A Revolution of Money Requires an Evolution of Economic Theory

The Peoples Right to Create Money

I came across an economic paper, whose opening paragraphs reminded me of  the major weaknesses currently espoused by mainstream economic theory. I decided, this might be a good opportunity to offer up some significant counter-points to such theories, thereby providing a different perspective of the “Normative Questions” so raised by the topic of wealth inequality. In addition, provide a more comprehensive explanation to my Theory that money creation can be a positive action of Labor— which does not need Banks to be real.

The paper in question: “Defending the One PercentN. Gregory Mankiwhttp://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/defending_the_one_percent_0.pdf

On his web-site I found he had provided some feedback to students looking for a career in economics and the academic standards so expected, which of course revolve around mathematics specifically. I can now see why so many economists avoid the crucial questions by defining them as abstractions from which only specific interpretations are allowed. Interpretations made by them for themselves… how interesting.

From his site:

“A student who wants to pursue a career in policy-related economics is advised to go to the best graduate school he or she can get into. The best graduate schools will expect to see a lot of math on your undergraduate transcript, so you need to take it. But will you use a lot of differential equations and real analysis once you land that dream job in a policy organization? No, you won’t.

What a candid and surprising answer.  Certainly explains why so much of current federal policy is political rubbish. 

That raises the question: Why do we academics want students that have taken a lot of math? There are several reasons:

1. Every economist needs to have a solid foundation in the basics of economic theory and econometrics, even if you are not going to be either a theorist or an econometrician. You cannot get this solid foundation without understanding the language of mathematics that these fields use.

I cannot help to wonder which corner of biased opinion they have painted themselves into by such an exclusion.  More importantly, can they change their own minds when necessary?Considering the last sixty years that seems to be no.

2. Occasionally, you will need math in your job. In particular, even as a policy economist, you need to be able to read the academic literature to figure out what research ideas have policy relevance. That literature uses a lot of math, so you will need to be equipped with mathematical tools to read it intelligently.

Obscure information in coded language really helps to exclude anybody else from knowing what is really being pursued behind the veil of political policy. Naturally, any attempt to interpret the results, outside of the politically correct rut with fancy cement walls, is likened to heresy as in religious dogma. The dogma of economic theory is like a tar pit filled with sharks. Nobody wants to go in and take out the sharks for good reason. Who can blame them?

3. Math is good training for the mind. It makes you a more rigorous thinker.

So does ethical and moral studies coupled with logic. Does being a mathematician really prove the “rigorous thinking”  in one specific region of thought leads to a superior quality of balanced mental capability? A case can be made that economists are easily perceived as morally lazy and simply use mathematics to hide their inferior logic in complex fantasy math.  

4. Your math courses are one long IQ test. We use math courses to figure out who is really smart.

This is another form of the Exclusion Fallacy— only a specific type of math talent is smart enough to be smart. Since they test for nothing else, they have no idea what other kind of “smartness” may in fact, be consciously superior, to the specific smartness so defined. Perhaps, they are just too damn smart for their own good.

5. Economics graduate programs are more oriented to training students for academic research than for policy jobs. Although many econ PhDs go on to policy work, all of us teaching in graduate programs are, by definition, academics. Some academics take a few years off to experience the policy world, as I did not long ago, but many academics have no idea what that world is like. When we enter the classroom, we teach what we know. (I am not claiming this is optimal, just reality.) So math plays a larger role in graduate classes than it does in many jobs that PhD economists hold.

Another very candid answer. Why is there such a dismal disconnect between the academic and the policy world at all? This might explain why policy, based on theory, by those making policy, has become so absurd, neither policy or theory actually explains their positions on the real world at all.  That bubble has become quite the fiction of itself.

Is it possible that admissions committees for econ PhD programs are excessively fond of mathematics on student transcripts? Perhaps. That is something I might argue with my colleagues about if I were ever put on the admissions committee. But a student cannot change that. The fact is, if you are thinking about a PhD program in economics, you are advised to take math courses until it hurts.

Well, at least he is quite honest about what criteria is going to be used for Exclusion of any other possibility. The excessive reliance on only one criteria sounds quite limiting. No wonder there is no outside competition for new ideas among the ranks of such academics. This is a classical style monopoly of knowledge itself by excluding any other viewpoints, based on a self-imposed, irrational principle that competition is not to be allowed to even challenge the premise itself: Does math really determine “economics”  or is it simply defining fictional representations of real things just well enough to fool themselves? I term this Representual Theory— as it encompasses the whole of the representation[another quality of self-referentiality]—- in addition to the consciousness so embraced. {Minds are shaped by what they do as well as know} This is also called objective conditioning to the required purpose. 

On to his paper:

Defending the One Percent–“Imagine a society with perfect economic equality. Perhaps out of sheer coincidence, the supply and demand for different types of labor happen to produce an equilibrium in which everyone earns exactly the same income.”

This is the problem with fantasy rules. There is no such thing as perfect economic equality. There is no coincidences in business decisions and the real polarities which decide economic outcomes are wholly absent from this scenario. No wage earner is making income— this is a gross fallacy— and  no doubt is the leading cause of defective analysis. Incomes is defined by the Law— not policy and surprisingly enough not economic theory either. The 16th amendment – so slyly written it avoided the specific language to define only corporateINCOMES” both by tangible and intangible measures. While purposely vague the amendment did not by language specificity include wages or compensations. The sad fact, that hard-headed economists to this very day, refuse to distinguish between these two very different forms of “wage money and Income wealth” only demonstrates why they are also seen as being so damn useless an igneous rock looks smarter by working comparison.  

The deeper problem with “perfect economic equality” is the bias which is represented in the very framing of the conscious idea. To imagine a perfect bubble which is not found in Nature under any circumstances promotes an ideal that is not desirable or attainable by natural conditions of living. Life on a macro-level is not perfected by economic conditions— as such “conditions” must include strife, competition, clashes and dozens of other possible points of contentions where there is no agreement. How can equality rise out of critical differences so severe the resulting social patterns produce conflicts leading to blood-shed? Human society is rife with violence and mayhem whose roots while genetic, become manifest in economic activity. If ignored the Criticality Trend spreads across the social web seeking out the weakest links as if they had bulls-eyes. When people are taking to the streets thats when the Criticality Trend moving towards the next greatest resistance point becomes quite destructive in force as spent in fury. This is when policy makers go hide under their beds.

In the real world scenario —When the richest men of the world woke up one morning and realized they were only going to be earning a lousy, wage-paycheck. A paycheck– now equalized so that every man or woman, despite the exceptional differences of skills and abilities, can only earn the exact same amount of inflated, credit income. How these former rich men started howling in furious anger that the world must have gone stark, raving mad.  All of them of course immediately held very important meetings. Quite a few decided to send out their private armies to hunt down every single economist, and policy maker, who dared take from them all of their un-equal, aggregates of income wealth.

The following day all such policies are gone and the world returns to chaos as usual. Men will kill other men in a heart-beat over money and especially when their private fabulous wealth is in real danger of becoming equal to nothing. There are no advantages or political control in such artificial constructs of equality and the very wealthy know this to be a fact; which is why they will destroy the world at large long before any such equality can be enforced upon them. They are the resistance to changes which benefit others and not themselves. Or the world would be a very different place. Such massive gaps in wealth do not happen by accident and to suggest that they are natural as well is laughable— only it isn’t funny.  The un-written law is never piss off those that create those cushy policy-organization positions period. Or why else would they pay them so much, except to do as they are told?

Equality is just another buzz-word which implies a false condition to allow make believe thinking seem rational. Equal opportunities are only rational sounding not actually practiced. Equality of men and woman sounds wonderful, but it is patently absurd in actual practice.  What people really want are advantages, dressed as equality policies and that is exactly what we have today. Equal before the Law is the one principle people need to agree on and yet it is the most abused, more often than not by those who are entrusted for its up-holding. People are being treated equally as as if everyone was a two-bit terrorist with exploding baby bottles, shoes, hair-spray, underwear and dozens of other equally ridiculous examples of policy gone mad. To enforce the madness requires yet more absurdities which violate every Right of the innocent in the name of protecting them. This negative quality of Equality is not proving sound economic theory, but rather its most disturbing and nefarious results: There is no difference worth discernment. When policy is this ignorant on purpose mathematicians might want to climb out of the Marxist bucket and re-evaluate what they are really defining and why.

Now why is it always the labor class that is used for these patently-ridiculous, useless fantasy theories? With un-employment at record highs the demand for jobs is negative. Unless being un-employed is now considered a positive supply gain? The absurdity here is having no job at all is now considered a positive surplus of workers which actually lowers the utility worth of those still employed.  Too many workers chasing a diminishing pool of jobs is great for the capital owners, whose Incomes will rise, even as they pay less for the wage-labors so employed. To insulate themselves from moral backlash policies are enacted which hide the truth of the un-equal economic relationships, between those who already have real wealth, untouchable by Income tax law and those running like rats in a cage, for a meager wage portion of the income streams so produced.

