Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,662 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 691,404
Pageviews Today: 1,478,310Threads Today: 752Posts Today: 15,779
10:56 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 864001
United States
09/27/2016 12:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Furthermore, many people never pay off their debt, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the debt collectors didn’t summon up the debtors soul, spirit, essence, or whatever you want to call it and held it hostage in a ghostly debtor prison until the still living relatives and or friends payed the debt off. At the same time though, the debt collector likely focuses on the artificial and materialistic world, so they might not believe in and or care about one’s soul/spirit, so should be safe.

Common ground vs comprise: Common ground is better, as its ideas that all parties agree on, and can potentially be found at the start. A comprise, stated earlier, is a patched together Frankenstein monster that gets made as you go and no one really wants.

Social systems are an embodiment of the collective conscious: Once again, society is a collection of illusions… Also, this must be the majority conscious, since everybody doesn’t want and/or need these creations. Even the majority that does has subdivisions, such as the different parties in the political arena.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
09/28/2016 08:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Another thought provoking post from 864001.

Not "payed" - but rather paid.

Here, from the past:

Horace Greely the man who gave us “Go West Young Man,” in 1872 said: “We have stricken the shackles from four million human beings and brought all laborers to a common level, not so much by the elevation of the former slaves as by practically reducing the whole working population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by our iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”
gemslider
User ID: 69716746
United States
09/28/2016 08:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
I agree with the above that debt goes beyond this life.

Thus, why Jesus reacted so strongly to the temple banks, the debtmongers, etc.

To hinder the bondman><bonded dialectic, means to loosen what line, and to remove slack in which other line?

We have talked of steam trains, but what of a sail which catcheth some wind? Need it not pivot, and have at least two ropes thus with which to as described, pay out or draw in slack as needed? In this way we see sails and steam to be not dissimmilar, as steam is captured water/air and sails do the same thing. The only difference is context.

Thus, I would say the revelation from the above poster and further by Levi Philos is true, debt manifests in the cradle of the infant today whom we load up, and it manifests most sincerely at probate events.

This thread, oh yeah. Let's talk it out.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
09/29/2016 12:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Scary graph ties Deutsche Bank to other large world wide banks.

[link to wallstreetonparade.com]

Gives a new perspective on Hayek's admonition to have competition in monetary systems.

In a competitive environment, fraud within a system becomes overhead thus forcing banks to self-police so as to remain competitive.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
09/30/2016 10:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
It has been written that values fluctuate and even precious metal values fluctuate.

While it is true that all values fluctuate relative to each other, I believe most people expect the medium of exchange to remain stable.

It is true historically that even relative values of precious metals have varied against each other as new ore deposits were discovered. When Spain raided the S. American gold all prices in Europe went up as valued against gold (inflation).

I have spent a lot of time reading economic treatises from across the spectrum and have reached some conclusions not found in other people's writing.

Conclusion #1 is that precious metal deposits in vaulted repositories weren't actually the medium of exchange; they did furnish something of a reference standard but my conclusion is the true function was more of a performance bond. That is, when the lying stops and the liar is asked to put up or shut up, the gold and/or silver must be brought out of the vault and used in final payment. Thus specie coinage served to keep commerce honest. The real shortage in commerce is a shortage of honest merchants, honest politicians, - honesty in general, and specie coinage serves to maintain honesty in business and all commerce.

Conclusion #2 is that a medium of exchange based upon human time - the hour unit of exchange can be made to be even more stable a measure of value than specie coinage. The trick is to keep a fixed quantity of medium in exchange relative to population demographics. This is what Bill Still (is/was) harping about in his videos about maintaining a fixed quantity of money. Bill Still is a "Greenbacker" as are Dr Ellen Brown, Zarlenga, the Positive Money group of the UK, and many others.

Conclusion #3 is the demurrage principle can be used as a tool to stabilize a currency value better than positive interest. The School of Austrian economics presumes that precious metals shall furnish a stable valued medium of exchange, and the arguments presented are logical when redemption is guaranteed in precious metals. However, fiat money of the various nations is not redeemed in precious metals – fiat money is creditory in fact and drawn upon the common credit of the people but without proper bookkeeping that would show the people as the final creditors.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
09/30/2016 10:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Recommended video; Jeff Berwick- September 15 on Deutsche Bank:

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
10/01/2016 01:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Ann Barnhardt is an observer who is more outspoken than Jeff Berwick.

