#83 Some Riegel Quotes Examined With Reference to This Blog's Proposal

E. C. Riegel

Source: These quotes were adapted from a copy of Free Enterprise Money by E. C. Riegel. We're expressing our thanks, ahead of time, for posting Riegel's work, as the more who find it, the better. This time I'm posting Riegel's remarks in plain, mine in bold.

If the government were obliged to come to the people for money instead of vice-versa, the people would keep government under control and operate their economy satisfactorily with prosperity and peace resulting. The peoples of the nations do not make war. For them peace is the natural and permanent order. Wars are planned and perpetrated by politicians and their diplomats; and the money power of government is the means by which the people are maneuvered into wars.

The emphasized above is literally impossible with THEIR money. It will only be accomplished through OUR money, when OUR money is the only money left. Understood? We can't afford to waste our time expecting anything to be any different using anything THEY have devised. As long as the money is literally not OURS, THEY shall have THEIR way and THEIR sway until THEY are exposed, deposed, etc. That would be as little our concern as possible. Political activism is more than a waste of time and effort, it's cooperating with our enemies. If you don't think you have any enemies, you're either some little lost lamb or you may have never stood for anything important in your entire life.

The second sentence says that all of us usually understand within our own social constructs what passes for SANITY and what does not. We do not require any “specialists” to inform us and usually they are either wrong or deliberate frauds themselves. There are possible exceptions to this of course; combat zones, everyday life under some totalitarian state, society among tribes of cannibals, etc. Likewise most of us go about our lives with the REASONABLE EXPECTATION of continuing peace. As a matter of fact, this amounts to a MINIMUM requirement for possible mastery of this subject matter; money. Isn't it remarkable that this human invention requires some thought above that of the illiterate savage? We could in fact rightly say that ANY system of trade using ANYTHING as money amounts to a quantum intelligence jump for even the average human. We hope and trust that there still remains a willingness to learn. Our present leaders only prefer that 90% of us should just drop dead, for the good of the planet? No, for THEIR good. This money issue is THAT important.

Money power cannot be separated from democratic power without miscarriage and ensuing frustration - political and economic. Democracy implies the sovereignty of man; and, since man cannot be sovereign without the money power, there can not be democracy under the political money system.

A few, a very few, have grasped this much. Bill Still, and others, remain attracted to the Lincoln greenback solution, which they claim preserves “civil society.” We have news for them; civil society existed and exists among the civil, as expressed in my remarks above concerning the quote which proceeded this one. We never would have entrusted the government with OUR fiat power to issue money had we known what we know now. There is in short, no reason to return to something that was tried and failed. Besides, we need to clear away much brush from people's minds concerning just what money is and what it is not.

That all said, what Riegel says about Democracy as he understood it, connected it with “the sovereignty of man,” specifies the individual man, not any state supposedly representing all “citizens” or “subjects,” for in that case the state itself is sovereign, as things exist now with all their various state sponsored and tax dodge institution sponsored, troubles. His and our ideal (this is dangerous ground) is a government that does very little and is very cheap because all the money to power it must come from US. WE decide to pay OUR money only for those things WE actually want and nothing else! That is the only real way to get any control over any government back in the people's hands, period. There is no realistic or rational argument to counter this.

The first cardinal truth of money is that no one, whether individual or government, can issue money without buying something. By inviting government to become a money issuer, we invite it to become our customer. Then we quarrel with it if it tries to buy something that we deem within the province of private enterprise.

Such as education, healthcare, housing, transportation, etc. etc. But the emphasized words above say exactly what we have always said; nothing actually becomes money until a human being issues it in lieu of barter. Whatever it is that is accepted in trade to spit barter, becomes money. It could be a coin, a piece of paper, a piece of cloth, leather, or even a rock. Now, just why would anyone take our money? Because they know places they can spend it. Is that clearly understood as well?

The second cardinal truth of money is that money must be backed with something, and the act of backing can only be the act of selling. Since we object to government buying and selling anything useful, but nevertheless insist that it issue money, we force it into boondoggling or public works that do not conflict with our private enterprise. Thus we compel government to issue unbacked money by making it impossible for it to sell anything in exchange for the money it issues. As this process of issuing unbacked money continues, each unit grows weaker and thus the dosage must be increased. Hedged about, as government is, by our objections to its invading private enterprise and yet keeping it under the pressure to issue money, it is ultimately forced to the most consummate public works spending program, which is war.

Understood? In the present system, by design, the war policies become a must, else the basis of the money itself makes the money worthless. But let's examine what Riegel says here; “money must be backed with something, and the act of backing can only be the act of selling.” We say that what backs a Valun spent for the V1 pen is the pen itself. Said another way, if you issue something, you must be willing to sell something back in return for the same money you issued. When you do that, you have closed a monetary circle and from then on, that money can claim backing for anything that it buys without causing inflation.

Another source of inflation is that the government, being the first and biggest spender, frequently buys at the high end rather than at realistically competitive prices, as is well known by anyone who has ever contracted with the government. By the way, Riegel said all this before 1953. 

Money is an instrumentality of the profit motive and must be issued and backed only by private enterprisers. Economic and political perversities are inescapable while government is admitted to money power. Since all national governments have, up to the present, been money issuing powers we may justly attribute all the economic and political ills of mankind to this single error.

Indeed and we have built on the implications stemming from this to provide a proposal for these times.

When government is invested with money power it rises above the citizen and under the profession of protecting him may actually constitute the greatest threat to his well-being and safety. The power which control of the money system gives to government to interfere in and direct and even take the life of the individual should not exist on this earth. No man or group of men is warranted in holding this terrible power over fellow men.

We will pardon Riegel somewhat for leaving out the central bankers and in fact all usurers. He knew something about them as revealed elsewhere, but as we've said all along, this blog is not a memorial to Riegel; a place where one goes to revere the works of the dead, as much as an up to date proposal based on Riegel's ideas.

Money power means budget power and it is folly to imagine that the citizen can control government unless he can control its budget.

Can you do this if the US Treasury issues the money rather than a central bank? Of course not. Please wake up Bill Still and others! We need you!

As long as we cling to the superstition that we must look to government for money supply, instead of requiring it to look to us, just so long must we remain the subjects of government and it is vain to follow this or that policy or party or ism in the hope of salvation. We can control government and our own destiny only through our money power and until we exert that power it is useless for us to debate the pros and cons of political programs.

Our proposal is in fact this radical. Our response to THEM is perhaps a bit Buddhist; let there be peace and harmony as we proceed non-violently to set up OUR own money and advocate its use. We will observe common understandings regarding SANITY and continue to live and work under the REASONABLE EXPECTATION of continuing peace. We do not require that OUR knowledge be subject to some state or any “specialists.” Let them go about their own lives without us. [6/30/20: Unfortunately, we have a little problem.  Recently the loser of the 2016 presidential election said that there would be no civility possible until her party regained power.  This remark amounts to taking off the gloves, because it calls into question whether when her party was in power that any civility was GENUINE on their part.  We have more reasons to doubt their sincerity every day.  It may be a foregone conclusion that the days when merely accepting someone's apparent niceness as sound business or social judgment, are over.]    

Money can be issued only in the act of buying, and can be backed only in the act of selling. Any buyer who is also a seller is qualified to be a money issuer. Government, because it is not and should not be a seller, is not qualified to be a money issuer.