Economists up-holding the dogma always define wages as Incomes as if they were indeed exactly the same animal. What is never questioned is the critical detail: ARE the very wealthy actually using the same Quality of Money? That answer is no. A wage pay-check is based on an hourly wage, as measured by a synthetic debt dollar. That Fed Note is only worth a fraction of what was once a gold or silver dollar by weight. Weight based on standards of Law not a policy of theft. The normative worth of human labors has declined dramatically, while the Creditor Class has continued accumulating real wealth both by tangible assets and intangible forms, especially, investment wealth from Income produced by stocks, bonds, securities etc. If the fantasy example was based on equal shares of Investment Profits that would be a very interesting tangent to illustrate. But that would be too real for comfort. Play it nice and safe with labor fantasies instead.

Technically, the ultra-wealthy have engineered a wickedly evil game of wealth only they can play successfully, with Rules going back centuries. They might modify the Rules as needed from time to time, but the one essential rule is never practice social equality. Let the commoners have Equality Policies to give them a false sense of treatment, but when it comes to the Money— their money is not the same as yours. Or the word Incomes never needed to be stuck like a knife in Americas back by dubiously passing an essentially trick amendment. That 16th is a trick of larceny—because it actually protected the super-sized wealth in Foundations by the Rule of Negative Exclusion. The advantages to such arrangements are superior to any other class of People so defined. Income from interest is a whole different animal— as a Lion is to a sheep. Sheep are fed grass wages so Lions can feed on them at interest. Creditors eat debtors period. This is the Rule which negates social equality. To pretend otherwise is facetious reasoning. Cultural equality is not the same Beast as Income equality or wage equality, as each is operating by a different set of rules.

Another question about Incomes is lost on most people—not just economists— IF the Federal already had the power to Tax incomes, why did they need yet another power in the 16th amendment? If the power was already there how did all those great fortunes escape the taxing powers, both State and Federal, in the first place? People at the time were angry about abuses of the money inequality because the very wealthy used government powers, especially the military, to control other Nations raw materials for profiteering purposes.

Since these idle wealthy aristocrats were reaping such fortunes, while consuming government resources, the response was to tax that excess wealth at the source of the profit, regardless of the originations of the Income streams, or the final resting locations of the wealth itself. If the richest of men thought they were about to be scalped they would have kicked that amendment to the curb in a heart-beat. They already had a solution and the 16th was written to exclude wealth property sealed off from Incomes so defined. Their taxes are essentially an investment in government property to protect their world-wide claims on wealth, so held in any form.

In America, confusing the meaning of the Political Term “Incomes” with money wages has allowed a defective policy to ferment into an extortion racket quite effective in shearing the sheep of their credit money in a cycle of debt money servicing. Taxing wages as IF it TOO was income produces an absurdity of reason— wages never earn interest. But income from interest is the honey of debt. Since wages cannot produce interest from debt— wages cannot be classified as Income. If you think I am wrong make a Law that Debt cannot produce interest income. The full-bloody howling which will soon erupt from across wall street will make lions act like monkeys. Any economist that wants to talk about real-world equality had better think about that result very carefully. That which cannot be treated equally is clearly not the same animal.

Now that old sows silk-ear is that taxing Incomes can produce equality. That claim is just another fallacy of political policy and ignores elemental fact. Wealth can never become equal as Income as any attempt to equalize the distribution removes un-equal portions with indifference as to how it is wage earned. This is Barbaric Socialism hiding Mercantilism as practiced— men do not earn their money equally as very few labors have equal demands even as defined by utility worth. Why become a doctor or a truck driver if society is going to remove your money and give it to someone who refuses to work at all?  That would be bankers who do not lift a finger of labor, yet demand the biggest cut, with interest, in every economic pie.

The ultra-wealthy own bankers just like they own everything else in their semi-private fiefdoms. People are on their public turf in Private Commerce and never stop to think about what that really means. The illusion was people stopped being serfs. The fact is the serf Rule was modified to allow greater liberties, without sacrificing the real goal— making the serf grow the money function willingly for themselves and reaping from them the higher form of Money—- compounding interest on all forms of Debt eventually move to the top of the economic pyramid. A form which might have equal sides, but has no equality in purpose. The purpose of the political-corporate structure is to induce inequality to enforce social dependency which perpetuates synergistic equilibrium. Corporations fulfill this equation as artificial persons whose only task is to make money.

Making money as a singular intention excludes all other considerations and leads to concentrations of wealth and power to influence political choices and control economic opportunities. Wage earners can never match this type of corporate political clout even when joined in purposeful unions.  The political under-belly of Unions gravitates to the same side of corruption, as any other class of political bosses, by excluding equality where it actually counts: wages. Non-union wages are always driven downwards by the Unions themselves. The left-leaning communistic under-tone also drives away common sense and demands agreement where none is lawfully required. Why does a politically dead hand control any wage support period? What contrived BS actually proved only “communistic” political hacks were ever good for unions of wage workers? Maybe, a much better solution was right there all along, but the militant left bashed such possibilities into a grave. They got what they wanted and everyone else got the shaft. No equality there either in that money power.

The damning Truth is un-equal Rights of Money is the Rule, with very few exceptions. The hourly wage worker cannot make money fast enough[Union or otherwise], or in sums great enough to match the top rungs of the pyramid pie. No policy will ever change this fact, but political slogans sure can be repeated in a thousand different ways to make the propaganda seem believable. The people at the top, own the money, which is lent at interest to be earned by wage workers, who essentially pay for that debt money indefinitely.

The lamentable fact is most of the wealth being generated today has long since left the manufacturing sectors[Unions especially] of the economy, in favor of intangible, revenue-investment schemes, only possible by the confluence of strategic policies, which only favor a minuscule percentage of the population. That would be the one percent.  Mega-sized corporations control and dominate the economic pyramid pie in a manner no wage earning individual can equal period. The labor class has no equality with the corporate class, much less, the ownership class playing footsie with the elite class. Performing labors for a living is not the same thing as receiving income from interest bearing investments. Wages cannot be income— they are not received for being idle.  Perfect economic labor equality only exists in absurd examples not reality.

The Normative Question which can be posed: Can a Rockefeller live on a minimum wage? Er… no… they would never labor at all period. So in the real world there are two Primary Classes— those who perform no Labors and those that do… and the inequality which results is like cement filled shoes. No amount of wishful thinking makes cement taste like Jello. The income pie is not being re-distributed it is being re-categorized by Rules too arcane for the public to distinguish properly, or they would never claim such ridiculous absurdities, stemming from spending taxpayer money, as in that’s my money!

Actually, the international bankers improved upon Gresham’s Law that bad money pushes out good money, by hoarding the good money and lending out the bad money at interest. Since good wages cannot drive out bad money— wages have no equality of money value with Interest-Incomes so long as wages are paid in debt money. Debt money is inferior both to interest money and lawful money. The labor class is paid with cheap money as a rule of economic policy favoring the Creditor class. Where there is no balance there is no equality.

People also wrongly assume what the government spends in outlays is the tax money so collected–which is a long running joke apparently— no the government pays out one form of money and the federal reserve bank collects— via the IRS— the taxable Incomes of taxpayers– where every dollar collected goes to payments of interest earned on the business of lending the government private Credit money. Not one penny so collected is actually spent on any social service. The Grace Commission Report proved this fact much to the embarrassment of government officials.

In a letter to President Reagan dated January 12, 1984, Grace encapsulated his commission’s findings. He warned the president of multi-trillion dollar government debts by the year 2000 should the federal government not act upon his commission’s recommendations.

In this same letter, Grace told President Reagan that “one-third” of the tax dollars collected are wasted and another third not collected. “With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.”

—“But, if the Grace Commission is correct, then not one penny of income tax money is actually being spent on services the American People expect their government to provide.

—“So what is funding government? Tax researcher Richard Standring believes the U.S. funds itself with loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The IMF?

—“The IMF was created at the United Nations Monetary and Financial conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, July 12, 1944. Per Title 22, Section 286 U.S. Code, the U.S. became an IMF member in 1945.

—“Standring followed checks naming the IRS as the payee. He claims the checks go to a Federal Reserve bank, a private banking institution that has never been audited. The money then goes to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and is deposited into what is called a “Quad Zero” account. It is from this account that IRS tax refunds are distributed (per 22 USC 286 and 31 CFR 11, section 214.7).

—“According to Standring’s research, whatever is left over is then transferred to the IMF. From there the money is redistributed among countries throughout the world—including the U.S.—in the form of loans. These loans must then be paid back to IMF bankers at interest.

—“According to the U.S. Bureau of the Public Debt, Americans were in the red $1.663 trillion in 1984. Twenty years later the debt has increased nearly five-fold to $7.1 trillion.”

