To Hell with Fractional-Reserve Bankers Constitutional Amendment
Dennis Spain · Wednesday, September 6, 2017
I invite feedback on a “To Hell with Fractional-Reserve Bankers Constitutional Amendment”:
(1) Rescind the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and replace all Federal Reserve notes and check book balances in all U.S. banking institutions (and any other domestic credit-creating institutions) on a 1-to-1 basis with U.S. Treasury-issued dollars and U.S. Treasury-denominated bank balances.
(2) Honor only the repayment of principal on all presently existing financial contracts in the U.S. Federal Reserve banking system and prohibit the interest payments on these fraudulent contracts. Payments on principal for these presently existing financial contracts are not to be extinguished from the money supply, as is heretofore the case. Prohibit all future lending by any banking institution of funds which do not originate from actual savings of the holders of the new U.S. Treasury dollar notes and U.S. Treasury denominated bank balances and stringently require any interest charges to be determined solely by the two parties involved in these valid loan contracts. (A valid loan contract is an actual lending of the previous savings of one party to another party for a stipulated time period.)
(3) Fund infrastructure projects nationwide which cross state borders with U.S. Treasury-issued currency in amounts proportional to the population of each state affected and without leaving any state's cross-border infrastructure needs unfunded. These infrastructure projects are to be authorized by Acts of Congress and can include, but not exclusively of other examples of infrastructure, roads, airports, harbors, waterways, pipelines, electric utility lines, high speed rail, etc. all such projects being put out to bid to private companies on a competitive basis.
(5) Fund Disability and Medical Insurance for all U.S. citizens with Treasury-issued currency, awarding contracts to private firms for such services on an openly competitive basis and in such a manner as to apportion the created funding according to each State's population.
(6) Continue to fund Social Security retirement liabilities separately by a tax on workers’ incomes throughout their working life and absolutely sequester these funds from any outflow payments other than to retirees.
(7) Abolish the Federal Income Tax and institute a federal sales tax with a varying yearly tax rate adjusted by the U.S. Congress in session, the sole aim of such adjustments being to maintain a stable Consumer Price Index based on data collected by the Federal Government. Any such sales taxes taken in by the Federal Government are simply extinguished from the currency supply to keep the Consumer Price Index stable or decreasing.
(8) There are to be only two federal taxes levied on the American citizenry: sales taxes, receipts of which are extinguished to prevent inflation; and social security taxes applied to retirement accounts. Thus there is no need for the Internal Revenue Service. That agency is hereby abolished and the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution voided.
Now, a comment on Dennis' remarks, with my response:
EE: The Federal Reserve Act is UNCONSTITUTIONAL anyway. Only CONGRESS is authorized to print U.S. Money.
Nope, the Constitution does NOT allow the Congress or anyone else to issue any printed money; only gold and silver were to determine settlement of debts; splitting of barter. The Constitution allowed the government to operate mints where they would coin money from precious metals, but the metal itself was to belong to the owners of the metal, paying the government a slight fraction of the mintage as what is called seigniorage: profit made by a government by issuing currency, especially the difference between the face value of coins and their production costs. It should further be noted that in 1792, Congress established the weight of a dollar (that little pain) chosen as the official money of the country. A Constitutional dollar was held to be 371.25 grains of silver = .7734375 of a troy oz. It would be a coin slightly more than ¾ an oz. of silver and such were minted into the 19th century and served as the national commodity currency with various monetary reforms, etc. including the issuance of gold coins and silver coins at the 1 troy oz standard.
The Constitution never allowed the government to issue paper money. Never! It's not because those around at the time had no idea of paper money. It was not invented by the British colonists (the Chinese may have invented it), but the American colonies did issue paper money and for the most part, until the British started counterfeiting paper Continentals, it worked very well, which was the real reason for the American revolution. The mother country was involved in a world war and needed hard specie (precious metals) to fund their war efforts and needed to grab it from whatever source. You can all guess where the silver and gold were bound now can't you? Anyway, from day to day business, you all know damn well that paper money instruments work just fine. What you don't understand is what money must represent; splitting the barter which never goes away, and so if these pieces of paper somehow do not agree with the actual barter in society, that money is suspect. The music stops when money is no longer accepted in trade or when it becomes so rare that nobody has any of it.
