Thirty minutes and WELL WORTH YOUR TIME.
Nina
An excellent article regarding the U.S. money system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0
I think losing the last three wars is the scam of all history.
The wars were financed by borrowing from future generations, thus enslaving them. The wars would not have been possible (well, maybe WWI would have still occurred) without this scam.
Nina
"I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."
-Harriet Tubman-
I meant borrowing against the taxes to be paid by future generations.
Nina
"I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."
-Harriet Tubman-
That is no different than any other feudal indenture. But this new method provides for upward nobility (pun intended). Plus so long as there is increasing money supply, it is expanding the ranks of nobility.
The ranks are only closed-off by restriction of the money supply. Then the squeeze is on. Estates without enough revenue to sustain the their tax burden will be liquidated and the heirs will be indentured to wage/tax slavery. Their lifetime earnings will be only a pittance of the debt owed.
Then we can ask in what was the debt incurred. If the debt had been toward capital investment with some return, the economic picture would be different.
But the debt was toward wars...wars which were lost. The losers will inherit that economic picture.
John,
Your picture is incomplete. The debt piled onto present and future generations was wasted on war, yes, but it was also wasted on many, many more things (foreign aid, domestic wealth transfer payments and pork and waste too legion to list), including profits for doing nothing of value given to the banksters (owners of the Federal Reserve) who tricked Congress into allowing their privately owned bank to serve as the central bank for the United States with a monopoly on the franchise to print/create legal tender.
I have nothing against privately owned banks but I do have a lot against government-sanctioned monopolies, especially monopolies with a license to steal and commit fraud.
Nina
"I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."
-Harriet Tubman-
Nina, If this list had thumbs up icons, I would give this post about a million of them. Thank you.
Marcy
This is a great video. Wonderful. Excellent. Fantastic!!
However, while it is completely accurate and sets forth a serious problem,
it does not offer a solution.
The Ron Paul Solution seems to be to go back to the gold standard and
abolish all existing paper money.
Is that really what he is suggesting?
What likely will happen is things will continue to spiral in the same
direction until the whole system collapses perhaps 50 years from now.
Obama's proposal to spend 4 billion on an immigration problem he helped
create will just push us to the ultimate collapse.
Can anybody offer or suggest another solution?
Sam Sloan
Sam,
You are right. There is no pain-free solution. Collapse is inevitable. The histories of all fiat currencies prove this. Add to that fractional reserve banking and the crash will be exponentially more painful.
The path this country has been taking, and probably will continue to take, is the "kick-the-can-down-the-road" path. The longer the can is kicked down the road, the more massive and painful will be the crash.
The only other "solution" is to bite the bullet and bring on the crash sooner, when it will be relatively less painful than if it occurs later.
To do that the following are necessary:
End the Fed
Allow free market in money. In other words, allow people to use whatever they wish as mediums of exchange. The market will eventually pick one or more winners (probably silver, gold, and trusted certificates exchangeable for silver and gold). If people want to use bitcoins in the meantime, fine. They can use shark teeth too, if they want. It doesn't matter. The government has no business controlling what the people want to use as a medium of exchange.
Default/renege on all public debts. They can't be paid anyway. Might as well take the hit now.
A balanced budget amendment would be good, but not strictly necessary if the above take place.
Nina
"I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."
-Harriet Tubman-
Hey everyone,
I like a lot of the solutions you’ve expressed. It’s exciting to think about the possibilities for new ways of relating to one another on a global scale. The root of almost every major “problem” in our world, is artificially created inequity…and that inequity is founded on the current legality of debt based currencies and unfettered usury. All solutions to matters of poverty, disease, food security, pollution, war, energy and fuel stability, mass animal extinctions and even the human impacts on climate change, will become practical and within our abilities to accomplish, once we finally address the issue of money.
What is money, really? It’s a very important tool, and like all tools, it can be misused by unscrupulous individuals and groups, when other people let them get away with it. Humanity’s collective ignorance about the actual sources of wealth have allowed those bad apples (a.k.a. wall street, the federal reserve banks, the international monetary fund, the world bank, etc…) to literally get away with murder, and to make off with wealth that does not belong to them…which is also known as stealing.
