This video describes the structural facts (as opposed to theory) of the monetary system. It avoids theoretical terms like “intrinsic value” and “fiat” and “out of thin air” that have been used to confuse us and just sticks to the facts.
The intent of lesson 1 was only to make a couple key points necessary to understand what is described here in lesson 2.
Damon,
How do you think this “foreclosuregate” thing will play out? It seems as if the bankster’s plan to acquire all the real property through foreclosure is being derailed by their reckless haste. Also people are waking up to the fact that CDOs were not properly underwritten (liar loans and such).
-Voltron
While lower level investors want to get people’s property, that’s not the goal of the top. Their goal is to restructure society and create a new global governance system. So one needs to keep an eye on that in order to interpret events. I think they hope to use chaos and eventually create enough pain that people will beg for the new global system once it’s proposed. This foreclosure “crisis” (i.e. setup) helps because once investors realize the US has lost control of contract law, capital will flee the US, the dollar will drop, public angst will get worse, etc.
Is a new global governance system actually necessary to accomplish the goals of the top?
It seems to me that the vast majority of the world is already governed indirectly through the monetary system and its financialization of the real economy through secondary bond and equity markets.
FYI– viewing the “fraudclosure” crisis as a former lawyer, I think the chaos is being created because we have not, in fact, lost control of our contract law, that the only reason why the crisis is growing is that members of the elite power structure realize that they have been preyed upon by their fellows. Personally, I think the foreclosure mess may signal the same kind of turning point as the Pecora Commission, which allowed FDR to return bankers to their proper role as servants of capitalism, not its masters.
Anyway, keep up the great work.
Tao, true but it needs to be restructured at this point or they’ll lose power, and that’s what I think they’re doing, in addition to expanding their territory by trying to get Muslim countries and others under banking control. When I say global governance, I don’t mean an actual new government with new politicians running the world…the financiers keep that role for themselves.
I hope you’re right this is a potential Pecora moment (though I’m not sure how banks saying they can’t trace property to titles would give investors confidence in the rule of law). But when I saw DC trying to push a quiet law through that would eliminate the need for paperwork, I figured it was a planned step. But perhaps it was an “oh shit” from the people who thought they had everything under control, which would make it more likely that you’re correct.
“But when I saw DC trying to push a quiet law through that would eliminate the need for paperwork, I figured it was a planned step.”
I reviewed HR 3808(?) and did not see it as much of a big deal. Again, I’m coming at this from somebody who has dealt with evidentiary issues as a lawyer, a client and a witness. Nothing about that law required the judges to accept the notarized documents as true, only as “authenticated” (i.e., somebody witnessed the sworn statement, but people witness the sworn statements of perjurers, too). While there’s no doubt that the law would have increased the caseload and, therefore, would have increased the pressure to move quickly, it was not a coup de grace of the legal process. Also, there’s a big question as to whether or not the law would even apply to foreclosure proceedings because they’re inherently intrastate commerce. The Commerce Clause and HR 3808 only attach to activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. But real property can’t cross state boundaries, which is why every state regulates its own real property.
My real concern was that the furor over the notarization law was intended to give Congress a chance to state that it intended to cover local state foreclosure proceedings. Given the complete silence of Congress before now, state courts would have been free to conclude that they could ignore the law. From that perspective, Obama’s veto of the law was a dig save in the sand to provide the chance to subvert state law.
I still don’t think it will work.
The reason I say we may have reached a Pecora moment is because institutional investors who bought CDOs have paper in front of them signed by the banks verifying that the chain of title was properly secured. Now they know better, and they will seek recourse. This is particularly true of the public union pension funds that succumbed to the allure of Wall Street.
We’ll see. I think the point of all this is that the “chessboard” that is laid out before all of us is far more complex than we realize. Being a strategist in this environment is an impossible job for the establishment. I don’t think they have control.
About that bill pushed through on voice vote and then Obama’s apparent pocket veto, last time I heard the Senate had not actually adjourned and thus according to the rules Obama had 10 days (from October 7th?) and had not effectively killed the bill yet. He still had 10 days as of that time and if the Senate had somehow managed to remain in session till October 17 then the bill would become law. Is this correct? Has the Senate actually officially adjourned any time before October 17th? The Senate web page seems to indicate they have since adjourned. (http://www.senate.gov/galleries/pdcl/index.htm)
But I do not know if this is officially the case or if there is some kind of special rule or in I am not reading this thing correctly and I do not understand Pro-Forma sessions. Also I find the following in the page : “H. Con. Res. 321 (Conditional Adjournment Resolution).” and don’t understand if this can be used in some kind of retroactive sense to extend a session…
Great work, Damon! Very clear.
I think the ForeclosureGate mess is an outgrowth of the shadow banking system and the fact that banks, rather than lending us money, are actually sucking money up from us very cheaply and then lending it back to us at higher rates. They suck it up from the pension funds and pledge real estate (mortgage backed securities) as “security.” It’s a pawn shop, and our homes are the pawns — the chips in a massive casino.
thanks Ellen!
yeah I guess the question is whether the shadow system knew this breakdown would happen or if it’s a hiccup in their otherwise flawless strategy since 08.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think that when we speak of whether money has any value or not, we must rcognize that what passes for money in our current system has value only by virtue of the fact that its fiat status (legal tender laws) allow the creators of this ‘money’ to claim and expropriate the wealth produced by others. I am concerned that some seem to conflate this ‘money’ with wealth and capital and even refer to it as such. Fiat money (I know you don’t like the term, but it’s all I have) is not wealth or capital but gives the holder of the fiat money the legal right to claim wealth and capital . And the power conferred upon those who create this ‘legal’ money goes without saying.
that’s generally the Austrian perspective, but it’s not true. I’ll cover this in a future video. the dollar is backed by huge value.
for now I’ll just mention that most of what we use for money isn’t enforced by legal tender at all…what law says we must use Chase, BoA, Citi electronic digits for money? and the IRS won’t even accept the one fiat instrument we have…the FRN. they only take private bank digits either through a plastic card or a paper check.
The money is a legal concept (fiat money) defined by the Fed which was created by Congress. To confuse the concept ‘money’ with its representation is to repeat the error of confusing the gold note with the gold or to confuse the numeral (symbol) with the concept of number it points to. Today’s dollar is a legal abstaction that can be used by a bank to order Federal Reserve notes for use by those who desire cash, but the dollar was not created by the printing of the Federal Reserve note but by the bookeeping entry sanctioned by Fed regulations. The money is also not the digits, electronic or otherwise, but is the abstract legal concept denoted by the digits. There is no tangible component to today’s money. It is simply a legal concept, hence ‘fiat money’. Fiat money’s value derives exclusively from the ability to use this intangible legal concept to acquire tangible goods or services. There can be no tangible value to an intangible concept other than the ability to convert it into a tangible asset.
