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

Compare these two pieces and comment here please.

First:
Banking for Muggles 101: The Par Value of a US Dollar
By Jeffrey E. Mandalis
[link to www.21silver.com]

Second: The Negotiation and Assignment of The Promissory Note
[link to www.SPAM_BOT]

The credit the bank loans you is your own property.

Page 28 of this thread regarding global economic change has some very interesting input from a poster identified as posting from China: Thread: Watch, Its happening ,the global economic change. (Page 28)

The thread links to this 3 part series and subsequent discussion: [link to www.globalresearch.ca]

Social Inequality in America: Widening Income Disparities.
Workhouse Nation: Part One

Germain to this thread also.

Levi Philos

Go to the library: [link to www.reinventingmoney.com] and get several items:


Federal Reserve Documents

* Modern Money Mechanics
* Two Faces of Debt

Edward E. Popp

* The Great Cookie Jar
* Money, Bona Fide or Non-Bona Fide


If you take the charts from Modern Money Mechanics and turn them upside down, you will see how the collapse of a debt based money system is a cascade event.

When you read Dr Popp (especially the Cookie Jar), you will begin to see alternative answers.

I don't try to define "dollar" - my posts are an attempt to define "money."

My definition: Money is not a thing; money is a method of transferring ownership of things.

Since money is a "method" or a technique; money is actually a communication of ownership of real stuff by proxy.

As such, there is no danger of collapse of "money."

There is an almost certain danger of collapse of faith in "dollar."

Two general and interlocking presumptions keep people locked into the same thought cycle. The first presumption is that money is a *thing* , and the second presumption is that money is a natural monopoly best controlled by a centralized "authority."


The following rational is to show how money can actually be a variety of methods of transferring things of value by proxy, and these methods can operate at competition thus filling Hayek's premise in "DENATIONALIZATION OF MONEY."

There are three general categories of things of value that could be the basis for issuance of money.

1. Commodities and finished products held for claim can be the basis for a form of warehouse receipt - a bearer title instrument.
2. A promise to create and deliver something of value in the future - the promissory note - a form of a contract.
3. Human time as represented by a symbol such as the Ithaca Hour and redeemable in human intellectual and physical labor.


Each of these categories could in turn be broken down into general classes of total value.

1. Commodities, Products, Promises, and Time of high value and backed by insurance policies and/or performance bonds. Guaranteed redemption.
2. Commodities, Products, Promises, and Time of moderate or medium value backed by cross collateralization such as cooperative membership and/or corporation stock, and/or union affiliation in the case of Time Symbols. The second class of value might be backed by a formalized system of mutual credit.
3. Commodities, Products, Promises, and Time of low value could be transmitted without guarantee other than word of mouth recommendation and/or reputation records such as e-bay keeps on buyers and sellers.


Examining this structure in some depth you start to see that an entire matrix of things that can be money appears.

When you see that money is actually a method or set of methods of conveying ownership by proxy, then it becomes readily apparent that there should never be any shortage of money.

It is the limitation of money to be a single *thing* (things are found in limited quantities) rather than money as a communication that control freaks who steal by lying are enabled of their fraud.

Using precious metals for your "utterance" of money is essentially an anti-counterfeiting measure. Study out what the casinos do to issue gambling chips - they have a counterfeiting problem too, and have solved that problem by a variety of techniques.

Uttering Money and other Absurdities

Investigate the Dror Goldberg 2007 paper titled "THE MYTHS OF FIAT MONEY"

This paper may be found in several locations among which are:

[link to muse.jhu.edu]

[link to econweb.tamu.edu]



It is my position that two inter-related concepts keep people trapped on the same merry-go-round.

The first concept is that money is a *thing* and the second concept is that money is a natural monopoly.



This two faceted inter-relationship ignores evidence through history that does support my thesis that money is a communication.



In the Goldberg paper we find some discussion of the stone donut money of Yapp. However, Goldberg never mentions Kocherlakota [link to minneapolisfed.org] who would point out the mnemonic usage of the stone donuts. In fact, the actual money of the people of Yapp is an oral recitation of favors given and favors received while the stone donut (which often times never is moved in location) serves only as a reference. (Mnemonic function)



When the thesis is accepted that money is a communication, then the absurdity of laws against "uttering money" becomes obvious. If people have a natural right of freedom of speech and freedom of contract, then "uttering money" is but a simple extension of those two natural rights.



I do not deny that silver may be used in coinage form as transmitters of value nor gold in the same fashion; my claim is simply "Why stop there?" My claim is that paper claims of title may be transmitted as bearer titles (warehouse receipts) on any product or commodity already in existence. My claim is that any contract to create and deliver value as described in the contract can become money by assignment to the bearer. My claim is that the Ithaca Hour is equally as valid as a money as the federal reserve note.



Hayek nailed it. If you want stability in money formats, you must allow competition.

WRITTEN BY JET GRAPHICS AND REPOSTED HERE FYI

Warning, if you've been trained in academic economics or accept the indoctrination of the propaganda ministry, you may suffer cognitive dissonance.

Synopsis:

MONEY IS:

[1] A medium of exchange

[2] Accounting symbol

[3] Proportional to marketplace

MONEY HAS:

[4] No intrinsic value outside of the marketplace

MONEY IS NOT:

[5] real

MONEY CANNOT:

[6] be saved

[7] be invested, at usury, in a finite money token system

[8] be owned, in the sense that it can be bought and sold

MONEY SHOULD NOT:

[9] be limited or under restriction, save that of the marketplace

[10] be under the control of parasites (government, usurers)

[11] be worshiped

[12] be a goal of one's life


[1,2,3] Whether you realize it or not, money is a medium of exchange that facilitates the creation and trade of usable (surplus) goods and services. It is a mechanism that simplifies trade of different items, services, and volumes. As an accounting symbol, for the value of all goods and services in the marketplace, it must be proportional to that marketplace. If it ceases to be proportional, then someone will suffer inequitable trade.

[4] Money, as an accounting system, has no function if there is nothing in the marketplace. Without a marketplace, money cannot facilitate trade. A sum of money without anything to buy has no value. (Gilligan's Island parable – Thurston Howell's sum of money cannot buy rescue nor anything unless the islanders first create it.)

[5] An accounting system, by which one tracks sum of items, goods, and services, should not be something from within the marketplace. In fact, if one uses an item taken from the marketplace, a mathematical error will occur. In set theory, if M (money) is proportional to S (sum of all goods / services), making anything from S, will generate a paradox. For example, if G (gold) is deemed to be the preferred money token, and it is 1% of the whole Sum, we can set up the equation:

G = (.01 S)

BUT

We must now make G have a value proportional to the whole set (S), so that we can trade.

G (proportional to) S.

So 1/10 G can buy 1/10 S.

HOWEVER

Gold, which is 1% of Sum of all, can buy all. Yet G is a subset of S.

G = (.01S), so (0.01S) = S.

One percent of the gold, as "money," can buy all the gold (which represents 1% of S).

See the problem now?

[This portion added later: 0.9 S + 0.11 S = 1.01 S
To pay the usury, the money supply (S) would have to grow 1%.]

"Hard money" requires insanity to function. Anything of intrinsic value from within the marketplace cannot be used as money. Especially since the marketplace varies, disproportionate to the item deemed to be money.

[6] If money is a mechanism to account for value, facilitate trade, and is proportional to the marketplace, you cannot "save" it. Taking money out of circulation only prevents it from its function – moving goods and services equitably. In fact, the more money taken out of circulation by hoarding / saving, the less trade can occur, since there is not enough money tokens to facilitate trade. By making money scarce (disproportionate to the marketplace), the sellers cannot sell, or must accept LESS money. If they cannot sell, they suffer. And if have to accept less money, they cannot equitably trade (nor pay outstanding bills).

[7] Though we might think we're "saving" money when we deposit it with bankers (usurers), buy bonds (usury) or "invest" it in stock corporations, for interest (usury), we are not. The money is put into circulation, facilitating trade. The usurer charges a fee, in money, for the use of that money, and pays a portion to the investor.