In order to democratize our economy, and thereby reign in the greed and corruption that has bankrupted our nation (and most of our world), we need to start with devising a collaborative answer to the question of Wealth. After many years of personal study and experimentation, I am of the opinion that wealth derives equally from three separate sources:
- Labor (everyone that actually makes products and offers services that other people need);
- Investment (capitalists that build wealth through investing in actual projects that create a need for Labor), and;
- The Commons (all infrastructure, technology, expired patents, transportation and communication systems, etc… that are the past products of private enterprises and government resources (taxes), throughout human history and the history of nations).
Whatever we decide is the basis of wealth, it’s incumbent on our society to assure that the rewards and use-rights (or ownership rights) afforded to people is proportionately distributed, based on its actual creation in the first place. In other words, if we were to use the model I’ve suggested above, then we would agree in principle that our Investment Class (i.e. “the 1%”), should never be allowed to wield control and ownership of more than 1/3 of the wealth in this country (I know there are other issues with the 1% that also need to be addressed…like abolishing usury, limiting interest generation and eliminating all forms of “artificial money”, where no actual wealth is being generated). Under this model, we the labor pool would also wield control and ownership of 1/3 of our economy, expanding the roles of private and public unions and completely funding worker pensions, complete health care plans and programs that protect workers’ rights. And the remaining 1/3 would belong to us all, collectively, for our posterity. This is how things like transportation and communications infrastructure, basic health care, education, parks, consumer and environmental protections and emergency services would be funded…as well as emergency funds for dealing with natural (and human made) disasters.
Ultimately, we should accept nothing less than a global economic standard, based on the principles of wealth that we democratically adopt. This can certainly include the recognition of different forms of currency…but it would also set a standard by which they must all be measured, to ensure transparency and equity in all exchanges.
Everything is possible, when we put our hearts and minds into finding solutions. Together, we truly do make a world of difference.
In Peace and Cooperation,
Jason Browne
(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)
(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)
Hi Jason,
Thanks for weighing in with these interesting thoughts. I think the most fundamental and pervasive form of inequity in society is that governments can legally rob people and commit aggression against them, but individuals and other institutions cannot legally do these things. There are two ways to eliminate this inequity -- either let *everyone* rob and commit aggression against each other, or stop governments from doing it. Libertarians generally favor the second approach.
I believe if we address this glaring inequity, we will see inequality of wealth diminish as well. Attempting to artificially divide wealth between three different broad classes as you suggest (Labor, Investment, and The Commons) sounds impossible though, practically speaking. People are constantly buying and selling things, and those things are constantly changing in value. So even if it were possible to determine the total amount of wealth at one given point of time and equally divide it into three parts, things would already be out of balance again by the following day. And I don't see any realistic scenario where everyone would voluntarily agree to such an arbitrary division. Trying to impose such a model by force would of course go against libertarian principles, not to mention result in lots of war and bloodshed, so hopefully you're not suggesting that and are only suggesting it as a goal for society to be achieved by peaceful means.
By the way, I'm not sure we've actually met, although I know you've posted here before. Do you live in SF? Attended any LPSF meetings or events? We meet the 2nd Saturday of each month from 3-5pm at the main library, in the 4th floor community meeting room. Some of us usually go out for dinner/social afterward. Are you registered to vote as a Libertarian, or member of the party? If not, of course I encourage you to register to vote as a Libertarian, as having enough registered voters in the state legally protects the ability of Libertarian candidates to be listed on the ballot. If you support the Non-Aggression Principle (not initiating force or fraud against others), I encourage you to become a dues-paying member ($25/year for either state or national party membership).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi Jason,
Very interesting post. I enjoyed reading it. It would be great if globally everyone democratically chose your model of distributing wealth. However, human nature has never shown itself capable of voluntarily sharing wealth; except perhaps very meager wealth in societies surviving on basic necessities and depending on barter for a form of distribution. Apportioned or allocated wealth has existed throughout history only through the use of force, as far as I know. In our times, this force is mainly taxation.
So, I am thinking that you might be suggesting extreme force to ensure equitable distribution; or following up on Nina's comment that we might be better off biting the bullet and welcoming a cleansing collapse, we might achieve net worth equality via the fact that everyone has very little.
Personally, I am all for biting the bullet now. The ensuing scenario might give us a chance to think up a better economic model!
Anyway, good post, Jason. Hope to see some more from you.