I have seen some of this colonial money in some collections, but never have I seen in person, to hold in my hand, a Continental, real or counterfeit. I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference without analysis of the actual materials, especially the ink used. The original paper currency of the United States remains somewhat rare, because I assume most of it was destroyed, perhaps on purpose, probably by bankers. You can get one, perhaps a $4 bill, which says it is the Continental Currency of the United Colonies for $350.
I want you all to remember that the inflation in Continentals was due entirely to Bank of England instigated (yes, I'm accusing them directly!) counterfeiting of Continentals! And of course there was a lot of trade between the new United States and Britain and all accounts were inevitably settled in silver and sometimes in gold. This meant that one could actually buy precious metals with Continentals. So how do you drive up the exchange and break the Continental? You print up more Continentals and then start trafficking them for goods by offering more of them in trade for some measure of goods. The new government of the United States could not deficit spend into infinity, so they had no way to contribute to price inflation. The reason for the Constitution was so that the new American government could borrow money. The original US government bought far less than any government that followed it under the Constitution of 1787.
The reason Congress was forbidden under the Constitution from issuing or printing any paper money is because the Constitution was first and foremost a formative commercial document intended to bring the new American government into the worldwide fold of the money lenders, who have always controlled gold and silver from mines to markets, and THEY didn't want any of the governments to be issuing their own paper money; oh no, they had to borrow it all from a bank, of course. So, who really won the American war of independence? Whose money do we use anyway?
I'm not really surprised that most people don't know what the Constitution really was and is. It was and is a commercial contract with the rest wrapped around it. The Bill of Rights is the ONLY part of it that is ours; our part of the agreement was the rest of it. We held the government and its creditors to the Bill of Rights that THEY were supposed to respect and never breach. But THEY are dragons and will “do as THEY wilt” and so it is THEY who have broken all ten of the amendments and have wrecked for the most part all of the foreign policy of America to stand for the whims and adventures of rich CAPITALIST rascals, both foreign and domestic. Most don't know that because after all, most of us attended government schools with THEIR own agenda embedded so deeply inside these bastions of statism, that we would never have found out for ourselves until we took the trouble to find out for ourselves what became the obvious, right in front of us, as it crossed our careers and lives.
Most don't know that the Constitution was literally voided as a valid contract back in 1861 when the Southern states exercised their perfectly legitimate natural right to pull out of an agreement that was clearly against their own interests. Perhaps gaslighting has been around much longer than we think; the fraudsters tell you that some agreement they made with a pack of foreign bankers is really the people's when it was drawn up in secret, under armed guard, and then pushed through all the state legislatures to get the thing accepted as we suppose it was. What did it say up front? We the people, etc.? All a huge sales pitch for national indentured servitude to international banksters from then on! So until we have a thorough audit of the Constitution, specifically how every last amendment after the 13th was enacted, including the original 13th, that we want back, the repeal and repulsion from law and society of the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments and probably all the rest thereafter as not duly ratified under the actual original terms of the document itself. We know almost for certain that he 14th amendment and all law connected to it, all the so called “civil rights” which defy all natural rights, of right should be totally abolished and all so called law and rules following from it ripped from the statute law books across the land. But that's not what this blog is about. Promoting a complementary monetary system is enough of a challenge.
So what is Dennis going on about now? He isn't alone. There are plenty of people out there thinking along the lines he sets forth. We'll explain as we parse his remarks:
(1) Rescind the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and replace all Federal Reserve notes and check book balances in all U.S. banking institutions (and any other domestic credit-creating institutions) on a 1-to-1 basis with U.S. Treasury-issued dollars and U.S. Treasury-denominated bank balances.
First off, this is what Lincoln did and what Napoleon wanted to do. It is the same idea promoted by Bill Still and others. Is any of this possible? No, it isn't. Why? Because THEY (usual suspects as described elsewhere throughout this blog) run the show … until THEY don't. What would it take to remove THEM? Elections? What have we learned lately without a question of any doubt concerning any elections? So what does it really take to bring these things about? Power other than civilized is violence. Are you suggesting that we advocate preemptive violence? We will leave that to THEM. What do we decide to do when THEY bring violence upon us for distancing ourselves from THEM? THAT is the real question more of us should be asking ourselves right now. What will be our response? We know already that THEY initiate violence in order to encourage more violence; organized violence = war, which is very profitable to the bankers and military industrialists. It's our response to THEIR expected initiation of violence that we need to decide upon. But that's not the purpose of this blog either.