However, if the money token system is finite (as is precious metal coin), aggregate usury is impossible to pay. The sum of principle and interest owed exceeds the whole set of available money tokens. A proportion of debtors will default, simply because the money does not exist. And they will lose their valuable property pledged as collateral on the debt. That is why usury is proscribed as an abomination, and denounced by almost all religions (except Satanism).

When we're told that it's "wise to invest", mathematics says we are unwise.

For example, if "everybody" invested 10% of their money, within one time unit of usury, the resulting debt would be impossible to discharge.


S (whole sum of money), and 0.1 S (10%invested, at usury), for 10% simple interest per time unit, computes to:

1.1 x (0.1 S) = 0.11 S

BUT

0.9 S + 0.11 S = 1.1 S

To pay the usury, the money supply (S) would have to grow 10%. If the supply is static or cannot grow at the necessary rate, investors will be unable to be paid.

This problem is compounded when the money token is borrowed into existence at usury. Each unit created imposes an obligation for more money, which, in turn, can only be created by greater debt. Ergo, debt-credit money tokens are catastrophic tools that destroy productive societies for the benefit of parasites and predators.

[* special note : in America's case, the bimetallic standard was another disaster in the making. A simple solution would be to make the unit dollar a silver coin, and designate a gold coin as an eagle, without stipulating any proportionality, by law. That way, the market value of the silver to gold would not create havoc. Contracts payable in dollars might be negotiated with eagles, but that would be a private agreement, not imposed by statutory law.]

[8] There are many people who believe that money must have an intrinsic value, such as precious metal (gold, silver, platinum) or it violates religious law. However, I sincerely doubt that God would impose a money token system that cannot function equitably. The marketplace of goods and services can always grow larger from (a) rising population of laborers, (b) tools that multiply the labor, and (c) automation that produces goods and services without additional input of labor. If the money token system is finite, composed of scarce precious metal coin, it will impose chaos. The harder you work or produce, the less money you earn. If you are in debt, the harder you work, or produce, the less you earn, and thus cannot pay your creditor. Scarce money is a recipe for economic disaster. In fact, scarcity of money drives demand for credit, at usury, offered by bankers.

Therefore, a sound money system (honest accounting) cannot be composed of any "thing" that can be bought or sold in the marketplace, if equitable trade is to exist. It would be as absurd as charging a fee to make each tick mark on a tablet, used to keep score.

[9] For a "free market" to truly exist, the medium of exchange has to be free to grow / shrink in proportion to it. If any disproportionality exists, either the seller or the buyer will be cheated. Those who can manipulate the illusion of abstract money can enrich themselves at the expense of others. Mankind has suffered from the predation of usurers for millennia. And we still willingly cooperate with those who prey upon us. Worse, we are indoctrinated to copy them, and debase ourselves, and "run with the pack". And it's no surprise when folks are "thrown to the wolves!"

One way that the supply of money tokens can adjust is when producers / laborers of new goods and services can issue private promissory notes (ex: coupons) denominated in that which they can do, have or produce. A farmer can issue notes denominated in harvest, or animals, or products. Laborers can issue notes denominated in hours of labor or specific services. Enterprises can issue notes, denominated in that which they offer. A restaurant can issue notes, denominated in meals, or other services.

When the note is tendered to the maker, it is extinguished when the trade is completed. If an entrepreneur needs to purchase goods or services, but has no "money", he can emit promises (notes) to capitalize. He need not beg for debt-credit, at usury, from a bankster. He then discharges his promises, when his enterprise is up and running, without the burden of usury, nor the requirement to fight for a share of scarce money tokens.

[10] A money system should not be under the control of parasites (government, usurers), who produce no goods nor services. A government may offer its services for oversight and offering recourse and remedy, in the pursuit of justice (giving everyman his due).



A private promissory note money token system, by itself, would probably be limited in scope to a local community, where the people knew the credit worthiness of the note makers.

For a larger marketplace, a widely circulating note / money token, is necessary. A bank, acting as a note warehouse, may be one solution. A note could be tendered, discounted by the bank, and bank notes given in exchange. There would be no pressure to create new money tokens, because there would be no usury, nor compound interest. The bank can either tender the note for discharge (making profit from the discount) or sell it to another.

[11] Obviously, we've been taught to worship money, chase after it, be persuaded to act against our better natures, by it. That must change. And the first place change occurs is within each individual.

[12] We must all awaken from the nightmare where money was the goal of one's life work. True prosperity is the creation, exchange, and the time to enjoy those goods and services. Any other activity is counterproductive, including war, usury, theft, and parasitism.

******************************************
Preface:
If you comprehend that usury, socialism, and pauperization are wrong. And if you decide that you do not wish to consent to subjugation as a citizen, obedient to the servant government. Nor do you wish to live as a pauper, dependent upon charity from the public treasury. And you wish to enjoy your Creator's endowment of dominion over the earth, and sovereignty (*Self Rule) over your person, labor and that which you traded your labor for...
Now What?

Facts we know:

[] Private property ownership and sovereignty are inseparable. A king without a domain is sovereign over nothing but himself. He needs permission (license) everywhere he goes, lest he trespasses.
[] Natural and personal liberty are exercised by American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled within the U.S.A.
[] The constitutional government recognizes the rules of the common law, regarding private property, if the value in question exceeds 20 dollars (gold or silver).
[] Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation (lawful money).


Problems we know of:

[] The servant government is bankrupt, and beholden to usurers.
[] Constitutional lawful money is scarce, and insufficient to operate as an efficient medium of exchange.
[] Usury, Socialism, and other abominations have perverted the servant government, and the people who have submitted to it, via citizenship and national socialism.
[] Land and housing costs, denominated in dollars, but are actually in reference to Federal Reserve notes (no par value), are grossly overpriced, and cannot be equitably purchased with lawful money at this time. The exchange rate between worthless notes and lawful money is inequitable.
[] The usury and income tax inflated economy is going through a "correction", where a proportion of debtors and unsecured creditors will be dispossessed of their valuable property.


Problems we can expect:

[] The suffering and pain of the "correction" will trigger unpleasant reactions, ranging from individual acts of senseless violence, to organized predation, as people try to stay alive.
[] The complex and vulnerable network of international trade that usurers feed upon is tottering. As the recession reduces trade, raises the cost for shipping, reduces the amount of imported goods, fuel, and other necessities, stocks will be depleted over time. Once those stocks are gone, no amount of money will matter, for the marketplace will be bare.
[] Fear and panic will trigger irrational behavior, unreasonable demands, and may instigate a draconian backlash (martial law?).


My personal subjective prescription:

A. Educate yourself, ASAP
B. Set your goals - whether simple survival, or restoration of lost status, or the creation of long term prosperity.
C. Find agreeable folks, who you can cooperate with, and acquire enough land to build a village (preferable defensible).
D. Establish enterprises that can produce surplus goods and services, food and necessities, so that you and yours can prosper outside of the money mad society.
E. Live a balanced and moderate life, taking time to enjoy living while making a livelihood.
F. Accumulate a stock of necessities, sufficient to survive 24 months - just in case.
G. And may you find yourself blissfully unaffected by the chaos erupting all around.

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

III.

He who has wisdom will comprehend what true wealth is.

Is true wealth a large quantity of money tokens, or a full storehouse?
Is true wealth a life locked into mindless labor for the benefit of others, whose support you were tricked into providing?
Is true wealth a life of unproductive consumption of the goods and services other people produced?
Is true wealth a life of boredom, distraction, petty tantrums and self destructive amusements?

Or is true wealth based on enriching yourself, your family and friends, with the bounty of your prodigious output of goods and services?

And don't forget morality - it may be lawful under the LAW OF THE JUNGLE to prey upon others, but it is not moral under the LAW OF LOVE.

Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Involuntary charity is a curse.

