Money as debt (please watch x 100)

[dreamingod]

Originally Posted by jon galt

why would they need to treat you as a vessel lost at sea?

"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 8
http://therightofreply.blogspot.com....acting-me.html


It is the responsibility of the individual to seek his/her freedom.

You need to investigate the definition of the legal fiction or "Strawman"
to understand how the (bankrupt) Government-Corporation is creating value/money from your labor. Fractional Banking.

This requires indepth study.

Some links have been suggested, it is your choice whether or not you believe the information presented.
Nor is it my responsibility to convince anyone that what I say is true.

Please yourself either way.


~

[yashin]

And how have you got on using these methods in court Dreamingod? Do tell.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by dreamingod

"

Please yourself either way.


~

You still have not answered the question: why do they need to do it when there obviously is no need to.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by yashin

And how have you got on using these methods in court Dreamingod? Do tell.

i dont think he is deliberately being misleading just has learned some nonfactual information. he should stick around and have a read through the freeman forums.

[microcosmic den]

Good video, but the title should have been Debt as Money, since the debt comes first in the form of interest-bearing bonds that governments sell to the usurious central banks.

[gofarenough]

It seems Grignon is claiming that money, no matter what kind, is a form of debt, which is not quite right. The current monetary system may be based on debt, but gold and silver aren't debt, but goods like any others that happen to be more exchangeable than others. And then Grignon proceeds to advocate something the likes of Bitcoin, sorry but the supply of that is no less arbitrarily determined than government fiat, and no more sustainable.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend it.

[indio007]

his is book recently came out , it is an anthropological book about debt and money.
It is written by an anthropologist.
It pretty much tears apart the ideas of debt , barter and money that have prevailed since Adam Smith invented the so called science of economics.

It also goes religion even talks in the terms of the commercial world.
This is a scholarly work so it s footnoted.

This covers debt and money from almost every conceivable angle.

Luckily someone uploaded it to the web
Debt :The first 5000 Years
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2012/..._000_years.pdf

This is not my link but if it breaks I have a copy.

[bornfree]

Originally Posted by indio007

his is book recently came out , it is an anthropological book about debt and money.
It is written by an anthropologist.
It pretty much tears apart the ideas of debt , barter and money that have prevailed since Adam Smith invented the so called science of economics.

It also goes religion even talks in the terms of the commercial world.
This is a scholarly work so it s footnoted.

This covers debt and money from almost every conceivable angle.

Luckily someone uploaded it to the web
Debt :The first 5000 Years
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2012/..._000_years.pdf

This is not my link but if it breaks I have a copy.

Thanks so much for this Indio.

After just 50 pages this is already proving immensely informative and challenging.

Regards

Paul

[herzmeister]

Originally Posted by gofarenough

It seems Grignon is claiming that money, no matter what kind, is a form of debt, which is not quite right. The current monetary system may be based on debt, but gold and silver aren't debt, but goods like any others that happen to be more exchangeable than others. And then Grignon proceeds to advocate something the likes of Bitcoin, sorry but the supply of that is no less arbitrarily determined than government fiat, and no more sustainable.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend it.

He doesn't talk about Bitcoin, he's talking about Digital Coin.

Bitcoin supply is not arbitrary but limited to 21 million units, Bitcoin is peer-to-peer without a central issuing authority, and it's out there and it's working.

Digital Coin is merely a concept, there's no implementation (even the concept does not seem to be finished).

[gofarenough]

I did say "something the likes of Bitcoin" referring to Digital Coin. I don't see anything fundamentally different between these two 'alternatives' to precious metals. Bitcoin supply is arbitrary in the sense that they picked that number (21 million) without reference to the market pricing system, or to the supply of anything.

But I do appreciate these ideas for private, competitive currencies, even if they do end up being trounced by more desirable currencies, whatever these may be (I suspect they'd be gold-backed but that's just me).

[herzmeister]

We have to reimagine what money is.

What is money? Money is information. That's all it is. Who owes what to whom.

All monetary systems up to date cannot reach the simplicity of this ideal. All have their advantages and disadvantages, in a free world we would learn them and use these systems in parallel, depending which is best suited in a given situation.

