Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: You Got a Bloody Right to Say

Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 16, 2012, 1:04 a.m. EST by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Think about it. When you go to a convenience store to buy a bottle of water, do you know that you need a third party's permission to buy it and the cashier needs the same permission to sell it to you? You give the cashier a $5 bill; the cashier gives you $3.50 in change and let's you leave with the water. It's a pretty simple transaction and is obvious to most that no permission is needed. But it is true. You first had to have someone else's permission to buy the water for $1.50 and the cashier needed someone else's permission to sell it to you and give you $3.50 in change. When you buy or sell anything, you are required by the force and threat of law to use someone else's currency and only that currency.

As all of us have observed, posted and commented, the leading cause of poverty is not greed of a few; it is greed of the few who have taken control of the currency. Falling real wages, unemployment, lack of opportunity, growing poverty contrasts starkly to the increasing concentration of wealth all because the currency is controlled and manipulated by a few. The 1% got away with it because they bought and paid for the full force of the US Government to protect them.

  • From the beginning and by the thousands, Posts and commentary run all through the Forum on the issue.

  • capper, in his Post, "Make the 1% aware of the individual wealth ceiling!" writes that we ought put a ceiling on wealth.

  • underdog , in "Alternatives to Capitalism -- Which is best?", continues to explore alternatives to money.

  • factsrfun, in"How about a few fundamentals about capitalism." writes how capitalism was turned on its head and that we should take the wealth of the wealthy, because it’s the fair thing to do, and pay the bill and start over.

  • In many of his Posts and comments, shadz66 is omnipresent on the topic. As one of many for examples, he writes, "Now, it’s time for action to bust the Wall Street banking corporations, cartels and trusts...,"

  • There are thousands more...

The 1% forced their perversion on us and succeeded, their idea being to create a monopoly on money. "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." MA Rothschild. Currency is where the war is. No other fight is more fundamental to liberty, prosperity and peace in and among societies than this because currency is what we all have in common in all our economies. John Maynard Keynes in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" wrote in 1919, "Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

All of us have diagnosed it; it's time for the medicine. The principle dosing is to eliminate monetary inflation and credit expansion that plagues the world. I'm suggesting the first batch of political medicine is to force the 1% out of their monopoly on currency and create competing currencies.





Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Cocreator (306) 11 years ago

Cancel The Debt.. It is Counterfeit Currency, it is Counterfeit Debt.. Iceland Style, Arrest the banksters and politicians who enabled them..No Diplomatic Immunity..Seize the offshore assets hoarded offshore,by these whining bailed out spoiled brats,estimated $500 trillion, Distrbute the wealth to the People, Rebuild a Society Where Fear and scarcity does not exist.. Peoples Party Unite! We Are All Elected..

[-] 2 points by TomJerryAndPatsy (-37) 11 years ago

Another post describing a complete misunderstanding of economics from the poster. How many of these will we have? How about we stop using money and we use dirt instead?

[-] 0 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 11 years ago

You are making no sense.

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 11 years ago

The economic problems we face now revive the controversy of Capitalism versus Socialism. Both economic systems have their limitations. Supporters of Capitalism will argue that the problems are caused by government intervention in the markets. Proponents of Socialism will argue that the problems are caused by too little regulation of the markets. Both arguments seem reasonable but they conflict. The spread of poverty caused by the failure of the money system creates the need for new ways of thinking...


[-] 1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 11 years ago

Natural money is any medium of exchange that people left free will decide upon voluntarily, no? Whether it is money based on some commodity or some other freely chosen money, people use it because it best suits their needs at the time. Over time, they may find another money that better suits their needs and use that instead. The key principle is that it is freely chosen by people and not forced on them by other people.

Money of this kind, voluntarily chosen and commodity-based, are far superior than the "money" forced on us today. Over the course of history, metals have met the test where eventually gold and silver were found to be the best. But I see that you don't subscribe to either. I'll read more from the site you included and get back to you later with my thoughts. Thanks for your comment and I'll reply later.

[-] 2 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 11 years ago

Informed people would choose Natural Money. Natural Money is means the following:

  • the money is not debt, but a fixed amount of fiat;
  • it can only be backed by depreciating commodities like food;
  • there is a holding fee on money;
  • there is a ban on charging interest.

The real cause of the problems lies in the nature of our money system in which interest on money is charged. Interest causes wealth to concentrate as the poor pay interest to the rich. Interest can therefore be seen as a tax on poverty to the benefit of the rich. Money in the bank is backed by debt, so interest is a fraud that forces the poor into debt if the rich do not take the money out of their accounts and spend it. The following example demonstrates this and also that interest on money is unsustainable and leads to crisis:

If someone brought a 1/10 oz gold coin to the bank in the year 1 AD, and the money remained there until the year 2000 AD, collecting a yearly interest of 4%, the amount of gold in the account would have been 3.6 * 10^31 kilogramme of gold weighing 6,000,000 times the complete mass of the Earth.