Someday, we may awaken to wisdom and honor those who contribute more for less, sacrifice for the benefit of others, and harmlessly support their right to life by creative and productive activity.

Jet Graphics writes good stuff, however (IMO) he misses the improper assignment of seigniorage which is equally important to the usury problem.

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

Richard Cook Videos

1 is 22:47, 2 is 19:22, 3 is 23:49, 4 is 18:14, 5 is 27:20, and 6 is 32:11. This adds up to two hours, twenty three minutes and forty three seconds. You can cut off the music at the beginning and end and save a few minutes.

Richard Cook is the engineer who when working for NASA tried to stop the launch of the Challenger because he was predicting failure of the O ring seals.

Richard C. Cook is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Richard C. Cook

[link to www.globalresearch.ca]

His website is at [link to www.richardccook.com.]

Richard Cook on C.H. Douglas: [link to www.globalresearch.ca]

Title 18, section 486

§ 486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal

How Current is This?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornell Law
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

[link to www.lectlaw.com]


COUNTERFEIT, UTTERING - Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 472, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to pass or 'utter,' with intent to defraud, any counterfeit United States Federal Reserve Note.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person passed or uttered a counterfeit Federal Reserve Note;

Second: That the person knew at the time that the note was counterfeit; and

Third: That the person passed the note willfully and with intent to defraud.

To 'pass' or 'utter' a counterfeit note includes any attempt to spend the note or otherwise place it in circulation.



Google search "uttering"
[link to www.google.com]



Now, I ask, "Do you have a freedom of speech? Do you have a freedom to contract?"

What I have been posting to this forum over and over is that money is essentially a communication by means of symbols and contracts that allow the exchange of commodities, finished products, services, and human intellectual and physical labor.

We all have a natural right to communicate by whatever means is effective and to participate in the creation of the symbols and contracts by which that communication is carried - the "utterance of money."

It is a freedom of speech issue.

So, when a casino issues chips are they guilty of "uttering money"?

And furthermore, is the federal reserve banking system also guilty of "uttering money"?

Casinos&Seigniorage

This piece is several years old. I have not checked the links at the end. The title was "Casinos and the Seigniorage Trick."

Casinos worldwide have learned the seigniorage trick to their benefit where they have issued private chips of high grade material construction featuring pictures of the casino and local geography. These chips are often ceramic and priced so the casino will make as much as 50% or better profit.

Though a dozen or so companies have made chips over the last century, each with its own distinctive mold designs, only seven supply U.S. casinos today: Paul-Son Gaming Supplies, the Bud Jones Co. and R.T. Plastics, all three of which are based in Las Vegas; Chipco International, which is based in Windham, Maine; T.R. King, of Los Angeles; Atlantic Molding, of Portland, Maine; and Reliable, of Frazier Park, California. (There are several European companies that manufacture chips similar to those used in the United States, as well as lightweight jetons and rectangular plaques often seen in French casinos.)

The three largest manufacturers, Paul-Son, Bud Jones and Chipco--each use a different manufacturing process, and their chips are easily identifiable by collectors. Paul-Son and Bud Jones have made casino chips for five decades, while Chipco entered the market in 1985.

Paul-Son's chips are made through a compression mold process and are identifiable by small, uneven colored stripes on the edge of a chip. The stripes have a "squished" look and appear to be painted on but are actually composed of small, colored inserts that are set into a mold. Under extremely high pressure, the inserts and surrounding plastic material are fused into one solid block. Many Paul-Son chips are also imprinted around the edge with the company's distinctive "hat and cane" mold. (The design was originally created decades ago by Christy & Jones Co., Bud Jones' first company, which was sold to Paul-Son when it dissolved in the 1960s.) Most of the casinos in Las Vegas use chips by Paul-Son, a third generation company founded by Paul Endy Sr., which went public three years ago.

Bud Jones uses an injection mold process. Instead of squeezing the chips, the process works by injecting plastic material around pre formed lettering, denominations and patterns. This creates fine geometric patterns around the edge and rim of the chip. Bud Jones is also well known for its metal inlay chips, which have a metal "coin" embedded into the center.

Chipco's chips are made of an injection molded ceramic material in one piece construction. They usually have a non-slip sandpaper like texture and are identified by full color graphics that extend to the edge of the chip. Using a proprietary process, images are printed 5/1,000 of an inch deep into the chip's surface. Chipco chips are also known for stripes and designs on the rim, and the manufacturer is the only one to print denominations and lettering on the rims.

Paul-Son and Bud Jones credit Chipco with revolutionizing the chip business and fueling the collector market by introducing the first chips with full color, photo-like graphics.

"Never in my wildest dreams did I think it would blossom into the industry it has or begin to command the dollar value that collectors were willing to pay," says Chipco president John Kendall.

"We didn't make chips like that; they forced us to do it," Paul-Son senior vice president of sales Lou DeGregorio says about Chipco. "But when we saw where it was going with the market we moved fast. We painted a bull's eye on them."

So did Bud Jones, who is bemused by all the attention casino chips have received in recent years. "I wish I had one of every chip I ever made," says Jones, who got into the business 50 years ago hand drilling dice for a long defunct company. The company is the world's leader in casino dice, and all Bud Jones manufactured dice are hand drilled to this day. "If I had, it would have dawned on me 10 years ago to retire."

Though few have played a greater role in the manufacture of casino chips, Jones has never been a collector himself and has no intention of starting today. "It's kind of like the postman going for a walk on his day off," he says. Jones, who along with his wife, Jean, was one of the first two inductees into International Gaming & Wagering Business magazine's hall of fame, isn't complaining, though. Casinos buy his chips for 59 cents to 75 cents each, making the company anywhere from $2,950 to $3,750 for every commemorative chip ordered in an edition of 5,000.

It's not the chip makers that are profiting the most from chip collectors, however. It's the casinos. For every $5 chip that walks, the casino earns more than $4 in pure profit. The El San Juan casino in Puerto Rico is believed to be the first casino to have bought a chip that ended up walking in major quantities. In November 1988, the casino ordered 15,000 $1 chips from Chipco that portrayed a person bouncing a beach ball in front of palm trees and the ocean.

"Those chips would normally last five years," says Kendall. "Within 30 days the casino ordered another 15,000. Six months later they ordered another 15,000." And a market was born.

Caesars in Atlantic City is acknowledged as the first casino to introduce a commemorative chip to the boardwalk. The casino needed a new set of chips because of a counterfeiting problem, and also turned to Chipco. "In 1991 we were in a recession and looking for any conceivable way to improve performance," says Edward Sutor, Caesars' senior vice president of finance. "Here was a way to solve our problem of needing new chips and increasing our revenue. It's exceeded all of our expectations."

Not only did Caesars receive what it thought was a more secure chip, it discovered a sure-fire way to make money. Typically 90 to 95 percent of its commemorative chips walk. Caesars recently introduced one of the market's highest denomination commemorative chips--a $25 anniversary chip in an edition of 50,000. When Caesars removed the chip from play, after about a year, only 900 remained. Taking into account the manufacturer's price of about 65 cents a chip, Caesars cleared a profit of nearly $1.2 million. "Every time one of the casinos' chips walks and doesn't get redeemed, it is like the casino writing a check that isn't cashed," says Black.

The Hard Rock casino in Las Vegas has become a big proponent of commemorative chips that feature photographs of rock musicians, and issues approximately one per month. "Hard Rock said they wanted funky looking chips, so we worked with [owner] Peter Morton's design group, in Los Angeles, to come up with a line of chips," says DeGregorio. "They paid for all their casino equipment on profit they made on chips that walked out of the casino."

Harrah's Atlantic City, along with Caesars, was instrumental in issuing a special Miss America pageant chip that was jointly circulated in September 1997 by New Jersey's casinos--the first time all 12 banded together to issue a common chip.