It's pointless to ask the government not to be “socialist” if you have already “socialized” the issue of money. We've said as well that socialism always benefits THEIR monopolist friends and is the evil twin sister of capitalism, the making of money on money without working for it. Free enterprise is what each and every one of us does to make a living, to earn an income, as long as we don't work for a state agency, a corporation or a rich tax dodge foundation. If you work for any of those you do not experience free enterprise. We will make some allowances for some public employees, especially at the local levels, but nothing for any who work for corporations or foundations. We have our standards and for the time being they shall be honoured.

Political economy is a fiction. Economy can have but one sphere, namely, in the practice of the individual. Political economy implies that the state can have a separate existance as a creative force, whereas, it is but one of the instruments of the individual's economy. All wealth - all economic planning - can spring only from the individual for his private guidance; and in him resides both the political and economic power. The ballot is his instrument of political power; money his instrument of economic power and the former is futile without the latter. He is a dupe, who believes that government can be both his servant and his patron, i.e., that the state can develop an economy to enrich him. He must govern government as he governs himself; and he must provide for government as he provides for himself. Any power existing outside himself is only that which has been delegated by him, or has escaped from him; for he is the one and only power-house. He cannot delegate his money power, if he would, because it is inseparably linked to his buying wherein he must exert his private discretion. To issue money, one must buy, to buy, one must appraise. Hence, the money issuing power is undelegatable and unusurpable.

There's so much here that we're going to break it down to bite sized memes:

Political economy is a fiction.

We'll say it this way; there is in fact no “science” of economics as an academic discipline that deserves the name, fame or anything else. It's all rubbish intended to convince the gullible student of the magnificent wisdom of the present order of things and in some cases complete with offers to join the clique itself, or at least work for them at some low level unimportant position where that person gains “security” as long as they do as they're told. That doesn't sound much like freedom, honesty or truth, now does it? So the first thing you can do, if you still have any, is to sell or throw away all your economics books. They're largely absolute rubbish and can't help us out of our present situation. THAT INCLUDES THE SO CALLED “Austrians” OK?

Economy can have but one sphere, namely, in the practice of the individual

Here, Riegel identifies what he said earlier concerning Democracy; without “individual sovereignty” as a given, any “democracy” easily becomes mob rule or worse.

Political economy implies that the state can have a separate existance as a creative force, whereas, it is but one of the instruments of the individual's economy.

This is like asking whether a piano plays the pianist or vice versa. Only one of these can be a person; the pianist is a human being, the piano is a thing, an object. Now, just substitute government for piano and you get the message. The individual should, rarely but occasionally, have recourse to government services as one uses a post office for instance.

All wealth - all economic planning - can spring only from the individual for his private guidance; and in him resides both the political and economic power.

At his stage and in his time, Riegel understood wealth to have a far wider meaning than we ascribe to it. Nonetheless, he states that wealth can only spring from the individual “for his private guidance” and that can only be represented by profit and income. Therefore we assert congruence with Riegel concerning our contention that ultimately wealth cannot be wealth unless it produces income. Now that income could come after one harvests a field or sells a refurbished house. But if something just sits there and does nothing, regardless of who owns it, it does not represent wealth as we consider it. In fact, we observe that the inclusion of mere stuff and property as wealth may be deliberately misleading particularly as concerns how money actually disappears and requires replenishment.

The ballot is his instrument of political power; money his instrument of economic power and the former is futile without the latter.

Whose vote is it anyway? Since it's not YOUR TAX MONEY, sorry, then why vote? If you actually think that being a “taxpayer” means you have any say in what is decided, you have certainly not been paying attention and you really need to read the rest of this blog. 

[8/22/20: Unfortunately, perhaps the wrong impression was made here.  We certainly CAN influence things through voting, especially at the local level, and sometimes the stakes are so high that, where possible and if the elections are not cheated, that "the democratic process," though it may be as far from Riegel's ideal as we have already seen, must be resorted to by as many as possible.  Yes, your vote, if you are really entitled to that vote, is part of your inheritance.  So, how do you feel about someone else coming in and stealing or watering down your will and stealing your inheritance?  It's one reason we have our Domicile provision in our money proposal.  But those who have read the balance of this blog's posts would also understand that our will has already been stolen by THOSE who own all the money in use, INCLUDING PRECIOUS METALS AND CRYPTOCURRENCIES.  

Of the options available to preserve some of your purchasing power, we recommend stacking silver and gold coins, but remind you all that at any moment, THEY could use THEIR best credit risk customer, the government, to swoop in and give you whatever THEY decide to give you and take your silver and your gold.  Don't tell me it hasn't been done before, either.  Also, you should know that whether you decide to purchase gold or silver at this time, that THEY own the markets so THEY set the prices and what seems high at the moment may be the least you'd pay or the most you'd lose, since THEY can and have driven down precious metals prices before and may do so again based on whatever guidelines THEY follow.  See, you have NO control over it whatsoever, so please stop complaining.  Wake up!  IT'S THEIR MONEY, STUPID!

The proposed Valun on the other hand has already shown that it is more than capable of retaining its purchasing power and some future A membership contracts will include provisions that stretch back to the Valun's 1st inception point on 2 November, 2011.]      

He is a dupe, who believes that government can be both his servant and his patron, i.e., that the state can develop an economy to enrich him.

This is in fact the narcissist position, the belief that somehow each of us is some “special” person who the government actually “cares” about, etc.

He must govern government as he governs himself; and he must provide for government as he provides for himself. Any power existing outside himself is only that which has been delegated by him, or has escaped from him; for he is the one and only power-house.

The individual counts as he/she understands himself/herself. The real powers outside himself/herself are deliberately delegated to have certain powers over him/her. But these are all ideals at best, they do not describe what actually exists and all because it's THEIR money, not OURS.

He cannot delegate his money power, if he would, because it is inseparably linked to his buying wherein he must exert his private discretion. To issue money, one must buy, to buy, one must appraise. Hence, the money issuing power is undelegatable and unusurpable.

As we've said, the power for the individual to issue money ranks right in there with freedom of speech, press and assembly and those are meaningless without the power to issue money; this right is likewise inalienable; it cannot be given away, granted away, supposed away or stolen. Like it or not, this blog's proposal is in full agreement with Riegel.

As has been stated, the purpose of money is to split barter into two parts so that the seller is free to find his source of supply later and elsewhere. This is the sole purpose of money. Any effort to use money to serve another purpose is perversive; and this statement condemns the entire managed money philosophy.

Notice the intentional slight. Money managers make their pay for deliberately making wagers on the probable price changes of ephemeral commodities; securities, either as shares of ownership of these “bodies” but of their debt instruments.

We could have chosen any number of similar Riegel quotes. Other points dealing with implementation are where this blog's proposal updates Riegel's understanding and design. One cannot entrust any responsibility with any of the powers that be because they aren't supposed to have it. That's where Riegel can be criticized; his implementation attempted to solve THEIR problems for them and to help THEM as well as US. Well, we know better now and one lesson we've learned is that some things requiring OUR responsibility have to be done by US or they wont get done. What's next?

Discussion groups: It's time to use all the social media to find likely interested parties. We need lawyers and bankers (those who have seen the truth and left) as mush as we need everyone else.