Gold coins are already an abstraction to this ideal of money as information. They're a tool. Nothing more. A tool to store and transport this information. (This is also said in the movie afai remember.) Use the right tool for the right job. You can't send a gold coin over the internet.

Free digital currencies already existed, but have been shut down. If you peg such a currency on gold, then you need a central organization that can easily be seized. Also you'd have to trust this organization that they don't lie and don't go fractional reserve.

Gold-backing isn't needed anyway. A ledger of transactions, e.g. barter system over the internet, like Ripple, would be fully sufficient to handle an economy. This comes also closer to the idea of money as information.

However, such barter systems have issues of privacy, necessarily, because they are ultimately based on trust and on identities of individuals and their reputation.

Bitcoin enables privacy by cryptography and by simulating a scarce commodity, hence the 21 million limit (with up to 8 decimal places btw, so no liquidity shortage). It's just as arbitrary as the universe's decision how much gold to put on planet Earth. Scarcity is all that is needed for a good to become valuable and function as money. Also Bitcoin is decentralized and peer-to-peer, it's not *that* private, it is owned by no one, so it can't be shut down.

Bitcoin may have disadvantages though. Because it is essentially a simulated commodity, as said, it is expected to act deflationary in the long-term, it has a price and is speculative, unlike units mostly used in barter systems. But I see no problems of liquidity in a free world where also other currencies can be used.

If you're afraid that the internet would be shut down or a nuclear war, then, well, we'd have other problems anyway, better hoard rather food than gold in this case. Generally, don't keep all eggs on one basket, right?

[gofarenough]

I guess we have different conceptions of money, hence the disagreement. Yours is more aligned with Grignon, at least from the movie that I've seen.

I consider money as a characteristic of which different economic goods have varying degrees (rarity, divisibility, etc.). What society considers as money is thus an economic good that best facilitates exchange. Holding money in this case is not debt. Debt is when this economic good is lent out to others on the condition of being returned with interest. Interest, in this case, could not be abolished, because it's a matter of valuing the item at present more than a discounted future item, at a certain 'interest rate.'

Grignon I believe thinks that interest could only be paid if money supply continues increasing, but I disagree because successful borrowing entrepreneurs do pay this back, and with a constant or slowly-growing money supply (in the case of more gold mining) where saving is encouraged, capital gets cheaper and more efficient, making less loanable funds needed to make for the same productivity as earlier. Thus in the 19th century, the US was at its most productive even during extended periods of stable money supply.

Perhaps I'm just an old dog who has to snap out of his Austrian learning, of which Grignon seems to lack.

[herzmeister]

Originally Posted by gofarenough

I guess we have different conceptions of money, hence the disagreement.

Not at all so different, I'm just aiming for a more precise, more accurate model with a more modern understanding appropriate for the information age:

Originally Posted by gofarenough

I consider money as a characteristic of which different economic goods have varying degrees (rarity, divisibility, etc.). What society considers as money is thus an economic good that best facilitates exchange.

Yup, gold and silver coins work fine, because no gov required to declare them worth anything, I know.

However, what I would still describe as the actual money is the information that the coin carries.

Originally Posted by gofarenough

Holding money in this case is not debt.

It is, in a way. With a coin in your hand you essentially hold a claim to a good or service in a society. A claim is always balanced by a promise of redemption by a (future) counterparty, i.e. debt.

Originally Posted by gofarenough

Interest

Yeah interest is only a problem in today's fiat system where it does not really represent risk anymore. No problem in a proper free and fair market where interest is merely a fee and a hedge for risk, and where compound interest would also mean compound risk.

[davebun]

"The most sinister and anti-social feature about bank-deposit money is that it has no existence. The banks owe the public for a total amount of money which does not exist. In buying and selling, implemented by cheque transactions, there is a mere change in the party to whom the money is owed by the banks. As the one depositor's account is debited, the other is credited and the banks can go on owing for it all the time. The whole profit of the issuance of money has provided the capital of the great banking business as it exists today. Starting with nothing whatever of their own, they have got the whole world into their debt irredeemably, by a trick. This money comes into existence every time the banks 'lend' and disappears every time the debt is repaid to them. So that if industry tries to repay, the money of the nation disappears. This is what makes prosperity so 'dangerous' as it destroys money just when it is most needed and precipitates a slump. There is nothing left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper into debt to the banking system in order to provide the increasing amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and growth. An honest money system is the only alternative." - Frederick Soddy, Nobel Prize winner (Chemistry), 1921

