It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conventional Wisdom About Money Is False

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
The problem is even more fundamental than that. People with two completely different visions, should not coexist too closely with each other. The solution is the two, the pro-government vs the anarchist, need to be separated once and for all. Let them both find their own path after that.

I would love to have a go at anarchy on a modest-sized piece of arable land.

Unfortunately the pro-government people control the entire world and none of them are keen on giving anything up for an experiment. The separation you speak of must start with them.

But I suspect they don't go for the idea because we're too productive and they won't be able to loot us anymore.

It would be a fun experiment, but I honestly think an anarchy would result in a government once a handful of people accumulated enough wealth and sought to keep it. That's what happened in America, anyway. Government is a manifestation of the evil side of human nature. It would be silly to think that side of us would go away just because we abolished one instance of its collective manifestation. It would return in a new form.

But I'm a pessimist like that.




[edit on 20-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
It would be a fun experiment, but I honestly think an anarchy would result in a government once a handful of people accumulated enough wealth and sought to keep it.

Doesn't that mean anarchy is just the beginning of tyranny?

What do you think an anarchy truly is? In anarchy the law of the jungle is the norm, where the strong preys upon the weak. It means in truth, America curently is already in or at least going toward anarchy, you just don't realize it because people just love to play the blame game. Anarchy only arise if the government becomes inefficient. The solution is not to destroy the government, but to restore its efficiency. But of course anarchy may still be better than the police state depending on the situation.

If anarchy does finally happen, I suggest you hide yourself, it's better, it's the law of the jungle, the predators are more vicious, since the nation will reverts to its primal state.

Oh yeah btw, the pro-government will consider you as liability, eventually they will leave you all alone. Since robots will finally become more productive than humans as the source of labor.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
This is especially true in a democracy, where by the time you make it to the top, in order to not have already committed political suicide you've already sold your soul a hundred times over.


I agree with this. The U.S. government right now is a cesspool.

I think the cause is money in politics. I believe political advertising, which is what costs so much to run for office, should be banned, along with political contributions. Elections should be paid for by the taxpayer. I also think political parties do more harm than good. I would like to see just candidates - no parties.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by eNumbra
 


Gold doesn't have an intrinsic value either.. it's accepted because people believe it's worth something (gasp!) just like ... fiat (which means Command) money........

I agree with the OP .. the problem has nothing to do with "what" our money is, but how it's used and for what purposes.


Gold has enormously high conductivity making it valuable in electronics applications. It also has possibly unmatched resistance to rusting, making it perfect for outdoor electronics or submersible electronics.

A typical computer may have something like a gram of gold. A gram of gold does not sound like much but it adds up quickly when you consider how many computers are out there and how little gold there is out there.

If gold prices went down to $5,000 a ton like a number of other metals, up from tens of millions per ton today, all of it would immediately fly off the shelves for its electronic applications alone even without considering things like its beauty and anti-corrosive properties.

There are rumors iridium may reach sky high prices too because the formerly useless metal is now very useful in plasma screen TVs.

Silver is valuable too. While silver does not have as strong anti-corrosive properties, it has natural anti-biotic properties which makes it great for a huge range of things like handles and silverware. Silver should probably trade higher while gold should trade lower.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
I would love to have a go at anarchy on a modest-sized piece of arable land.


Please define "anarchy" as you understand the term.

Does it mean no government and no taxes? No courts? No laws?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
I would love to have a go at anarchy on a modest-sized piece of arable land.


Please define "anarchy" as you understand the term.

Does it mean no government and no taxes? No courts? No laws?

Yup.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


Yes! Let's use our precious metals to make things.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


In an anarchy, every family for themselves?

Who would build the roads? How about traffic lights?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 

The jungle eventually settles into equilibrium. Out of chaos order is born.

I think a civilization composed entirely of self-reliant people (and willing people: I'm not asking anybody who likes government to partake in the experiment if they don't want to) is worth a shot. I think it would be peaceful and prosperous for a while, before the demons return. Don't forget, the New World was once an anarchy for all practical purposes. Look what it accomplished before its corruption.

You might be right, or might not. It's not something I really want to debate. I'd just love to give it a shot, and it's not me but governments holding me back, and that's all I wanted to point out in that post.

But you don't have to participate if you don't want to. If I'm an idiot who unknowingly elects to have a nasty, brutish, and short life getting robbed and shot ASAP, that's my own fault.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In an anarchy, every family for themselves?

If they want to live only for themselves. But being a good neighbor has benefits. Who helps the solitary recluse when he's in need? Nobody, unless he's lucky enough to encounter someone feeling particularly charitable.



Originally posted by Mary Rose
Who would build the roads? How about traffic lights?

I prefer to wait and see. The thing about self-organizing systems is you never really know what to expect.

But I must say a group of people who can't figure out a way to build infrastructure for themselves is a rather sorry lot.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 

The jungle eventually settles into equilibrium. Out of chaos order is born.