The Valun Manifesto: Likely this would result from a conference that would accept this blog's proposal, set up the International Valun (or Value) Exchange Society and adopt certain signs and symbols, begin to print and circulate fliers, etc.

Start establishing Independent exchanges: To begin with, there may be one or two “node” exchanges that would help other neighbouring areas get up and running, etc.

The circulating Valun becomes a reality.

Notice, we said that our proposal has the ability to ultimately end poverty and war and we meant it. No one else could even dream of promising such a thing from changing to their idea of a substitute money. Our proposal has many other benefits too.

David Burton
dpbmss@mail.com

Current Hypothetical Value of a Hypothetical Value Unit

 

#82 Monetary Reform; Fiat vs. Market

Source   

This man still has a following despite his record of being spectacularly wrong about Y2K. We'll excuse him for that, I suppose. Other matters concerning him will not be mentioned either. We're instead focusing on what his article says and our responses to it for any clarification of our proposal. Since he tends to quote the Bible, we may do so as well. As usual, North's words are in blue, my remarks in black:

Gary North - April 16, 2016
Remnant Review

What is fiat money? It comes from "fiat," which means a formal authorization or proposition or a decree. Synonyms are these: edict, order, command, commandment, injunction, proclamation, mandate, dictum, diktat. It is an arbitrary order. The phrase "fiat lux" comes from Genesis 1:2: "Let there be light."

It is similar to “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” etc. (Gen. 1:26) Fiat has exactly the same sense when applied to this blog's assumption concerning each individual human being's inalienable right to issue money. This means that this right cannot be taken by anyone else whether that be a state or some other organized body. We acknowledge this right as implicit and derived from each human being's innate wealth which must produce income; the natural right to subsistence as a basis to attain the livelihood one is capable of.

The individual right to issue money is not without bearing on other members of any community, therefore the right is limited. We said that under our proposal, the actual amount of money that would be issued in this way would be considerably less than any modern state spends into any economy; local market. North continues,

Fiat money is the money issued by a self-proclaimed divine state. It rests on the premise of divine right: no higher appeal. It is the court of final appeal. In short, it is divine.

Since no state is deathless, this is a presumption without basis. But we'd frankly state it another way; states usurp the natural rights of all their people by claiming in any way, shape or form, that they have any right to issue fiat money. The natural fiat that belongs to each one of us has been stolen long ago by states and banks. None of their “money” EVEN SILVER AND GOLD is legitimate. Our proposal intends to rectify this usurpation.

A free market money system is an operational system to which people can appeal to because it is not statist money. People use gold coins or silver coins to buy what they want. Or they use legal claims to such coins. The state is not in the "money business.

He said a lot here so let's break it down:

1) there is no absolutely free market unless it's the black market and that is a market where all claims are settled by whatever means and there are no credit hangovers extending months or years beyond the point of sale.

2) The use of gold or silver coins is barter and the commodities value is determined by forces beyond the control of anyone using them as money so this market is NOT a free market money system as he implies.

3) Legal claims to any such coins is spurious and cannot be enforced with any regularity, therefore these kinds of monetary systems (which all used fractional reserve lending) are bogus.

4) Banks are in “the money business” and have made states into their perpetual debt slaves since the first central bank, The Bank of England, was established.

No nation-state ever allows this [a free market money system]. Every nation-state wants to be the highest court of appeal, especially in monetary affairs. Every nation-state claims legal sovereignty over money.

The reasons for this are not too difficult to see; the state is burdened by the complaints of its subjects who demand some redress for whatever inept or corrupt business practises may have resulted in loss to themselves or their businesses. The general consensus has always been to give up certain rights or reprisal to the state so that civic unrest is kept to the minimum. The reasons states have generally been “the highest court of appeal” is that there are disputes that people want states to settle for them. Since money is usually part and parcel of any of these complaints, people generally accept that the state must somehow issue the money without considering the consequences.

Any gold standard in which civil government is the defining agency is a pseudo-gold standard. It is a counterfeit. When you think "government-guaranteed gold standard," think "counterfeit."

As E. C. Riegel said, anything the state issues that is not taken back in taxes is counterfeit. Since we have stretched Riegel's assumptions to their logical extension, the issuance of money belongs directly with individual people rather than organizations or states, we'd now claim that ANY illegitimate money is counterfeit and only serves the interests of those who issue it; banks and to a lesser degree, governments.

Take some of your money out of your wallet and look at it. It says that it's a Federal Reserve Note which is a short term debt instrument. North gets into some of this further along. The mention of some state, for instance, The United States of America, indicates who owes the Federal Reserve what? To pay the money back with interest. Notice here that the issue was from a bank, out of nothing which is fiat and there's nothing wrong with that as a concept, it's simply that the right of issue has been stolen rather than allowed to the people themselves. Also and most importantly, the money to pay the interest was never created so it must be obtained by any means from a limited supply. This is in fact stealing on the basis of the money itself and limits its supply no matter how much is ever created in this way. We hold that ALL usury as described this way is theft and we propose doing away with it in our proposal.

WHEN MONEY DIES

In times of great crisis, money dies. The things that money could buy in normal times are not available at any price close to that which prevailed in normal times.

He's talking about shortages brought about by 1) real factors of supply and demand or 2) the money has lost its purchasing power. We said that the music stops when either of the following is true; either one will no longer take some money in trade or one lacks the right money to buy things.

The Bible's most famous example was the famine in Egypt under Joseph's administration. We read that the money failed (Gen. 47:15). But there was another case.

And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of doves' dung for five pieces of silver (II Kings 6:25).

So revelatory are prices of the underlying social conditions that Elisha prophesied the end of a siege by forecasting a dramatic fall in prices: "Then Elisha said. Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the LORD, Tomorrow about this time shall a measure of tine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria" (II Ki. 7:1). Before it ended, silver did not count for much. Or put differently, they had to count out a lot of silver to buy anything worth owning. What was worth owning was food.

Notice they were still using precious metals as a commodity with which to price other commodities. We've said that the value of any commodity participates in the trade and to the extent this is true the commodity is not money. Even so, when food is scarce and people are starving, silver loses its value compared to even the most meagre food.

Normal pricing reveals normal times. When prices today are close to what they were yesterday, we can be confident that society tomorrow will be pretty much what it is today unless something totally unforeseen happens. Rarely does it happen.

Oh, I don't know. Most recall how only a few years back gasoline was selling for twice what it is now. There are always unforeseen events which do impact prices one way or another.

Money prices are indicators of broad social trends. Gold reached its highest price, denominated in U.S. dollars, the week before Gettysburg. On July 3. 1863, Lee's army was defeated. On July 4, Vicksburg fell to Grant's forces. The dollar price of gold fell the following business day and did not reach these heights for a century. The world believed that the Union would win the war, no matter what the South's politicians and generals said in public.

Notice he assumes a free market for precious metals which doesn't exist and in fact has never existed since there are always speculators in far away cities (just as there were in ancient Babylon) who determine what the bottom most prices for them will be. Speculators never make any money unless prices change either up or down. It is never in the best interests of speculators to see steady prices for anything. This is why we intend on promoting a system and an organization behind it that will not allow speculative games.

What was the South's leadership to say? "Well, that does it. It's all over but the shouting. The North's shouting. We might as well surrender now. Why continue this bloodbath? The Yankee dollar is up. Gold is down. Gold says we're beaten. We might as well face it." Had any politician said this, he would not have served out his term. Yet this was exactly what the South's leaders should have said. They continued the bloodbath, yet the outcome was what the price of gold had projected.

