“If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill.
The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The
difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the
money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%.
Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays
nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say
our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises
to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People.” Thomas A. Edison
On Dec 4, 2010, at 1:54 AM, John Turmel wrote:
This gets at my problem with the Edison quote, and the liberal use of “Greenback.” When the cabal is in charge, these venerable concepts just don’t apply! Or there must be serious caveats!
John, this guy confuses the who with the what it is a non sequitur: Because A is bad it matters not that A has no means to do bad because he would still do bad things because he is Bad.
But to be fair, remember that when left to their own devices, there will always be those that manipulate the weak and take advantage of the weary and asleep, to introduce false paradigms that rationalise practices that serve them at the cost of others. As I said in a previous post, the proof of this is that necessarily the practice of money with interest came after there being no such thing. How did it come about? What was the mind process that brought it about?
Was it simply and intuitive error? I mean was it that people on mass accepted a non sequitur as true e.g. “If wealth is scarce then the means to measure it must also be scarce”.
You know you are only allowed to measure what you own and if you don’t own anything you have to share your future property with the guy that lends you a ruler.
Was it a few that saw that they could benefit from the rest if they were to impose such a scam?
Was it a few people smarter than the rest that had been persecuted for their lesser physical prowess by the majority that set up a con to appease the barbarians and keep them at bay?
Whatever the reason, it came about as all cons do, as a means to achieve something in a particular set of circumstances that allowed it to manifest and prosper.
So when someone fears a Cabal behind a con, non sequitur, scam or whatever you want to call it, one really fears his own ability to protect himself from being a victim of the instrument. If all could disarm aggressors faster than those can deploy their weapons then no one would care much about the aggressors but if not, then one must focus on containing the aggressor before they can deploy their weapons.
This is why I say that promoting lets and alternative “local” currencies is not an answer because it does not contain or disarm the economic aggressors, it just lets people play the right game until it is their turn to lose everything. Violence is not the answer either, because it forces us to indulge in what we are trying to eradicate. The only option is to be patient and wait for the moment when the circumstances allow for the truth to go viral and have the instruments to support the answer at that moment:
The instruments are:
a) The independent scientific proofs of the the problem root of interest.
b) A FULL and viable technical specification of the solution. Passive BIBO Currency Specification
c) The infrastructure to deploy the solution.
For a) we have i.e. we have to two independent control systems engineering thesis “BIBO Currency Formal Stability Analysis” and “Turmel Bank Math” that unequivocally state that the system is inherently unstable due to the application of interest as per the generic interest equation:
Debt= P(1+ik) in the case of any individual simple interest loans.
This is the minimum and necessary requirement for creating residual debt which we call “debt seed” that through deficit financing which is necessary to keep the machine running, will bring about an aggregate whole economy exponential Debt output so that,
Aggregate economy Debt = exp (it). (Turmel Bank Math)
For b) we need to do a little more work. John for example only raised one issue with the “Passive BIBO Currency specification”, if we can ratify a final standard spec based on that specification and presenting it well and that any currency whether the bankers, local, national or international currencies can comply with we will have satisfied this step.
For c) we have the conventional banking system infrastructure to implement immediately and I think that we have a good case based on basic human rights to compel all to comply to the Passive BIBO Currency specification.
Note that BIBO Currencies can be based on anything Gold, human time or aggregate community wealth that is, it is not the nature of the collateral that determines whether the system is stable or not but rather it is its technical specification that does. However, there are other concerns regarding one type of collateral versus another in terms of motivating use of a currency.
We must focus on stability first the collateral type is secondary as any system that adheres to the BIBO principle of stability is by definition stable.
Note that the initial quote of my last post was a quote made to John not John’s word it should have read:
On Dec 4, 2010, at 1:54 AM, John Turmel wrote:
[from a message to John] “This gets at my problem with the Edison quote, and the liberal use of “Greenback.” When the cabal is in charge, these venerable concepts just don’t apply! Or there must be serious caveats!”
For the convenience of argument, I will postulate three forms of exchange. One is private barter, the exchange of goods or services for other goods and services. An example would be the exchange of a chicken for a bushel of berries; or mowing one’s lawn for the exchange of a good meal. The second is general barter, or the exchange of a good or service which is in general demand, for another good or service. For example, such a “service” could be the need for a dentist, which most people have a need for at some time or another, or general barter for a “good” which would include such commodities as gold and silver. Being as such a good is divisible, fairly portable, rare and having intrinsic value it is generally acceptable, broadening the possible range of such barters to include many other goods and services. It is this general acceptability, that makes gold and silver convenient as a money.
The third form of exchange is government fiat paper in exchange for goods and services. The problem with government fiat money is there is no market driven price mechanism to determine its relative value. Therefore, when fiat paper is the standard, its issue must be devoted to the most essential needs of society. It’s value derives not only from the convenience of paper, but it’s general acceptability in trade enforced through law. The government would issue this money in exchange for goods and services of intrinsic public worth, primarily in capital goods, such as infrastructure or in efforts to improve the productive capacity of its people, or for defense, which includes not only defense from foreign aggression, but defense from anything which threatens the orderly development of society. It’s value would therefore be derived by representing the convenience of paper, intrinsic worth in goods and services, and its general acceptability, established through law.
Credit is the essential element in a Capitalist society. It enables efficiency in growth and the ongoing productiveness of its citizens, but primarily it is a resource which responds to market driven price signals. It is the wellspring of a prosperous society.
In a credit fractional reserve system, where money reserves can be leveraged many times, and all money is created through loans, no provision is made for the payment of interest in the money supply. Therefore, when all loans are repaid, not only is there no longer a money supply, there is a debt owed due to interest and no possible means to pay it. It is in instances such as these that it is incumbent on governments to maintain a sufficient supply of money for commerce and the payment of interest. This is only possible through a fiat paper money system issued against goods and services, of intrinsic public value, and exchangeable for goods and services in a market driven society.
The only means to circumvent the role of government in a market driven society is to disallow fractional reserve banking and the use of a more or less universally acceptable, most likely some form of commodity, means of exchange. Credit would have to be offered in a tangible form of commodity as money, to avoid the near certainty of credit issued as a promise of money. A promise is not the same thing as the thing promised. Therefore a purely market driven society cannot avoid the problem of debt issued as money, as long as a fractional reserve system is in operation, and thus cannot avoid the deflation of the money supply with the repayment of debt. The result is either new debt has to be incurred to repay old debt, which means the productive capacity of the society has to grow faster that the debt, to remain solvent or the debt will grow faster that productivity, which will guarantee the deflation of the money supply with the repayment of debt, and the slowing and eventual halt of productivity. If slavery is not an option, then this necessitates the role of government in a market society not only to maintain the money supply, but to support the advantages of an elastic money supply inherent in a debt money system, i.e., fractional reserve banking. The alternative is either a stagnate or slave society.
Reforming the monetary system is only half the equation – necessary but not sufficient. Money is merely a conveyance a “carrier” of the will of people, groups or governments. The electrons in a complex circuit.
For the will of the people to be achieved, enough money needs to be available to apply the needed resources (skills, raw materials, intelligence). Hoarded and saved money reduces those “carriers” and limits the ability to apply what resources are available. Providing more money than resources available however is also an empty exercise.
Right now the superficially “free market” dictates the priorities of what resources are applied to what ends. The question is – can government better apply those resources for the good of mankind or is corruption, laziness and incompetence just a fact of human existence? ( I’m too idealistic to think so)