The jungle is not chaotic, it's brutal. It always try to maintain balance, in a brutal fashion. It has order, it uses the law of the jungle.


I'd just love to give it a shot, and it's not me but governments holding me back, and that's all I wanted to point out in that post.

I'm really sorry that the government currently is holding you back. Are you sure you got no place to go? What about native american reservation?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I came across this article by checking Max Keiser's website.


The problem isn’t that our money isn’t gold-backed. The problem isn’t fiat money. The problem is that all money is hierarchically controlled as an asset to private sector institutions and elite capital holders who have the ability to call-in their chips, i.e. your bank digits, whereas it’s an interest-bearing debt to governments and the people.



The notion that money is controlled by private sector capitalist interest is just plain stupid. Money is controlled by fascists, a merger of public and private interests. It is misinformation to say money is in private hands just as it would be to say its in public hands. Its in a fascist merger of both... though "elite" definitely does describe who controls our money supply.

In the US and I presume other countries, money is controlled through government monopoly rights. Only the Federal Reserve is authorized to sell things labeled money, as the FBI raiding of Liberty Dollar clearly shows. I'd probably be using Liberty dollars right now if the FBI didn't raid their office and STEAL their gold and silver with intention to keep it and never give it back.

The long-term solution to our financial crisis is to allow private parties to compete with the US dollar in whatever way they wish. If Keiser says the solution is government control of money he is clueless.

As for the gold standard, is well proven to actually work because it puts limitations on fascism's grip on the money supply. It works just as advertised to keep inflation down. So of course it would be an improvement to what we have now. Its not as good as capitalism but it is a big step up.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
I'm really sorry that the government currently is holding you back. Are you sure you got no place to go? What about native american reservation?

I've actually never thought of that. If they truly are an anarchy it could be worth a look. Although I'm not sure how the Indians would feel about me and a bunch of white libertarian friends coming to crash the party.

Of course, there's the rub. Not only is all good land in the world under the control of government, but it's also inhabited. So it may not be government holding me back after all, but reality.

That's why I was envisioning more of a "community secession" approach to the experiment. Get a community of like-minded people to declare its independence. Of course, the state would have to go along with it or we'd just all get massacred (law of the jungle and rule of the strong, indeed).



[edit on 20-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
I'm really sorry that the government currently is holding you back. Are you sure you got no place to go? What about native american reservation?

I've actually never thought of that. If they truly are an anarchy it could be worth a look.

Not really, but you got a preview of life far from the city bureaucracy.


Although I'm not sure how the Indians would feel about me and a bunch of white libertarian friends coming to crash the party.

Of course, there's the rub. Not only is all good land in the world under the control of government, but it's also inhabited. So it may not be government holding me back after all, but reality.

But that's what will happen, when the central government collapse, you will have to live with this smaller community and accept its custom, maybe you will like it, maybe you won't. Unless you can find an uninhabited land of course.


That's why I was envisioning more of a "community secession" approach to the experiment. Get a community of like-minded people to declare its independence. Of course, the state would have to go along with it or we'd just all get massacred (law of the jungle and rule of the strong, indeed).

Okay. Basically smaller american tribes, like native american tribes only this time it's immigrant american tribes. If you don't fight each other tribes, it might work.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I will have to apologize as I was not clear on my meaning earlier; I was in a bit of a rush and had to leave for work and had no chance to go back and make an edit. There is a little more I can expand with and I know there are a couple in this thread I could directly reply to with this

Gold has no natural actual value really, no. It's only value comes from and arbitrary equation balancing its beauty and scarcity as it is with all precious metals and gemstones per person; each person actually values it a little differently. What we consider its value is derived from what society as a whole places on it (the typical or average); that value however has been shown to fluctuate very little on its own.

By the definition of intrinsic, the only things that have intrinsic value are those that stand as a necessity: food and water for example. Even these however are subject to high amounts of fluctuation based on the market and surroundings. Everyone needs fresh water but obviously fresh water is worth more to a man in the desert or a man at sea than it is to a man surrounded by mountain springs. Bushels of wheat grain are worth plenty to everyone, except of course, the man allergic to wheat gluten. I suppose one could argue that these are more examples of market value but since not everybody can grow their own food or farm their own livestock and most people now live in urban and suburban areas, trading for apples and chickens is much more difficult.

I, as most should, have a terrible time trying to imagine paying for computer parts with a goat and a basket of apples. This then is where the real value of gold comes from. Its beauty and scarcity create its worth (presumed or not) and make it desirable. The intrinsic value of gold is not in the gold itself, but in gold as a medium of exchange. Easy to transport in coin form, its metalurgic properties guarantee that it can be recovered if degraded or diluted... etc. Society has placed upon gold a fairly standardized value that can be easily weighed against goods and services and use gold as the token of exchange.