The facts are, and North should know this too, that the Southern cause was used as a plaything in international empire games between the French and British, with a divide and conquer opportunist attitude fuelled and promoted by the same factors that controlled gold and silver as well as all the other state money except for Lincoln's greenbacks. They killed Lincoln for this and a short time later demanded legislation that made the greenbacks obsolete. Some out there like Bill Still continually push for the government to go back to Lincoln's solution. Still apparently shares this idea with Napoleon who wanted to do the same thing. Government issued money, even without paying interest on it, is still illegitimate and there is no way that the original Constitution would have ever allowed the government to issue paper notes, despite what Still and others may think.

All of this is to say that the price of gold, back in the days when governments tied their currencies to it, was a better indicator of social conditions than the speeches of politicians.

Maybe, but what I'm saying is that the price of gold was as much a matter of speculators' activities (usually on behalf of banks and foreign governments) and had little to nothing to do with what any politician might have said. Politicians are all rendered liars and fakers by the very system itself which promotes such erroneous behaviour.

No matter what politicians want people to believe, if they preach good times while the price of gold is rising, the public would be wise to discount the politicians words. Free men make evaluations of the state of the world, and the price of gold reflects their judgement. So do interest rates. They can be wrong in their forecasts, but their forecasts are best reflected in these two market prices.

Here's something else that most people who claim that silver and gold are decent indicators forget; most of the gold is NOT circulating at all, and in fact most of the gold isn't even known where it is. It is hidden, stored away, those “pools of liquidity” that sometimes one hears about. Recall that North presumes such a thing as a genuine free market exists when it never has existed and will not exist as long as certain operations (commodity speculation and stolen fiat) persist.

THE FOCUS OF ATTENTION

Why should gold be the focus of attention, the ultimate indicator? One reason is because it usually has been. When gold is not widely used as currency, silver has served the same function. These two precious metals are the most familiar indicators of underlying economic trends. People have learned after millennia that the purchasing power of gold and silver also reveals a great deal about social stability. When the price of either or both keeps rising, the world is alerted to a nation's underlying crisis. When the prices of basic commodities rise faster than the price of gold and silver, that society is becoming desperate.

We say that gold is the logical focus of attention because it is THEIR (the banking oligarchy's) oldest “brand” of their fake money. If anyone ever devises a “gold backed” system against a “government fiat” system, people are talked into believing that it's safer in terms of holding purchasing power, even though fractional reserve lending is still applied. As we've explained before, THEY control the price of THEIR money, all brands of it, through commodity speculation. So there is no real difference. Most people are fooled into thinking that such systems are “gold backed” when they are not.

Ludwig von Mises [.. not even his real name and frankly who gives a rat's ass about him, since he was a liar and deceiver as were the rest of them?] defined money as the most marketable commodity. 

If that's all he could manage, he's NO help whatsoever since no commodity can ever be money. Frankly, the so called libertarians are a bunch of clowns pretending they have real solutions when all they manage is the other end of the banker's dialectic; either their credit or their gold. We are NOT going back there. Understood?

For most of the last century, beginning in the early months of World War I, gold was legally severed from currencies. National fiat currencies have served as money. Also, bank deposits serving in lieu of paper money have become money. These deposits have multiplied. Today, economists are not sure exactly what constitutes money or how to measure it. 

That's because they are all “commodity as money” imbeciles!

There are numerous competing measures. Gold and silver rarely serve as money. 

At least here, he's being honest. So we'll ask him again, if one has some commodity pricing all other commodities, what happens, as happened during the 16^th century, to all other prices when the amount of gold circulating through society expands? In Europe, prices rose 100% during that century all due to imports of gold from the New World. Gold bugs hate being reminded of this, but too damn bad.

But Mises' definition remains accurate: money is the most marketable commodity. 

Accurate? He's referring to times so desperate that civilization has ceased to exist, so therefore his sense of it is that we must all retreat back there, to times where the average human life was “nasty, brutish and short.” 

You can buy what you want: (1) immediately, (2) without offering a discount, and (3) without advertising. In this sense, money is said to be liquid. It is the supreme measure of liquidity. 

How's this for liquidity; just cancel all the naturally unlawful debt. Eliminate all law that supports it too.

Inside a national border, gold and silver are no longer as liquid as what a solvent national government calls money. We must pay a commission to buy a gold coin or a silver coin. In this sense, gold and silver are not money. They are not the most marketable commodities. 

Thank-you!

This raises an interesting question: ls our era an anomaly? Are we living in a monetary new world order? Is this situation likely to persist? Or will we see a return of gold and silver as the most marketable commodities? 

As I already said, want to return to a time when life was “nasty, brutish and short?” That's what you'll get.

If men are at long last trustworthy, if politicians tell the truth, if central bankers can be trusted not to inflate whenever there is a recession, and if things continue to operate smoothly, then the modern world will have escaped the unsentimental constraints of gold. Gold will not again become money, except as an accounting device for settling international payments among central banks.

Good for them, until the world wakes up to their longest running scam.

Yet this raises another question: Why do central banks stubbornly refuse to abandon the "barbarous relic," as John Maynard Keynes derisively called it? If gold is not good for us little people to use as money, why is it good for central bankers to use in order to settle their accounts? If gold is just another commodity, why don't central banks sell all of it that is stored in their vaults and invest the money in U.S. Treasury bills or some other nation's interest-paying debt? What do they know that the public doesn't know, and gold-hating economists don't know? 

I'm not a “gold hating economist,” but I'll be damned if I allow the idea of one commodity pricing all others as legitimate money to go unchallenged. I don't give a rats ass whether the practise extends back in time either. Some things are best to grow up from, not just individually but as a worldwide society.

There is an answer: central bankers do not trust other central bankers. They do not trust the reliability of civil governments. They know that when push comes to shove in the business cycle, other central bankers will crank up the printing presses. When this happens, they all want to be in gold. So should the rest of us. To keep their credit worthiness in a crisis, they have to own gold. So do the rest of us. 

Think about it this way Gary; all people who see the world this way KNOW that they are cheating everyone else, no matter what brand of THEIR money is offered. Also most of them are wanderers who never like to put down roots anywhere. Getting me yet? These kinds of people may need a few pieces of gold to sucker the rest of us into allowing them to live with us. Are you getting it yet? Of course they never trust each other because they KNOW they are all crooks! Is that explicit enough for you? There is little honour among thieves.

WE ARE NOT OMNISCIENT

If I knew what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, and next year, I could plan my life to minimize the use of cash. I could put my money into a savings account and earn interest. Why keep cash when you don't need it? The better your forecasting skills, the less you need it.

Gary, you really need to read the rest of this blog. Be sure you read it all before getting back to me. I do not suffer fools lightly. Cash gives people a degree of anonymity in their exchanges, and it serves as the price point below which nothing trades. We'd like to see more cash not less and our solution promotes this as far as possible under current public law. One final point though; if it is stealing for interest to be charged, it is also stealing to pay anything to idle money, ever. If you don't get that point or the obvious difference between capitalism and free enterprise, you've missed much. You enjoy reading your Bible? Ever understood why the Lord forbade usury? It's stealing. It's mathematically inadmissible to ask back that which was never created. One can do that with virtually any other commodity because Nature provides or God does, but NOT with money including silver or gold, because as should be better known, THEY control it all from the mines to the hoarding of it. I wont even bother with the oft mentioned retort that it was fine within the Israelite community but they could charge interest to steal from others. I happen to doubt that the Almighty would have ever implied such a thing. 