Harrah's vice president of marketing, Susan Schneider, is a member of the pageant's board of directors, and she persuaded it to allow a photograph of the previous year's Miss America to grace one side of the commemorative chip. The obverse carried the name of the issuing casino. "We don't do it for the collector, we do it for our customers," says Schneider. "On the operations side it adds fun and excitement to the casino floor. But we realize the collector plays a part in this as well."

Even longtime holdouts against commemorative chips have decided they can no longer ignore the market. In December 1997, Steve Wynn's Mirage and Treasure Island casinos, which had never issued commemorative chips, came out with chips made by Paul-Son commemorating illusionists Siegfried & Roy and circus performers Cirque Du Soleil, respectively. DeGregorio, for one, disputes the opinion that casinos are issuing too many different commemorative chips in editions that are too great in number. "Maybe there's not enough collectors," he observes. "There are two sides to the coin. If there were 10,000 collectors, then there wouldn't be enough chips."

To remedy the situation, Paul-Son has entered into a joint venture called Brand One with DeBartolo Entertainment to produce oversized, non gaming and nondenominational commemorative chips featuring sports figures from the National Football League, National Basketball Association and NASCAR auto racing. The first such chip, or trading disk as Paul-Son calls it, was produced in an extremely limited quantity in 1994 and given away to San Francisco Forty Niners' stadium superbox holders. (DeBartolo owns the Forty Niners.) The latest trading disk was manufactured for the May 1997 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremonies. In the future, Paul-Son envisions the disks, which are made from the same material as its casino chips, being used as high-tech tickets to major sporting events, such as the Super Bowl. The disks, which would be imprinted with a variety of security features, would be kept by ticket holders as a memento. "We plan to go to the market and create the next collectible, and that market will be 50 times bigger than casino chips," says DeGregorio.

Whether that will be good for the traditional chip collector remains to be seen. What's assured is that many more people will be clamoring for a little piece of Havana, Vegas and Atlantic City in the coming years.

Writer Barry Rosenberg is a New York-based journalist, specializing in business and technology.

Cashing In

Many outlets serve the burgeoning army of chip collectors. To this day, most chip collectors do business by mail. While several retail stores are dedicated to chips and other gambling collectibles, primarily in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, dozens of individuals advertise their chips for sale in the back of the Casino Chip and Gaming Token Collectors Club's quarterly newsletter, in Gaming Times magazine or on the Internet.

Casino Chip and Gaming Tokens Collectors Club James Steffner, membership officer, P.O. Box 368, Wellington, Ohio 44090. One-year dues are $20. Membership includes quarterly publication, "Casino Chip and Token News."

Gaming Times magazine Bill Akeman Jr., publisher, (702) 876-6020. Akeman also operates what is probably the nation's largest retail store devoted to chips and other casino collectibles. Contact the magazine at: 4089 Spring Mountain Road., Las Vegas, Nevada 89102; (702) 876-6020.

Casino Collectible Magazine Tom and Gayle Pleau, publishers, P.O. Box 7438, Liguna Niguel, California 92607; (714) 362-9101, six issues for $13.

Gambler's General Store 800 South Main Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101; (800) 322-2447 or (702) 382-9903.

The Gaming Emporium Bob Mera, 3011 Boardwalk, Atlantic City, New Jersey; (800) 354-3075 or (609) 347-9190.

Gambler's Paradise Ocean One Mall, Atlantic City, New Jersey; (800) 344- 2594 or (609) 344-2500.

Here is a collectors site with a bunch of pictures of some of the newest designs: [link to www.oldvegaschips.com]

Chequers: [link to www.chequers.com]

Merrill Jenkins made the suggestion in his book "Money, the Greatest Hoax on Earth" that gold be pressed into very thin leaf or extruded into fine wires and then directly embedded into paper currency that would serve as the carrier.

I personally like the metric system for the simplicity of calculation.

Anyway, the gold leaf or wire could be embedded into credit card sized plastic. When after several years of use, the card could be heated to melting point where the gold could be recovered and inserted into a new card minus a small franking charge.

If even thinner strips of gold were desired, consider the protective films used with spacecraft. These films are millimeter thick with the actual gold just a few molecules thick on a plastic substrate. These could be sliced in narrow strips and one to ten strips embedded into a credit card type plastic card and stamped with the gold weight in micrograms.

Just a small portion of the total picture.

Looking at more casino chips: [link to www.marlowcasinochips.com] and asking: Question for GLPERS; Is there anything terribly important about the round coin form versus the flat credit card form if a small quantity of gold leaf was to be embedded in a plastic or ceramic matrix?

I think what the Native American Tribes had was good street level communication with their tribe. So the Chief had his wife who was connected to the ladies and this counterbalanced the dynamic. Then compare that to "The Church" which destroyed all that with their "Missions" strung up and down the West Coast. "Civilization" at its worst.

They raised "Missions" all up California and still dominate the BS of California educations.

Up North they know that the history of California is not about the "Missions" of Ignacious and his puppets.

The Great Bear knows: It is not about coins. It is about spirit. Spirit flows with river. Flows to the oceans. Evil spirit flows into oceanic bank accounts.

Yes the history of California will become a key subject in the future discussions of what "money" meant to the people of our time. Out time being the third millennium since the Master who had to ask for a coin to point to Caesar's image and answer a question. That guy goes down into history forever as the coolest penniless man ever. And so the future will discuss the struggle over the penniless men of our time. Those penniless people would be: The Master, the Indians, the Slaves.

So the tribes had the benefit of street level communication is what really drives commerce. And when it gets too big, the integrity or the honesty breaks down. Or more simply: Confuscious say when whole tribe bathe at same river, it is harder to hide ones warts. But when all wish to hide our warts, he then bathe privately, and bathing at the river is abhorrent to us! I cannot allow my privates bank accounts to be seen openly! Oh well you know what I mean.

The lodge idea of the Natives, where they all have a round table discussion, is a very old and effective way of figuring out the answer to a problem. But nowadays we have "lodge" that is the size of the world, with telecommunications and stadium-sized gathering places.

Yo Levi: Boil it down for the stadium crowd, eh? Make it real simple.

Casinos are embedding RFID technology into their chips to expedite counting and provide additional anti-counterfeiting security.

Cannot link.

Ah yes, the casino experience is so much better than the work camp of WW2.

Yes, go on?

Levi is right to point us toward Lysander Spooner!

Truly awesome this man! Practiced law without a license, fought for freedom and sensible law!

You do know that the COTUS is like the Torah, and it is read by the SCOTUS who are the Sanhedrin in that context?

"There is no Moses without me." - The Talmud

"There is no Talmud without me." - Moses

My posts are not aimed at the stadium crowd. They are followers; not innovators.

My posts are aimed at the thinkers and the leaders or potential leaders who might actually take actions designed to solve problems.

You do realize don't you that there does exist a general problem in economics?

And it is my conclusion that the general problem is caused by fundamental errors of the axiomatic variety.

I attempt to expose these axiomatic errors and suggest possible remedies.

Lysander Spooner like Proudhan before him recognized that the key to freedom was the decentralization of money.

Proudhan promoted the idea of "mutual credit" which is also promoted by Thomas Greco.

first advanced on page one of this thread.

Collapse Pattern

Search "liquidity preference" and "zero point"

These factors work in a symbiotic fashion.

* People perceive a loss in asset values [not really "value" but price structure]
* Banks cannot push loans on people who fed up with payments refuse to borrow even if the interest rate is zero
* People perceive that cash in hand will become more valuable in the future
* People without a job become very hesitant to spend
* Even people with a job try to save so as to be more liquid should they lose their job

It is very difficult to push inflation in the face of these factors even if that is the agenda.

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results; never underestimate the power of mass media to alter general perceptions of the public.

Of course my learned friend, of course! I think I posted earlier in this thread to.

But hey, fact is, you are right in target here with your casino chip idea.