Recommended thread:
Thread: ANN BARNHARDT - Unleashed Tells It Like It Is - Diabolical Narcissism -- OBAMA CLOSET HOMOSEXUAL - Burns Quran + Much more !!
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
10/08/2016 10:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
The unreported story:

"Let me be clear: On the arithmetic if we do not stop this now within the next 4-5 years -- that is, within the next Presidential term -- our government will collapse, our economy will collapse, our health care system will collapse and both the stock and housing markets will collapse. This is not politics, it's arithmetic. And the worst part of it is that I am utterly certain that the "references" count, along with the "views" count on this article will both be a fraction of the politically-oriented articles I've recently posted. That the real end of our way of life in America, a threat that is obvious, mathematically certain, not very far in the future and yet avoidable if we act now fails to garner any sort of serious attention is the real outrage folks."

Mathematical end-game of impossible money:

[link to market-ticker.org (secure)]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 864001
United States
10/13/2016 05:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
More on materialism: I’m not saying to get rid of all material belongings, as some of them can be useful and fun, like computers, but to avoid excess. A fancy car (or multiple) may actually mechanically perform better and/or be more visually appalling, which is fine, but the show off/ha-ha factor can arise as well when someone chooses to purchase it. I don’t feel jealous when I notice these vehicles, but others might. The version of materialism that I’m against is the one says if you have more and or better items, then you are a better or more complete person. Linking with that, is says you can only be happy if you have a lot of (and again, preferably “good”) stuff.

One issue with “the big three” (money, government, religion) is the control factor. I, and likely others feel that internal/natural restraint (moral, emotions, logic) are more than capable of handling the situation, no outside force needed. Everyone has these tools to some extent or the other. Bigger exceptions would be sociopaths, who are a bit lacking in the emotions department, at least when it comes to empathy, and likely aren’t killing or whatever other unpleasantness they partake of for a moral reason, and perhaps not even a logical one, and those with mental retardation aren’t doing so well in the logic area, but again they’re exceptions (and exist in the current system as well), so it can still function with them around. For further explanation, another person wouldn’t be an outside force in this situation. If someone commits an act that displeases another, the displeased person would reply with an action that arose from those internal control sources. Furthermore, people may not have all of the same morals, but the case seems to be strong that some universal morals exist, such as murder and rape, so moral relativism won’t be running rampant.

Some people say that others can’t be trusted, and that the artificial sources are a more secure alternative. However, there is a base line of trust, otherwise humanity would have wiped itself out already, which can be built upon/increased. Furthermore, mentioned before, these artificial factors are also based off trust, as in you believe they exist. The likely biggest, if not only factor for something being imaginary is that you have to believe in it. Again, trusting something imaginary to guide your life is crazy, stupid, and let’s add cowardly (Perhaps they’re one of those pessimists overwhelmed/scared by choices from earlier). It’s also disheartening that you would choose something imaginary over a real person (by virtue of them being real, and more so that they’re a person).

Those control systems are imaginary, which is their weakest aspect, and the strongest reason to remove them. They are also artificial and abstract as well, but let me explore all those factors further. A tree isn’t abstract, artificial, or imaginary. A pen is artificial, but it’s not abstract or imaginary. Courage (or any emotion) is abstract, but it’s not artificial or imaginary. Money is abstract, artificial, and imaginary.

I’ll use what I believe to be an economic term to describe this society: It’s not ergonomic, aka “people friendly”.

Remember that “This is your brain on drugs” add with the fried egg? In today’s society it seems that there’s plenty of people not on illegal/hardcore drugs, who due to so much brainwashing, have one in that state anyway. (Also, depending on who you get the info from, humans are constantly being exposed to all sorts of chemicals though: chemtrails, fluoride, prescriptions, preservatives, pesticides, dyes, msg… which mess up whole body. Also, explained awhile back, money and what not as a drug in less traditional sense).