The IMF, not the American people, is funding the operations of government through loan capital it receives, in part, through taxation of Americans’ wages.  With every dollar paid to the IRS in taxes, America’s debt to the IMF increases—with interest. Paying wage taxes supports global banking, not the U.S. government or Americans. http://truthintaxation.us/?tax_inform=whereTaxesGo

This debt is now crossing the $16.7 trillion dollar line like a race-horse going to Hell.  [The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $2.57 billion per day since September 30, 2012!] There is a game here too on the revolving species of credit and debt, but people are too fixated on the lower meaning to grasp the actual game in plain site. One is the chicken and the other is the egg. Which one is which? When you deduce the answer you will know the game. So essentially, to prop up this lending scheme Wage earners are forced to pay a privilege tax on their own labors which every corporation deducts. Those who labor for wages are treated un-equally by a policy not law itself. Labor produces Income for Capital ownership. Since wages are deducted as a business expense they cannot be classified as Income at the same time. The trick to solving this problem was the Zero cost basis treasury rule. This regulation is a fallacy so contrived it is absurd. More on this later.

For now back to the Normative question arising from using the term “equilibrium”  in which everyone earns exactly the same income–Can this Perfected State actually exist—Hell… no… with qualifications of course.

The interesting use of the word “equilibrium” is to infer that “incomes” are actually the same both politically and economically, thus the same thing both by meaning and purpose. This too is a fallacy— the differences between the “Incomes”  as types, by source and political power,  is quite significant. If the example was stated: sources are in equilibrium that leads to a much more interesting hypothetical, as it would mean the tangible income streams are in equal proportions to the intangible…. wages would rise as profits increased as a rule along with the political powers so practiced,  however,  stocks and bonds do not produce wages and there is no labor function of corporations, which as artificial persons, are not included in the labor class. There is no equality here politically either period. Income comes off the top of the wealth pyramid and wages come from the moat at the bottom. Usually, a very small ladle at that. Mustn’t give those wage-slaves a false perception of equality of ownership… bad for business. 

So the thought exercise as used only results in an absurdity of false wealth comparison. Intangible wealth sources are specifically not cash currency—- that tiny problem of when silver and gold were used as lawful cash money [and quite tangible] as paid in wages not received as Income— so income inequality is an absurd false wealth comparison since the one percent are the majority owners of that form of intangible wealth no commoner can control equally. A political power of wealth, controlling an advantage so held, also exerts a tremendous force on all economic wealth decisions, so decided. To have real wealth equilibrium, both qualities of such political, and economic powers, must be equal as well, as measured by the correct proportional forces. To have perfect equalized Income shares of investment wealth,  would require redistribution of non-debt money. Any redistribution of debt money is just another cycle of inequality, as the Lenders remain lenders, and debt slaves remain debt slaves. Since debt slavery is not a function of equality there is no equilibrium of social power in our system of money. 

So this fantasy of equilibrium, cannot happen in the real world, regardless of the fantasy of equality, so proposed.  Naturally, the math guys can whip up a slew of equations, so dazzling and mesmerizing of talent, the argument will  cease on real terms, and slide into pure fantasy conjecture, which those fancy math rules allow without a hitch. The truth is math can prove fantasy models of economics with just as much number truth as real ones. The problem is the real political world is ruled by policies of the ultra-wealthy class not math. Choices so constrained by such political policies, determine real-street economic results, which in turn produce more incidental math for yet more policies, which may be highly congruent for political purposes, but socially bankrupt of ethical, or moral rules, as practiced.

To make matters worse the political down-trodden feel the Tension of their poverty, as a powerful de-incentive to perceive class equality. The poor essentially have no Right to question the richest class about anything– or even speak to them in most social circles. To even consider Cultural equality requires the social classes mix with genuine qualities of mutual respect. How can any equality exist without any such equal qualities of respect?

Economic equations do not change genetic rules of behavior, and those that pretend that they do, are really using political power to achieve the desired result which is usually wrong. As political demands rise so do the powers needed for enforcement of the policies inflicted. In real cultural equality political power is weak— while social equality is strong. The richest class has nothing, but sneering contempt for the poor, and not much better for the middle class, or there would be very little difference in Incomes as Invested Shares of Wealth become more equitable as a Rule. Since income shares are concentrated at the top— in excessive sums of staggering proportions— the ultra-wealthy do not believe in equality, or practice any policy which changes the Rules of inequality.

Pretending that this permanent wealth inequality is good— by pretending political equations can solve the power equality by fantasy rules is absurd. The Tension between these classes is quite violent due to the fact power is not equalized by policy, but enhanced– to be far worse than normal conditions otherwise allow. People know this power structure is quite un-natural and the Rules which keep this inequality—- are quite evil by purposeful intentions. This perception also determines why people feel that Monsanto is an evil corporation which has bought Congress like a ear of corn to mutate law to their sole profitable ends. Who else benefits from such acts? In the real world Monsanto would be out of business due to its GM crops having zero utility of natural crop worth.  Killing people, financially or otherwise, to make money is evil. 

How people feel about the meaning of money defines money purpose as a psychological abstraction looking for real world representation. This emotional factor better explains the choice functions of money than dry equations alone. How does this Purchase make you feel is as solid as E equals MC squared. That’s where E stands for Emotional energy and M is for material[gain] and C is for comfort— where the resulting Satisfaction is likened unto psychological energy to physical mass consumption. And what drives the engine of such emotions?

Along the normative path to understand that answer: How does an economic mathematician prove love exists using math? If a woman says I love my job does that make that job more valuable than a man saying the same thing? How does one measure the “love” as a function of utility?  The Normative question then becomes whose love is more valuable? I ask this because people love money— often more than anything else. There is a natural Tension Function, which I believe is quite measurable as emotional force, which is the root of all subjective qualities of the very definition of Money—as a quality of consciousness itself. Is it not the purpose of the Economy of Life to have more of this Money? If people cannot obtain what they need with money, whose ownership and use rules all transactions of Commerce, then people feel that Tension– to have gained,  as well as to lose, as present to future anxiety. Fear drives markets as forcefully as fuel does for rockets.

To define Equilibrium, without even looking at the defining cause of why it [money] exists at all, strikes me as rather silly. Why? Because Money itself is damningly, persistently resistant to equality as granite is to bending like rubber. The crux of the problem is money cannot be made equal by law or policies or it would already have been done. Law cannot make Consciousness equal as consciousness is a Natural function of existence and immutable. This quality is not subject of change by any absurdity of authority which is why I define this conscious Right to own Money as unalienable. If such a Right is taken away the man becomes an economic vegetable. That which cannot be separated from the man except in Death is unalienable by virtue of the principle. This is the key factor in all freedoms. It is also the reason why Tension exists when freedom of choice is taken away. Animals hate being caged–wild ones more so than those born to a cage. Man is no different, but his mind can be caged even as his body walks around freely. Money slavery is a violation of freedom every bit as evil as chains around the neck. Who is the leading violator of this condition? That would be the Lending class–acting on behalf of the ultra-elite. No equality of freedom to choose there either. Rich people do not make the same choices as poor ones. 

Along another tangent of the Normative questions involving Tension Functions: In the real world are people who have no jobs suffering from a lack of love or just choices? If money and love, are only available to a decreasing number of men and woman, is the demand for equality solvable by economic policy, based on theory? If economists cannot solve real world problems with fantasy solutions why are they so employed? What kind of economist must I be not to use their simplistic methods or fantasy models? If all other possible solutions to real problems are excluded— is this not a sign of weakness? Weak economic theories must be protected at all times by excluding any competition to them by non-qualified challengers. Naturally, qualification is controlled by those rigorous criteria producing the bubble so protected. Economists are protecting their meal tickets, who in turn hire these very same to produce theories which generate policies which tell the rest of society such privileges of wealth are not to be questioned by mere common laborers.

—Defending the One Percent—equilibrium in which everyone earns exactly the same income— As a result, no one worries about the gap between the rich and poor, and no one debates to what extent public policy should make income redistribution a priority.

This utter nonsense that the gap of wealth inequality is produced only by “Incomes”  and not the truth of wages versus incomes, as a political power of gross injustice, is lost on this guy. The wealth gap exists due to a long running financial, extortion scheme operating on the wage-class, as the only share function possible, of the incredible wealth that has been generated here in America. If the dumb-dumbs in ivory towers cannot bring themselves to even speak the damn truth, of why such GAPS exist at all, they really need to find another line of work. These are not the people needed to solve the problem due to the fact they cannot even see the actual problem at all: The ultra-wealthy are predatory criminals by nature. 

Public policy so intended also sounds like Marxist BS, but this guy is arguing the right side of the aisle. How odd?  Government interference for the wealthy produced the gaps of wage to Income inequality the minute the Ink dried on those fabulous Foundation Trusts [16th Am.] , which in turn also funded many a higher learning University.