Marcy
A cleansing collapse would being on greater prosperity quickly after the collapse. Look at the recent example of Greenland which chose NOT to bail out its banks when everyone else did. That side by side simultaneous real time example proves that the bailouts were truly bad ideas and total failures.
Greetings Starchild,
My suggestion is not to artificially divide wealth.rather it is to naturally
divide it, according to its actual sources. Our current form of capitalism
is the most artificial division of wealth our planet has ever seen, where
100% of wealth is presumed to derive from investment, leaving nothing to
labor or the commons.
The model I'm suggesting here is a foundational matter, not so much an
external control mechanism.I'm not advocating that we somehow micromanage
every economic profile on Earth. That would certainly be impossible, and
impractical. We could only implement this model (or any global economic
model), through education (schools, books, social media, etc.), through mass
social momentum (as more people decide to "opt in" to the model, throughout
the world), and through our legal systems (national banking regulations,
international treaties and serious enforcement protocols from criminal
justice systems). Ultimately, this is based on changing peoples' way of
thinking about money, and about equity. After all, that's really the only
thing that makes money worth anything.peoples' belief in it. There's really
nothing to "enforce", accept the laws we put into place governing economic
exchanges.
That's why this model could apply to all forms of currency, whether they're
based on gold/silver standards, or on the labor pool itself (such as local
scrip systems), or on global internet currencies, such as bit coin. The
manner of monetary exchange is irrelevant, so long as honest principles are
the foundation of the economic model. Ultimately, I think that we should
have a global "standard", by which we eliminate all disparity between the
currencies of different nations. A "dollar" in the U.S. or Europe should be
worth the same as a "dollar" from any third-world country. Eliminating this
disparity alone would facilitate the beginning of global equity among
people.
There would be other changes required, of course. These might include (but
are not limited to):
- Abolishing (outlawing) usury.limiting "interest rates" to actual
differences between supply and demand, and basing them on actual increases
and decreases of the basis of the money (precious metals, the labor pool,
etc.);
- Eliminating (and replacing) all forms of "debt currency";
- Cancelling all "free trade agreements" and replacing them with
reasonable and transparent tariffs and treaties;
- Removing private lenders from the production of money (including
all "federal reserve banks");
- Changing economic policies to reflect the real values of things
like conservation, preservation and restoration of our environment, so that
health ecosystems are considered as economic gains, rather than the opposite
system we have now (that rewards extraction, pollution and habitat
destruction, all for short term gains);
- Mandating equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender, race or
other natural human differences, and;
- Abolishing (outlawing) the kinds of speculation and gambling that
are causing economic collapses around the world. This would obviously
require that we hold people accountable for their actions, and throw the
offenders in jail, where they belong.
But it all starts with our foundation.we must decide what the basis of money
and wealth are, in order to democratize our economy and reign in the greed
that our current system rewards. Economics should never be confusing.the
only reason it seems to be, is because it's been hijacked by self-serving
a-holes, for far too long.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments. I live in northern California, about
3.5 hours from SF, so it's unlikely I'll be able to attend many meetings,
but thanks for the invite.
Jason
(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)
(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)
(Attachment image003.jpg is missing)
Hi Marcy,
The funny thing is, we already live in a system of apportioned wealth. And
fortunately for us, the 1% are greatly outnumbered. So I don't think we need
to resort to violence, in order to implement new economic models. Some
countries (and communities) throughout the world have already opted out of
our insane system, in their own ways, and their people are better off for
it. Imagine the power in mass understanding.to "not do" something. Like not
invest in wall street, or not purchase goods from certain businesses or
industries, or not pay certain taxes, etc.These things are all relatively
voluntary, and we've seen their impacts on smaller scales before (like the
divestment of apartheid South Africa, or so many successful boycotts in our
history).
I agree with you that ending this sooner is better than later. Let the
bank's collapse, and don't bail them out (for example).
Cheers,
Jason
(Attachment image001.jpg is missing)
(Attachment image002.jpg is missing)
(Attachment image003.jpg is missing)
The owners of debt, in dollars, will not allow the collapse. They are the same people who regulate the money supply.
Dollars are not a fiat currency. Dollars are backed up by the full faith and credit of the people who are in debt.
So long as the money supply increases, the debt can be paid.
It is only when the money supply shrinks, there is no way to pay the debt.
Then the owners of debt will foreclose.
Life goes on.