Let us assume a thread of gold 1micron thick.
The let us assume that it is wound in such an sos-pad type of way, that it itself has a fprime-over-fprime type configuration --long and short of it, if the thread be 1micron thick, then there can be N^x number of tiny, casino-chip-sized-gold-micro-thread-sos-pads which then get encased in a single shell of casino chip type material.

So then each "coin" (instead of having an RFID chip, which is bullshit of course), would instead be unique in its own thumbprint, while also being actual gold, provable by simple scan of the plastic casing. Each coin a gold thumbprint as to its original uniqueness.

So at least in that way you could have modern gold coin that has a way to verify the realness of the actual gold content, for whom could weave the gold sos pad but the people who spin the 1micron thread and make the fingerprint? If you do not get what I am saying, I can go on.

BUT, in a larger context, how can the general world become more like the casino environment? One feels a real value in the holding of a casino chip. How does such an invocation occur?

Subject: THE EVOLUTION OF MONEY

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006

From: Leonardo Wild (Leonardo Wild is a professional writer and lives in Ecuador, South America.)

Hello,

A long time ago I posted this, in part, part of an article I wrote (nearly three years ago). It might be useful or interesting for those who did not read it back then.

All the best,

Leonardo

(TAKEN FROM "TAO OF ECONOMY" by Leonardo Wild)© 2003

The evolution of money

The path taken by economy, but particularly by money, varies from place to place according to the rise and fall of civilizations. Money started to exist when certain goods that were widely accepted as "valuable" began to be traded, not only for their own sake, but because they could be used to acquire other things.

Money is to consumers what transport is to distributors.

This means that widely accepted goods, which were deemed important, became a "commodity of trade" and, therefore, what is now known as money’s raison d'être, that is, a "means of exchange" that transcended the limitations of barter.

Commodities became money because, besides their inherent usefulness, they were also widely accepted and sought-for because they could do various other things besides fulfill needs:

a) store value over time,

b) be of a quantity enough to trade with in greater numbers and,

c) be scarce enough or difficult enough to acquire so not everybody

could come up with more.

These commodities, then, acquired a "cultural value," that is, they were "widely accepted" regardless of their real value.

Saying it differently, commodity money went through a process of evolution: at first it was cattle, rice (and other grains), tobacco, animal hides, among other things. After a while, instead of simply something that was in itself useful and of "real value," people began to accept particular commodities as means of exchange: cowry shells, axes, religious totems and assorted tokens, then later precious metals such as gold, silver and copper.

These metals were at certain times throughout history "officially minted" into coins to proclaim their purity. For example, Cresus of Lydia (around 560-546 BC), instituted the "royal seal" on coins to guarantee their purity and weight so people had a reasonable idea of their value.

When commodity money became mainly gold and silver -in the form of dust, nuggets, coins, or bars of a given weight and purity-, goldsmiths invented what is normally known as a "promissory note." A promissory note is a document that was, in practical terms, a warehouse receipt for a given object; in the case of the goldsmiths, a specific amount of gold of a given purity.

Soon, these promissory notes -a promise to return a given amount of something in exchange of the note- began to circulate instead of the things they represented. This then became what is know as "symbolic money."

Symbolic money stood "in place of" stored commodities -the real thing-, especially of gold and silver. Yet, because of this representation, symbolic money behaved much like commodity money in the sense that people looked upon it as a true commodity, forgetting that they couldn’t wear it, eat it, drink it or use it for anything other than to trade for real valuables.

We can say that "real value" became confused with "cultural value" to the point where, instead of seeking to acquire goods and services, people began to run after money as if money was something that could truly ensure their survival of its own accord.

A variation of symbolic money is "credit money."

Credit money is a so-called "monetization of assets." That is, real things are made "liquid" -monetized- by an institution that issues money, usually a bank.

Both symbolic money and credit money stand for something in particular. In the case of symbolic money, the process by which it was created happened more or less as follows:

1) An owner of gold went to a bank to deposit it;

2) The bank measured the gold (or checked the gold or silver coins’ soundness in terms of purity and weight);

3) The bank issued a promissory note (or presented pre-printed paper bills) in relation to the amount deposited.

The person holding the note or the "paper money" then could use it instead of the gold to carry our their trade, pay their debts, etc. This money circulated and, whenever someone wanted to have the gold instead of the symbol for the gold (printed bills), it went back to the issuing bank and they were given the gold in return. This meant that the bank promised the bearer of the bank note to "deliver gold in the value of" whatever amount was written on the face of the paper bills (or promissory notes or bonds of various sorts). In the case of credit money, the process was very similar, with a slight difference in the origin of the "value" that was being represented by the issued money:

1) The owner of some sort of physical property went to a bank and wrote out a contract (mortgage) where it was clear that he would give the bank ownership of the property in case the owner didn’t pay back the amount of money borrowed (that is, the credit);

2) The bank, with the mortgage contract in hand, delivered the paper money into the hands of the property owner (or "credited" the amount into the owner’s bank account);

3) The property owner spent the money into circulation, usually engaging in business that would, at the end of the term of the loan, return him enough money to pay the loan’s principal plus the interest charged for that service.

Credit meant "to trust" or "to believe." Thus, "giving credit" meant to trust that someone would return the loan. Just in case, however, something the person owned was "signed over" as a "collateral" (in case the person failed to deliver).

Symbolic Money vs. Credit Money

For a while, credit money was confused with symbolic money, and even today people (and banks) still treat money as a commodity -or a thing- with "real" rather than "cultural value."

We must remember that symbolic money stood "in place of" a real commodity. This means that paper bills were printed to the amount of the value of the real commodities it had in its vaults. Thus, if it had 2000 pounds of gold, it could print out bills to the amount equivalent to 2000 pounds of gold.

However, banks realized that people would seldom ask for the gold, that the bills tended to circulate because they were easier to handle and because customers trusted that they could, at any time, go to the bank and ask for the gold at the bill’s "face value." So, if the gold usually remained in the vaults, why not print out more money and lend it out at a cost (interest) and thus make a better business? Who would notice? While customers trusted the bank to hold the gold, few would come and ask for it.

A practice was instituted which is now called "Fractional Reserve Banking," which simply means that the money in circulation is only a "fraction of the reserve" that a bank holds in its vaults. Some considered this practice unethical. The bank was printing money and lending it out at face value when in reality no value stood behind it. But it worked (to the benefit of the bank). Only when the rumor spread that there wasn’t enough gold (or silver) in a bank’s vaults, and when most customers went to retrieve it -a bank run-, the "real thing" could not be delivered and the bank went "bankrupt." People afterwards held in their hands "valueless" bills that no-one would accept as a means of payment.

When credit money was instituted, the bank did "hold the value" though not in their vaults. They had "real assets" signed over to them, but on many occasions, when a bank run occurred, the "face value" of the printed bills offered to redeem them for gold or silver. Naturally there wasn’t all that gold or silver available. Thus a bank could go bankrupt even if it had a "reserve of value" that amounted to the money it had put in circulation, but this reserve of value had not been differentiated. In other words, "credit money" looked just like "symbolic money" even though the value it was "backed by" was not the same.

Symbolic money more or less stopped being emitted when the "gold standard" was dropped (in 1971, by the U.S. President Nixon). From then on, credit money has been the norm.

Getting into the details of banking and how banks make money is a whole chapter in itself (and an interesting one), but it will suffice to say that money-as-we-know-it has been malfunctioning and is at the core of some of the world’s greatest problems. Even before it became credit money or symbolic money, the fact that money was scarce -only scarcity could ensure the value of money, therefore sand was never a choice-, meant that it had great limitations as a "means of exchange" and that it was the greatest tool for channeling wealth from the bottom up.

The malfunctioning of money Money as a tool to facilitate distribution -a means of exchange that allows for multiple coincidence-, is in fact not doing what it has been created to do, at least not in terms of an economy of balance. This is mainly because the Social Agreement on which money is based is one of imposition -people are forced to use specific currencies-, because the Forms of Presentation are being kept artificially scarce, and because its three main Functions:

1) Means of exchange,

2) Measure of value,

3) Store of value,

contradict each other.