Now, what have we said about the difference between barter and money? Barter is simple trade of things for things or sometimes services for services: a trade among time worked for goods and services. If rather than excepting something traded for barter, one gets a token used as some kind of exchangeable measure of value for fulfillment of barter either soon or later, then whatever that token is becomes money.
If we use gold and silver coins as tokens and refuse to account for any trades using them (what some people imagine they want), we are still operating at the level of whole barter, because both silver and gold have other uses besides as money. The third party in any trade using them is the dealer you bought your coins from.
But if we add the accounting and tokens are made of paper, then we move away from whole barter to split-barter. However, barter never went away. A return to barter is a return to whole barter which would plunge society back to times when life was truly nasty, brutish and short.
One other point: since gold and silver are commodities and since there are other monetary systems, there are speculators who do not make money unless prices change. So today that chunk of gold buys one thing and the next day something else. Precious metals are many things, but one is that they are relatively scarce and this is believed to prevent the money losing its purchasing power.
So tell me, have you ever taken precious metals in pay for any work you have ever done? Right, I guessed that no one out there has actually received trade for their labor in silver or gold. According to the US Constitution, all of us should have been paid in nothing but gold and silver. Have we? So you tell me where the fraud lies and how far back does it go?
Dennis (and others) suppose that all we need to do is replace the outer accounting in the PRIVATE Federal Reserve with an inner accounting within the PUBLIC US Treasury department. Do you ever expect to see anything like the transparency required to do this? All this proposal has ever meant is to exchange one set of knaves for yet another, and since the revolving door still operates, and will operate too, between the Treasury and the private banks, what's the difference? FRN's or TN's? There is no difference.
Then we have the real issue of backing. If all the money issued under such a scheme were taxed back and re-spent (that is there would be little or no borrowing from the public), the money supply would be fully backed, but eventually not be able to keep an economy going due to depreciation of assets not of the money itself.
The governments are the first buyers under such a system and why should that be? Right, it doesn't belong to any government by any natural right; it is a scam perpetrated on the general public since forever. And they buy what they want rather than what we want. This is where I compare whining people petitioning their government for spending changes as similar to kids in the back seat of a car complaining about how their father or mother might be driving the car.
So, all this commotion concerning taxpayers' money is strictly speaking horseshit, because ALL money collected by the IRS goes directly back to the central bank for payment of interest on the government's loan of money from THEM. The public debt can get stratospheric, but the game continues and just because you might have some other idea and may think so doesn't make it so. Most taxpayers think the money they pay in taxes is actually theirs too. It isn't and everybody is a debt slave.
But back to backing. All that money that was spent was issued by the government, an actor in the economy that cannot sell back into the market what value was represented in the money they spent. So all that money must be taxed back to be backed for future spending. It isn't of course, so it floats around starting from the winners of government contracts, most of which buys rapidly depreciating products (anything that can't be sold for what was paid for it) so that money is lost. The rest of the money flowing from the font of government spending dribbles down until a few have enough money to offer others work. Understood? This solution does NOT solve anything! But we don't care as we expected that it wouldn't anyway. It has already been tried and THEY put a stop to it because THEY control states.
First we have to get away from the most obvious misconception: NONE OF THE MONEY WE HAVE EVER USED IN OUR LIVES ACTUALLY BELONGS TO US. All the baloney I hear every day about protests about government spending OUR TAX DOLLARS is complete foolishness. NONE of the money we pay in taxes is ours even if we earned it with real work. Terms of our labor and payment for labor are indications of our slavery, not of our freedom.
(2) Honor only the repayment of principal on all presently existing financial contracts in the U.S. Federal Reserve banking system and prohibit the interest payments on these fraudulent contracts. Payments on principal for these presently existing financial contracts are not to be extinguished from the money supply, as is heretofore the case. Prohibit all future lending by any banking institution of funds which do not originate from actual savings of the holders of the new U.S. Treasury dollar notes and U.S. Treasury denominated bank balances and stringently require any interest charges to be determined solely by the two parties involved in these valid loan contracts. (A valid loan contract is an actual lending of the previous savings of one party to another party for a stipulated time period.)
Now this is a lengthy and weighty paragraph, so we'll wade into it
Honor only the repayment of principal on all presently existing financial contracts in the U.S. Federal Reserve banking system and prohibit the interest payments on these fraudulent contracts.