Today, we have money substitutes [No, we have money, it's just illegitimate money. We wont fall for the “precious metals are the only true money” baloney]. We can deposit money in a bank or a money-market fund [a commodity speculator's creation naturally follows from what they have made of money]. We can also write a check, or use a credit card, at any time to buy what we want. We can do this because of the remarkable fiction known as fractional reserve banking [fiction, my ass, it's FRAUD!]. We lend the bank money short-term -- withdrawal allowed at any time -- yet the bank loans it out for months or years. The bank is in the condition of being "borrowed short and lent long." As long as deposits come close to equaling withdrawals, this wonderful condition can go on without problems. It is a profitable system most of the time [and what “profit” they “earn” is all stealing because no good or service was ever created in the process. I place quotes around the words or terms that are deliberately misleading]. We stop carrying much cash. We carry plastic cards instead. It is safer. It is easier. And it leaves us convenient records for our computerized personal finance programs (and also the income tax collector's finance programs).

All true.

But then comes some unforeseen development. You are in some small town, your car has broken down, and Bubba the car repairman deals only in cash. Bubba, you see, has figured out the system: the tax collector's computer doesn't trace what a credit card company or check doesn't register. [Please note here that Bubba is being blamed as a tax cheat for preferring cash which leaves no records when it is permissible for the rich to tax dodge by creating all sorts of Not for Profit Foundations and Trusts, etc. See how the present order rigs things? Most of the people making more than $500K/yr are probably not paying enough taxes and I guarantee you that anyone making $1 million/yr or more is dodging taxes. We haven't even mentioned all the “state sponsored” corporations who dodge taxes, all of which ultimately cheat the public.] Bubba looks dumb, but Bubba is really pretty clever. Meanwhile, your car is not running. You ask: "How much will it cost to get this fixed?" Bubba, being pretty smart, answers: "How much cash have you got?" You tell him. He starts laughing. He shouts back toward the garage: "Hey, Sam, get a load of this!" All of a sudden, you would like some extra cash, since your alternatives are limited and your forecasting skills have been shown to be not all that you had imagined.

Now during the following few paragraphs, those of you who have this blog's proposal in mind may see what we're going to notice:

Let us pursue this. What if, because of some unforeseen event, such as a meltdown of the stock market, a lot of people start thinking like Bubba? They think to themselves: "My bank may go bankrupt in this mess. Bankrupt, after all, comes from 'bank' and 'ruptured.' I'm getting nervous. I don't know what's coming. You never know these days. I think I would like to have cash. I think I'll go down to my bank and get cash." All of a sudden, deposits do not equal withdrawals. People who lent the bank short-term money want it back today. How is the bank going to get the cash?

It can sell off assets. So, asset prices start falling. The rush for cash means that interest rates start rising. Borrowers start panicking. Employers start firing. Fired people, filled with a new level of uncertainty, go down to the bank and demand cash. Cash is a substitute for knowledge about the future. When people are really scared about their economic futures, they want cash.

Now recall the things we brought to the surface in this article. Note also that no account within any of our IE's will be THEIR money, in fact, no Valuns will belong to anyone but you or some business you are directly associated with. There will no longer be any need whatsoever for deposit insurance which admits the fraud it attempts to protect you from. Most alternative money ends up in drawers at home rather than circulating around a community because the proponents have got one or more things wrong; they directly base the complementary money on some existing money and may include the spurious ideas of the academic economists, especially paying interest on idle money or charging interest on loans (the mother of all usury and fractional reserve practises), both of which are stealing. Again, if you don't happen to think so or agree, we'd rather not even know you. But notice what North is addressing:

In such a downward spiral of fear, uncertainty, and the rush for cash, the central bank will print up currency and deliver it to the banks. There is no other way to stop the panic and keep it from becoming a depression in which payments slow down, businesses cannot collect their money, and the economy collapses. This is called a break in the payments system. It does not happen often, but when it does, the result is an economic crisis of monumental proportions.

The likelihood of this ever happening within a Valun exchange network or VEN (our acronym for a market that uses nothing but Valuns in trade), is limited by many factors, ultimately the availability of community credit to devise projects that cannot be warranted as productive of community wealth; that capable of providing an income. All of our officers would be aware of these kinds of big bogus projects and as we said, without the approval of the local IE from whence all transactions must be identified on all our contracts, nothing will run forward. We will no longer tolerate and this will spread, some nameless, faceless, organizations of mysterious power and THEIR money to dominate our lives.

A BREAK IN THE PAYMENTS SYSTEM

There is no economic event more terrifying than this one. This takes place when a society with a high division of labor, which relies on a predictable system of payments, ceases to trust the system of payments. People start looking for other, safer ways to buy and sell. They move from one monetary unit to another [All THEIR money, so THEY win whichever way “the masses” choose to run]. In the meantime, prior forecasts are shown to have been wrong [... on purpose too, because "the masses" trusted THEIR figures rather than using their own heads]. Businesses fail, stock markets crash, and banks close their doors. As people abandon one form of money -- checks, for example -- in their quest for another form of money -- cash, for example -- those individuals who had previously relied on sales to people who write checks find themselves hard-pressed to find buyers for their products. Their buyers no longer write checks.

Notice he uses checks and cash as just two forms of money while the basic denomination remains the same. Here's the basis of the problem: IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY. NONE of it is, including the old or new gold and silver coins with the various heads of tyrants on them, none of it is YOUR money. If you don't want to see this happen, you would be looking for other ways to trust the system of payments. Why offshore or outsource your thinking on these matters?

No problem! Just start selling for cash. Problem: How do you send cash to your suppliers? In the mail? How can you prove that you sent it? You have to go to your bank. Your bank will wire the money to your supplier's bank. But your bank is closed. The demand for cash has wiped it out. Maybe your supplier's bank is also closed. So, how do you get shipments of goods so that you can sell them? You probably don't. You go out of business.

So, we will notice that North is describing what is happening right now in Venezuela or other places.

Now, let us consider technology. Your local bank has your money stored in its computer. Well, of course, it really does not store money in a computer. Or does it? Are those blips really money? [What was our hard core definition? Does anyone remember? Money to be legitimate must have been exchanged for a good or service in lieu of barter, by a single human being, not a corporation, government or bank. Is it understood where this is going already?] They are [in THEIR money] for as long as you can write a check, or use a credit card, that can subtract from that computer entry.

He's technically correct, and we eventually hope to use some technology beyond paper records, but Mark Twain's maxim is still correct; “The dullest pencil is better than the sharpest memory.” We also noted how popular physical tokens representing money (cash) are and we intend on bringing that representation of money back as well; first as V-Checks and eventually as longer running Exchange Notes). Meanwhile back to North's description of a “system of payments” meltdown:

But if the check no longer works, or the credit card no longer works, or the bank's ATM cash machine no longer works, your computer entries cease to function as money. If the banking systems computer system does not allow additions and subtractions from those digital entries we call money, most people no longer have any money.