The real problem with fiat and fractional-reserve banking comes when the monetary supply is diluted when someone, looking to make a profit begins fiddling with the process. This can be seen in ages past, when precious metal coin was coming into first use as less-than-honest merchants, smiths and anyone else who could handle the coin would shave minute amounts from properly regulated and stamped pieces to melt the shavings down later to recast into more coins. It continued to happen later when people began to leave their coin in the bank's and smith's vaults and were issued receipts for their gold. Since only a small fraction of people would withdraw their coin at a time some banks began issuing more receipts than they had gold.

The issue will always be people looking for free money and easy profit; but in my opinion precious metal standard is the real way to regulate the issue as it tends, as history can teach us, to regulate itself. Even if you managed to remove all of the corrupt elements of the Federal Reserve and all central banking systems without something real behind them, they're still just pieces of paper whose only claim to worth is legislated by the government.


You can look up the history of Fiat and Fractional Reserve banking yourselves. It's a long and storied history of corruption and monetary shenanigans. The Creature from Jekyll Island is a good place to start.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Regarding the monetary system, a quote by the Pleiadian called Maggador:




Regarding monetary system, this is the main entity through the banking system that keep us enslaved to a large degree, constantly trying to get hold of an illusion they have created that most people buy into: That we need money to survive, and that money is worth something - while the truth is that money is nothing more than a great scam on humankind, some pieces of paper with some illustrations on them, and for the major parts only numbers in computer system for amounts that do not even exist physicall. Nor is this money backed up with anything of real value, such as in older times when you could exchange your money bills into its worths of gold in the bank, thus having something solid backing it up. Now, money is just made from thin air and given a value by those powers that be in control, and they decide how much they want to create and how they want to influence the world with that money etc.

As a sidenote, it was the very negative forces working for the ones controlling the Trap System that created the banking institutions as we know them around 1000 years ago through the secret occult order of the Knights Templars, they did a good job (for their own agenda) and turned people into more slavery than ever before.

People came long before money, and lived fine without it for hundreds of thousands of years and it has only existed a fraction of the time humans have lived on Earth yet probably been the cause of greater problems than much else in that large timespan before money was used.


Source: www.godlikeproductions.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
How secure is Gold, or Gold paper claims, I suppose gold coins would be ideal but coins would not be very cost effective.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
There will never be freedom until money is abolished completely.

You all can argue about fiat vs gold private vs public government vs the fed all day it is all slavery! Its part of the concept of fictional scarcity, everyone should be encouraged to pursue whatever they want to. Paying your dues, tenure all that is bs used to keep the system in place.

As far as anarchy, there are communitys everywhere. They are communal in nature and people would tend to call that Communist but not so there is no tax or forced taxing of wealth just caring people sharing. I know of two one in Humboldt California and one in Boone NC. They work just fine.

This may sound like a racist comment but it isn't. White people for some reason are obsessed with the founding fathers as if they were such great men I can assure you they were not!

The founding fathers were thieves, rapists, and slave masters, with huge plantations.
They stole the Cherokee constitution adapted it slightly and used it as there own.
They fathered many "mulatto" children as they frequently raped there female slaves.
They did not work hard, they were not self sufficient, their slaves did the work while they sat about drinking lemonade.
The only exception was Ben Franklin because at least he invented something.

Life is much better on a whole for EVERYONE NOW than in the early days of this country so please don't get it confused. And please stop glorifying these men. Thats the main problem with Libertarians and constitutionalists, they ignore this reality thus disenfranchising educated blacks and Latinos and natives who are center to left of center. If they would stop the rhetoric we could all come together and fight this corrupt fascist system.

So realize, if we do get free from this debt slavery it will be a first in this country and truly something special, far above and beyond this founding snipper nonsense.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
In and of itself, money as a medium of exchange of goods and services is not evil. Unless we want to barter, which is impractical, we need money. Actually, the wise management of money is part of the art of living, in my opinion.

What needs to be done is to free ourselves from the con job that is our system: the scarcity of credit for ordinary people to start enterprises to produce goods and services to exchange. Our system is in the control of banksters who collect interest payments in return for no work or product of their own - they're not exchanging anything - they're just parasites.

Currency backed by precious metals unnecessarily limits the total wealth the overall population can achieve, in my opinion. And allowing bankers to control who gets loans gives them too much power.

I like Ellen Brown's idea of the government issuing currency and loans to start up businesses using the interest paid in place of taxes.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
In Chapter 3 of Web of Debt, "Experiments in Utopia: Colonial Paper Money As Legal Tender," Ellen writes about Benjamin Franklin as "the father of paper money." She writes that in 1729, he wrote and printed a pamphlet called "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency." About Franklin Ellen writes:

Paper currency secured against future tax revenues, he said, turned prosperity tomorrow into ready money today.
She goes on to quote Franklin:

The riches of a country are to be valued by the quantity of labor its inhabitants are able to purchase and not by the quantity of gold and silver they possess.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join