Any sensible person would regard this as the honoring of fraudulent contracts when the rightful penalty by real natural law would normally be TWICE THE PRINCIPAL to be repaid … to who? … by the perpetrators of these frauds. So are these really fraudulent contracts?
It depends on one's perception. If one thinks it is natural to have a dragon you are forced to live with in your house, then I guess maybe. But again, what power does anyone have to actually accomplish this? And then, so what? What one has to get through one's head is that the state and the banks are both not just necessary evils, they are damned evils that imperil life itself, that we do best to stay away from and out of, in order to avoid being caught up in their games, frauds, schemes, blood sports, etc. The message has always been “come out of her, my people” and to build a monetary system in parallel with THEIRS and begin using it, so that when the worst possible happens, we will have our own money in place to eventually repudiate and renounce any of THEIRS.
Payments on principal for these presently existing financial contracts are not to be extinguished from the money supply, as is heretofore the case.
Honestly, we don't care. It's THEIR money, not ours and if THEY can't maintain an economy, even for the grand and stated purposes of looting the rest of us, then the rest of us have the right and the ability (there are many very gifted people out there whose talents can find no natural market) to form our own peer to peer networks and institute our own monetary system.
ATTENTION: NONE of the cryptocurrencies are yours. These are more of THEIR frauds. We don't give a damn who is behind them either. So what? They are not from and of us. They are in fact false paradigms based on an idea of a rare artificial commodity pricing all other commodities. With all due respect, the ways most of these come into existence is by methods that none of us would regard as real work; so called mining does not impress us, sorry (not really).
Prohibit all future lending by any banking institution of funds which do not originate from actual savings
This is one of the pillars of the proposed Valun based system. One cannot loan to another that which one does not already have. Logically all loaned funds must have originated with savings. All loaned money in the proposal must have come into existence first; no lending institution can ever create money out of nothing, because they have a special right to do so. This is usury and theft from everyone else and is absolutely prohibited in the proposal. One cannot be forced to pay back that which was never issued. It benefits money lenders above all others in society and we will have an end of it!
… of the holders of the new U.S. Treasury dollar notes and U.S. Treasury denominated bank balances and stringently require any interest charges to be determined solely by the two parties involved in these valid loan contracts.
Yes of course, but we go one step farther: in the proposal, since rents of money lent must be paid and agreed to by the two parties, and since compounding of interest (another huge scam) is forbidden, all rents of money lent must be paid up front from again existing sources of money. In this way, usury is a defeated dragon. If one cannot pay the rent for borrowing money up front (to be maintained for all credit contracts above one year in length out to 49 years), then what business have you to be borrowing money anyway? Better to find something useful to offer and sell it for Valuns. They will be worth earning!
We intend to reinstate a robust economy by encouraging work and savings and discouraging debt and maintaining our Valun as a superior vehicle for preserving purchasing power over ALL possible contenders, or else why bother? The Valun will be worth saving, especially as the natural economy in peer to peer networked trade builds.
You'll notice something: there is never to be allowed a means whereby those who didn't make something (real wealth that produces an income or it isn't wealth) can be taken away by those who only had the credit money to buy it out from under a debt encumbered owner. Yes, wealth building and wealth preservation are very much of interest to us and at the heart of this proposal. Everyone who has been serious about these matters knows it too.
(A valid loan contract is an actual lending of the previous savings of one party to another party for a stipulated time period.)
It will be the case under the proposal. All credit contracts are voluntary and under agreed upon terms and fulfillment of contracts will earn you notice and respect among all the other members of your local exchange or any other Valun exchange member you might deal with.
(3) Fund infrastructure projects nationwide which cross state borders with U.S. Treasury-issued currency in amounts proportional to the population of each state affected and without leaving any state's cross-border infrastructure needs unfunded. These infrastructure projects are to be authorized by Acts of Congress and can include, but not exclusively of other examples of infrastructure, roads, airports, harbors, waterways, pipelines, electric utility lines, high speed rail, etc. all such projects being put out to bid to private companies on a competitive basis.
I hate to break it to you all, but all such spending is actually unconstitutional (see Article 10) and it is the responsibility of each state to deal with financing its own infrastructure. Else, if allowed (and of course it has been), then this is some false stimulus to an economy that hasn't been asked of by the people involved whether they wanted to have or fund such projects or not.