But let us take each at a time and see how this has happened.

The forms of presentation of money have evolved, as we have seen, from cows, tobacco, rice, gold, silver, and later coins of various metals, to the representation of these things in physical form -such as paper money, bonds, etc.-, to the latest forms of presentation in digital form, also known as "electronic money." But these are all "forms" of presentation, not the way money itself functions. Nevertheless, one important aspect must be mentioned in regards to the way money works in relation to its form of presentation.

When money was a commodity, it existed to the extent in which the amount of the commodity was availability. So ten cows were ten cows and if there were no more, there was no more money. Similarly, the number and value of gold coins was directly related to the amount of gold from which the coins were made. So gold, being more scarce than silver, ended up having a "greater value" than silver. This is so because, as a rule:

Value is directly proportional to the availability of something, as long as there is a need for it.

But then symbolic money came along and the promissory notes (and later paper bills) were issued in relation to the amount of the physical goods available. A note representing a thousand pounds of grain, meant that with that note one could retrieve a thousand pounds of grain. But bankers, when they realized that people did not retrieve the gold but rather preferred to keep it stored away, invented Fractional Reserve Banking. The important thing to understand is that "the symbols didn’t meet reality." Banks could print out more bills than they had stored value, and no-one noticed until everyone (or at least a majority) wanted to collect that "value" from the bank.

The interesting thing about this is that money "transcended the limitations of physical reality" when it became symbolic money and later credit money. In both cases:

Money can become "more" without "reality" growing at an equal rate.

To put it differently, money doesn’t really have to be scarce, and money doesn’t really have to be bound by the limitations which binds commodities. But there is the catch if money is meant to have the function of storing value:

Money isn’t scarce unless it is meant to have "value."

Or, turning that around:

If money is meant o have value, it must be kept scarce.

This means that "the edition of money is limited," which is just another way of saying that money is artificially scarce. The question that must be asked, then, is:

1) "Why is money kept scarce?"

Also:

2) "Who keeps money scarce?"

And perhaps less obvious:

3) "Where is money scarce?"

To start by answering the last question:

3) Money is scarce where it is most needed, for if you have enough money you don’t need that much of it to fulfill your real needs.

2) Money is kept scarce by those who issue it.

1) Money is kept scarce so those who issue it can lend it out at a cost, because they are in the business of making a profit with money.

If everyone would have enough money, there would be no sense in lending out money.

The simple fact is that those who have enough money can make more money by lending it out at a cost, while those who don’t have enough money must borrow it (in most cases, at a cost). This cost -which is not the same as "value"-, begins to exist with the charging of "interest rates" and it doesn’t only cover the "cost of creating money," but goes beyond that to a practice that is now viewed as "normal."

However, charging interest was considered un-ethical and even prohibited in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Though back in the early days it wasn’t called "interest" but "usury."

Usury, from the Latin word usura (which means "to use"), was a price set on the loaning out of money. It was eventually replaced by a more widely accepted term "charging interest." However, back in the days when interest was in fact usury, to charge interisse meant to "cover the costs" and no more. A "cost" was only the "loss incurred" when someone loaned out something and not, as today, an expected gain for taking a so-called "risk."

Usury nowadays is referred to "higher than legal" interest rates missing the point entirely, for in reality the practice of charging interest has more than just ethical or religious consequences. It forces money to grow exponentially, which in the short term may not have too many visible effects, but in the long term it has catastrophic consequences at all levels, especially since it creates a contradiction in the primary purpose of money: its "functions."

Money’s primary function is to serve as a means of exchange of goods and services in order to allow for "multiple coincidence."

Means of exchange implies that the more money circulates, the more "value" can be exchanged, which should indicate that "more needs have been met."

We can see it in the following example:

1 USD x 10 People who use it 1 Time, have each acquired something for the "value" of one dollar, and all together -as a group- "moved" value for the equivalent of ten dollars. 1 USD x 10 People who use it 10 Times, have each acquired something for the "value" of ten dollars, and all together -as a group- "moved" value for the equivalent of one-hundred dollars.

This function is readily contradicted with that of "store of value." Store of value, as its name itself implies, has the purpose to create reserves that can be stored over time. Thus, if someone sells potatoes for the "value" of one hundred dollars, he receives money which is then stored away. Those one-hundred dollars can be later used to buy products or to make contract for some kind of service for the "value of" one-hundred dollars. However, what does "storing (or saving) money" mean?

It means that:

Money is taken out of circulation in order to "store value."

It also means that:

Value stored in the form of money is "cultural value" that cannot be used except for future exchange at the "price" money has acquired in the "market."

Furthermore, it happens that:

Money which is taken out of circulation in order to store cultural value is money that isn’t available for those who need it to fulfill their needs.

It is obvious then, that storing value is the opposite as moving value. If money has both functions in a single tool -as it used to be when the "value of money" was stored in a coin rather than in a bank, in a "pound of rice" rather than in a "warehouse receipt"-, the primary function of money is not put to work. Socially, the result is that:

Those who need money to fulfill their needs, are forced to spend -circulate- money, while those whose needs have been met, can take the luxury to store it away for future use.

Since money is kept in short supply, and since those who don’t have enough must borrow it at a cost -paying interest rates-, it purports that those who have money can lend it out (or invest it) at a price, so they will receive more than they loaned, which means that money will attract even more money. If this happens at an exponential rate, those who have money and allow others to use it at a cost, will eventually hold most of the money available. Once there isn’t enough money in circulation, the most basic needs cannot be met, which is the simplest definition of poverty.

Poverty is the economic inability of acquiring goods and/or services.

Which is the opposite of "being rich":

Being rich -wealthy- is the economic capacity of organisms to acquire good and services and to store "value" in greater amounts than they immediately need for survival.

As in everything, "being poor" and "being wealthy" are relative to the circumstances and subjective to what individuals believe are real needs. A company that owns billions in assets but cannot pay their employees’ wages and their debts for lack of "liquidity" -money-, can be considered "economically unable to acquire goods and services" and thus it will be poor in the strictest sense of the word "poverty." So perhaps when can say that:

Real poverty is the economic incapacity of organisms -be these people, families, communities, companies, nation-states, etc.- to fulfill their basic survival needs.

If there is wealth stored away, and there are organisms who are not meeting their basic survival needs, then it implies that there is a problem with the distribution of wealth. And if a economic system has the capacity to produce -even over-produce-, and there is the physical capability of transporting the needed products to the "poor," and there is the knowledge -information- that there are unmet needs to the point of endangered survival, something is at fault with the system which is devising the "store of value" and, as a consequence, with the mechanisms to "measure value," because value is not allocated (transferred) properly so "economic pressure" can be equalized. Measure of value is an agreement, a social abstraction. Measure of value is a "point of reference" based on a triangulation between "real" needs, subjective needs and cultural needs. Just like a foot is based on a "standard" taken from feet, a meter a fraction of the circumference of the Earth as measured at the equator, a degree Celsius the division in one hundred equal parts as measured between the freezing point and the boiling point of fresh water at sea level at standard "atmospheric pressure," and other measures of pressure, weight, volume, temperature and so forth are based on various parameters, the "measure of value" of currencies is based on various agreements, some completely ad hoc, others based on some external value based on standards of cultural value as carried down through history. However, since money itself has been over the ages a "commodity" that changed in value according to its availability, its "price" or so-called "measure of value" has not been stable over time -like a meter, a pound, a degree Celsius. This means that, as a "measuring unit," money’s "value" has become greater or smaller, fluctuating according to its availability in the "market." This characteristic inherent of commodities has been maintained as part of money even though money has stopped being, in strict terms, a real commodity. In other words, it comes into being as a "process of accounting," but it behaves like a commodity. This means that:

The function of money as a measure of value is an unreliable function because it fluctuates since it behaves like a commodity rather than a unit of measure.