{In 1952, Congressman Eugene E. Cox headed up a committee that for the first time tried to uncover the Rockefeller’s (and other’s) foundations’ activities. For some reason, Cox encountered stiff opposition everywhere against his committee’s investigation, and the Congressman for some reason got sick and died. One member of the committee, Congressman Carroll Reese, and his Counsel Rene Wormser attempted to continue the investigation. Rockefeller’s henchmen and newspapers did their best to destroy Congressman Reese. The Reese investigation was given only the barest minimum of time and little resources for their investigation. However, they were still able to uncover that beginning in the 1930s vast sums of money were spent in Education by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations. This money went to promote John Dewey, Marxism, a One-World-Government agenda, and Socialism. The foundations (principally the Rockefeller and Carnegie) stimulated two-thirds of the total endowment funding of all institutions of higher learning in America during the first third of this 20th century.*******

The NEA (National Education Association was largely financed by the Rockefeller/Carnegie foundations. A 1934 NEA report advised, “A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed and all of us, including the ‘owners’, must be subjected to a large degree of social control.” Reece Committee Counsel Rene Wormser wrote of the investigation, “…leads one to the conclusion that there was, indeed, something in the nature of an actual conspiracy among certain leading educators in the United States to bring about socialism through the use of our school systems…”

They discovered that the Rockefeller foundation was the primary culprit behind the teaching of socialism in America’s schools and universities and also behind the NEA’s policies. Rene Wormser, Counsel for the Reece Committee reported, “A very powerful complex of foundations and allied organizations has developed over the years to exercise a high degree of control over education. Part of this complex, and ultimately responsible for it, are the Rockefeller and Carnegie groups of foundations.

This was the situation in the 1950s when the Reece Committee briefly investigated. The Rockefeller-Carnegie groups have continued basically unopposed for the next 40 years in controlling education. One of the educational book producers is Grolier, Inc. Avery Rockefeller, Jr. sits on Grolier, Inc. board meetings. Another interesting board member is Theodore Wailer who is the director of Grolier, Inc. He was a member of the International Book Committee of UNESCO. The Rockefellers maintain great influence in the United Nations.” http://www. theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_rockefeller_bloodline.htm}

Such a small world after all. Perhaps, it is just the illusion that Wealth Income is being redistributed which is the problem.  If stock Shares were evenly distributed as some kind of scheme for equalization of Wealth Income that would be interesting, but I also think the Shares would be manipulated to lower any real benefit to such distributions. I also think the one percent are incredibly selfish both in motivations and entitlement mentalities. Or giving away such wealth would be a common practice. What is taught about wealth is rarely the truth about wealth.

The truth is the ultra-wealthy use every means available to gain what they need:

“Within hours, Secrecy For Sale: Inside The Global Offshore Money Maze became a media phenomenon, known as “Offshore Leaks.”

—–“It lifts the curtain on the offshore system and provides a look into the secret world of tax havens and the individuals and companies that benefit from them.”

—–“The files identified the individuals behind covert companies and private trusts based in the British Virgin Islands, the Cook Islands, Singapore, and other offshore havens. They include American doctors and dentists, and middle-class Greek villagers as well as Russia corporate executives, Eastern European and Indonesian billionaires, Wall Street fraudsters, international arms dealers, and families and associates of long-time dictators.”

—–Among the key findings:
—–Government officials and their families and associates in Azerbaijan, Russia, Canada, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, Mongolia, and other countries have embraced the use of covert companies and bank accounts.
—–The mega-rich use complex offshore structures to own mansions, yachts, art masterpieces, and other assets, gaining tax advantages and anonymity not available to average people.
—–Many of the world’s top banks—including UBS, Clariden, and Deutsche Bank—have aggressively worked to provide their customers with secrecy-cloaked companies in the British Virgin Islands and other offshore hideaways.
—–A well-paid industry of accountants, middlemen, and other operatives has helped offshore patrons shroud their identities and business interests, providing shelter in many cases to money laundering or other misconduct.
—–Ponzi schemers and other large-scale fraudsters routinely use offshore havens to pull off their shell games and move their ill-gotten gains.

—–“Offshore financial secrecy has spread aggressively around the globe, allowing the wealthy to avoid taxes, and fueling corruption and economic woes.” http://www. opensociety foundations.org/voices/journalists-reveal-secret-world-offshore-tax-havens

Actually, it is debt creation by private policy, as directed by Congress, operating a Negative spending function, which also includes socialized entitlement programs which in turn give an illusion of wealth distribution. Only the federal system runs this Negative Spending Function to the benefit of the few at the expense of the rest. Why economists cannot get this procedural method straight is really absurd. Do they never read the damn Laws? How about cracking open a code book or two just for comparisons sake?

-Defending the One Percent —Because people earn the value of their marginal product, everyone is fully incentivized to provide the efficient amount of effort.

What a load of pure BS– without a dime to your name every economic choice is biased in favor of the priority of demands so required for meeting basic necessities. 

The incentives to survive are not equal across the population– as rich criminals and poor prove this every single day. And even if every necessity for survival was indeed equal in cultural value, oddly enough satisfaction no longer has a real cost— as no costs also means no debt—there is no incentive for extra effort when all needs are strictly the same and not subject to extra debt to fulfill the necessity of satisfaction.  

In reality an economy flat-lines as it nears satisfaction of needs equilibrium, as no extra input or output, changes the Tensions resulting from dis-satisfaction. If no effort is required to maintain the equilibrium all activity ceases in perfect satisfaction that nothing will change. The little People will have become like robots as well. Not that they would notice. The Lending class having perfected perfect slavery will just be bored as usual. What I am alluding to here is that there is a significant difference in “States of Equilibrium” of which some are highly— energy dynamic in Tension— while others are conserving energy to the least possible expression of that former dynamic. A dead economy like a dead man— rests in peace.   Confusing the two is not a good idea.  People without needs have no incentives to fulfill them.

—The government is still needed to provide public goods, such as national defense, but those are financed with a lump-sum tax.  

What is the source for this magical lump-sum? And what public good is needed if everyone already has what they need?  This again sounds like re-regurgitated Marxist all according to their need nonsense. People do not know what needs they might have until they arrive at their conscious door. People anticipate specific future needs on a routine basis, but needs are variables of many potentials to a path of fulfillment.  The basic needs of food, shelter are never the same due, to the inherent differences of the people themselves. People are so different that never having the exact same needs— is quite normal. A perfect equality of Need is abnormal by this observation. 

People who have all their needs satisfied do not need a government to tell them what those needs are or the authoritarian policies to determine which needs are included. Peoples private choices are not subjects of policy by government or economic shills for the wealthiest class. So the game is to force such choices on the public side while keeping the real significant powers behind closed doors. National Defense is a racket protected by a wall of policies hiding a purpose so secret no economist dares to say one word about the negative costs of black projects. When the Pentagon loses $2.3 trillion dollars as in records as spent— is that public good as well? Is it really good for the public that the military outspends 42 other nations to police the world for corporations?   

-Defending the One Percent —There is no need for taxes that would distort incentives, such as an income tax, because they would be strictly worse for everyone. The society enjoys not only perfect equality but also perfect efficiency.

Taxes may distort some incentives, but it is how these taxes punish the incentives of specific economic activities which control choices otherwise free from consequences. The income tax is bad as enforced in direct contradiction to the Law. Corporations need to pay taxes where the measure of Incomes— only determines the measurable excise tax on privileges. If an economist is going to make up a fantasy world at least get the facts straight for the fantasy to be marginally realistic to the purpose of its illustrations. Perfect equality is so IMPOSSIBLE any fantasy based on such an absurd model is worthless as a teaching tool, or a representation of why economists even know what the hell they are talking about. No society has ever come close to perfecting anything much less efficiency, as the word used is only an imperfect measure biased to the assumed least amount of effort, or energy, to produce the same result. The real world does not operate on fantasy conjectures, themselves based on fantasy mathematics. So why claim the impossible as if it was the only possibility to explain such conjectures? 

Then, one day, this egalitarian utopia is disturbed by an entrepreneur with an idea for a
new product. Think of the entrepreneur as Steve Jobs as he develops the iPod, J.K. Rowling as she writes her Harry Potter books, or Steven Spielberg as he directs his blockbuster movies. When the entrepreneur’s product is introduced, everyone in society wants to buy it. They each part with, say, $100. The transaction is a voluntary exchange, so it must make both the buyer and the seller better off. But because there are many buyers and only one seller, the distribution of economic well-being is now vastly unequal. The new product makes the entrepreneur much richer than everyone else.

The simplistic rendering of the problem actually destroys his argument. His example assumes a zero cost to profit ratio which is not likely. He apparently assumes the entrepreneur has no extra costs to make the widget, or owes no vast sums of the proceeds to the investors, or the contract holders which print, publish, distribute etc.  said works.

If all prior incomes were indeed equal, in this perfect model,  the entrepreneur has no access to excess capital to afford any extra expenses, above his equal income, to produce anything. Since every dollar has to be borrowed into existence there is no extra money, therefore, to keep the equality, by the rules of the model, new money has to be brought into existence to off-set the demand of the purchase price. Otherwise no other person can afford to purchase anything so expensive and grossly over-priced. 