THEIR system remember, not yours or mine. We had and have nothing to do with any of it, which is one reason most of us despise money or any conversations referencing it. Something about it we almost automatically recognize as foreign in the sense of not belonging, not ours in fact.

How can you get out of digital money? In other words, what other form of can you buy with it? Today, you can buy gold and silver coins, real estate in the country, and bulk food. But if all money except cash today is digital money, then only fiat money serves as money. You get your choice: digits or paper.

Actually, you get your choice; THEIR credit (in its various forms) or THEIR gold (and silver) since they decide what the exchange rates are between weights of those metals and the rest of THEIR money. NONE of it, is ultimately yours or mine. Also note that he mentions fiat (always associated with a state or bank) that we identify as direct usurpation of our right to issue our own money by OUR fiat! That natural fiat in  fact Mr. North has been stolen from us and is every bit as important as the freedom of speech, press or assembly and in fact none of that is worth a shit without the power to issue our own money! This right is inalienable; it cannot rightfully and meaningfully be taken from any human being without direct repercussions. Look around you. Everything that is wrong in this world is due in FACT to the monopolization of money issue by bankers using governments as their perpetual debt slaves.

To get out of a lot of digital money and into paper money is difficult. Basically, most people cannot move into non-digital money from their pension funds. They can buy only non-money items. Gold and silver coins are non-money items. They are highly salable, but they are not money. They require a network of specialized dealers to create a market for them.

Thank-you, Mr. North! You may have been terribly mistaken in other regards, but you can count yourself among the few who have actually realized somewhat that money is not a commodity or represented by any commodity. Our solution strides right across this and sets all academic economics against the wall; we state that the proposed Valun is what it takes today to equal a piece of a transaction that took place on 11/2/11. That was a thousandth of the transaction 1 oz gold = $2,160. So at inception, 1 Valun (V1) = $2.16. Today to purchase the same purchasing power takes $2.78.

Think about the number of institutions that do not rely at all on digital money. It is a very short list. Now think of institutions that are likely to survive a transition from digital money to gold and silver coins [See what he's assuming? If it gets that bad, you know you have returned to times where life is “nasty, brutish and short” and “civilization” has all but ceased to exist], but without fractional reserves. There will not be many of them.

This is a relevant perspective from which to see economies outside the proposed VEN; they are in the process of disintegration due to the compounding of the effects of capitalism (making money on money without working for it), a stupendous economic black hole absorbing more wealth than it produces and state socialism (the opposite side of their prearranged dialectic) which must be kept up else “the masses” would revolt. But ultimately, we say that if business is not done through our far better transaction clearing model, that most businesses will fail.

The national governments of this world survive because they get those under their jurisdiction to send them digital money. This means that they rely on the banking system. The alliance between central governments and central banks has been operating since the establishment of the privately owned Bank of England in 1694. That model spread throughout the world in the twentieth century. Today, it is the basis of the international order. If the banking system collapses in a sea of bad debt or hyperinflation, the humanists' New World Order collapses with it.

We assume all that but consider the bankers the ultimate source of blame because it is they who FORCED states into compliance (through elaborate and at this time well known and documented schemes of blackmail, intimidation, projection, etc.) and their monopolies of the means of social control; the press and the schools.

The NWO must defend the banks. This is why hyperinflation is a threat to it; it undermines banks [It depends of just where and in whose nation hyperinflation is allowed to run its course. It destroys savings and society and renders most to levels of barbarism under which fewer people can live well]. But so is a collapse of bad debt. What's a central planning agency to do? In short, what's a central bank to do? Exactly what politicians do: delay making a decision. [Delay is the chief weapon of those in control. They can literally afford to wait out their adversaries. But what happens when all THEIR money is finally and fatally EXPOSED as the FRAUD and usurpation of our liberties that it is?] Meanwhile, hold press conferences in gibberish. The all-time model is Alan Greenspan.

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM

With this in mind, it is time to review some ancient history: the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is worth noting that the time frame was one hour. In fact, it took many months for the city to fall. John prophesied regarding this event:

And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and line linen, and purple, and silk. and scarlet, and all thine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off. And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate (Rev. 18:11-19).

What is described here can be applied to any city in which the means of payment breaks down. Why would merchants bring goods into a city if those dwelling in it cannot pay? It is the prospect of payment that keeps every delivery system operating. It is this prospect that puts a newspaper on a front lawn, electrical power in a line, water in a pipe, takes used water out of a receptacle and down a pipe, and so on. In short, if the means of payment should ever break down, there will be fewer and fewer deliveries until those inside the city can begin to produce something of value for which they can obtain the new money.

Understood? We're saying that eventually the same must occur.

Problem: the productivity of a person who lives in a high division of labor economy is dependent on the existence of a universal means of payment. The value of his productivity collapses overnight -- "in one hour" -- if the traditional means of payment is not replaced immediately by a new means of payment.

This is why there must be continuity from fiat money to money based on precious metals if we are ever to bring national governments under control -- control of the masses, who buy and sell. 

The last paragraph does not follow from the previous one at all! THEIR systems are losing confidence every day and we hope THEY lose all confidence, the sooner the better. It would put an end to most of their extremely dangerous “mad science” schemes for one thing. When we chose the basis for our proposal it was gold for exactly this reason. You want to buy any of OUR money? You pay for it in GOLD buster! Or silver. But this isn't because we care more about these manifestations of money. We don't. We see past the baloney. They're just some metal to us. It is because THEY value it as a means to control US that we are interested in gold. Right now, THEIR gold buys fewer of OUR Valuns than it did at inception. That's all we ever need to know. It establishes what any of the rest of THEIR money is worth to us. Per design, their “markets” can go on as they like while the Valun remains stable. Our prices and price structure ultimately establish what will be traded, in real goods and services. We allow financing that must be 100% reserve. We do not allow you to lend what you do not have. For the rest, it's about buying something for its cash value at point of sale and arranging for “terms” in which the buyer (who needed the object or service when he needed it) to pay for that good or service over time on terms acceptable to him/her and the lender. If the lender goes under, the entire system is NOT imperilled. Nor the value expressed in the money changed. Now, notice what North says here about any possible “gold standard:”

This must not be another government scheme to fleece the public with a golden fleece. [It was the BANKS, not governments that decided it before] It must not be another government-guaranteed gold standard. We have seen how reliable such pseudo-gold standards are. They lure people to hand over their gold to a local bank. Then the local bank joins a central bank. Then the government authorizes the central bank to keep the gold. That happened in 1914. Most Europeans never got their gold back.

CONCLUSION

For a gold coin standard to be reliable, it must be the product of voluntary exchange. It must not be just another fiat currency. It must not be "spoken into existence" by a national government: "Let there be monetary liberty!" Civil governments have never declared monetary liberty. They hate monetary liberty. Monetary liberty is a restraint on civil government. That is why we need it. 

STOP: None of this is ever going to work so why bother advocating it? Because North and others are desperate? No one is desperate. They either have enough of THEIR money or they don't. Capitalism and socialism working in tandem, are delivering the world into THEIR hands. The result shall be THEIR ultimate destruction, because ALL OF IT including all that silver and all that gold, are THEIR money and since neither gold nor silver are gifted with flight, they shall not move very much at all. Therefore they shall NOT circulate freely. We've already said many times that the “intrinsic wealth” concept of money is utterly bogus. Money is ONLY a means to split barter and therefore the cheaper one can make the medium of exchange the better. Hence, ANY idea that monetary reform requires a return to tokens made of gold or silver is rendered puerile to say the least.