"A civilization based on a system of parasitic usury-economics will ultimately destroy itself, because fractional-reserve banking combined with compound interest represent some kind of perpetual-motion machine. Our economic system was not designed to, nor was it intended to, function honorably for the benefit and general prosperity of all; it was specifically designed to create a nation of debt slaves under the control of a molesting central bank. The perpetrators of the system understand fully that it is finite and must inevitably collapse in a state of insoluble debt, but by that point they expect to have gained full and indisputable control over everything. The 450 richest people in the world have financial assets equal to the combined wealth of the 3 billion poorest; half of all humanity. The only possible explanation for this is that the international economic system has been subverted and corrupted by fully intentional activities, directed towards undermining national governments and creating institutionalized, privately-owned central banks throughout the world." - [Anonymous]

"While economic textbooks claim that people and corporations are competing for markets and resources, I claim that in reality they are competing for money - using markets and resources to do so. Greed and fear of scarcity are being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using. For example, we can produce more than enough food to feed everybody, and there is definitely enough work for everybody in the world, but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. In fact, the job of central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity. Money is created when banks lend it into existence. When a bank provides you with a $100,000 mortgage, it creates only the principal, which you spend and which then circulates in the economy. The bank expects you to pay back $200,000 over the next 20 years, but it doesn't create the second $100,000 - the interest. Instead, the bank sends you out into the tough world to battle against everybody else to bring back the second $100,000." - Bernard Lietaer, former Central Banker (Belgium)

[redpill41]

Originally Posted by davebun

"The most sinister and anti-social feature about bank-deposit money is that it has no existence. The banks owe the public for a total amount of money which does not exist. In buying and selling, implemented by cheque transactions, there is a mere change in the party to whom the money is owed by the banks. As the one depositor's account is debited, the other is credited and the banks can go on owing for it all the time. The whole profit of the issuance of money has provided the capital of the great banking business as it exists today. Starting with nothing whatever of their own, they have got the whole world into their debt irredeemably, by a trick. This money comes into existence every time the banks 'lend' and disappears every time the debt is repaid to them. So that if industry tries to repay, the money of the nation disappears. This is what makes prosperity so 'dangerous' as it destroys money just when it is most needed and precipitates a slump. There is nothing left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper into debt to the banking system in order to provide the increasing amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and growth. An honest money system is the only alternative." - Frederick Soddy, Nobel Prize winner (Chemistry), 1921

"A civilization based on a system of parasitic usury-economics will ultimately destroy itself, because fractional-reserve banking combined with compound interest represent some kind of perpetual-motion machine. Our economic system was not designed to, nor was it intended to, function honorably for the benefit and general prosperity of all; it was specifically designed to create a nation of debt slaves under the control of a molesting central bank. The perpetrators of the system understand fully that it is finite and must inevitably collapse in a state of insoluble debt, but by that point they expect to have gained full and indisputable control over everything. The 450 richest people in the world have financial assets equal to the combined wealth of the 3 billion poorest; half of all humanity. The only possible explanation for this is that the international economic system has been subverted and corrupted by fully intentional activities, directed towards undermining national governments and creating institutionalized, privately-owned central banks throughout the world." - [Anonymous]

"While economic textbooks claim that people and corporations are competing for markets and resources, I claim that in reality they are competing for money - using markets and resources to do so. Greed and fear of scarcity are being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using. For example, we can produce more than enough food to feed everybody, and there is definitely enough work for everybody in the world, but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. In fact, the job of central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity. Money is created when banks lend it into existence. When a bank provides you with a $100,000 mortgage, it creates only the principal, which you spend and which then circulates in the economy. The bank expects you to pay back $200,000 over the next 20 years, but it doesn't create the second $100,000 - the interest. Instead, the bank sends you out into the tough world to battle against everybody else to bring back the second $100,000." - Bernard Lietaer, former Central Banker (Belgium)

Excellent quotes ESP the last one