To keep the equality in this perfect model that hundred dollar bill–is simply handed out— which in turn goes right to the purchase—equality is preserved. However the cost of the borrowing the purchase sum into existence, plus the production costs of the widget, is now greater than the sum of profit itself— the entrepreneur gets the aggregate sum of purchases sure, but he owes the entire sum of both costs back to the bank-–the two sums cancel out on the books of equality leaving only the interest cost.

Since the entrepreneur did not actually create the money he does not receive the interest profit from its use. If he is lucky he will keep a small additional profit after taxes. The only entrepreneurs which will actually profit are the stock holders of the bank of source of both sums. Since their interest money is never taxed they are the only ones earning real money free of all further costs. Costs of money only favor one class and they only invest money in those who make them more money. That too is a law called Bankers Choice. Those who make the choosing have a greater power than those that have no choice at all.  Ask any poor man and he will speak the truth. 

This example also proves the contrary to the assertion— only when there is excess capital to be invested in new products will an entrepreneur recover such costs by sales revenue, thus pay off his investors, plus taxes and then hopefully make a profit worthy of the effort. In a pure model of equality— the product would be have to be free to use if its cost was greater than the equilibrium function to society allows. To wit the only way there can be such an equality is if there is no possibility of its destruction. The assumption that people have no choice in purchases is un-egalitarian, or are they robots too? His utopia sounds like a Borg town to me. 

The dream of any entrepreneur is to make a widget for mass consumption, but is being richer also being happier? Most people would be quite happy to tap into that mass buying profit potential, as every Lotto suggests. The more interesting aspect is not illustrated very well by this perfect model. There is only so much money in circulation and when only one person starts to drain away so much money that it tips the scales– that result is certainly not equality and the im-balance if not adjusted immediately will destroy the economy as a whole. Having bought a ridiculously priced widget the rest of the nation is broke. The game of monopoly proves this point–when one person owns everything the game is over. Does it really matter how that end is reached? If players stop at the perfect moment when all have the same income the game is also over for a different reason. To maintain perfect equilibrium all economic activity must end. This is not the same strategy and the differences of strategies so used do not follow the same rules.

Finally, this perfect model theory is just another fallacy of false comparison. At no time are wages equal to incomes, therefore, the satisfaction of both— to be satisfied equally— cannot be the same, as each is reached by a wholly different strategy, based on separate rules, of vastly different results.  If the actual results are not equal there is no equilibrium of class income.  An entrepreneur cannot change the rules to gain additional income without the help of political power. To change this power destroys the equality so perfected. Since this is not possible in such a perfect model–or it is not perfect– the model does not explain real world economic rules or results. As a fantasy it remains an imperfect fiction. 

In the real world poor economists have been trained like monkeys to only see the banana and never the weasel holding the golden pen. I care not who writes the Law so long as I hold the Golden Credit Pen— take away that power and I am ruined— give it back and I will buy the world— and men will pay me for their slavery.  

Apparently, the guy with the pen actually decides whose apples are exempt— Foundations of the super-wealthy—- wages are exempt by constitutional  law as well—but the Lender simply directs the IRS to ignore this fact, so they are quite happy to contrive the rules and assert a contrary policy. By policy alone wages are “treated” as income, so the wage-apples are re-classified as bananas and the economists, who are never required to read any literature dealing with ethics in practice, avoid the truth like the third rail.

In the real world any credit dollar borrowed into the economy is a FRN Note— intangible— not real money. Only minted Coins, as once defined by the Law are tangible Cash Dollars—- the wage earners of today no longer receive their Labor Cash dollars as measured in cash money—when the 16th was passed. Today, only debt money, which is absurdity unto itself, measures Labor Wages and thus wage earners lose purchasing power, both to debt servicing costs, and diminishment of worth, by excessive printing, electronic creation and regressive taxation.

In the real world the super wealthy do not rely on wage checks and do not pay interest based taxes on Debt Notes as an aggregate out-standing— they simply Lend the Credit to be used as “debt money” by buying government Bonds or Securities. This purposeful perpetuation of debt destroys— the positive circulation of interest free money. How come these perfect models never even mention— this all important difference?  If your money is a debt earning interest– are you actually getting the full value? When wages and debt are the same source for Interest-Income received as profit— this too proves these two classes are not the same thing by substance of worth. The wage earner has inferior money worth as a Rule to enhance profit from Interest-Income as a result of the difference. Debt money is more valuable due to interest than its face value is to spend. This contrary fact proves debt money is bad money for wage earners and good money for Lenders.  Is it any wonder why they refuse to allow any other type to circulate and have corrupted nearly every government on this Earth to keep this arrangement from being changed? 

Considering all of these facts my observation is:  In a real world equal economy private central banks vanish. The Congress loses the power to spend any borrowed money. States banks are re-established and given equal Sovereign Rights to the Creation of printed money to purchase capital and labor, paying only a seigniorage fee to the Federal Treasury— not the IMF— or any other foreign interest. The wages of the labor class are measured by a Labor Unit in parity with the Federal Constitutional Unit of Account[silver coin] by Law not policy.

Technically, every labor dollar is to be paid in silver, but since the silver required is not in circulation to meet the demand, interest free notes are printed in the reciprocal of demand to maintain the equilibrium. States can spend money into the economy for public works to maintain the public good as a standard of Law. Money in interest free circulation has greater positive velocity and longer circulation duration. Furthermore, private banks do not control their circulation people do. Any money going to foreign markets must be exchanged for federal international Notes. The Fed bank in this scenario only deals with similar banks of foreign nations. These banks as public entities operate in full public disclosure and cannot hide any transaction by skipping the rules when convenience suits them.

[To deal with the money circulating from the drugs trades, or any other source of illegal profiteering, prohibitions on using substances is ended, but not rules pertaining to use. Rehabilitation is the rule of thumb and excessive profits are lawfully taxed in the excise category. If common substance drugs are nearly free the incentive to make them diminishes as source farmers move to more cash profitable crops. Hemp is not a drug— it is a plant of a multitude of uses. Allowing this raw material source to be utilized creates incentives for entrepreneurs to establish new materials and products, thereby adding to the economic creation of wealth, from which labor is paid and profits are generated from capital uses.]

In the scenario, as out-lined, additional details need further explanation. Every labor unit is specifically drawing First Rights to the ownership of money. All employee to employer relationships have been grossly miss-categorized due to the zero cost basis treasury policy masquerading as empirically derived fact. The true relationship is Reciprocal Exchange of Material Property.  All labor is a material property of the worker— it is inalienable therefore, every Man has a Constitutional Right to work and earn money. That money so earned cannot be a discounted Note— this is a violation of Law and any policy which supports this violation is a treasonous Act. Employers are not to blame for the current problems as they too are forced by policy to use a dis-counted Note as the Unit of labor measure, not just for the workers so employed, but themselves as well. A fake dollar is not a lawful measure of anything but the crime in progress. To cease the crime is to cease the wrongful Acts. The federal dollar scam costs labor and entrepreneurs alike as both LOSE the real value of their money, before its is spent on anything. The only winners are the criminal international bankers hiding behind the federal facade of policy.

In the real economy if they are to exist at all—Central banks have to be taxed, on the aggregate sums of money so lent— to remove the excesses of usury-interest demands. The one rule they have fought to remove from any Nations Law is the one which keeps them in their rightful place. Only when the bankers cannot form a usury cartel do people actually earn the full VALUE of their labor property. Sovereign governments do not owe foreign principles a TAX for their mere existence, or a fee for any utility function of first Rights. Money creation is a function of Law, whose balances are determined by facts, not policies. People who cannot find lawful employment are barred from the very necessity of survival and thus are forced to make choices otherwise never made just to remain alive. This Barbaric social policy is historically rooted in the Natural Law, but people are not living as animals!

  The only solution to this vexing problem is to free people from the un-natural constraints only operating upon them by a criminal money system. Specifically, the Right to own Money is unalienable— just as the Right to earn Money is inalienable— but people cannot find Employed Work… so they must be able to still earn money, but nobody can AFFORD to hire them. How to solve this damning dilemma does not seem to be a priority for economists. 

The people caught in this un-employment trap cannot help themselves or contribute to the good of society and become by default federal or state dependents. If these same people are incentivized to actually solve their problem they will naturally create the work so needed.  An interesting consequence of allowing First Rights and snipping the debt cord a significant expansion of service orientated work is now possible.   

For example, a man goes to the city work council and submits a labor work plan he put together to paint a specific section of city property which is in dire need of re-painting. The cost of supplies is based on verifiable facts, so cited, and his hourly wages are based on the States metrically derived tables for such labors. Lets say he has enough years as a painter to qualify for $10.00 an hour[still  in FRN measures]. He submits his plan and after checking his information he is approved for the project. Since the workman is using the State bank, as the source of funds— the money is created as needed. The cost of seigniorage is paid by the workman of a rate no more than the nominal costs of printing and no interest. This cost is his only deduction as paid. He does the work as contracted to the specified level of performance and earns his money that he created by his labors. He has now become a positive contributor of economic activity, as he spends newly created money for rent, fuel, food etc and perhaps earns enough to even save some money as well.