The American interstate highway system was based on what Hitler had done in Germany and admired by Eisenhower and others. Spending for it was considered part of national security and all the roads and overpasses were supposed to accommodate any military vehicles. But whether or no, we are more concerned with rebuilding the local economies in all countries everywhere and we are sure that as each community thrives, its own ability to finance paving the roads, etc. will improve.
One contracts for all infrastructure jobs the same as for any other construction and most graft can be least practiced where better exposed at each local level. Since at present, the proposal does not allow governments or non profits to become members, the future dealing with these in Valuns would require local bond issues in Valuns and again, where is that money to come from? From the savings of those most affected in their own areas.
(4) Fund the U.S. Military with Treasury-issued currency.
Again, what the state decides to pay their military personnel and with what is their business. All we say is that we allow every past or present military person in our communities the right to earn Valuns along with dollars and to be paid in Valuns as well as dollars regarding any pension benefits. We want and welcome these military people and their families as members. They have mostly been mistreated by society and deserve our help too. And we will need their help.
(5) Fund Disability and Medical Insurance for all U.S. citizens with Treasury-issued currency, awarding contracts to private firms for such services on an openly competitive basis and in such a manner as to apportion the created funding according to each State's population.
This is also strictly speaking unconstitutional. When did we ever get it into our heads to ask the government to reduce risks for people's health? If people want health insurance let it be competitive and private and it would produce the best results within a certain price range for services. So if you're talking about providing such for the poor, then again you're breaking the Constitution. Why did we have poverty and why do we still have it? There are many perfectly natural factors including natural disasters and unforeseen calamities, epidemic disease outbreaks, structural changes in the patters of employment as industries shift from one phase to the next. Even regular household products eventually reach a saturation point. How long before the number of products produced can no longer be sold even at constant levels of production? What is particularly irksome is the notion of entitlement to goods and services where none really exists: there's no such thing as a free lunch. That's true even if you eat your lunch at home too. So what's so different about healthcare? Is all the medical insurance in the world going to guarantee your next heartbeat? THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES and expecting far more than is reasonable from perhaps wanton disregard for health risks is … naturally to be borne by the person taking the risk, not the rest of society.
But how would our proposal deal with this? First of all, anyone who has been living on a pension since Valun inception (11/2/11) gets the accumulated pension and payments thereafter in Valuns plus monthly payments in Valuns equivalent to what they receive in public money. That starts all seniors with an issuance balance that may be quite large. If they need help and people are willing to contract to help them in Valuns, then … maybe other alternative forms of medical treatment will finally be able to be adequately paid for what they're worth, etc. Our proposal would inevitably break the grip of THEIR medical dictatorship of the pharma (sorcerer) drug cartels.
(6) Continue to fund Social Security retirement liabilities separately by a tax on workers’ incomes throughout their working life and absolutely sequester these funds from any outflow payments other than to retirees.
THEY can do as THEY like. We have already said what we would do for all and anyone presently living from a pension. They would be able to issue Valuns equivalent to what they received from THEM in THEIR money. Many who are retired might choose to become useful capitalists (providing finance for items that require it within their communities) or might be willing to buy into health coverage plans set up by health practitioners to be paid in Valuns and enough public money to cover taxes. What this does is relieve the system from any extra strain as the 1% who already have 97% of all the financial assets sure could use it more than you need to support your health. And furthermore since none of THEIR money is ever yours, you are making deals with dragons anyway. Better, far better for each to have their own and know from the outset that it belongs to each member.
(7) Abolish the Federal Income Tax and institute a federal sales tax with a varying yearly tax rate adjusted by the U.S. Congress in session, the sole aim of such adjustments being to maintain a stable Consumer Price Index based on data collected by the Federal Government. Any such sales taxes taken in by the Federal Government are simply extinguished from the currency supply to keep the Consumer Price Index stable or decreasing.
Everything mentioned here is of course THEIR business, not ours. We have to get used to seeing things that way so as not to be confused or abused. First we have the notion of the money being the responsibility of the state. What an atrocious idea! We take the most important function we have, an extension of our will, our fiat and award it to a bunch of known knaves and scoundrels! Far better to join with your friends and neighbors and OWN one's own position in one's own money system (you see how the state and THEIR money system atomizes everyone so few actually know ones friends and neighbors anymore, something else this proposal intends to change). At present I regard the repeal of all income taxes everywhere as necessary to promoting freedom, but I'd give less chance of it ever happening, until the government is literally declared a joke and the bankers taken out to the gallows than …. than that a teacup orbits the planet Mars. None of that concerns this blog. We have to live with taxes as they are imposed by law and law is FORCE.