When interest is charged on a limited scale or over a short timeframe then those problems do not surface. Interest is an insidious process. Over time it is inescapable that it reduces large numbers of people to a state of servitude to the money lenders. This is a long term development that transcends the life span of a human. Interest is the main reason why a number of civilisations have failed and why Western civilisation is about to fail. Therefore all interest is usury and the current financial system is a usury financial system. Interest is also the cause of inflation as more and more money has to be created to keep the economy going.

Because gold can be stored without losing value, it does not make sense to lend gold without charging interest. If the economy does not well, interest rates will fall and the risk of putting money in the bank rises. At low interest rates it is more attractive to keep the gold at home or at least out of the banking system. This is hoarding. Money is taken out of the economy. This was a serious problem in the past because this made interest rates rise above the level the economy could support.

Hoarding money is sometimes safer than bringing it to the bank because banks can go bankrupt. Therefore people may be hoarding money for a rainy day. When more people do this simultaneously, money is removed from circulation, weakening the economy and the banks. When this happens, even more people will start hoarding money, because they expect times getting worse. This is a bank run and often this is the beginning of an economic crisis.

During the crisis many people will lose their income, and if they do not have money, they must borrow money against interest for unavoidable expenses such as food. As a result, the situation becomes even worse and many people will be reduced to a state of servitude to the money lenders. Returning to gold and silver as money is also not practical. If gold were chosen as money now, many people would exchange their servitude to the banks for servitude to the gold hoarders, which includes governments and central banks.

Hoarding money is not the same as saving money. Saving money and bringing money to the bank is good for the economy because the bank can lend out the money for productive investments. Gold and silver were chosen as money because they were a good store of wealth. People should have the option to buy gold and silver if they think that the financial system is unsound. By owning gold or silver it is possible to protect yourself against currency mismanagement. A simple solution is therefore: gold and silver can be used as a safe haven and money should be a medium of exchange only. Therefore gold and silver should not be money.

Economic cycles are primarilily caused by the buildup of debt. Periodically the interest charged on debts causes a reduction in demand as debtors have less free income to spend because they have to pay interest. Banning interest will create more free income for debtors but it will also cause a reduction in debt levels, as there is no allowance for risk in the form of interest on money.

The usury economic system favours large scale operations. During the usury economic cycle useful capital is replaced by useless capital. This works as follows:

  • If businesses make use of debt on which interest is paid, they need larger scale operations to achieve the same income level for the business owners because a part of the business income is going to the usurers. In good times businesses can borrow money to expand their operations. There is a reward for taking risk in the form of interest so there is a tendency to over invest.
  • When a recession sets in many businesses fail because demand falters and there is no credit available. If a larger scale operation fails then it is often not liquidated but taken over at a lower price which makes it more cost effective for the new owners than smaller operations that are more conservatively financed.
  • When the economy recovers a smaller number of larger scale businesses have survived. They start to increase their capacity again and become even larger than they were before.

This cycle is repeated again and again so with usury large scale operations have the advantage. The usury economic cycle caused the division of labour to go further than it otherwise would have done. The effect of the usury economic cycle favouring large scale operations is amplified by the free flow of capital and free trade as this created a competition of everybody against everybody on a world wide scale. As a consequence dependencies have escalated and people have become less self sufficient. In this way "the system" has been created. Before the middle of the twentieth century most people lived in villages that were largely self dependent. Henceforth more and more people live in cities and societies have become more complex than they would have been without usury.

The functioning of markets is perverted by cycles of leverage and liquidation. During the boom phase useless capital is created. During the bust phase useful capital is destroyed. As less and less people can have an income from real economic output, productive jobs have been replaced by service sector jobs that produce nothing but still consume energy and natural resources. Energy and natural resources are often irreplaceable. Therefore the usury economic cycle makes the economy less efficient.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 11 years ago

Whether it's fiat corn as money, fiat rice, fiat melons, it doesn't matter because they are all the same. They are based on decree and hardly voluntary. But if it were voluntary and people chose corn for their money, then that'd be fine. Farmers would have to keep in mind two ideas- don't eat your seed corn or make popcorn out of your money.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 11 years ago

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.




9.The separation of corporation and state being necessary for the independence of a democratic government in serving the needs of the people, no public service shall be under the management of a private sector entity and each State of the United States shall have a state bank collectively forming the Union Reserve Bank of the United States with a state appointed bank official from each State to compose the Union Board of Governors exercising all the responsibilities of the Open Market Committee.


[-] 1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 11 years ago

What is a supreme credit?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

""Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." MA Rothschild. "

This quote sums it all up.

Money is fine, as long as the people who are using it have the control over it.

[-] 0 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 11 years ago

Yep. And that's where the fight is.

[-] 0 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 11 years ago

Are you capable of producing anything but cliches?

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 11 years ago

OWR, a cliche is an idea that has lost its meaning from overuse. What don't you understand?