People will naturally ask, but how did he create money without a bank? Simple— he did not borrow it into negative existence, he created it by positive existence. Bankers will argue to the near ends of Time itself that money cannot be simply created by positive existence, as that powerful positive function of Money, immediately makes them obsolete— as the only source of money. This confusion of source however, is the very fallacy every banker needs in order to carry out the trick of private money creation.

What Law of Physics created banks to lend money?

What Natural Law of immutable function only produces debt notes from printing presses on behalf of banks? Since printing presses do not come from seeds and money is not used by anything else on the planet for any damn reason— Nature has nothing to do with money directly. Since consciousness is a fact of Natural Law and is immutable that which arises from its use— remains the creation of the mind– and thus its possession. Since the mind does not belong to the bank all men are free to create any money they see fit to use.

Technically, I am only following a natural result from asking why the Constitutional Unit of Account was debased and denied to the Measure of the Hour wage. What kind of yard-stick is being used today? Is it like rubber or like wood? Does it shrink on one day and grow longer on another? Do speculators destroy the worth of synthetic dollars for profit? If the wage measure is always declining why use it at all?  To break this cycle of diabolical extortions the Money Right has to be embraced by Law or have fun being a serf-slave for the rest of time. And your children’s children as well.

Take out any Bill from the Fed reserve… take a pen and circle where it says this is Money. If you cannot find such a declaration why pretend the truth is a lie? If you hand another person a plastic apple and claim this is as good as the real thing, then eat that plastic apple and prove it to be true. If that note does not say this is money— then it is not money. My solution to our vexing money problem—allows money to be created as a positive expression of its intrinsic truth. It is Created! There is no other way it comes into existence except by our conscious minds. Bankers do not have a monopoly on mind. So why give them one?

Money when defined as a substance requires a standard, whose measures are not subject to fraud. Money cannot remain money and a fraud at the same time. The fed notes are never money due to the fact these things of paper are a product of psychological fraud, whose shifting Values are easily changed by every other fraud so conceived for this purpose. The value of fed notes are nothing more than a confidence scam based on sheer terror of poverty. People are so afraid of losing money they hold onto bad money as if there is no difference.

My solution does not rely on scarcity to prop up value. People who need to earn money create value— as it is the only real truth— as to why any money has value period.  If you did not need money its utility value is zero. This psychological under-pinning to money is why economists sound like used car salesman trying to sell a lemon. All ad-pitches are there for the same reason— the psychological component is worth more then the form of money itself. Or sales ads would be useless as inducements to purchase.

The Normative question which arises is what Natural Law determines who creates the most money? The next question is what Natural Law determines the best form of Money as used?

Real money resists fraud just as gold resists diminishment of quality, as silver does as well. Gold and silver does not deteriorate over time, as so many other metallic substances are prone to do naturally, or under attempts to destroy quality. Thus, the standards based upon their natural qualities made them a better choice for long term retainment of value. The Preservation of value protects worth over time and the genuine savings of money so represented by such coins. Fed notes are inferior by both measures and weights to qualities of time preservations which defined the Intrinsic worth. This understanding of money was based on science— not economic theory or policy by fiat. Today, however people are unable to get out from under the lie and return to superior forms of money representation. Policies have destroyed the bridges back to sound practices so an alternative must be found which has superior standards of freedom to use and therefore, to generate wealth unencumbered by the usury of debt interest. Positive free creation of Money is the solution, just as free coinage of gold and silver was less than a century ago.

Another example of how solutions might be found when money is directly created by those seeking its necessity of use:

A service which normally costs the client, such as computer repair, at the home demonstrates the principles are quite flexible. A man goes to the city work council and submits a bid to do specific work on behalf of clients otherwise unable to afford such services. His bid is accepted  following the same procedures for checking his metrics and positive proof of the service quality itself, thus he goes up on the board available to people unable to afford certain repairs done on computer equipment, plus software fixes. In a few days he has enough hourly work for a month. He has just added to the local economy a positive creation of money. He is NOT restrained to offer a service by the lack of money from bankers so held by a client— that is the difference no banker can offer—- as no banker can recognize such a positive money creation without destroying themselves. Their mighty credit pen is silenced by such positive powers they do not possess, thus cannot lend as debt.  

Money is a multi-dimensional instrument, whose superior power has been constrained by policy alone into a singular channel of use. A policy of negative creation has been allowed to dominate the economies of the world which favors only one teeny class of mankind– the lender. Take away this False Power and Money resumes its natural powers as intelligently as it can be utilized. Intelligence drives evolution and so will it drive money to better productive uses. People who defeat this principle only defeat themselves while costing society the difference of their Moral Conscience. The Human race needs to stop living in the stone age of money and start thinking more intelligently about why money exists at all.

Now people will still think due to life-long conditioning, in the previous example, but who is really paying the money? And why should some client who cannot afford a computer repair get the repair for free?  This is where the zero cost basis labor policy is turned on its head. As it is used the ZCB is a fallacy—the exchange between employee and employer is reciprocal[each is exchanging a fungible value] not singular— the workman in question by using the Unit Labor is creating the Money— simultaneously—  where each hour of the Unit of labor is the same measure of how much money is to be received by the Reciprocal Function of its creation. The printing press or Electronic press— is simply taking this “unit” and transferring the intangible form—back to the tangible held property not unlike a phase change— to a different class of the fungible— labor is fungible property by Law— Money is fungible property even without Law— one Intangible Unit is simply exchanged for the other Reciprocal Unit at one to one parity, of which the check on both qualities is by Lawful consideration of Value. Both sides have to agree there is a consideration of value or there is no money created.

The workman has created the money by his time of labor, and therefore, he collects what is owed to him as a First Right to the Money— so created by positive existence. The client received a valuable service which has a positive Value— one form has been exchanged for another— and bankers have no say in this arrangement— this is also a function of private contract— Constitutionally protected Rights of which Congress has no Subject Authority to Trespass. Therefore, this is a sovereign function of Freedom and cannot be impugned or taxed. Does this still require honesty— of course it does— in fact, it demands honesty of the highest standards of ethical behavior, on both the client side, and the workman’s side, for the equation to remain true. If some jack-ass claims his time is worth ten grand an hour and all he does is a bucks worth of work— his claim of money is no better than wishful thinking as no right minded person will agree to such a criminal absurdity, they cannot in good conscience sign a record as completed. Two criminals might very well try to game the system by mutual lies, but they do not have control of bank records or accounts of Labor Units. In all systems of operations there has to be rules. This system is no different.

A workman or woman, needs a service record between themselves and the client. An independent function still needs at least two check points to maintain credibility. The State bank is liable for fraud, so it must protect records of issuance— the  bank therefore, must defend its position by checking the Unit Labor, either held by an employer or by a city department I simply called a work Council– under the appropriate city charter— which is funded by the same mechanism of principle— people who are working are creating their money period— the checks and balances are very straightforward as are the metrics which accompany the labor so performed. Thus, by using such councils cities employ people to do lawful diligence on record keeping. The workman who are honest in their lawful due diligence have a positive incentive not to cheat themselves of future earnings— gaming the system to defraud the system is punishable by the loss of its privileges and they might very well go back to being wards of state, but all people still have a responsibility to become self-sustaining. The reckless always hurt themselves by assuming they are too smart to be caught being stupid.

Criminals will indeed spend more time trying to figure out how to game the system than actually working— which is quite recognizable by several analytical methods, in addition people who are really good at recognizing such actions can be employed at both the banks and the city work centers to weed out the absurd, the lazy, the stupid and all other manner of dumb as a well paying public service job. Common sense is an efficient defense in most cases of fraud and abuse. The system might start off a bit rough around the edges, but it will quickly evolve as people produce intelligent responses to the usual wacky behaviors and thus clarify the rules ensuring success. Keep in clear view that the money lords will not like this arrangement one bit and will no doubt try to sabotage the efforts , undermine the operations, use policy at the federal level to impede progress and any other tactic they can employ to wreck the system. However, as they do so they PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt what side of the line they are operating from and are still quite liable for lawful punishment.

What if businesses refuse to even consider this idea, including the States? Considering the tremendous financial problems affecting the States across America, the diminishment of financial prospects so many are dealing with or facing right now, to ignore a solution is to condemn people to poverty for no good damn reason except to please the very same enemies gloating in those shiny towers. People need to show some back-bone— grow a pair– get off the lazy chair and do something positive for the future that is do-able and if done right a permanent solution to all roots of poverty, which does not rely on fantasies of false equality.

