost, power up the producer of the better product at the lower price while less power flows to the producer of the less higher quality and higher price, or higher cost product.
The better product is made scarce, desired, wanted, purchased, consumed, used, and controlled by actual people who chose the better product.
The worse product is abundant, unwanted, not purchased, not consumed, unused, and ignored by the actual people who don't chose the worse product.
The people vote with their collective power of value judgment, and that collective power is the power that can be called The Free Market, while choice is a choice, and as the force of competition works to force producers into the required work needed to produce a higher quality product, at a lower price, or cost (cost to the consumer, or cost to the producer, as determined by the cost of production, the lowest possible price, the competitive price).
So, if Gary North is saying anything of value, to this consumer of the written word, I'll venture to say that Gary North is speaking about a Free Market that includes competition as a force that forces quality up and price, or cost down.
Unfortunately I don't think that Gary North quite understands what he is saying, as Gary North is one of those people who "believe" in "capitalism" as a thing that is competitive, say, against "socialism" as a competitive thing produced by people for people to consume or ignore at will - free will.
I can't ask Gary North questions, he doesn't answer questions from me.
I have tried. I can try again. I sent e-mail, and it will return with an automated message, again. I can trust that trying the same thing over and over again will result in the same result over and over again. Yes or no?
My latest e-mail:
Gary North, I am reading your latest publication on the LRC web site titled: How To End the Federal Reserve System I want to know what you think is the best money, the money that would be chosen by the greatest number of people as the power used to destroy competition becomes less powerful and as the power used to produce the best money, at the lowest cost to the consumer, increases. Joe Kelley
Back to Gary North:
If the FED produces a Third World economy through hyperinflation, then people will do what Third World citizens do: find reliable currencies elsewhere. This can be done on-line nearly for free. The Internet has reduced the transaction costs of using rival currencies. The FED economists know this. They know that transaction costs for using other currencies are low. If the FED's policies undermine long-term contracts, the citizens are not helpless. They can switch.
The power that enforces a currency monopoly is the power the enforces tax payments; when the tax payments are designated to be payable only with the designated money - such as a dollar.
A dollar is produced by someone legally. A person has the legal license to produce a dollar, or 2 billion dollars, or take away, destroy, 4 trillion dollars, at will.
The legal mumbo jumbo may hide that fact, and the people who are called lawyers, politicians, and economists may claim that a business or a government agency has the power to create or destroy a dollar, but law, but that is smoke and mirrors, since someone, or some group voting by way of majority vote, or by way of median vote, or by way of a vote count of some kind, cause more dollars to be created, or more dollars to be destroyed, by people, real people, people with cloths on, when these people are wearing clothes. When these people aren't wearing cloths they are naked people, people without cloths on.
Who is the person who has the final world on the final decision to, say, double the money supply, or cut the money supply of dollars in half?
If the one person isn't one person, and there are two, three, or 12 people who each have equal power to decide to, say, double the money supply, or cut the supply of dollars in half, and somehow all 12 people suddenly decide, at once, to double, or halve, the supply of dollars, then who are these people, what are their names?
Did person X decide to double the supply of dollars in 2008?
The point is that you don't have that power. Only one person has that power, everyone else is excluded. One person has the power to legally double the supply of dollars.
You don't think so? You think that a limited liability committee has that power, not one person?
Who takes credit for the decision to double the money supply today, or June 5th 1937, or on any day, at any time, when such a decision is made? Who points the finger at whom when the decision is discredited?
A building doesn't raise it's hand and say: I made that decision, at that time, on that day, and I doubled (or cut in half) the supply of dollars. It was me.
I take credit for that case whereby the number of dollars doubled, it was me, no one else, I take credit for that doubling of the money supply. I did it.
A building can't do that, and two people can't do that, unless two people agree to do that, and think about that, for a moment please.
When the decision is praised as a good decision two people may agree that, yes, we did it, and yes, we both take equal credit for having the power to double the money supply, in that case, on that day, thank you very much.
When the decision is ruinous, torturing, terrible, and the decision injures millions of innocent victims, will the same two people say, yes, we both did it, it was our idea, our power, and we decided to cause all that ruin, we did it, we both share that guilt equally, we did it, both of us.
Do you really think that people who have that power, and abuse that power, are the type of people who will be honest when it comes to guilt? Do you think that people like that will own up to their planned injuries to millions of people, take credit for having abused such power, and you think that one of them won't point the finger at the other one, let the other one take the fall, for having planned on, and then having followed through with the plan to injure millions of innocent victims just so that those two can keep their power?
If Ron Paul fingers The FED as the "entity" that causes a whole lot of suffering, truly, and if The FED is no more, then what replaces it - if not people, if not one person having the power to produce legal money at will, or two people agreeing, unanimously, to produce twice as much legal money today, or cut the supply in half tomorrow.
Ron Paul fingers The FED, and the power of law revokes that license, and those people at The FED no longer have the license, the license, a piece of paper, with the official stamp, is physically taken from a file cabinet at The Fed, by a person, with a hand, and then that license is received by someone else, somewhere else, and then the legal license to add to, or subtract from, the total supply of legal dollars, by any name whatever, legal units of legal tax debt, whatever.
People, wearing cloths, speaking, walking, talking, lying, deceiving, ordering torture, ordering mass murder, ordering terror, in the name of what - exactly?
If a person creates power and the power created is greater than the power consumed, there will be surplus power in one form or another and if the person creating that power allows that power to be transferred to someone else, what do you think will by done with that surplus wealth transferring from the person who creates it to the person who receives it?
Doesn't it stand to reason that the person receiving the surplus wealth will use that power to keep the power flowing from those who create power to them - exclusively?
No more competition
No more force by which quality increases and cost decreases.
Is this too complex for you too?
|Posted: Sat Oct 29th, 2011 10:46 am||
|What is this socialism thing?
|Posted: Sat Oct 29th, 2011 10:49 am||
|What is this capitalism thing?
|Current time is 10:09 pm||Page: 1 2|
|Power Independence > Fight Night > Debate > Talk about||Top|