It would make us presume, then, that money is still, somehow, a commodity. But how can electronic blips be a commodity? How can kilograms, kilometers, degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit, kilopascals or calories, be Units of Measure that show signs of scarcity? They are all symbols carrying certain information. They are all "reference points." No-one has set a monopoly (control of issuance) on the use of such measures of reference, yet money is working exactly under the assumption that it needs to be scarce to work.

Through this analysis, we can come to the conclusion that:

Money, as a man-made contrivance, is not working as it pretends to be because it is functioning under "assumptions of use" that aren’t true.

If this is the case, then an economy based mainly on the "transfer of value" through the use of (present-day) money, must necessarily be working in an inefficient or even harmful way. In fact, most of the problems related to economy derive from the way money works. Looking at how the issuers of money -banks- abuse their power through the control and miss-allocation of money, would only add details to this argument. The primary goal of consumers has been to chase after the money because it is scarce and because it is also almost the only way in which they can acquire what they need. And producers have been put in a similar situation, with the aggravating fact that, in order to be "competitive," they need to make loans to "up-date" their means of production so they can make even more money. Distributors, those in charge of taking the goods from producers to consumers, are also in need of money to fulfill their needs.

In the meantime, those who are merely recording the "transfers of value" and renting the means for doing this -banks- (without really having had to expend much energy), do so at a profit based on consumers, producers and distributor’s efforts. All this would not be necessary or even possible would money work differently. It is quite obvious that techniques of production which deplete the resources and destroy the environment are economically unsound because they endanger the survival of future generations. It is also evident that consumers who acquire things that don’t fulfill their real needs are wasting their energy and maybe even endangering their health. Transport that is ecologically unsound and at times even unnecessary, is also part of a puzzle that doesn’t quite seem to be right or make sense.

Cars produced in Germany are sold cheaper in Spain even though extra costs come from the transport of those cars across thousands of kilometers? Foods are available within a city yet people are starving right next to the food because they lack a symbol called money to acquire them? It may seem like "social inequity" at first sight, but in fact it all points to a miss-allocation of money directly related to its inherent dysfunctions.

Many of the aspects related to unsound practices of production, transport and consumption are social and cultural in nature, but if they are greatly exacerbated by the way in which value is transferred (or siphoned off through unnecessary costs to the users), then perhaps some of the functions of money should be revised, as well as the social agreements that dictate how it is issued and under what criteria.

The future of money

Money has evolved in its forms of presentations, but not in its functions. The banking system puts money into circulation that is primarily debt money, that is, money that earns interest. This means as well that the assumption that money is a "thing" continues, when in reality the percentage of paper money and coins -things- in relation to a electronic money entered at a key-stroke in customer’s accounts (or debited from their accounts), is just around 3 percent. And even electronic money is given all the functions of paper money, when in reality all that banks are doing is using a new kind of money without telling the customers that this has happened.

Money has become, besides a means of exchange, a "store of memory," that is, it keeps track of who owes whom a given "amount" of value.

This kind of money is, in fact, what is commonly known as "clearing house" money. Banks are the clearing houses yet they still make everyone believe that the money they are "making" holds value. Also, they make it seem that the money they loan out isn’t new money, but rather customers’ deposits. In fact, what they are doing, is exactly what was done in the times when symbolic money represented gold without the gold. They gave out more money than they had gold in their vaults (Fractional Reserve Banking), and today they can create more money than they hold in deposit.

The percentage of the Fractional Reserve Banking -say, 10%-, means simply that they can create 90 percent new money over their deposits every time they make a loan. This leads to a constantly growing "money supply" as loans are deposited appearing to be "original" money, and new loans are made on top of that at the allowed Fraction Reserve Banking percentages. True, when a loan is repaid, the bank "destroys" the amount of the principal. But the customer didn’t just repay money for the amount of the loan taken out, but the interest as well, which goes to form part of the bank’s assets.

Economists do not agree that this takes place, even though official publications like "The Swiss National Bank and that vital commodity: money" offer clear descriptions of how this is carried out at any commercial bank.

When credit money was created, it represented a customer’s collateral to a loan. But customers could, if they wanted to, redeem that money for gold or so called "real (cultural) value."

Nowadays, banks create new money by adding it to a customer’s bank account (rarely is the money given out as paper bills), and a customer can then draw (in paper money, through writing checks, by using the credit or debit card) from the account. However, all the bank did was add numbers to an account and called it "money" as if it were a thing, and then charges an interest on that with the upshot that, in case the customer fails to pay back, they receive the collateral or go after the guarantees offered in exchange for the loan. The implications of this system are varied, and could be explained in a larger paper in detail.

What is important to know, now, is that money has transcended from mere credit money to a system of "clearing" without people realizing it. This has occurred in such a way that the world at large is still paying for the cost of money as if it were a commodity, and is suffering the consequences related to (scarce) commodity money —the oldest form of money. Those who have a right to issue money are doing it in ways that are short of outright deception, perhaps without even realizing that this is the case because they still live a paradigm that is around ten thousand years old: money holds value, and thus it must be scarce. Money today is unnecessarily expensive, needlessly scarce, overly dysfunctional and therefore economically damaging. It is the cause of manifest scarcity in times of over-production, the motor behind power struggles (and thus, ultimately, for most wars), and all because it isn’t what it is meant to be. If this is the case, what is money meant to be?

Once again, money is primarily a means of exchange that allows for multiple coincidence rather than barter’s limited double coincidence. This is the purpose of money, to allow for more efficient and easier means of distribution. But if the other functions attributed to money (store of value and measure of value) are a contradiction or dysfunctional, what other functions should money have or how should it be made to work to avoid scarcity?

Throughout history, there has been a kind of money that, instead of "becoming more" while stored away under certain circumstances, "lost value." In pre-Christian Era Egypt and in the mid-Middle Ages in Europe, a kind of monetary system known as renovatio monetae made it unlikely for people to wish to store it over a given time, because the issuers of the money took it out of circulation -through an imposed law- and the population had to buy the new edition, which was worth less (though was purchased at the same price as the outgoing edition) by up to 30 percent in 5 or 6 years. This was a way of collecting taxes, and a way to avoid those who weren’t in power to hoard too much wealth.

In the early 1930’s, in Wörgl, Austria, a Municipality issued their own money based on a similar principle -known as demurrage or negative interests-, where the money, in order to remain valid, had to have stamps attached to it (bought from the Municipality) on a regular basis.

However, all these methods are ways to keep people from hoarding money (thus taking it out of circulation), but they are based on money that still has the three functions of "means of exchange," "measure of value" and "store of value." These are paradigms based on money that is, in its use, a commodity that can be hoarded and whose price fluctuates according to availability, which means that it is of limited edition.

The new paradigm of money implies that money isn’t a store of value, nor is it a measure of value, but it is re-engineered as a technology to serve the following functions:

1) Means of Exchange,

2) Unit of Measure of Transactions,

3) Memory of Transactions.

The "unit of measure of transactions" becomes something similar to the way various measures are used -kilograms, meters, pounds, feet, degrees Celsius-, all used to serve as immutable standards of measure and in no way symbols that can be hoarded. When it comes to measures of longitude such as meters vs. feet, or fathoms vs. miles, the ratio between them is always the same: i.e., a meter can not have more feet today than yesterday. Which is not what happens when we use "measures of value" called Yens vs. US Dollars, or Euros vs. any of the different kinds of Pesos available in different countries.

And instead of "store of value," this function is replaced with a "memory of transactions" as represented in an accumulation of units added up from the prices set during the transactions.

So, instead of using an elusive concept of value, the Unit of Measure of Transactions is a locally standardized unit based on some agreed-upon set of references whose number -or quantity- represents the "price" of a given transaction. This goes through an accounting system -or ledger- that keeps track of debits vs. credits. The information reflects the "level of energy" or "quantity of value" -as plus or minus points- that a given party has within its economic circle. Those who have positive points in their favor will have given "value" for the amount represented in their accounts, while those who have negative points will have taken "value" for the amount.

Thank you for your input and feedback Anonymous Coward User ID: 1086981

Shows what happens when a problem is identified and thinkers and doers address the problem.

The problem of scarcity of credit money is caused by the model currently promoted by the central bankers.

Thanks again.

Yeahmmhmm, mutual credit.

Does that happen when people get the casino card as well? Like, they get great perks on the card ya know, so long as they use the card? Is that what you are somehow not getting at?

Choice in Currency - Hayek

The 1976 publication of FA Hayek's Choice in Currency - a Way to Stop Inflation is now available on line from the institute of economic affairs of London.

This is the blurb:
Quote:

In this short paper, first published in 1976, Nobel Laureate Friedrich von Hayek suggests that inflation can be stopped by introducing competition in currency. The notion that it is a proper function of government to issue the national currency is false. Citizens should be free to use and refuse any currencies they wish: politicians and central banks would then have to limit their quantities.

Hayek provided more detailed support for his proposal in Denationalisation of Money , published by the IEA later in 1976. Choice in Currency combines a concise explanation of the essential theoretical issues with an incisive analysis of key historical developments in banking, such as the gold standard and the Bretton-Woods agreement.

The monograph includes commentaries by Ivor F. Pearce, Harold B. Rose, Douglas Jay and Sir Keith Joseph. In addition, Sudha Shenoy provides 'A Note on Government Monopoly of Money in Theory and History', a fascinating examination of several case studies, including hyperinflation in 1920s Germany.

The blurb is found here: [link to www.iea.org.uk]

The download: [link to www.iea.org.uk]

Hayek's Road to Serfdom is also available at this site in a full version and a shortened version. Other economic writers along with a scattering of audio recordings and a couple of video talks are available also on this site.

Easy to navigate: [link to www.iea.org.uk]

Freedom cannot be purchased with a currency that is centrally issued. Centralized money and centralized power is a symbiotic pair; neither can exist without the other. Freedom can only be purchased with a decentralized open source medium of exchange where the producers of value participate in the creation of the symbols by which that value is exchanged in proxy, and the banker serves in an agency role to producers of value.

What Hayek missed in his decentralization and competition writings is how banks would be forced to address corruption.

The present model uses law and administration to address bank fraud.

If the bank fraud is to the benefit of banks, the administrators will be corrupted by payola kickbacks.

Then, further layers of watchers will be hired to watch the watchers. Who in turn will be corrupted.

However, in a climate of competition in monetary formats, fraud becomes a business overhead.

To reduce overhead the banks are forced to self-police.

Add that observation...

The Gordian Knot piece by Edgar Cahn is worth repeating. The general site for the Time Dollar Institute is [link to www.timedollar.org] and this was probably intended as a press release. It is no longer found at the site.


MATERIAL BELOW IS WRITTEN BY EDGAR CAHN


Complex problems do not necessarily require complex solutions. A simple one will do.





In ancient times, there was a knot known as the Gordian Knot. It was tied so intricately that, according to legend, whoever untied it would rule all of Asia. Many tried, all failed. As the story goes, Alexander the Great who had resolved to conquer all of Asia, took one look at that knot, drew his sword and cut through it with a single stroke.





Global economics is like that Gordian Knot. If we have to untangle it before we can deal with our most basic needs, we are in deep trouble. Ask any Mexican about global economics after the devaluation of the peso or any Russian after devaluation of the ruble.





Economists and politicians would have us believe that our ability to feed our loved ones or teach our children to read or keep our parents out of a nursing home is somehow determined by the size of the federal deficit, the balance of trade, the rating given to municipal bonds, the value of treasury notes and other forms of occult divination.





They are the new Delphic Oracles who consult their numerology the way ancients studied the entrails of animals, read tea leaves, zodiac signs or tarot cards. It takes no less faith to believe that a government that is four trillion dollars in debt is rock solid and that the Federal Reserve will protect us from all evil. In all the debates over school prayer, no one has noted that the words "In God We Trust" on every coin and Federal Reserve note are something of an anomaly. Perhaps we need to believe that the Divine is somehow a cosigner on the national debt. But are we really this helpless?





Why not choose to believe otherwise:





That we can help each other;





That even children can teach children to read;





That the elderly have untapped wisdom, time and love that is urgently needed;





That we can build simple shelters with our own two hands;





That we can take back our streets and neighborhoods, block by block;





That we can devise ways to ensure that no one need go to bed hungry;





That we can create a simple barter system where everyone who is willing to work by helping someone else can earn sufficient purchasing power to deal with the most basic needs.





We have the power to create that kind of world. Not in some far distant future. But now. By the simple act of saying: We can. By the simple act of utilizing a local barter currency that says: We choose to record and to value the time that any of us gives to help one another. That is within our power. We need no one's permission to do it.





That is cutting the Gordian knot.

Slide shows [link to www.reinventingmoney.com]

* Money, Power, Democracy and War
This slide show is pretty comprehensive in outlining the nature of the "money problem" and in describing what is needed to solve it. It highlights some little-know history about the evolution of banking and the politicization of money, along with the principles that can be applied to liberate the exchange process and lead to a more just and sustainable economic order.
It is based on a presentation made by Thomas Greco in Tucson, Arizona on March 13, 2007.

* The End of Money and the Liberation of Exchange
This presentation outlines the basic framework for a global credit clearing network that utilizes no national currencies as payment media and no political currency unit as a value measure. It argues that the functions that money has typically served can and must be segregated, and describes a global payment system based on direct credit clearing and using an objective, concretely defined measure of value, like the gold Dinar or silver diram, or some composite commodity standard. This approach can provide inflation-free accounting, achieve full employment, reduce the need for foreign currency reserves, eliminate exchange rate risks, and provide more equitable trade relations among all the peoples of the world.
This slide show is based on the presentation by Thomas H. Greco, Jr. given at the International Conference on the Gold Dinar Economy in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on July 24, 2007. It combines both the audio record of that presentation and the Power Point slides.

Other slide shows:
* Reinventing Money
* Complementary Currency and Exchange: The Movement to Reinvent Money
* Community Exchange
* The Evolution and Transformation of Money

These presentations require either Microsoft Powerpoint or their free viewer that you can download free.

Seigniorage

There are three spellings of this word: seigniorage, seignorage, & seigneurage

Search Wikipedia: [link to en.wikipedia.org]

More basic stuff.

Here is how I introduce this topic.

"Possibly it costs four to ten cents to print a one dollar note. With greater security features it might cost a bit more to print a twenty, a fifty, or a hundred dollar note - possibly as much as twenty-five cents. So, in the case of the hundred dollar note that costs a quarter to print, who gets the ownership of the $99.75?"

The seigniorage problem exists with every treasury note printed and with every bond that is borrowed upon.

PDF file: [link to www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk]

Vladimir Nuri FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING AS ECONOMIC PARASITISM 62 pages found in several places

Abstract: This paper looks at the history of money and its modern form from a scientific and mathematical point of view. The approach here is to emphasize simplicity. A straightforward model and algebraic formula for a large economy analogous to the ideal gas law of thermodynamics is proposed. It may be something like a new "F=ma'' rule of the emerging econophysics field. Some implications of the equation are outlined, derived, and proved. The phenomena of counterfeiting, inflation and deflation are analyzed for interrelations. Analogies of the economy to an ecosystem or energy system are advanced. The fundamental legitimacy of "expansion of the money supply'' in particular is re-examined and challenged. From the hypotheses a major (admittedly radical) conclusion is that the modern international "fractional reserve banking system'' is actually equivalent to "legalized economic parasitism by private bankers.'' This is the case because, contrary to conventional wisdom, the proceeds of inflation are not actually spendable by the state. Also possible are forms of "economic warfare'' based on the principles. Alternative systems are proposed to remediate this catastrophic flaw.



Vladimir Nuri is a pseudonym, but I have forgotten what the correct name is.