As for what decides who gets more money? Men and woman who work harder than others receive a greater benefit period. Those who are indeed well educated and capable are going to  move well ahead of the lazy and the stupid. There is no equality in forcing capable people into dumbing down for no damn good reason. Allow people to do what they know themselves capable of doing without restraint and they will find the true equilibrium by positive actions. Being financially responsible is what separates the successful from those who never seem to be able to control their own worst self-destructive behaviors. People who cannot understand this simple principle cannot be allowed to undermine those that do— or society is doomed. Men do not need to be allowed to starve either as Barbaric policies have no place in a real society. But people have to try or nothing can save them from themselves.

All across America are people with ideas and skills of vastly un-equal qualities— this is Natural— it is highly un-natural to throw everyone into the same bucket of mediocrity and pay them to do nothing, but less than what they are capable of doing. Stupid policies need to go the way of the Dodo and intelligent choices need to re-affirm the positive directions of society. Do people really want to live in a third world style country? Well, we are looking real close to that standard right now. Any State which refuses to help its citizens improve their standing is ass-backwards and will not enjoy the often rapid descent into ruin and oblivion. The system as out-lined cannot work on frauds and cheats betting on failures to succeed. No system of money is better than the people who make that system true to its principles.

Money is only as good as the purposes to which it is intended thus created. This is a principle of money creation which either stands the test of time or mankind reverts to animal status. Which one people prefer will decide that future— it is that simple.

Does it matter how many are independent workman or employed? No… people now employed will simply receive the difference between the SCN[synthetic credit note] and the UL value. State, city work forces can go right on the system and cease having to beg the federal for operating money— cut the cord of false dependency and enjoy money created without usury interest attached, thus decreasing the costs on every single project so needed. Then cut taxes except where specifically needed to balance or constrain un-wanted monetary activities.

The major difference between the two systems of money creation is that no cartel Bank stands between people and their Right of Money— no man pays a Toll Fee called Usury for the privilege of merely staying alive. Due to the salient fact most of us do not live on farms, to deny people the means to survive is Barbaric Socialism rooted in Mercantilism and is viciously, anti-constitutional to the extreme. Banks do not create money they rely on policies to pretend they create debt-money from nothing. If they really created money why is so much compounded interest fees needed?

I know the old saw it is for the time use of the capital, but this was way back when something called a digital bit did not exist, much less be created by the billions in a fraction of a second. I know…  how about creating a Debt-Googolplex which compounds a number so massive it takes Exponential-ism to another level of mega-universal orders of magnitudes, plus it uses up all the super-computer-computational  space known to earth in less than sixty-seconds and of course hangs until the final digit is calculated some time after the next big bang. Now of course the reader will know this is pure absurdity to the Ninth level of facetious reasoning, but when bankers create credit and call it money they really mean interest payable to themselves and the rest is actually a waste product. Or debt money notes would never diminish in value period.

The X-Y-Z function can help illustrate this problem: Where X is the principle of the Credit money created in total, Y is the total years of required income taxes collected for repayment and Z is the usury charge compounding into exponential infinity, when Z is greater than the sum of X:Y the Nation is broke, as in dead-ass-broke with no hope of paying off the absurd costs of debt money. Debt money is so expensive no one can afford Earn it any more— debt money cannot be earned fast enough by Wages or Incomes to be extinguished— there are not enough workers even earning a paycheck, which even if taxed at 100 percent, cannot pay both the cost and principle at the same time. There is not enough money in existence to pay off the money already owed without creating yet more money as debt— which of course is a cycle repeating itself into infinity… this is a  direct result of using un-sound monetary theory and policy and yet anyone who dares to bring forward an idea which snips the cycle and ends the debt abuse, is scoffed at as dumb, ridiculed as incompetent or simply ignored by silence altogether.

The Normative question becomes when is the Absurdity so absurd it cannot be corrected?

Thus, the real problem of using Private Credit Money, as a synthetic substitution for non-interest Notes, is the service costs eventually compound beyond rational repayment capability. Nations cannot afford such a Criticality Scheme as a Debt Bomb in the future and yet economic policy coupled with theories have forced this relationship upon the people as if it was the only game in town. Was there really no other solution way back in 1933? We do not know what other possibilities may have existed,  because no other solutions are ever allowed to even be intelligently discussed. The exclusion of any other possible solution by policy reinforces the illusion, what is being used, must be the only one worth pursuing. One might be inclined to call this the mental rat-trap of the diabolical Painted Corner. Eventually, only national self-destruction can stop this zero sum game monstrosity and of course taking all of us people right back down to the dirt age. That would be one step below the stone age.

The ZCB fallacy is a destructive, abusive policy of extraction to enrich the Creditor Class and no other. Using a parity between lawful Unit systems also snips the cord of debt slavery. No man can be a debt slave when his money belongs to him FIRST and then he decides where that money is to be spent or saved. But the economy is so complex some might say, how can this be a viable solution with so many conflicting aspects to what we use now?

Lets say, a trucker is not getting enough work, but he hears through the grapevine there is lots of work available from entrepreneurs struggling with capital related costs. The trucker figures out the load costs by the metrics of fuel, miles, tolls, truck wear etc and his time and submits his bid for these hauls. If the business cannot afford the costs how does the trucker get paid? Once again, the economic theories postulate only debt money can be borrowed into existence. What immutable rules of physics is governing this process? Speed of printing press? Numbers of workers running presses? Number of bankers typing in numerical sequences? Has economic theory painted economics itself into such a teeny, tiny corner due to moral negations that no economist dares speak above a whisper YES WE CAN create fungible money as a function of positive agreements? That would include a private contract as well.

The trucker is providing a positive value service and his UL measures the appropriate amount of money so created. Whether or not as denominated in State non-interest notes, or fed notes is still his decision. The business owner knows his revenue flows will improve when he can ship his goods on time and in greater amounts. The contract allows money to be borrowed by the business, which now has a debt which is not collecting interest because it is NOT borrowed by the negative. Positive money creation has no interest function. The very reason no cartel banker will ever provide such money— is the very reason why it has to be created and outside of their control. People need to control their money as an expression of their freedoms of choice. 

Since the business has a debt equal to the costs yet to be paid,  a record now exists, both at the bank and the City works council. In this example the business owner is struggling and it requires many months of hard work to finally catch up and pay the out-standing sum to the State bank. There is no interest— the seigniorage fee was paid by the trucker and the balance of credit and debt now returns to zero parity. Now what if the business fails completely with debt sums still out-standing? Liquidation of assets pays off Creditors in an order/amount usually decided by the Court. With no interest the debt remains unpaid, but does not increase and even small payments eventually can pay it off. The real constraint is the more debt out-standing the penalties can be just as regressive or punitive as a Court decides proper. Those who simply cheat the system will go to prison. The same rules apply regardless of the source of money creation.

Lets say, for another more difficult problem, that a woman working at home produces excellent instruction manuals for a wide variety of clerical software. She is quite good at her work, but she has no buyers due to the fact she also has no capital to spend for printing, advertisement, disk production etc. She is in a tough spot. Without any buyers for her work she cannot establish a genuine price metric and she cannot borrow against a wage she has yet to earn. Marginal labor is not going to lift her out of poverty. She needs to start earning three times her current pay-check to re-gain positive parity with her living costs and have enough to start saving once again for her business ideas. Having a guaranteed money Right, does not mean any sum so claimed is yours to be taken. Wage values have shrunken dramatically due to the real costs of inflation and are NO longer in any realistic parity to living expenses.

Like many workers she has been depressed by these inequalities for so long she too suffers from the Lost Potential Syndrome. I came up with this idea to express the Loss so Suffered by the mis-allocation of inflation based credit money, criminal theft, government wastes of money[state and federal] and any other economic activity that flushes the Peoples money down the damn drain— including interest payments to central banking cartels. I still have confidence that the great math wizards can calculate this sum to a singular degree…  this lost potential of money is every economic decision people could not make due to the policies, mostly criminal, which removed money from their hands and sent it elsewhere, never to be seen again. This is money that never worked for the public good, or solved a single problem worth solving on behalf of individuals. The amount of money the government wastes is quite staggering and yet banks never complain. Why should they when they have First Rights and federal extraction working side-by-side for their sole benefit.

Thus the challenge for real economists is the appropriate re-adjustment of the wage metric to reflect the real costs of living. Without this step— the next step remains impossible. Fixing the wage to income gap as it really is and not pretending otherwise.

The Normative Question then becomes “how much” does the real minimum need to raise to cancel out inflation? Economists have a moral imperative to solve this problem. I say moral due to the fact when lives are involved it is a “Moral Choice” to do— or not to do– the right thing— to improve the quality of lives not the shiny stacks of widgets. Widgets do not go hungry– people go hungry– buildings do not suffer from pain of medical problems, people suffer— people come before material objectives or the moral compass is always south of the Hell border. The answer has to both cancel out inflation and adjust the wage scales to more accurately reflect the metrics of such activities. People need a floor under wages to better measure their performance as well. When people are no longer constrained by false Representual Theories of Value they will prosper by working smarter.