Work place dress codes: They can be overdone, such as guys “having to be” clean shaven. Some places say this looks more professional, but when its locations such as the grocery store, how “professional” can a cashier get? Also, there are people, such as doctors and lawyers, who fit the more common outlook on professional, and have facial hair. Heck, there’s even professional chefs that have it, so having to be clean shaven or wear a hair net on it at a restaurant or grocery store is silly. This affects their life outside of work as well. Don’t know how fast everyone’s facial hair grows, but if you’re the traditional 9-5 type, and wanted some facial hair, what are you going to do? See if you can have a weekend only beard? If you work a varying schedule, you might be there any day of the week, so good luck there. Clothing isn’t that big of an issue either. If you’re a lawyer or politician, your job is to convince others, and you don’t need a suit or skirt to do that. You could do it naked with a bucket on your head. Since folks are used to seeing those sorts of people in suits, and people clothed overall, it can be a bit hindering, but it’s not impossible. On the other hand, there are those whose clothing is more like equipment, and pretty much necessary at that. A police person or soldier would have a rather hard time without a bulletproof vest, and a firefighter without their flame retardant outfits will certainly be less effective.

Sayings such as “we all bleed red”. Everyone is a person, that’s correct. However, differences are real, and do matter. People (or anything else really) can vary on their appeal level due to many factors. Personality, culture, physical appearance…, and even if you do say the bleed statement, you may have even said that those factors exist. You likely have noticed them, consciously or not, as well. Also, how basic do you want to go? One could say all animals are the same, so why not put your head in a crocodile’s jaws and see what happens. Better yet, all life forms are the same, so go ahead and breathe in some disease causing bacteria.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
10/16/2016 01:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Jeff Berwick of Dollar Vigilante - Sunday Oct 16 release:

[link to steemit.com (secure)]

The route to independence from government involves alternate money; selected extracts from the post:

"Our lives are run by a small group of psychopaths. At least to the degree that we react to world events. The only way out is to plan for ourselves."

SNIP

"Hillary is so obviously a tyrant-in-waiting that she is stampeding people toward Donald Trump who seems the lesser of two evils, even though when you examine his rhetoric, he’s no small-government candidate.

Trump is pro-police state, pro-tax (certain taxes), pro-war (certain wars) and generally pro-government. (That’s why he’s running for president after all.)"



SNIP

"Anarchy works. Allowing the free-market to make decisions competitively about lifestyle and social solutions is both rational and useful. We live in societies that operate in exactly the opposite way.

Our controllers want that. They need government or they lose control. They put incredible effort into organizing society to remove our ability to control our own lives."


SNIP

"Listening to Trump’s ever-changing rhetoric, it’s become obvious he’s not a small-government libertarian. If he wins, most people will realize nothing important will change. They may turn their backs on him as well as Hillary.

This is our only hope. A deeply rooted repudiation of politicians and the political system. The complete dismantling of the US federal government, in other words, returning power back to the 50 states, for a period, before dismantling those too."


SNIP

"Get rid of government as much as is realistically possible. Just getting rid of modern, bloodsucking federal governments would immediately cause an economic boom of unheard of proportions as people throughout the West suddenly could keep most of the money they earned."

END SNIPS FROM BERWICK

Best way to eliminate government is to rethink money and recreate the functions of money by other methods; CENTRALIZED MONEY AND CENTRALIZED POWER FORM A SYMBIOTIC PAIR; NEITHER CAN EXIST WITHOUT THE OTHER
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 864001
United States
10/17/2016 07:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Another big feature of my ideas is that I want people to be interacting with people. Whether it’s a handshake or a punch in the face, people are to be interacting with people! (vs the imaginary system).

More on how governments and such aren’t real/ its people in the end that do everything. Example: when you call 911, a paratrooper Uncle Sam doesn’t fly in on/ jump off a bald eagle to assist you. It’s a cop, paramedic, firefighter or what not that arrives in an automobile to assist you.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
10/25/2016 10:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Here is a very well written summation of the last 85 years of banking/political history from Matt Stoller titled How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul]/b]

[link to www.theatlantic.com]


Matt Stoller is a budget analyst on the Senate Budget Committee.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 73237253
Romania
10/25/2016 10:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
...first get rid of RELIGION then money and gvrnmnt !..and first U FIRST !....bye!
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
10/25/2016 10:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Canadian born Marc Emory explains in two videos how double entry bookkeeping money is created.

