Yes, they misspelled spigot. We left it as is. The analysis of the current system is excellent as usual. Smith neglected to mention that the interest demanded by the central banks was from money which was never created. It's one thing to issue money from nothing. It's another to insist that one pays back from what was NOT created. THAT as we have consistently maintained is the cancer in the form of mountains of unpayable debt which eventually destroys host economies and topples governments. But Smith also discusses two things which are also not consistent with reality; continual growth of enterprise in terms of actual scale and robotics and AI technology. If there is no money available in whatever form, then who buys anything? AI and robotics? Who needs them? They will become about as useful as poetry. Just because some widget heads in Palo Alto develop it doesn't mean the world will automatically accept it.
The real issues concern the uses of common words. If they are misused or issues such as the limit to growth of business enterprises are ignored, then one eventually experiences catastrophe. Smith's analysis of the fate of universal welfare is also spot on, but not for the reasons he supposes. It is entirely due to STOLEN fiat and STOLEN responsibility. Stolen fiat is the crime of all banking and stolen responsibility the crime of all states.
The fiat and responsibility belongs with each of us from the ground up, not the top down. That way the money is OURS and is issued by US not THEM. Entirely that and the elimination of usury, the demand of a return of that which was never created in the first place; in common parlance, stealing! Capitalism, limited to making money on money that already exists rather than on demanding back what never existed would be a necessary improvement; you want to borrow someone's money, you pay the cost of renting that money up front from already existing money, the result being that you in fact borrow less money. It seems simple but it makes all the difference in the world.
We would also do ourselves a favor by limiting the ability to borrow money to 80% of projected income. Then, fewer people would borrow excessive amounts of money and there would be fewer bankruptcies.
But I've also laid bare the actual situation: work is the time anyone takes out of their lives to earn barter in terms of money. Work is an expression of one's innate wealth, and ALL wealth must produce income or it is just stuff which may and probably will depreciate so it loses money over time. Anything losing value over time proves that money itself is a naturally perishable commodity; over time if nobody does anything, there is less and less available money. Now if debts create mountains and can not be paid off then what are they actually worth? Getting it?
The reason to ban cash is to further control, to prop up the new goods markets and destroy the value of all used goods, to eliminate the lower rungs of an economy while keeping the upper ones going, etc. It's all doomed. Why? Perception. ALL WEALTH MUST GENERATE INCOME OR IT IS NOT WEALTH. If you or I do not generate wealth FROM OURSELVES then eventually everything fails. If there are too many regulations, and too many people employed as regulators, then what say we of their roles in society? We'd say they are clearly parasites as are all the bankers who demand back what was not created.
So if you automate or do something to take someone's real job away, what you have done is to DESTROY WEALTH. Understood? ALL income destruction is the destruction of wealth. Any enterprise may be enlarged up to the point where its ability to function profitably is eventually overtaken by the expenses to keep it all going, the diminishing returns to scale law which is a real natural law and cannot be evaded. This means that redundancy in production is necessary and natural and all centralization and standardization beyond a certain size is not natural. You fly against nature only so long and you crash. All the big monstrosities that have been built over the last 50 years are dinosaurs and will need to be dismantled and torn down.
So, I think I've said plenty for now except to underline once more the necessary apolitical position this news puts anyone in who sees things clearly; no matter how brilliant, anointed, wished for, etc. some particular people are in positions of prestige, leadership and power on the political stage, is in really just more indications of the same; stolen fiat and responsibility from each and every one of us. Digital technologies? We could and did live without them and getting back to paper ballots and yes, paper money and paper checks (sorry) is the sure way forward. Really liked the ancient Rome analogy as though we were asked what we are doing with the rest of our lives except watching circuses on TV while we stuff our faces with plenty of government issued GMO bread and getting fat and lazy and dying young. We need to start redirecting our lives toward what we can and will do to earn our own money that we issue ourselves, not from any government or bank. Period!
Oh and since money is a resource that requires replenishment or economies die, the more people who actually work at things (and generate money thereby), the better off they will be and their families and communities and nations and countries with them. Governments will have to get smaller then because all the real money will be ours and we will decide whether to lend it to them based on our ability to handle the debt burden of taxes that result.
Best
.
No comments:
Post a Comment