There was been a worldwide break in the payments system in 1914: from gold coins to fiat money. To restore monetary liberty, there must be a vast monetary reform that is the product of human action, not human design.

And therefore, what Mr. North, do you require for “human action” without any design? Sounds as usual like a disaster.

Anyone who comes with a monetary reform plan engineered by a national government is operating under a delusion: the doctrine of the nation-state's legal sovereignty over money. Ignore him . . . or her (e.g., Ellen Brown). 

We agree here, but for different reasons: governments have become the prisoners of the banks. They are less responsible, but obviously the present order separates and selects the worst possible characters to serve in government. Those of us with any hearts or brains want nothing to do with governments and less to do with banks and most of us do not care for either gold or silver in any form and never really have. We furthermore resent the idea that anyone can take a rare substance which nobody has and claim there can be any monetary liberty by advocating its use as money! Period! End of story! If you disagree, you're an idiot a “useful idiot” of the present disorder using FORCE as the only thing “backing” the use of so called “public” money. As we've seen, “public” anything usually becomes no one's responsibility, like public restrooms. He says in conclusion concerning gold and silver-

Accept no substitutes!

We'll accept nothing but silver and gold bullion in exchange for OUR money, but because THEY determine what the exchange rate shall be rather than us, we'll expect to charge them more gold or silver for our money as the price of gold (and or silver) falls below our inception transaction; V1 = 1/1000 of 1Au = $2,160 (not spot but “in your hand” actual rates). If they decide that gold is worth more than $2,160 (not spot but “in your hands”) then we'll just raise the inception transaction (never lower it) and therefore the Valun will retain its purchasing power above any and all of THEIR blood soaked money (including all gold and silver).

We remain open a response from Mr. North or any of his friends, but we admonish them to fully understand this blog's proposal first. It's NOT monetary reform as there is no such thing possible. 

David Burton
dpbmss@mail.com

Current Hypothetical Value of a Hypothetical Value Unit

#81 Recent Rants About Bitcoin

Here's someone we'll call Tom who really feels evangelistic about bitcoin. His words will be in blue, mine in black:

What part of Bitcoin is impractical? Do you realise how many ways there are to use Bitcoin? Even if it was impractical, which it really isn't with a little help from someone like me, are you saying having to learn something new isn't worth the benefit of having 100% control of your money? 

For those who are reading this blog, where did Tom just go wrong? In fact he went so far off that he went right over the cliff and took a lot that listen to him with him. Practical? For who? Anyone with enough skill, gumption, whatever to operate a computer over the internet? That leaves a lot of people out. He said that Bitcoin gave him the ability to have 100% control over his money. Those who guessed rightly that bitcoin is not anybody's money so therefore it is THEIR money by a different brand, go get yourselves a cigar.

I'd like ___ to answer this too. he's already made comments to the effect that 'bitcoin is rubbish' which is just not arguable in any way at all.

Well come on Tom, certainly it is. You have easy convertibility between bitcoin and any of the other flavours of THEIR money. Most of their banks will oblige you with the transactions because to them it is just another “buy and hold” artificial commodity to invest in like any other of their fake commodities. Bitcoin is nothing more than another extension of capitalism for people to make money on money without working for it.

Bitcoin embodies what most people here stand for. It's extremely awkward when people don't see it. 

We'll leave the awkward bit out of it. Nothing is good enough to embody what most people stand for except money that each individual human being issues, period! Anything else is just some more of THEIR money. And anyway, what happens with all those who don't have computers, don't want the internet, etc? They're barely above the whole barter stage in their understanding as it is. Bitcoin is just a plaything for the elites and nothing more. It has no practical use for the vast majority of humanity. Sorry Tom, your solution isn't and no argument you can manage will convince three quarters of the world otherwise. 

Bitcoin is THEIR money, not yours, Tom. It is nothing but another phony commodity pretending to be money when it has from inception been the plaything of international speculators. If you did not issue it, it aint yours.

No, Bitcoin is nobody's and everybody's. It's completely decentralised. The code is open source. You can literally go and take a look at yourself and suggest improvements (BIPS). A binding set of rules for exchanging value directly between people without the need for a trusted third party. Do you realise the implications of this?

There is always a third party. Don't fall for any of that rubbish. You bought bitcoin at what you bought it for and THERE was your third party. As for the rest of it, three quarters of humanity does not need or want any open source code or what have you. They really want their own money that they can issue themselves that always and everywhere buys almost the same things.

The whole point is that it's solely MY money in a way that has never even been possible before.

Nothing that I did not issue myself is MY money, Tom and saying so over and over again is not convincing me or three quarters of the world's population, sorry.

As for a phony commodity, I think you seriously misjudge the utility of a completely impervious-to-corruption ledger. It's a place where a single citizen holds the same power as the US treasury. Mathematically guaranteed equality. No chargebacks, no having your money frozen. You can even store them in your brain!

We posted a paper here not long ago advising that any “intangible or electronic tokens” are not suitable to most people. They like things they can hold in their hands to trade with and usually they prefer something that spends like cash. Let's take the preceding apart:

the utility of a completely impervious-to-corruption ledger. 

The money is impervious to corruption? How about individuals who are given bitcoin accounts that no one needs know about? Isn't that corruption?

a place where a single citizen holds the same power as the US treasury 

Not likely and there's always the IRS. If this is not a flat out lie, then Tom and a host of others high on their own wishful thinking are heading down one of those paths THEY created for people like Tom to fall right into. Being a useful idiot takes many forms these days. Hey Tom, no matter what you think, it's still THEIR money and as long as they control the ultimate keys, and they do Tom, THEY can steal any of your bitcoin whenever they feel like it or close the whole damn thing down in a heartbeat leaving those holding bitcoin with precisely nothing.

Mathematically guaranteed equality. No chargebacks, no having your money frozen. You can even store them in your brain!

Equality?  Oh, who uses that buzzword more than is required?  There are no guarantees Tom. You believe their baloney and that's fine until THEY decide to do something else. You have NO CONTROL over anything, Tom. Oh, and one more thing: Mark Twain said, “The dullest pencil is better than the sharpest memory.” That means that physical objects including writing figures into books is better than anything you think you can remember in your brain (or wherever it is that people remember things) and certainly better than stored on any computer.

As for 'play thing for international speculators', that just couldn't be more untrue. Whilst there's unquestionably going to be players from the old game who had the sense to get in when they saw the potential it has, its ludicrous to pretend that international speculators (the old powers) would bother with an asset who's market cap is only a few billion dollars with almost no liquidity.

You think what THEY want and as long as you do, you are a sucker whether its bitcoin or AT&T stock or whatever. It's exactly the same, all THEIRS not yours or mine and THAT point right there matters more than all the fancy math, etc. that nobody cares about because money to them is not “an investment,” it is something they need to get the things they need to live their lives. And by the way, letting speculators off the hook is no excuse, Tom since they are all thieves. Best that be recognized and their activities limited to their own private games of chance.

Lastly pretty much the whole point of bitcoin is that I/we DID issue it. By mining the currency you add strength to the hack resistance of the network, so you get rewarded with Bitcoin, this is the issuance process for bitcoin. Only so many coins are available each day and this declines over time meaning no inflation.

Stupidity on steroids! This is the kind of BUNK that comes from the so called “Austrians,” etc. We have said repeatedly and the papers on this blog adequately prove that scarcity of money has nothing to do with its purchasing power unless you're a speculator. We have also taken pains to point out how and where money dies and when that happens the money supply decreases and it does decrease ultimately unless fraudulent money is added. Bitcoin defenders point out all the ways this is prevented, but what you're left with is a critically short commodity as money that speculators get to play exchange rate games with and users have to battle one another over how much is created each day until “game over” and then what? Lovely. Another gimmick to trap people like Tom.

I appreciate you have to be cynical of new technology but this is literally the golden gun of tools against tyranny. 

No it clearly is not and frankly I'm only as cynical as I need to be. The tyrants may have accounts in it themselves. It is likely in fact that they are rewarded with accounts as part of their “pay.” I know about bitcoin (and a half dozen other stabs at internet only money). It's still not YOUR money and it isn't mine. It's THEIRS and I don't give two rats' asses about something that's EVERYBODY'S because the people who make out like bandits anytime that happens are speculators. Besides which nothing about Bitcoin is physical so the moment there is no more internet (oh no, that wont happen) you are basically out a bitcoin. I know all about it. I'm not impressed. You say YES. I say emphatically NO. That's all. 

But he wasn't finished because HE NEVER PAID ANY SERIOUS ATTENTION TO WHAT I SAID. This is typical too. Frankly it's stunning how many people, and I'm sure Tom is a perfectly fine fellow otherwise, are pointless and clueless when it come to money. Our guess is that the people who run all the various flavours of THEIR money want it that way. 

I'm always suspicious of people who hold strong opinions without actually being able to defend them in their own words.   

I did, but he didn't bother to consider what I said. I wonder if he's this way with other significant people in his life? 

No offence but you demonstrated you don't understand what bitcoin is, or any if it's implications, you've made that pretty clear.   

I believe I made exactly the opposite very clear. Anything that I did not issue is not mine, it is by definition THEIRS. It has no advantages over any of their other brands of money because all their money is commodities that are traded back and forth among speculators who only make money when prices change. If Tom ever bothers to read this blog he'll see a dramatic difference. A Valun is only issued by a human being (not a computer program, institution or anybody else) in exchange for a good or service in order to split barter for labour. That's how a simple token becomes money. Any other way is illegitimate and pretending to be money and as well cheats every living human being out of their right to enter freely into a market to secure their livelihoods.  

I'd even go as far as to say that I don't think you even know what money is despite the fact that I'm sure you really think you do.   

Read what I just wrote before you said this. Be careful jumping to conclusions, especially with me. I'll likely catch you even when you don't know it.  

But just consider objectively what you're saying. 

It is again pointless to argue when someone doesn't even bother to find out why you say what you say. Simple. I did not invent bitcoin, I do not issue bitcoin, and there are rules that describe bitcoin as nothing more than another finite commodity pretending to be money. That's the size of it, period,, end of story! What more is there to be said? Nothing! But there are so many eager to convince. Why? Because maybe they wont feel so bad if others lose their shirts too. THAT is why all of THEIR money including bitcoin suck, because eventually with any and all of it, you lose, including precious metals. Just ask someone who bought in 2011 how eager they are to sell their gold at 28% to 30% less than they paid for it in another of THEIR monies.

Just because you've come to the idea that it's all a big Conspiracy, you're ignoring the fact that Bitcoin connects billions of ostracised people to the economy in a totally transparent and fair way.

Is this really true? No it isn't. It's wishful thinking. The money monopolies ARE a conspiracy but so what? We were dumb enough to fall for it this long, you think bitcoin is really anything different? Billions of ostracized people? They don't even have computers or the internet and half aren't even literate. This is more baloney. As is any use of the word “fair.” We don't know what that is. If a craftsman with a better reputation and superior skills gets more work than someone who doesn't that's often considered “unfair.” Etc. etc. We don't care. This proposal isn't about any framework THEY have for settling social and economic issues. We don't care about any of that. We'll work out the details among ourselves, thank-you and having truly our own money says in fact, “shove off, we'll take care of our own affairs.”

It [bitcoin] takes the power to print money away from banks and governments and it guarantees freedom of speech to anyone no matter who they are.

No bitcoin doesn't “guarantee” a damn thing. Whose kool-aid have you been drinking? You're probably one who imagines the tokens have anything to do with it. They don't. Whether they're made of silver or gold or plain paper really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, every merchant makes up his own books, determines the health of his/her business and everything money related is ultimately written into a ledger. Tom certainly recognizes that much.

Do you think maybe there's a chance you've been misled a little?

Ah, not a chance, pal. Oh and one more point; since most people the world over know what money looks like in its paper form, we really ultimately demand the printing presses for money be turned over to us. How's that?

I don't think you're being sincere if you're going to tell me you think the powers that be would build a system designed to usurp state control that they have provable no control over. It's just not plausible.

Think outside the box then. THEY create and fund their own opposition all the time.  It's called dialectic.  The states are THEIR perpetual debt slaves. They are not forever. Their central banks mean more to them than any state. If they need another state, they overthrow one and replace it with their own, another perpetual debt slave with some other of THEIR brands of money. Occasionally, like Venezuela, a state gets off the strings and they let it sink (their money too). Venezuela might be saved with Valuns if they had them, but they don't. You imagine bitcoin would save Venezuela? Bitcoin is dependent on the internet, something they don't have ready access to in Venezuela. What then? People need reliable physical tokens to use. They have very unreliable ones now. They already know this and so they're experiencing a Weimar meltdown; hyperinflation. And the implausible is THEIR strategy because unlike you Tom, and your naiveté is showing, they're always trying to stay one step ahead of their prey.

We're a couple of thousands of years off a system where people no longer own and swap things.

Oh? I doubt it, Tom, that's all I have to say on that. I hope everyone notices Tom's viewpoint. He's been conditioned to accept the state as his, his protector, and that certain things are “fair” etc. None of this is required and is even extra baggage that is best jettisoned as it helps one think clearer.

Little annoyed that ____ hasn't responded to any of my comments on the matter, bit I have to assume that rather than taking someone else's word on the matter he would go and find out himself.

I have confidence that ____ is able to see things more clearly on this and many other subjects than you, Tom. But maybe there's something in it for Tom to get ____ as a bitcoin client. I suppose it's possible.

Conclusion. There is no greater snake oil salesman than one advocating that you use some other money. All you ever need to ask is whether you issue it, not whether you “mine” it or “find” it or fight with everyone else for a limited supply, all that's telltale signs that this too is yet another of THEIR “brands” of money, like the dollar, yen, pound, gold or silver. You see, since no single human being issued any of it, none of it can or ever shall be yours.

And finally, and this is the BIG difference: all Valuns will represent people because they were issued by real people not some computer program. What gives money any value is who backs it not what backs it, who uses it and above all who issues it. PEOPLE HAVE ULTIMATE VALUE NOT THINGS. Bitcoin will NOT compete in a world hungry to have basic human rights understood and restored where they belong and this blog regards the issuance of money as among those basic human rights. You can take all your phony bitcoin and anything else we never issued and shove it!

David Burton
dpbmss@mail.com

Current Hypothetical Value of a Hypothetical Value Unit