(8) There are to be only two federal taxes levied on the American citizenry: sales taxes, receipts of which are extinguished to prevent inflation; and social security taxes applied to retirement accounts. Thus there is no need for the Internal Revenue Service. That agency is hereby abolished and the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution voided.
And after all is said and done, can any of this be expected to be accomplished short of violence and if then just what would you have? It wouldn't be any freer a country and a lot of innocent blood might be shed over a reform that would accomplish little or nothing.
I have two BIG criticisms: 1) All of it applies to states not to us so I don't really care as it's nothing any of us can do anything about and as I said there are no guarntees that any of this would help anybody moving forward. And 2) all of it concerns itself with THEIR economics based on THEIR ideas which are NOT SCIENCE! Even if they were, this blog has adequately disproved most of THEIR economics and will continue to do so. Bring it on! I was once on the inside so I know damn well how bankers operate; mostly as pirates open for any opportunity to make money on money without work. OK?
The Valun system places issuance of money squarely where it belongs; with each one of us, not some government or bank, because WE WILL (fiat) and whether THEY can FORCE us to accept certain things, ultimately it will all be foreign to us; THEY have stolen our fiat which is ultimately why THEIR system fails and has done so many times before this and shall again.
So regardless of what THEY decide to do, we had best decide to do what we need to do for ourselves. Hasn't that been clearly expressed throughout this blog? The real question is what level of testosterone has the system left the average person? Why so few responses? Hmmmm?
David Burton
dpbmss@mail.com
[9/28/17 Q: Have you seen this? Specifically what do you say concerning reliance on electronic or electric networks? Is it ever possible to hide anything from governments? Boris in Minsk
A: I wouldn't know, Boris. I suspect that criminals who defy natural law against LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY of other people, whether they represent states or not, are still criminals. Crime likes networks and tends to operate under hierarchies where the pay starts from the top and trickles down; gangsters hiring other gangsters to do crimes with “plausible deniability,” etc.
Our proposal recognizes that all value and determination of value originates in each one of us, we determine and maintain a standard, we support natural law, we support natural human rights, the rights no one has to go into some fake admiralty law court to decide.
Our message is to provide a means to finally “come out of her, my people” instead of figuring out how best we can deal with “necessary evils.” So no, crime being crime, I suspect that the same kinds of people who consistently break the basic law stipulated in the American Bill of Rights, will continue to do so; THEY usually take whatever they like because THEY live under “do as thou wilt” rather than any law. THEY live by brute FORCE, the law of the jungle. THEY commit terrible crimes and never get justice for what harm THEY have done.
But yes, we do see the problem with reliance on electronic or electric reliance for money and monetary systems. Obviously our V-Check proposal for cash instruments provides some help, but ultimately as we have consistently maintained, money always involves three people; the buyer the seller and the accountant. Money is accounting and all reports required to backup accounts MUST be on paper.
Q: Could you ever see the Valun as carried over a blockchain network? Eric in Zurich
A: We aren't even off the ground. It takes recognition by lots of people to get something like this going. We appreciate what the blockchain is supposed to represent, and we are aware of how the basic concept works, but all we could see as a benefit is that all transactions will be both encrypted and separated from each other and presumably could be transmitted faster as the blocks do not need to be any bigger than 256 characters. But we don't care about a service that carries the accounting around with it. All the accounting needs to be done locally even though we use the same ledger.
The biggest difference between a Valun and a bitcoin or any of THEIR money is that all Valuns are based on a transaction that has already happened, so there is no speculation or opportunity for speculators within the proposal. The daily exchange rate is merely today's value of that initial transaction. We want our money to be a steady yardstick of value, immune from the usual causes of price inflation and thus all notions of money being a commodity pricing all other commodities and that money must be a purposely scarce commodity are demolished by our proposal. Ours is not a “buy and hold” investment as ALL cryptocurrencies are. THEIR system benefits those who live without work, the real sponges on society at or near the top. Our proposal recognizes that the fiat to issue money is a natural right of each of us and we propose a framework to make that recognition a working reality.]