About Marc Emory: [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

The videos:

1) Beat the bankers; eliminate debt (31 minutes)
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

and 2) Beat the bankers II (13 minutes)
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Pursuing the various "strawman redemption" tactics is likely to win a session in crowbar hotel. Nevertheless, the two videos are instructive. Marc Emory studied the writings of Thomas Schauf who has been referenced earlier in this thread.
Osbo
User ID: 55597061
United States
10/25/2016 01:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
I was listening to Marc Emory 2 days ago. He has good delivery. Lighthouse law club puts out good videos. Keep it up Levi.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57377310
United States
10/25/2016 01:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
You want to be tortured by Jesus in the NWO. Is that like some strange fetish.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 864001
United States
10/26/2016 06:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Having no opinion on something could be possible, but only if you know nothing about it, not even its name. The moment you first become aware of something, you start developing opinions on, with the initial one likely being that it’s curious. Say a new species of ant was discovered. Unless you’re the one that found it, you would be made aware of it from an outside source. Say an article in a science magazine or segment of a science show mentions the scientific name, and that would start the curiosity. It would go on to say that it’s a new insect species, and then thoughts on insects would come to you. When it says it’s an ant, you would think about ants. This process won’t be prevented from starting, and could continue for a while.

A neutral opinion isn’t the same as no opinion. It implies you either try to stay out of the situation (likely sine you don’t like it, which isn’t neutral), or have weighed something’s pros and cons and feel that they cancel each other enough for it to be so, but certain aspects are likely weighted more than others, so again, neutral is unlikely.

Domestic life has come to mean at home, but it’s related word, domesticated, means something has been tamed by people, and more so, has lost some of its wild/natural aspects. Yet another reason to call others sheepole I suppose.

More on how social people are. I’ve said that maybe we aren’t meant to interact so much before, but what follows would be even worse. There are things that are more interactive with each other than people are, like those ants or bees. They have a hive mind, were each bug is linked so strongly with the other that it might as well be one giant bug. Plenty of people seem to be headed this direction though.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
10/27/2016 09:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
From page 14 of this thread; "Little Rooster" was Albert Flode of Norway - now deceased.

Storing Value & the Monkey Trap



I have been personally wrestling with this demon since Christmas 2001 after visiting with Hans Eisenkolb at his home at Grand Forks, British Columbia (Canada). Hans told me something with obvious confidence as though he knew it absolutely true - and I couldn't prove to myself whether what Hans said was true - partly true, or false or partly false.

It actually started before that after Greco pointed out that the first two functions of money were at odds.

1. Store of Value
2. Medium of Exchange

The obvious conclusion is that things with a good store of value will not exchange.

And those damned tally sticks - demonstrated in the Money Masters video presentation. Why did something of no other useful value serve in a monetary function for over 600 years?



And then Greco gave me that CD with the image files of the Somers book on Scottish banking. Scottish banking was billed by Hayek, White, and Selgin as being more stable than English banking during the same period of time. What I discovered there was that Scottish banking was also a fractional reserve system and as prone to collapse as the rest of the banks.

Rothbard knew: The Myth of Free Banking in Scotland: [link to www.mises.org] (17 pages)



And it struck me - the circulating bonds and various calls upon the banks reserves were the actual money - and the fractional gold deposits were serving to poise a threat against the banker. Should the banker over-issue or otherwise make his contracts too difficult to fulfill, then a run was likely to ensue. My conclusion was that the gold was not the actual money but rather was serving as a performance bond against the banker.



****** Little Rooster on The Monkey Trap **************



"Little Rooster" writes from Oslo Norway. His identity is known to me, but since he seems reluctant to reveal himself, discovering his identity is your task. This reply to my template email "Monkey Trap" is his unique view. I have included the monkey trap at the end so the reader may resolve any confusion.

-- The mon(k)ey trap: scarcity, money as merchandise and interest --

* The economic problem

It was never true that the economic problem was that of properly allocating sources that are, by nature, scarce, the true essence of the economic problem is indeed the exact opposite: in truth, economics prompts communities to reflect upon what to do with a surplus of resources.


Reality has confronted mankind since the dawn of history with the undeniable excess that may be triggered by the applied effort of human faculty to the bounties of the earth.

* Function and essence of money.

Money is a symbol system for exchanging real stuff by proxy.

- Exchange by proxy, this is the essential function of money, it demands that the sale of a product for money shall be followed by the purchase of a product with money, this makes exchange complete.

- Evidence of liquidity, this is the essential quality of money, the possession of money is evidence that the possessor has delivered value to the community, and is therefore entitled to receive back a like amount.

But the current mainstream symbol is flawed, exploitative, dysfunctional and undemocratic.

This is the result of the transformation of money into merchandise, it's indeed the mother of all traps, and gold is the bait monkeys are trained to grasp.

* The trap

[quote=Gesell] As long as money, regarded as a ware, is superior to wares in general, as long as savers prefer money to wares (their own products), as long as speculators can with impunity misuse money for manipulating the market, money will not mediate the exchange of wares without exacting a special tribute over and above the legitimate profit of commerce. But money should be "the key to open the gates of the market, not the bolt to close them"; it should be a road and not a toll-gate; it should assist and cheapen exchange, not impede and burden it. And it is clear that money cannot be simultaneously the medium of exchange and the medium of saving - simultaneously spur and brake. –
 Quoting: Levi Philos 590644


What has indeed happened is that a symbol has been packaged into an economic good, and the provision thereof subjected to the monopolistic practices customarily contrived in the marketplace.

How is it that traditional economics identifies money's ´value´ in its ‘naturally limited quantity’?
How can the production of symbols be naturally limited ?

* The clue lies in the trinity of money's functions:

1. Medium of exchange
2. Store of value
3. Unit of measurement

The material that could satisfy historically all three requirements (acceptable-durable-divisible) is in fact gold, or any other noble metal, which, by nature, keeps.

Thus this equivalence between money and gold has come to pass, and inserted thereby in the social body a perennial seed of cancerous disturbance, a rent generating process, that is, interest.

An imperishable metal can never accompany the workings of a realm in which all involved components are subject to death and decay. Here is the beginning, the spark of the rent-generating process: this was illustrated by Gesell, who understood that all economic endeavors begin in the banker’s office.

Bankers are the business custodians of precious metals, which they loan out to enterprising individuals in need of capital; since producers cannot afford to wait, whereas money-lenders can, bankers have generally taken to charge a ‘plus’ for the extra privilege that the possession of gold afforded them in their dealings with entrepreneurs.

* This ‘plus’, is what we call interest.

The deduction of interest (either in the form of a discount for cash advances, or cumulated interest or capitalized sums) is, in truth, the first exaction of rent in the economic sphere; it is the root of the whole rent-generating process.

All producers, who have been lent the precious metals and their derivatives (i.e. bank money,) and charged with interest, will seek to foist on others the ‘plus’ they owe to the banks, people and corporations are therefore forced to compete for money using markets and resources to do so.

Money-interest, says Gesell, imposes its logic to physical capital: once the money-rent is levied, businesses will scramble to recoup this ‘plus’ from customers (by marking-up the retail price accordingly, ) thus is initiated the savage game of business deception, played at the expense of everybody and legitimized by the phantoms of social Darwinism.

We tend to think of all money in terms of purchase money, that is, cash whose immediate expenditure affords instant consumption, It appears indeed that money never decays, but that is not the case.

Behind every seemingly imperishable note, there lurks a basket of wares, which irremediably decays in time, thus, money is an ‘unfair competitor.’

Gesell understood that the way out of the debilitating influence of compound interest is the communal establishment of a perishable currency, is the separation of the medium of exchange from the store of value.

This shall restore the natural economic order.

In an hypothetic Gesellian model, all members of the community are entitled to two accounts: a checking account for immediate purchases, which is subject to a periodic deduction, and a savings account yielding a null rate of interest, the responsibility to administrate-invest the amounts originally laid in rests with the banker: it is indeed his task to individuate a competent entrepreneur to whom he may confide the saver's funds.

In such a model, all savings balances are ‘loan money,’ which is immediately liquidated and poured, that is, converted, into purchase money when the saver wishes to use his savings.

* What about inflation?

In these terms, inflation occurs when balances from the savings account are prematurely converted into cash: inflationary fever is created by exercising monetary pressure upon a market that has still not received the goods symbolized by the saved money.

END OF LITTLE ROOSTER ON THE MONKEY TRAP

**************************************

MONKEY TRAP:

Just about everywhere in the world where monkeys live, people know about the monkey trap.

The coconut monkey trap uses a hollowed out coconut that is chained to a tree. A small hole is drilled in the side and some bait inserted. This bait varies with the area according to local custom. The monkey reaches into the hole, grasps the bait and is unable to extract his closed fist. He is trapped there until the hunter (who is likely hiding nearby) gets the monkey.

For many persons who are reading these posts, the bait in the trap is a gold coin.

In order to escape the [bankers] trap, you need to be smarter than a monkey.

If you think returning to a gold standard will somehow hurt the bankers, you are sadly mistaken.

That, as I have said before, is throwing brear rabbit into the briar patch.

You wanna hurt the bankers, figure out the functions of money and fill the functions.

The function of gold is to stop lying, and it serves as a performance bond.

Reputation brokerages of types similar to what ebay does can go a LONG way toward stopping lying.

Anything of generally accepted value can serve as a performance bond.

Money is a symbol system for exchanging real stuff by proxy. The most basic form is the warehouse receipt. The owner of the value in the warehouse needs to be the emitter or in an agency relationship with whatever symbol serves as the warehouse receipt. Riegel is wrong in saying buyers create money. Popp has a better understanding.

If you can create a warehouse receipt for gold or silver in storage, you can represent damn near anything by that format.

But a promissory note is also money, provided something real is promised. Again, the emitter needs to be in an agency relationship with whoever "hypothecates" the promise into a common media of exchange. Again, think reputation brokerage and performance bonding.

Whole bunches of the present system are not really broken. What is needed is a more general understanding by the public of the process, and accountability by the banker, and competition between systems as Hayek suggested.

The present system of double entry bookkeeping puts all the profit to the banker and all the risk on the so called "borrower." There is no disclosure that the "borrower" is creating value when the promissory note is deposited.

If an essentially fiat paper money were allowed to continue, but with open disclosure of the process, then it quickly becomes obvious that a $200,000 loan costs no more to make or to maintain than a $2,000 loan. Loans could be near zero interest with only a monthly maintenance fee to cover bookkeeping costs.

But the public needs to be told that their promissory note is the actual money, and that they are responsible for their promises.

Barring cooperation from the banks, all of these functions can be filled by LETS like mutual credit operations.

But present operators of LETS system are resisting any injection of rigor into their system.

There is an enormous opportunity here for an energetic young person with the organizational skills of Bill Gates.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
10/27/2016 01:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Money is a communication that may be carried by a variety of methods.

We are surrounded by a plethora of communication devices.

Two core questions exist that must be addressed.

1) How am I assured this communication is accurate and true, and:
2) How am I assured of specific performance of contract.

Answers to these problems can be supplied by banks as underwriters; Banks assure and insure both accuracy and performance.

Credibility records must be kept on the players – not credit but credibility. What is the previous record. Does the player show up on time, keep promises, and satisfactorily fulfill contracts?

Specie coinage of precious metals can be used in a performance bond role as a secondary collateral.

We know from any accurate history of commerce that a small percentage of contracts will fail. The player dies, the ship sinks, lightning strikes, and so forth.

To insure specific performance of contract everyone pays a little. An insurance policy on the medium of exchange called demurrage.

When the contract fails the banker as bond-agent (banking as agency) uses the insurance fees and the performance bond to guarantee and fill the contract.

This is a new vision of money-as-communication.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 71526759
United Kingdom
10/27/2016 02:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
2 things the human race will have to combine and achieve before we evolve.

if we don't, it will be like a stagnant parasite within us all.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 876442


Money, yes.. a Star Trek system would be good.

Get rid of governments is totally and utterly stupid. You can't run anything from a group to a whole country without leaders and a form of governance, it just doesn't work.
"Collective agreement" is something idiots and children think about which can never work.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
10/27/2016 03:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Nearly every economist who writes a book makes commentary on Gresham's law. Gresham's law isn't a law describing hard physical reality. Rather, it is an observation about human nature.

Many will ignore man's written laws and some will attempt to defy laws of nature, but very few will ignore Gresham's law.

Robert Mundell wrote what is possibly the best exposition on Gresham's law – found here:
[link to www.columbia.edu]

Given two competitive currencies, one with a guaranteed store of value and a second currency bearing a demurrage charge, the second will circulate at high velocity while the first remains stored in vaults.

Commerce and the division of labor depend upon a medium of exchange that actually circulates. Read again what Albert Fløde wrote. You too will obey Gresham's law.

Ann Barnhard made a comment in one of her videos. She said (and there was a slide in the presentation saying this) that money is a fungible representation of human labor.

Human time-tokens circulating as currency that carry a demurrage fee will circulate at a velocity at least ten times the velocity of a redeemable in specie warehouse receipt unless the warehouse receipt also carries a warehousing fee.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
10/28/2016 01:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Get rid of governments is totally and utterly stupid. You can't run anything from a group to a whole country without leaders and a form of governance, it just doesn't work.
"Collective agreement" is something idiots and children think about which can never work.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71526759


I guess I would qualify as a "minarchist" and I do agree with you.

Here is a paragraph from Fox News on the upcoming Iceland election where the Pirate party will likely gain some presence in their parliament "The Pirates promise to implement a new national constitution — partly crowdsourced through a social-media ideas campaign — that would introduce direct democracy, subject the workings of government to more scrutiny and place the country's natural resources under public ownership."

Iceland is only 320,000 people who are probably better educated than the US population. In my opinion at least a third of the population here are sadly uninformed and mal-educated with no respect for the fundamental principles that were written into the founding documents.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
11/02/2016 01:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Andreas Antonopoulos is knowledgeable, articulate and persuasive on Bitcoin. That doesn't in my opinion make him totally correct.

Here is why.

The secure computer is not in the hands of the average person. Not even Hillary Clinton had secure computer (communication) devices. Perhaps the military has some; perhaps we need to order computers from the Russian military.
So long as the communication devices are sold with holes in the hardware and more holes in the software (backdoors as commonly known) - then the secure transaction is impossible. Just as Google sends spiders out to inventory everything, and viruses such as Suxnet can be written that go out and infest millions of machines without effect - up until a certain "action date" - your various accounts due and accounts payable can be wiped simultaneously from everyone's device.

I stand on my previous advice; put no more into BitCoin than you can afford to give away. I do support experimentation in these directions - just use some caution, and don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
11/02/2016 01:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
The condensed version transcript of the Antonopoulos video above.

Bitcoin is innovative, so innovative that sometimes people have a hard time grasping the concept of what it means to have a decentralized system (and what is it good for). They think that if there is in fact such a system, that can deliver predictable and unalterable results (also known as hard promises), we need to fix it.


They are saying is, if a system can only deliver “hard promises” it’s dangerous to the public since nothing can be altered once it’s written (or sent in the case of Bitcoin). Consumers won’t be protected from cases of fraud or theft since everything is irreversible. They are saying “Bitcoin’s immutability is a bug not a feature“.


However think of Bitcoin transaction as a program and not as payment. Since the concept of an irreversible payment is a bit scary. But a Bitcoin transaction is a program – the program is irreversible, not the payment. The program is executed exactly as written – predictable. It cannot be appealed, reversed or censored.


It’s a program that has a hard promise as a foundation but can be softened by additional programatic features to protect consumers . For example adding multisig, escrow and refund mechanisms..


Now the concept of hard promises becomes less frightening and much more powerful.


But today payment systems aren’t built on hard promises, they’re built on soft promises. Which means that when you go to the bank you’re hoping that the bank will fulfill their promise and allow you to withdraw money. However soft promises are easily broken – By influence, money, connection, violence and political power. And so we encounter situations in which our money is taken from us without our consent.


Hard promises can’t be broken by anything. They are immutable.


Why do we use soft promises as our payment system? because up until today there was no other way to conduct payments in a way that will be agreed on by the public. So one has to stop and wonder, now that we can actually move to a hard promise system, why aren’t we? Why are do banks and governments tell us that Bitcoin is dangerous?


One assumption would be that if we remove systems based on soft promises a lot of those who are currently in authority will be redundant. And so in their own self interest they are using a narrative of chaos and violence if authority is removed (as been done throughout history many times before).


We are led to believe that the opposite of authority is anarchy, chaos and violence. However that is not true. The opposite of authority is autonomy, and it doesn’t give us chaos but the highest of order which we have never seen before. Predictable outcomes that can’t be changed by authority.


A good example for an autonomous system is the Internet. The Internet gives us a hard promise of “once something is publish it cannot be removed or censored”. Such a promise is not liked by people of authority. Think about it, who suffers the most from such a hard promise?


Is it the public that understands they need to be a little more careful with what they post online?


or the people in power that can get their secrets exposed on a system that cannot be silenced?


The people in position of authority tell us that they are there to protect us from unlawful use of our funds. However how many times has a payment done without your consent to these authority figures has been reversed or cancelled. One the other hand, how many times a payment you made by your own will to a political cause (e.g. Wikileaks) or some anti institution organization has been declined.


Another assumption of why banks and governments don’t want a system of hard promises to take control could be because it would reduce their control of what gets written, and more importantly – what gets erased. Recourse is mainly used as a mechanism of control. The system of recourse doesn’t protect consumers, it protects authority.


Soft promises feed hierarchy, hard promises feed autonomy.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
11/02/2016 02:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
One correspond replied to my posts thus: ”Crypto currencies have "value" only because of their alleged limited supply. While Bitcoin may be limited and cannot be "cracked," there are endless amounts of crypto currencies that can be created.

Hype or "pump and dump" is what gives value to crypto currencies.”

to which I submitted this reply:

F. A. Hayek promoted competition in currencies and I support those ideas.

May the cream rise to the top!

One reason a singular model is allowed to collapse (to the benefit of the elites who own the system) is THAT THERE IS NO COMPETITION TO PICK UP THE SLACK.

Here is something Hayek missed.

When only a single system exists it must be regulated by centralized authority. Over time, the regulators become corrupted. Then, more regulations are written into law and more watchers are hired to watch the previous watchers. In the presence of (true) competition, fraud within a system becomes overhead cost that must be passed through to the users. To remain competitive and not lose market share the banks must self regulate and do their best to keep overhead down. This is a benefit for all people who use any form of monetary communication.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
11/02/2016 02:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Harry Dent seems to have a good handle on cycles and especially comprehends the demographic connection.

Here is a search for Harry Dent on YouTube: [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
11/02/2016 03:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
Regarding limited issue of crypto currencies; I have attempted to make a point before, but with limited effect, that the usage of specie coinage as monetary tokens is effectively an anti-counterfeiting device. That is to say the total issue of currency is limited by shortage of precious metals to create the currency.

The Tally Stick system of public credit had a much different but effective system of anti-counterfeiting. Tally sticks had grooves cut across each stick indicating value (and perhaps other info) after which the stick was split. Tally sticks were accepted by government in payment for various taxes and tolls. The tallies were matched up with the other half of the split and then the two were destroyed (my impression - perhaps reissued?). The system lasted in total over 600 years which is itself a record and this at a time when other metallic tokens were also circulated.

Comparative Chronology of Money: [link to projects.exeter.ac.uk]

Search also for George Selgin on his story of how English button makers issued small value metallic tokens. I think this was at or near the end of the Tally Stick period.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
11/03/2016 10:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
The search for George Selgin "English button makers" returned a good number of returns of which this one is of high quality and good detail:

[link to mises.org (secure)]

Shows clearly an instance of a clear variance on Gresham's law or perhaps toward an example of how private currency issue can work better than government currency.
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
11/08/2016 03:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
The United Kingdom (England and the adjoining island nations) is now issuing five pound polymer notes.

Aside from the problems associated with the bookkeeping (philosophy of economics) I support polymer notes.

They are projected to last 2.5 times the average usage lifespan of paper and cotton and linen notes. Polymer doesn't absorb water and hold dirt so is intrinsically cleaner. A bit slippery to handle and doesn't fold as well as the paper notes.

The UK now will join Australia and Canada over the next several years in using polymer notes produced in Australia.

See images: [link to www.thenewfiver.co.uk]
The good and the bad of polymer notes: [link to www.bbc.com]
Levi Philos
User ID: 590644
United States
11/11/2016 08:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Get rid of the money system, then get rid of goverrments
I have been following this complexity theory quietly for a couple of years already and only occasionally making some reference in my posts. The people who really comprehend the issue are saying we are due for a collapse into simpler models. You might now reference this image:

[link to motherboard-images.vice.com (secure)]

It is from this page: [link to motherboard.vice.com (secure)]

What I have been writing is to embrace this “money is a communication” meme and mutual credit is the model – think non-hierarchic – think instead geodesic which is the more efficient model for world wide commerce.





GLP