Every labor intensive activity from agriculture to Hospice care to independent contractors in every nook and cranny of economic services will immediately benefit from having first Rights to money so created as a simultaneous function of labor itself. The Constitutional Standard of Account provides a benchmark of Value based on Law to allow a genuine equality— where it currently does not exist.   A waitress is paid very little even as they work harder to cover more positions once filled by more floor workers. Employers are going to be shell-shocked to even consider the fuller implications— the workers are creating their own money so owners do not have to borrow their wages into existence! I know people will scoff at this idea, but only because they are brain-washed into believing the opposite is the only truth. A business operates to provide a service and to generate profits not to create the fungible money itself. I simply realized de-coupling the creation from the bankers allowed a direct creation of money— AS IF the banker did not Exist!

If the banker did not exist how is MONEY created? Money and labor are created AT the same Time by the work so produced because both are fungible— the fungibility is the key issue— is the labor work a property of exchangeable value? Yes, and so is money. Exchanging one for the other is a natural function of intelligence. If people are intelligent enough to work for money then conversely— money has to be intelligent enough to work for people.  Make the money smarter and thus it evolves to a higher quality of purpose. Money becomes more valuable as its fungible expression is more fully expressed to work where no other form can or does currently.  The bankers have ruthlessly insisted only their Form of Money fungibility is allowable which is a bold, faced lie. Money does not need BANKERS to be money!

Think about this very carefully. A State Bank for the expressed purpose to provide the necessary functions for such positive money creation is a social construct to maintain lawful standards and lawful records of account. The State Bank is NOT creating the money— People are creating the money and thus people determine how much or how little and NO interest as the rules of its creation do not allow for usury period. Any social service where people care for other people will improve dramatically as such work is time intensive and requires skills and knowledge. People will be free to do what-ever they want so long the metrics are honest and the standards are lawful as construed.

Take prostitution for example…. where it is legal the principle still works for the consideration of value— the pimp side does not… moral incongruities surround certain activities which diminishes the value perceptions.  A street dealer of heroin is not  earning a service check right now so that illegal occupation is of a morally, hazardous quality— the higher the moral hazard the lower the value and a negative worth results. Thus, those who seek to take advantage of the down-side of the moral scale will find very little value worth chasing.

So back to our hard working but poor woman, who is like millions of others just the same— is barely making a living on part-time work. My solution snips the cord of usury, in addition solving the inflation problem by lifting the parity out of the defective and back into the positive territory. If that former gallon of milk only has four ounces of value left— my solution simply asks why? Put the remainder back in the gallon. Now the gallon is whole so where is the problem? Are people supposed to be ripped off by wage depreciation? Gosh, is that a criminal demand masquerading as federal policy? If the banks cannot or will not fix their defective debt usury money— why use it at all? The absurdity of this nations problems simply astounds me.  People refusing to work for honest money they create.  And will tell me I have no idea what I am talking about?  

Contrarians will perhaps shoot back and ask, well what exactly stops the rise of prices?

Simple: Laws stop price gains by taxation of excess. The one provision of the “income tax” which was worthy is the least talked about for a reason never spoken. Excess price demands by greedy, unscrupulous businessmen,  corporations and government itself all contribute to the problem. Resource monopolies allow the elite to raise the prices of commodities for no other purpose than to enrich themselves— the very reason for an “income tax” is never used right at the source where it is most effective— for constraining abusive tactics of profiteering. The solution is already on the books and is barely used at all. Tax the excess until it stops by steep proportions on both sides of the un-wanted activity. Tax the players and the bankers simultaneously and enforce it with real punitive actions including stock seizures, bond seizures, liquidation of assets plus fines and imprisonment. Make it quite clear speculating on specified economic activities carries a heavy price and watch what happens. Of course the nations Attorney General needs an actual back-bone and the president cannot be just a straw-man wearing a ten-thousand dollar suit.

Well, that contrarian might shoot back how are those businesses going to afford such a raise of wages knuckle-head?

The Synthetic Credit Dollar by most accounts has lost 96 cents of its value. In a one-dollar Unit of account parity exchange the other 96 cents of every dollar is returned by the State bank, to the employee as a remainder of the UL still owed. The employer is not creating the inflation of the credit note, they are only keeping track of the Time of labor as employed. The employee is receiving the full amount of the money they have created by such labors. The arrangement which has been used all this time was a criminal scheme of which employers had no part. They cannot be punished for not having the “other” 96 cents they too never received on every Synthetic Credit Dollar crossing their accounts. The missing sums in the aggregate are quite substantial— and I know these very well trained math wizards can solve that problem as well. I have great confidence in their math abilities, I simply have a problem with their ethical lack of a back-bone.

The deep number crunch occurs when the remainders are calculated to determine the denomination amounts. In my last example the woman with a low paying job still has a great skill, that is potentially worth much more to her, but she cannot get over the hump– she goes to work excited that everyone is going to receive an additional sum from the State Bank of issuance— based on the Time Card— Labor Unit value— she works only part-time twenty-hours a week and makes eight dollars an hour— minimum wage. She makes $160.00 a week by the measure of SCD’s before deductions. Her real wage value as measured in loss of purchasing power is thirty-two cents an hour. She only makes  a $1.28 a day or $6.40 a week by this measure. Technically speaking the roll-back of pricing due to this loss by inflation can be calculated quite easily. In fact, the entire country can be inflation adjusted if the Synthetic Credit Dollar goes bye-bye. People might have a bit of shock at first, but would soon realize the numbers are just reflections of the system itself. This is simply parallel math congruity which removes un-needed number theatrics.

So for the moment lets say it is still a SCD dominated system and so she takes her paycheck and sees that the inflation portion of her check is the difference so calculated between $6.40 and $160.00 for $153.60— her paycheck is minus the deductions and the seigniorage fee is subtracted from the UL amount of one dollar and fifty cents. So her remainder to be paid by the State bank is $152.10 and she is paid this amount by direct deposit. When she goes to her usual bank she has two accounts. She decides to transfer 100 Silver unit account dollars into a denomination of SCD’s at a rate of 22 to one. She now has $2200.00 in her primary checking account plus the paycheck amount [125.00 after deductions] so deposited.

Now economists can argue about the details here to their hearts content. The problem is the federal standard per the constitution has been debased. I am simply looking at the price of silver per ounce of around twenty to twenty two dollars and picked the higher number for the example. A correct historical parity with gold yields an even higher number. The manipulations of gold and silver and the sacking of  the federal treasury, the insertion of the International Monetary Banks nose into Sovereign National Rights cannot be ignored, especially when the Unit of Account— per the Law has been trespassed. Congress, committed treason way back then and the current Members need only to re-visit lawful history if they need a grim reminder of what real financial treason means— that would be the death penalty.  My reasoning is simply what amount of SCD’s does it take to buy an ounce of silver for the measure of denomination. The wage standard is independent of the SCD and is subject to refinement so long as the principle is not violated— the denomination measure cancels inflation period. Debit/credit cards can do the same thing as cash and once again the money has no interest earned on saved accounts or used as debt.  People are free to use their money to buy any other financial asset so desired for interest potentials. Banks simply do not control how this form of money is created. 

If the proposed use of State Banks can get past the hurdles and by Sovereign authority re-take control of the in-State issuance of money, all States still need to be on the same federal standard with the same constraints of any money system. Bills can have a States seal on the front and the federal on the back, with any imaging so desired or required, as the case might be for official purposes. The main factor is agreements are done to up-hold the Law and the unity function is preserved so all Notes circulate with parity regardless of actual issuance origination.  Congress, having abused the money power to place the People in an impossible debt relationship with enemies of our States, has lost the moral high-ground and the authority which that responsibility encompassed. Contrary to the false notions of the public servants their “powers” are alienable due to the fact they were given in Consent. What People giveth they can take away. Servants need to learn their place and those who do not get re-called and ousted. This is a Representative Republic not a damn fiefdom of Crowned bankers acting like gods. Another fact they really need to be reminded of in no small way.

The power of the People is in their honesty to uphold the truth. The power of Money is in keeping ones word as truth. When both Truths cross in high standards the Money is good– as is the Word given— as the intent of its Purpose as received. America can do this and prove all Nations can do this as well. People have to believe in one another however, and that seems to be the real hurdle yet to be crossed. So long as people refuse to trust one another to have enough sense, to use money with a degree of intelligence, as needed, bankers will be more than happy to sell you— your own money at interest.

Now look at the price of silver and gold and look at your paycheck and ask a simple question: WHY does your pay MEASURE have no parity to Lawful standards of Account? Because the international bankers figured out they do not have to up-keep that standard and can debase it any way they please to make themselves more money. Is this fair? NO… so why pretend their money is worth keeping in use? Any system that gives you a fair lawful measure of MONEY is superior to one that does no such thing. Why choose the inferior when People already have the power to create the Superior? Re-take that simple choice and it is a whole-new ball-game of economic revolution based on money evolving to a new intelligent creation of use.

Be that intelligent creator and enjoy the freedoms so possible.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: