Posted 12 months ago on June 23, 2012, 8:51 p.m. EST by arturo
from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The problem which must be considered as utmost, is the fact of the systemic difference, as a matter of principle, between what are termed monetarist systems and what is properly defined as a credit system. The principled significance of that is a qualitative distinction of underlying principle between the two.
Money, as associated with the notion of monetary values, such as gold and silver, is a hallmark of the inherently oligarchical characteristics of a monetarist system, as distinct from what is to identified as a credit system. The founding constitutional system of the United States Federal Constitution was a credit system, not a monetarist system.
That is as to say, that the essential difference between the two, respectively opposing categories of what is named money, one, that under a credit system, such as that on which the original Massachusetts Bay Colony was based (for as long as it existed as a sovereign body, prior to the relevant actions of the New Venetian party's William of Orange, and his successors), and the other, under monetarist systems,— is that value under the oligarchical system is nominally located in the monetarist form of the means of exchange (such as gold, silver, etc.) as such, where, under the credit system, the nominal economic value is located within the physical value which is in the process of being expressed by the process of that which is being produced.
Even the simple case of the family farm operating within a community, embodies the relevant notion of a credit system. That is to emphasized that the principle of a such an intended farm is located in the intended gain in the power of production expressed by growth of an original condition of product produced, relative to the increase of such or comparable wealth in the continuing process of production.
The appropriate analogy, is that the assembly of the relatively initial current investment in the process of production, is intended to generate a designed product which yields a normally greater value, as expressed in terms of a point in the process of output, than was initially sent into the continuing productive process of that production; such a greater relative amount of wealth is realized at a later point in the continuing process, than at an earlier point. In other words, the wealth, as also the costs of production, are inherently, by intention of design and practice, intended to be greater during a later portion of the margin of product, than an earlier one.
Hence, the great constitutional, economic principle of Alexander Hamilton and of John Quincy Adams, as opposed to the murderous (e.g., against the Cherokee nation) notions and practice of President Andrew Jackson and his cronies such as the assassin Aaron Burr and the swindler Martin Van Buren. It was Burr, Jackson, Van Buren et al., who led in destroying the credit system of the United States, actually bankrupted the U.S.A., with an outright swindle, and led to the increase of the larcenous grip of the bankers of Wall Street and Boston, and from abroad.
The essential distinction is that of wealth as that which has merely been acquired through the productive process, and that greater margin of wealth inherent in the process of extended rates of cumulative growth.
So, in the normal expression of such a case, that is the simplest expression of the distinction (within the process of production) of the productive rather than the merely monetarist practice of management of wealth.
For my purposes, my associates and I had set forth a three-point constitutional reform of the U.S. economy, which, in its inherent principle, represents a unique remedy for the current rescue of our United States from that ruin of our United States which had been set into motion through the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: there has been a long trend of decline in the U.S. economy, from the effects of the launching the totally unecessary and wrongful U.S. war in Indo-China, as measured in physical- economic terms, since the onset of the beginning of a series of London-directed ruinous U.S.A. imperial military adventures.
My design emphasizes three exemplary elements: (A.) immediate installation of the original Glass-Steagall Law: not the suggested counterfeit, the swindle known as The Volcker Rule option, or which might be better regarded as a reformed disguise of the net intention of an adjusted Gramm-Leach-Bliley swindle of the U.S. banking system. Only the original Glass-Steagall Act could presently prevent an immediate breakdown of the U.S. economic system; the Volcker Rule is a swindle. (B.) The enactment of NAWAPA [NAWAPA XXI]. (C.) To eliminate the monetarist system of banking, for total replacement by a Hamitonian National Credit System.
Without those three reforms, the prospects for the U.S. economy were presently hopeless.