@Tim,
It’s my understanding according to the media on this blog that since all money is debt on the balance sheets of the big banks then the USD is actually backed up by all of our assets…everything. The illusion might be that we actually own anything at all.
I’m in your camp as far as understanding things that have intrinsic value.
Damon is supposed to be answering this question shortly. Curious to see his take.
But Tim…I think everyone does understand the fundamentals.
Surely you cannot argue that gold and silver are the same as, say, salt or cattle. Gold and silver don’t have many uses in basic society — at least platinum has more commercial uses. Should any society suddenly deem gold as valueless, ie: not redeemable for goods and services, then, it holds no value.
The same is not true of any raw material we need to live, including salt and wood.
Human beings need just a few things to live, so, if you want to talk fundamentals, you have to start with those things. Whether an object of any sort has intrinsic value stems from it’s ability to meet basic needs.
If anything, white rice has more more intrinsic value than gold or silver. Even paper money has more intrinsic value than gold, because, when the world has gone to -*–, you can burn it for warmth.
(See Germany, Inflation, 1923: http://s2.hubimg.com/u/38177_f260.jpg )
@AJ
Gold bug alert – http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml
Gold is very misunderstood and sometimes mythologized, but please don’t disrespect it like that;-)
@Ranallo – Touche!
i eagerly await your rejection of Austrian economics more fully explained.
Ranallo,
If you are saying that the debt money created by banks is a claim on the wealth of the nation you are right. The question is, why should a privileged group, like the bankers, have the right to create a claim against the wealth of others by a simple bookkeeping entry, while producing no wealth themselves? In order for all the rest of us to acquire wealth or money legally, we must produce some good or service that others will trade their goods and services for through the medium of money. I cannot legally acquire money without offering to others some form of wealth that they desire. But if I could create fiat money at the stroke of a computer key, as the bankers do, then I could acquire your wealth while offering none in return.
Neither banks nor governments produce wealth. But they both expropriate the wealth of those who do produce it. Now in a nation where all are supposed to be equal before the law, and there are no privileged classes, why do some have the right to create fiat money and others don’t. When you can expropriate the fruits of my labor while giving none in return, that amounts to theft, whether its been made legal by corrupt polititians or not.
It’s no accident that the wealth of this nation and that of other nations the banks have put in debt, through the agency of their monopoly fiat money, has been ever more and more concentrated into the hands of those who control this counterfeiting scheme. This is because, as you say, THEIR fiat money (debt) is collateralized by OUR wealth. If that’s fine with you, what can I say?
AJ,
Does everyone understand the fundamentals? Do you understand that the fundamental law of markets is ‘supply and demand’? And do you not know that as the supply of an economic good decreases its value goes up? Gold is more valuable than rice or wood because there is a heck of a lot less of it. And it is this very scarcity of gold, along with other of its properties, such as durability, that makes it so ideally suited for use as money. Those things in great enough abundance are not even considered as economic goods. We can go a lot longer without rice or any other food than we can without air, but air is ubiquitous and is therefore not an economic good.
Yes, people might stop valuing gold tomorrow, and pigs may also learn to fly tomorrow. But the fact is that gold has always been highly valued throughout the history of humanity, and history is the only thing we have to go on in making judgments. And remember, value is subjective. Those who have tried to plan economies on the basis of what they thought were ‘objective’ values, i.e., rice is more valuable than gold, have been consigned to the dust bin of history while gold has remained the money of choice for millions around the world.
I find it very instructive that Alan Greenspan is now a part of the John Paulson Hedge Fund which is aggressively trading fiat dollars for gold. Greenspan was an ardent supporter of the gold standard in his early career. That was before he was co-opted by JP Morgan and then went to the Fed where he sang the praises of fiat money. It seems that he has got his old religion back now that he is no longer a banker.
@ Tim
“This is because, as you say, THEIR fiat money (debt) is collateralized by OUR wealth. If that’s fine with you, what can I say?”
HELL NO! It’s not fine with me. Not that we read all of each others’ replies on here, but I’m a “end the fed” guy for sure. Cartels, corporatism and monopolists are cancers plaguing our society.
Tim,
All money derives its value from the guarantee of the sovereign (or whoever) to back it. This is just as true for 100% gold backed money as it is for your hated fiat money. Bottom line: if you don’t think the sovereign (or whoever) has the gold to back the currency (i.e., the promise of payment), the currency is dead.
Another way to think of it: money is just the first derivative of the real economy. Things like checking accounts are the second derivative of the real economy (a first derivative of money). Writing a check against money is just like paying money against the real economy. Money really is just a promise to pay. The question is do you believe that promise?
The better question is why do you need a promise? The real economy is constrained by our natural resources. It is not perpetual, and it is not global. We need to live within our means, and we need to at least have the threat of being self-sufficient. “Free trade” as currently understood requires that China owns the United States’ means of production. Hayek told us that socialism is when a country’s government owns the country’s means of production, and he told us that he loved himself the free trade. But if the free trade results in a communist nation owning a democratic nation’s means of production, how does that promote the liberty and freedom of the citizens of the democratic nation? Answer: it doesn’t.
To stick with money here. Market selected money such as gold and silver WERE the money. It was not a promise to pay anything but WAS the money and private property in itself. Early paper money was indeed a promise to pay an amount of money and money was defined as a certain weight and purity of specie. These early gold notes and silver certificates were not understood to be the money but were promises to pay the money “to the bearer on demand”. They were notes (IOU’s), not money.
Over the years people got in the habit of calling these notes ‘money’. This semantical confusion made it all the easier for the Fed to remove the real money from the equation and to pass the note off as the money by the 1930′s. And so now we had notes (IOU’s) that owe you nothing. What sense does it make to say that the title to something is that something, whether it be a car, a house, or an ounce of silver or gold?
The money decreed by the Constitution in the form of silver or gold was private property used to trade for other forms of private property and kept the wealth diffused among the people who owned the money and wealth. Today’s ‘money’ is a total legal abstraction issued as debt which is owned by the banks. We no longer have any real money which gives individuals control and ownership of their own money. Talk of being backed by the wealth and resources of the sovereign is a lot of irrelevant nonsense. Real money is private property not debt backed up by so-called common resources.
@Team.
Gold and silver are no more “real money” than the salt used to pay Roman soldiers was “real money.” There is no such thing as “real money.” The entire concept of money is an abstraction and, in the final analysis, a distraction from reality. Gold and silver only have value because large swaths of the populace delude themselves into believing they have value, just like fiat money.
While fiat money is indeed an abstraction, gold, silver, salt, or cattle, all used as money at various times and places, are not abstractions, but are physical assets that can be held as private property. The difference between a physical asset and a legal abstraction could not be more profound.
To say that gold and silver, or for that matter salt and wampum, have value only because the general populous is deluded into believing so, is simply to recognize that all value judgments are subjective, including your own value judgment as to the delusional nature of other people’s value judgments.
But if we cannot recognize such fundamental distinctions as the difference between a government decreed abstraction, such as fiat money, and a market valued physical asset, such as gold, silver, or salt, how are we to carry on any intelligible dialog on the subject of money? Mastery of the fundamentals is absolutely essential to the carrying on of any intelligent discussion. The distinctions expounded above could not be more fundamental.
@Tim,
But those physical assets act as a store of value only because we agree they do. That’s why I say that all money is an abstraction (and a distraction).
The problem with the concept of “the market” as currently understood is that it bears the stamp of Hayek’s perversion of it into a secular form of the “divine right of kings” where the market is god and the most successful in the market are determined by this secular god. Never mind the fact that many (if not most) of the “kings” derive their success entirely through theft and fraud. The “infallible market” is another delusion that has been sold to the masses to encourage their voluntary servitude in the pursuit of liberty. In Hayek’s perfect world, all roads lead to serfdom for the vast majority of human beings.
Tao,
When I speak of the market I simply mean the aggregate activity of people freely exchanging economic goods and services. To the extent force, such as monopoly enforcement, and fraud are employed, a free market is thwarted. I am under no illusions that our markets are free. To begin with, when virtually all economic transactions involve money, and what passes for money is a debt instrument under the control of a banking cartel, it in no way can be said that we have a free market.
As to markets being some divine entity, that is not an idolatry that I share. But I must say there is no shortage of idolatries extant. It seems to me that most people subscribe to some dogma or doctrine that amounts to an idolatry. Once you give yourself over to one of these ‘schools of thought’ all open and rational inquiry ceases. One now must simply spread the gospel and do battle with or ignore any facts or reasonings that do not fit. So much of what masquerades as ‘science’ these days is simply religion dressed up in scientific jargon.
It is always very sad to me when I meet a young person who has given himself over to one of these ‘schools’. To think that learning and curiosity should end at such a young age is truly a tragedy to me. As a young man I was caught up in some of these ‘groupthinks’ but came to realize how stultifying and antithethcal to intellectual growth they are. Today I studiously refrain from joining any organizations or parties that promulgate orthodoxies of any kind and resolutely avoid any labels regarding myself or my thinking. All thinking must be free to follow the light wherever it may lead. If it’s more important to be in a group than to think and explore freely, your life as a seeker of wisdom and truth is at an end.
I know you must be sick of hearing me say it and I’m getting sick of saying it, but Pecora was just another instance of attacking the visible symptom without following-through to discover the root cause. We continually remove lumps without doing anything to eradicate the cancerous cells that cause them. Corporate “persons” may look and act like viable building blocks in the Capital System but their lack of true humanity is bound to manifest itself in grotesque combinations that confound cosmetic attempts to make them appear healthy when viewed by Consumers.
“Fraudclosure” could be another chance to exert Congressional authority over the terms and conditions of an artificial business entity’s existence in our Capitalistic Society; but we have to re-read the Federalist Papers and listen to Jefferson this time.
He’s been right all along! Can’t anyone see that?
Furthermore (while I’m ranting) I’m not so sure the Dark Overlords are as powerful as some here would credit them. I can see some, at the top, manipulating the Forces of Globalism for their own ends but are there not opposing interests there, too?
In a system as vast and complex as the World Wide Economy is it not possible that the Global Corporate System is an out-of-control Zombie that controls the Masters of the Universe too?
If I’m correct, and all these economic ills are being caused by an invisible virus, is it not possible the solution is an equally invisible anti-virus? Ideas are like that.
Quick hit:
Corporate “personhood” as we currently understand it is still a realtively recent phenomenon. As I recall, it only dates back to the mid 1880s as dicta in a Supreme Court syllabus (“Santa Clara County” is in the title of the case). It took another centurty to secure that precedent, but it is still suspect and subject to the same kind of turning as Plessy v. Ferguson.
Aside:
I think the problems facing Pecora and FDR were too deep to address the issue of corporate personhood head on, in part because it was not well-established. At the time, the investment banks were controlling the real industrial economy directly as members of the boards of directors of all of the industries. Seriously. That’s how bad it was. I agree that the Pecora Commission did not resolve all the ills of the system, but it did fundamentally shift the power dynamics that had been in place beforehand. There’s actually a lot of things I don’t like about the New Deal, but when I view them against the backdrop of the power dynamics of the time, the compromises made a lot of sense and were made without illusions.
They, like you, still don’t get it. Personhood was, and still IS, the central issue. Bank fraud is just the visible symptom. Until we decide how corporate entities will be treated under law by the crafting of individual Charters, with strictly defined functions and limitations, they will continue to bamboozle Congress.
Without personhood corporations (banks) could be made into very beneficial economic tools for our economy. Personhood makes us the tools of their government.
I know its small and hard to see, but personhood is the legal lynchpin of the whole corporate system. From the bottom up.
Think of it this way: JP Morgan Corp. has one layer of Constitutional protections to overcome before it can be prosecuted. JP Morgan, the individual, then has a second layer of Constitutional protections to overcome before you can prosecute him personally. Bait and switch; bait and switch. A lawyers dream.
Conflicts of interest would be cut-and-dried matters of conformance or non-conformance if the* interests* were spelled out beforehand in a proper (People Approved) Charter.
Let them do as they will – within limits.
@William,
The major banks were not corporations during the Pecora Commission hearings, they were partnerships. All of the investment banks, the real miscreants in the 1920s and today, only became corporations within the last 10-30 years, including the now defunction Lehman Brothers, JPM and GS.
Again, my only point was that corporate personhood as we understand it today is a relatively recent phenomenon. The roots only go back 125 years, and things have changed a lot since then.
Thank you very for a really informative video.
I´m wery much looking forward to comming videos and will forward this link to my friends.
I´m glad there are an intelligent persons like you doing what he can to educate the masses, but wery sad that only a few 1000 do. billions should…
Great job Damon on the new video!
Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania scrip was similar to how our money is backed today. In his In 1729 he wrote “A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency” in which he introduced the concept of “coined land.” And so it is today, our land and homes are backing the privately owned monetary system that oppresses us today.
But our system goes beyond backing the money as our future productivity and future generations are being held to back currency issued in the past. The international banking cartel has added a new twist, they can reach out into the future to enslave the unborn. Debt without representation.
I DO NOT mean to imply that Franklin’s fine system is similar to the usury of today. They are as different as night and day.
Larry
P.S. – If you are interested in “Foreclosuregate,” be sure to read Ellen Brown’s brand new article…Foreclosuregate and Obama’s Pocket Veto; A Massive Fraud
http://www.counterpunch.org/brown10082010.html
Damon –
Forgive me for such a micro view, but, couldn’t someone cross over to the capital holder’s side by never borrowing?
I get the idea that money comes into the system as debt, in terms of mortgage loans and small business loans, but, if an individual works to serve the system, and saves and saves and saves, doesn’t he or she ultimately cross over to the capital holder’s side?
I suppose, then, that the saver ultimately becomes a lender, investing his or her capital back over and collecting a return.
I bet some of the elite bankers out there would agree with your concepts, if they really sat down and thought about them, but then the elite side would argue that “the system works” because the properly educated person could cross over to the left side.
Fascinating stuff. I hope to employ these concepts when I take my brokers exams – ha!
I await your next video!
great questions AJ…
they may avoid the immediate pain of being a net borrower when things go bad, but it doesn’t mean they’re on the capital side. the determinant isn’t whether they borrow or not, because at the end of the day everyone is using borrowed money whether they directly borrowed it or not. it’s a matter of socioeconomic class. if someone can get a job serving the elite, they’re on the capital side, but they’re not elite and will be quickly dumped if it serves the elite interests (see Wall Street 2…good example of how even a Wall St CEO will be dumped to protect the capital holders). otherwise even if they don’t borrow, they’re still stuck in the scarcity system governed by debt on the other side. there are plenty of lower and middle class people who don’t borrow, but live hand to mouth because they can’t store anything up, and even if they did, if deflation or hyperinflation really takes hold they’d lose it all because it’s actually not savings, but a a conditional liability, i.e. someone else’s debt.
yes I think you’re right that elite bankers would say the system works because people have the chance to join it. but that reveals no empathic connection with reality…typical of a narcissistic social structure. 1st, the capital side requires the other side to be much bigger…there must be an order of magnitude more people on the other side for the system to work. 2nd, what is “proper education” other than indoctrination to serve the capital/corporate system, and how many people can get access to it? the properly educated told the masses to max out 401ks and buy houses…so much for that.
regarding the notion of small investors being on the capital side… I may get into this in a future video, but the elite capital class I’m talking about controls the investment (gambling) houses, whereas small investors are just invited to play at their poker tables. when people enter a casino they generally know the games have a built-in profit for the house. for some reason they don’t think the same thing of the investment houses. but the elite invites them to play by opening up markets for trading/investing because it brilliantly buys off tons of people to support the elite system and defend it against criticism.
Yes, I feel this way too: “but the elite capital class I’m talking about controls the investment (gambling) houses, whereas small investors are just invited to play at their poker tables,” even for my own investments.
As for narcissism, I see it all the time and it is sickening. A very rich man said to me recently, “There’s no amount of money a man can’t convince himself he deserves.” They do it, as you’ve seen first hand, by connecting wealth with value creation.
As for “properly educated,” yes, glad you caught that. I meant that to have a sense of irony.
I love the way you make the monetary system so simple, I wonder why Bernake can’t do that? HA! We know why they want confusion, if we actually understand that we are being screwed… we might rise up and it’s not the government it’s the bankers we should be going after. Stop using the big banks go to credit unions.
Regarding Cloud Computing – What is there to know that they already don’t know? Its not like , scientists for example, work in isolation under security clearance. They give the stuff away, publish or perish. Never was any privacy to being with. I’m much more concerned about biology. Microsoft, reading the writing on the wall, has been very active in that field, and you couldn’t order a flask to your home without instantly being declared a terrorist or drug lab operator. Personalized medicine? What happens when you fall dead 8 hours after taking a drug specifically optimized for you? Nanoparticle exposure? How can you even know its happening? Etc. etc.
cloud computing puts all data in the hands of central planners to run things as 1 integrated global system as opposed to keeping standalone servers in each corporation behind a protective firewall where it can’t be data-mined by Poindexter freaks at NSA.
Great videos Dave; your work is brilliant; thank you.
Pingback: Vrabel del 2 «
Damon – interesting videos and point of view.
You listed the “footprint” of the bank cartel – JPMC, CITI, RBS, BNP Paribas, big banks in Japan, etc.
Many people, such as Mark Faber, say that a final conflagration, all-out war, will be the way all the rot in the financial system will eventually get covered over.
Can we tell anything about how the alliances will be formed based on the banking “footprint”. Based on your list, does it mean that England, US, France, German and Japan will be allies against some other alliance, such as Russia and China? Or do you think everything will line up is some other configuration? Are there internecine rivalries within this cartel which could cause some allies to “flip”? Could the US find itself all alone against the rest of the world?
No it’s not right to view them as being aligned with their countries…JPM Chase and Goldman are NOT aligned with the US. So you can’t make direct conclusions about how countries will line up in war based on that. Rather, this is the financial elite of these countries allied together in a system to live off the backs of the masses in all countries. So the cartel is a global money machine that hovers above countries and then uses its financial power to play countries against each other. Therefore, just look at the countries holding US debt and you get a sense for who the cartel is aligned with in the next war–China, Japan, OPEC, Russia, and the banking center countries. (Brazil is on the list but it won’t be involved…it’s just another export center)
In terms of the US being alone, I think it’s pretty clear they’re trying to setup the US to be perceived as the next “evil empire” by the rest of the world (this has already largely succeeded) which will create the moral case for the countries listed above to mobilize…exactly what happened in WWII as the bankers built an alliance to foreclose on the last great republic turned evil empire. This time it won’t have to be as militarily destructive since our productive core has already been destroyed by GATT whereas Germany’s productive core had to be bombed.
Thanks for your reply.
That makes sense.
A lot to think about.
damon- what about ICBMs and other nuclear weapons? doesn’t this make it hard to start a war. A country with nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons cannot be conquered.
@ starcraftfan. A nation that has ICBMs and other WMDs can still be conquered…just in different ways than one might at first think. If you read the Art of War, the perfect victory is one where the army is at home with their wives (increasing the size of tomorrow’s army), as the state is able to manipulate their enemies into doing what they want, without their enemies even knowing it. In this context ICBMs and other WMDs are largely irrelevant.
After viewing the Renaissance 2.0 videos, is it really as simple as re-education to steer the crowd toward the necessity of Sovereign Money? As Damon stated over at YouTube, the adults will simply try and make bets “to protect their wealth” instead.
Perhaps the answer lies with the youth. In order to trigger the immune response large enough to rid ourselves of the debt scourge, perhaps we need a cultural virus of our own. I’ve often wondered if a computer game can be engaging enough to a) get disenfranchised western kids to learn some maths and b) produce an onslaught of Jamie Dimon’s to overrun the Money Pushers. Perhaps 3D first person shoot’em ups could be relegated to kiddie korner status by angry kids who need a larger venting outlet. Would a sim type application work?
I don’t think more indoctrination and manipulation is the answer. Even if you somehow succeeded, what would you be left with afterwards?
My morning reading, on income inequality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/business/17view.html
Damon,
I’m truly interested in your intellectual journey and current conclusions as I’m a bit younger than you but have ridden the “elite” path as Big 4 strategic consultant, CRM software account manager and entrepreneur selling biz models to Silicon Valley VC’s, which availed me to the narcissistic/sociopathic Wall Street psychology and economics. These workplace experiences + a 2-year long world tour blogging for a magazine have led me to the same discoveries about economics, psychology and spirituality as you’ve outlined here.
FYI – There aren’t many people like you who’ve experienced the Army, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley then decided to buck those for a better chance at happiness sharing his/her “integrative” findings in public. Kudos!
The following questions assume a new monetary system is in place where money is an asset and the current power structure has been magically dissembled..
In a previous reply you stated, “[Free market competition represents the] Standard predator/prey model in every species. Free competition does not mean benevolent environment for all. How in the world were the masses sold that ‘yeah it’s good to open our weakest up to attack by the strongest?’”
Are you saying that free markets inevitably allow predators to prey upon the weak amassing power using any means necessary to form monopolies/cartels? Aren’t free markets just another tool/system that humans must decide how best to use thus presenting a spiritual/psychological dilemma?
Have you seen the efforts of John Mackey, Whole Foods CEO, with “Conscious Capitalism” and “Firms of Endearment” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_CpNILbH64?
At this stage of my understanding, I’d rather live in world of conscious capitalists than conscious bureaucrats as capitalists can’t use FORCE to make me buy their stuff in a free market (Austrian view of one at least).
hi Ranallo, I can’t really do your comment justice because we could write a book with the dialogue that would be necessary to flesh it out. a few things…
freedom must involve community. self can’t live without other, i.e. the notion of rugged individualism is a lie that has killed off many true local communities that used to exist. our current implementation of “free market” has warred against freedom as top performers ran off to top schools and financial centers chasing big paychecks based on living off the backs of the people they left back home and submitting them under mega corporate machines. a related anecdote: those who can’t fuel the system have been shut away in psych hospitals, disabled homes, elderly care, etc. thereby handicapping our sense of holistic life and community. these people are essential parts of humanity that teach all us achievement addicts how to love, so we all suffer by separating from them so we won’t be distracted from racing around in the “free market” for paychecks. truly a bizarre world we’ve built.
have you read Huxley’s Brave New World? good insight into the bizarre world where fake happiness is manufactured through media and PR as things like “conscious capitalism” get pumped through the airwaves to make us think our system is something other than it is (doesn’t matter how nice a CEO sounds…their system is still built on the backs of the 3rd world). what determines whether a corporation can act “conscious” or not is the financial system. corporate leaders in the 80s talked in the same way as Mackey, but back then Wall Street was conquering the states by buying out corporations that failed to ruthlessly pursue expansion because they were loyal to their locales. Wall Street won because they run the money that feeds every corporation. here we are 30 years later and the funding machine is ending its 70 year inflationary growth phase and we’re restructuring into a more steady state economy (probably after some more decline), so they’ll attempt a new PR strategy under the banner of something like “conscious capitalism” to sell the people on the new style of corporatism they’re living under.
how do you reconcile a vague idea like “conscious capitalism” that might make us think we’re in a nice system with the fact that your old VC buddies will throw around $100 million on a worthless deal while millions of people have to track every penny that flows through their wallets because they’re worried about buying food next week? such is the difference between the left and right sides I’ve diagrammed on the whiteboard for these 2 lessons.
why accept the false choice that you must submit to a big government bureaucrat or a big corporate capitalist? I’d prefer to be a free man in a free community. the 2-sided empire of bigness (described in my Renaissance 2.0 lesson 6.2) driven by the 2 political parties we’ve been indoctrinated to follow is narcissistic regardless of which side happens to be in charge at any given time.
capitalists can’t force you? as long as you’re living inside the system, you are forced to buy much even though you can choose between product A, B, C so it makes you think you’re making a free choice. this is why the Persian people are resisting Anglo banks taking over their territory…they see the truth of how all of us are forced to run around in this “free” system…indigenous people see the same thing, which is why they’ve been exterminated. the Austrian ideal doesn’t exist. the theory puts a religious gloss on economics. literally. when I critique other economic theories, people have no problem engaging the discussion. but when I critique Austrian, holy blasphemy batman! people get angry. but it paints a mythical Eden that doesn’t exist. capitalists compete and the winners gain power, which skews markets (one of the things Marx was right about) and over the long-term results in the strongest gaining so much power that they rule the government as well. assuming away realities like that might make for interesting theory, but it’s just theory.
Damon,
I agree with you totally that it doesn’t matter what you call the tyranny, they all amount to the same thing. It seems that, no matter what the ‘system’, the most ruthless and cunning always rise to the top. Abstract ideologies (capitalism, socialism, fascism, etc.) do not act or rule, it is people who make up, rule, and act using these invented social ideas. And it also seems that history bears out Lord Acton’s assessment that “All power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Being a free man to live in a free community. Yes, that sounds good to me, too. But that means, it seems to me, living your life as you see fit, even in the face of violent opposition like Gandhi did, while forsaking the use of force or coercion against others, no matter how righteous you may think your cause.
At the root of every tyrannical dystopia is a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to legislate and force their view of things upon society. All of these attempted utopias are founded upon the absolute certainty of the fundamentalist zealots who promote them. And the results are all around us.
Nobody, be he capitalist, communist, or theocrat, tweaks his moustache and say’s, “What an evil villain am I”. No, he tells himself that what he is doing is for the ‘good of humanity’, and rationalizes his need to eliminate or suppress all of the evil and ignorant people who would oppose his tyranny on the basis of some version of utilitarianism…’the greatest good for the greatest number’.
It seems to me that tyranny begins when one says, “There ought to be a law or a government to force my view of how men ought to act upon my neighbors”. Now the one who says this would never for a moment accept the notion that anybody else ought to be able to force their views upon him. Why this disparity? It is because all would-be tyrants suffer under the delusion that they alone are privy to an absolute objective truth that confers upon them the authority to force this truth upon others. It is this monumental megalomania and infantile narcissism that is at the core of all fundamentalist belief, be it religious or secular, that santions the use of force (violence) against opposition. Remember, all laws are backed by the threat of violence. If you don’t think so, just try resisting arrest.
That is why I oppose any fiat, whatsoever, that encroaches upon the liberty of anybody, whomsoever, except for the purpose of restraining people from interfering with the liberty of others.
The difference between a slave and a free person is that a free person owns his own person and the fruits of his own labor, whereas the person of the slave and the slaves productions are owned by his master. If a free person owns the fruits of his own labor then he ought to be free to dispose of and trade those fruits as he pleases with other free persons without interference.
When some group of people get together and decree that I must accept as money for my property some instrument which they have been given a monopoly right to create, I am no longer a free person in control of my own property but am a subject to the owners and creators of this money by fiat. And if I must accept their fiat money, which they themselves have created ex nihilo, then they have acquired the right to obtain my property for nothing. If they have this legal right to my property, and they do, then I have become their slave or serf.
Now you may say that the legal tender fiat only applies to a paper Federal Reserve Note, but I think you’ll find that a court of law will find any number of forms of fiat money conveyance legal and that you must accept these conveyances as legal payment. If I give you a cashier’s check, most any judge will tell you that you have been legally paid.
Then why have a government to act as a vehicle for a powerful few to rule all others?
Damon,
Tim pretty much summed up my views of your reply very nicely. Thanks Tim.
Tim’s rebuttal brings us right back to my main point about psychology and spirituality needing to change to the point where people understand and strive for self-transcendence. The Vedic Tradition and Buddhism can help shed light for many.
Murray Rothbard once wrote, “In a profound sense, NO SOCIAL SYSTEM, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection.”
I think one reason why Austrians get in a tizzy when you (or others) make comments about their views is that you lump them in with the “neoliberals” without giving them a fair shake intellectually.
When I first came across your work here, I immediately thought how your financial/power understanding and call for decentralized power/community/compassion/non-aggression were completely analogous to the ANARCHO-CAPITALIST point of view. Part of this view is that utopia is impossible and getting to this type of “stateless society” takes many generations with many regressions. I also like how they don’t deify individuals particularly their take that most academics/intellectuals are easy bribed and will compromise principles due to entitlement issues.
Please give Murray Rothbard a read – http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
Also, here’s a snippet from Lew Rockwell blasting the Mont Pelerin Society, a den of “neoliberals” – http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/67561.html
One Austrian critique from me is that a lot of their members are hardcore Catholics, which seems to me as a complete contradiction to their anarchistic, liberty ideals. I can’t think of one institution that is MORE CENTRALIZED in group think and has done more to stunt progress and freedom than the Catholic Church. It seems some Austrians separate their spiritual views from economic/political ones, e.g. no consistency. This is the same accusation that many libertarians make towards liberals and conservatives, i.e. if you believe in [economic/social] freedom, why not be consistent across all political spectrum. (NOTE: I’m a recovering Catholic having survived 12 yrs of indoctrination:-)
I’ll continue to keep an open mind and curious to hear your solutions especially in the monetary space.
Tim, the view that “all things govt = bad” is one of my beefs with the Austrian perspective. As you point out below, it is likewise an example of infantile thinking…the cause of fundamentalism…it’s primitive splitting from a psychological perspective to locate all “badness” in a particular object. Makes sense since Austrian theory had its roots in imperial Europe where the argument against the all-powerful monarchy was legitimate. But then it was brought to the US to breakdown our notion of commonwealth (govt with bottom-up forces established precisely to fight against the pure top-down imperial form of government). The corporate elite used it to breakdown the power of the individual states. And now we’re stuck with what Austrian followers hate–imperial top-down machine–because we elevated the private sector over the constitutional republic, which by definition depends upon strong sovereign states. And then neoliberalism was used to do the same to sovereign nations. What we’re witnessing in the world is the global capital machine and billionaires attacking and destroying nations. I think it’s sad that people cheer that on all in the pursuit of a fundamentalist “free market.”
The intent behind commonwealth government is simply a community coming together to formally define their community. I’d ask you to consider the benefits of that, especially in terms of protecting the weak from the strong, rather than thinking the only type of government that can exist is tyranny.
A community needs a medium of exchange in order to have a viable community. It’s the people establishing their own method of monetizing their own work!! It allows them rather than their creditor to benefit from their work. It provides the very economic freedom you seek. If a community doesn’t have this, then the people have no option but go into debt to the elite rich, i.e. tyranny (what is a monarchy other than a monopoly capitalist having everyone in debt to them and controlling all land/production?). That’s exactly what happened in the US as the Brit rich never left us alone to have our own medium of exchange (see quotes from Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Jackson, etc). And now we’re facing the final death of the republic, end of community. We now have a massive predator/prey dichotomy in society. We basically have a monarchy ready to takeover. This is the worst time to unleash a “free market” on the prey. Restoring a commonwealth form of government now is the only hope of avoiding hell for most people.
This is why I’m doing this video series…to explain what slavery/freedom really is. In arguing for freedom, as you say “owning the fruits of your labor,” you’re justifying the exact opposite. You can only “own the fruits of your labor” if you have money on the asset side of your balance sheet. If you have debt money, someone else owns your labor…slavery. That’s the key…can the people have an asset, or are they stuck with being in debt to the strongest rich guy who wins the “free market” in currencies?
Damon,
Although I see the name ‘Tim’ at the beginning of your last entry, I’m not quite sure whom you are addressing, as the opinions you ascribe to Tim are not mine. Apparently this Tim you refer to believes “All things govt. = bad”. Well, that’s certainly not my position, and I think you’ll find that I’ve never said any such thing on this blog.
Like yourself, I believe that our form of government was put in place to protect the rights and liberties of the people and to prevent the usurpation of those rights by any would-be ruling or criminal class. The Constitution tells us that the people themselves are sovereign and that it is the people who delegate powers to the Federal Government and that all of those powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states and the people themselves. It seem to me that we both agree on these matters. I’m not sure what this other Tim thinks other than you say he believes all government is evil. But I’m not him, so let’s move on.
Apparently, this other Tim is also an ‘Austrian’, as you keep referring to that designation in you missive to him. I’m assuming that you’re referring to a school of economic thought. Although I have read some works by some economists referred to as Austrians, including Hayek and Von Mises, I have also read the works of dozens of other enonomic scribblers, but have resisted the temptation to become a follower of any of them. As I have pointed out in other entries on this blog, I am no subscriber to groupthink and would never limit my thinking by identifying myself with any particular ‘school’. You may have noticed that I have refrained from the use of labels such as ‘Austrian’ and ‘neoliberal’. I don’t find these general labels helpful or necessary to the furtherance of understanding. I think a discussion of the ideas and issues themselves suffices. But then again, I’m sure it’s some other Tim you are referring to as I have never argued for nor have I used the term ‘Austrian economics’. Don’t get me wrong. Some of my best friends are Austrians.
Now about the ‘global capital machine’. I have had several conversations with a friend of mine of late concerning this very ‘global capital machine’. He is a rather wealthy retired investment advisor and fund manager who gets very upset when I point out that there is a conpsiracy of wealthy and powerful individuals who have seized control of money and its creation and have used this fiat money to gain control of assets, media, educational endowments, and governments both here and abroad. He gets very agitated when I say these things and accuses me of attacking capitalism and free enterprise.
When I point out that monopoly control over the monetary system and large portions of the economy, with the connivance of a corrupt government class which grants special privileges as did the monarchs of old with their royal charters, is in no way ‘free enterprise’ he seems incapable of discerning this as his views seem to flow from labels. Just as so many folks do, he associates certain ideas with labels and groups. If I am critical of banks and corporations, he immediately labels me a socialist. Others label me a capitalist for my same ideas. This is the danger of putting people in camps with labels.
You tell this Tim that a community needs a medium of exchange, and that this is the people’s means of establishing their own method of monetizing their own work. I certainly agree with you on this point It was folks like Jefferson and Jackson, whom you mention, who wanted the people to own their own money and so stipulated that it should be in the form of gold and silver in order that bankers would not be able to despoil the weath of the people with their paper money scams.
These men were well aware of the dangers of paper money and were also aware that no society had willingly chosen paper money but had had it foisted upon them by banks and governments who sought to confiscate their wealth. As a result they were adamantly opposed to central banks and fiat money.
There was one among them , however, who was in league with powerful bankers at home and abroad and he supported the first central bank in this country. He was Alexander Hamilton, a man determined to be rich. It was Jackson, a man of the people, who killed that first attempt at banker control when he became president. But, alas, there were other attempts to resurrect the central bank and the Federal Reserve Sytem was finally established in 1913 by not calling it a central bank. Of course they’re out in the open about it now.
As long as money continued to be something that could not be counterfeited at will, the bankers were limited in how much wealth they could steal by means of their ‘fractional reserve’ scheme. But by 1971 all gold backing had been removed and there was no limit on the amount of money the banks could create.
You will have certainly noticed that it was in the 1970′s that the living standard of the majority began to to plummet while the wealth and income of a tiny group of elites and their minions began to soar. A graph of the money supply rises exponentially from that time to this.
As I’ve tried to tell my friend, the investment guru, this has had nothing to do with free enterprise and all to do with monopoly privilege. But he can’t seem to escape his arbitrary labels. These privileged elites who now run our economy and polity in no way believe in ‘free enterprise’. John D. Rockefeller famously said, “Competition is a sin.” And he meant it. His descendents, like David Rockefeller, of Chase Manhattan Bank, now merged with JP Morgen, are busily setting up a new world order where there will be none of that pesky free enterprise. There will be lords and there will be serfs, and of course the usual lesser nobles necessary for administration of the new feudal/socialist utopia.
There will be the usual dog and pony show with folks like Sarah Palin to distract the masses and create the illusion that the people themselves have some say in the matter. But, just like today, the important decisions will be left to the masters.
All of this has been brought to you by the magic of fiat money. The founders’ worst fears are coming to pass. It was Jefferson who warned us that central banks and their fiat money were more powerful that standing armies. Of course now we have both. Those impoverished by these same money masters now make up the ‘all voluteer army’ and are being trained in anti-insurgency in order to handle slave revolts wherever they may be.
It does not seem to me that freedom and free enterprise are that which is to be feared, but slavery and monopoly posing as free enterprise that is the real threat. What do slavery and free anything have to do with one another. It is very Orwellian to say that freedom, whether it be in trading with others or in any other realm of activity is slavery. Isn’t that one of the slogans used in Orwells dystopian novel “1984″…”Freedom is slavery”?
Well, it seems like this Tim guy is kind of confused. I hope you get him straightened out. If I can be of any help, let me know.
Brilliant. I totally agree Tim. Well said.
Nice video. Should be taught to all high schoolers, econ 101 and adults today.
The chain of title issue today could be very serious. Has the fraud machine come up against tried and true property law that locals understand? Explained this to a commercial banker yesterday and once he understood the facts, he was very worried.
If the bank cannot produce the proper documentation, anyone could challenge the lien and quiet title. This would effectively wipe out debts, which the system needs to purge.
Abolish the Fed.
Here is a nice take on Wall Street:
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7360291/
Do you think a single reserve currency will always dominate the global economy?
First, great didactic videos! Keep it up.
You’ve correctly identified the main mechanism by which value is forcefully extracted from people i.e. debt-money. Your solution to this is to restore the republic and reinstate sound money. I can guarantee that this would eventually, but inevitably lead us to exactly the same stalemate we are in today. GUARANTEED or your money back
Why? Well because the root problem is not the monetary system. It goes way deeper. You allude to it in your videos by mentioning self-sovereignty, and even in the name of your website: psychological and spiritual (by which I guess you mean philosophical). This issue is morality. The premise of our government is immoral. It is the illegitimate moral right by one group of people (government) to initiate force on another group (people) to impose taxation, laws etc… Without this the banking cartel cannot exist or reform.
However, our relation to hierarchy and willingness to submit to authority is inherent to our education system and culture. It is a key concept which is even less addressed than debt-based money. Once one accepts this, it becomes exceedingly clear how and why we are in this current predicament.
I’ve listed a few links below that will meat out what I’m referring to. But be warned: once you understand these mind-blowingly simple logical fallacies which our entire system is predicated on, there’s no going back. Although these are simple concepts, there are not easy for us to accept because they go against everything we have been taught. Try it. You have nothing to lose, if only a hour of your time.
Stefan Molyneux’s recent speech:
What the constitution really is
Free book on the root problem : http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/EverydayAnarchy.aspx
Free book on an alternative societal model based on the non-aggression principal: http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/PracticalAnarchy.aspx
yes hierarchy and submitting to authority is the problem, NOT the idea of commonwealth/community, which is really what Stefan advocates because when pushed even he says the community would need to define itself…I think he calls it DRO.
it is the monetary system which creates the entrenched hierarchy and holds the government hostage to be top-down imperial government rather than bottom-up commonwealth.
Stefan fails to account for the predator/prey model which exists in every species. humanity is not immune. his religion tries to assume it away (I’m always amused by atheists who are fundamentalist disciples of Austrian religion).
the republic was the attempt to keep the predators (monarchs) at bay. I agree it has failed, largely because Jefferson/Adams were sent offshore while Hamilton’s monarchical system was built in the constitution. Jefferson was appalled when he returned from France to see that we basically rebuilt the British monarchy. and he knew the problem–the government’s ability to borrow and tax! so design a monetary system that eliminates that. don’t throw out the idea of commonwealth or you’re resigning us back to the days of monarchy/oligarchy.
HI again Damon and company:
Just remember that “Austrian”, meaning the “Austrian” school of economics, is a broad general category with many sub-groupings that do not agree on a number of issues and have philosophical differences. And yes some of the advocates have many of the flaws previously described here. Von Mises was not nearly as anti “government” as the later Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (and myself) are.
I think from my perspective, I would want people to closely dissect the idea of “government” and hierarchy and then come to understand what they are trying to achieve with their tool they call “government”. As you rightly point out the dynamic between predator and prey, it is important for people to come to a basic understanding about why their need for security exists and how to live peacefully with other non-predatory people in this world. Rothbard rejects involuntary exchanges because they are the tool of the predator and they reduce the well being of non-predatory people. Non-voluntary exchange is necessary to implement a monopoly system of enforcement or adjudication/legislation. Even among non-predatory “decent” people “legal” consensus is an illusion (see “The Myth of the Rule of Law”: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm)
Enough human experience now exists to postulate (and I think, strongly support the thesis) that a system intended to provide security or to adjudicate disputes among those who choose to live by voluntary exchange, if that system utilizes non-voluntary means against the non-predatory, will ultimately become the tool of predators. In this case, that which utilizes predatory means attracts those who have predator intent. So a system using involuntary wealth exchange (taxation, currency debasement, predatory advantage using “law”, etc.) will become a tool of oppression with time. The better the people as a society are when you start, the slower the process will start out, but at the heart to the system, it’s contradictory flaws will attract and empower the antitheses of anti-predatory (voluntary exchange) behavior.
In trying to construct a system that limits the accumulation of predatory power, I am not able to think of a more effective solution, than the fully retained “power of the purse” of all (non-predatory) individuals who freely contract in a open free market for what ever service they need to maintain their freedoms and quality of life. I freely invite all comers to try and postulate a system that more effectively constrains tyranny and instantly empowers the non-predatory to take corrective action, than what I like to call the “network” society (what some might call “anarcho-capitalist”, or “free-market government”): a society based on voluntary exchange, non-monopoly adjudication and non-monopoly enforcement/insurance services (the “crown” and the “scepter” to use figurative language associated with “governmental” functions). More on this subject can also be learned from studying the pre-British history of the Irish who had a free market in adjudication (the “Brehon” and “Brehon law”) and a free market in enforcement/security (“Tuath”). Please see:
Stateless Societies: Ancient Ireland by Joseph R. Peden:
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf
Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law by Joseph R. Peden:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf (pg. 3)
For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard, Pg. 215:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215
Anarchy and the Law By Edward Stringham, Page 565:
Preview Here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nft4e62nicsC&printsec=frontcover
Medieval Ireland, An Encyclopedia by Seán Duffy, Ailbhe MacShamhráin, James Moynes, Pg. 383:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kVslRbrSH7QC&printsec=frontcover
450,000 to 960,000
Irish History – Brehon Law by Pat Flannery:
http://fringeelements.ning.com/forum/topics/anarchic-ireland-rough-draft
It is sad (to me) that Ireland’s written history only begins at the invasion of the early Catholic missionaries and the subsequent cultural contamination. There is archeological evidence that this Irish civilization pre-dates this invasion by perhaps several thousand years and the Brehon law system was in many ways the most sophisticated and if you will, “just” in all of Europe in its time.
Unfortunately because of the nature of the systems employed either willingly or unwillingly in this world, to borrow the words from “South Pacific” Movie, we have seen the “bullies multiply” and become very strong. So, as has happened many times in the past, there are going to be some abrupt changes soon as the current system cannot continue this way much longer.
Let me see If I am understanding the situation correctly. I am thinking Damon is trying to postulate a way to transition from the hell we are at now in to a better system more conducive to abundant living, and even empowering of non-materialistic improvements. In order to make each of those incremental changes he advocates, I am thinking that the many shortcomings that already exist in the system must be simultaneously surmounted at each step, such as but not limited to: legislative capture, judicial capture, executive capture, voter ignorance/apathy, vote counting fraud, the corrupting nature of winner take all political systems, the tyrannical tendencies of non-voluntary systems, disinformation/media capture and propaganda, and elite power to continue to dominate in each of these spheres utilizing one of their greatest powers, the usurped “power of the purse” though debt money, systematic usury and of course their great actual appropriated loot (stolen wealth) . For the US, the strategy seems to be to use the advantage of the already distributed nature of some powers because of the city, county, and state structures and offices that still exist, where the advantages of the elite might on an individual local basis be defeated. To, in a best case, some how build upon that success in a “bottom up” fashion to eventually maybe be able to implement needed change at the top, but maybe more importantly, at the same time to try and get some non-predatory domains viable enough on the local level to offer some hope to prepare for anticipated major future chaos for the mutual benefit and survival of those at the local level. Are we on the same page here?
Correction: the Pg 3 citing in journals refers to the first reference, not the second
I cannot see my original post which you replied to. So here it is again for completeness:
First, great didactic videos! Keep it up.
You’ve correctly identified the main mechanism by which value is forcefully extracted from people i.e. debt-money. Your solution to this is to restore the republic and reinstate sound money. I can guarantee that this would eventually, but inevitably lead us to exactly the same stalemate we are in today. GUARANTEED or your money back
Why? Well because the root problem is not the monetary system. It goes way deeper. You allude to it in your videos by mentioning self-sovereignty, and even in the name of your website: psychological and spiritual (by which I guess you mean philosophical). This issue is morality. The premise of our government is immoral. It is the illegitimate moral right by one group of people (government) to initiate force on another group (people) to impose taxation, laws etc… Without this the banking cartel cannot exist or reform.
However, our relation to hierarchy and willingness to submit to authority is inherent to our education system and culture. It is a key concept which is even less addressed than debt-based money. Once one accepts this, it becomes exceedingly clear how and why we are in this current predicament.
I’ve listed a few links below that will meat out what I’m referring to. But be warned: once you understand these mind-blowingly simple logical fallacies which our entire system is predicated on, there’s no going back. Although these are simple concepts, there are not easy for us to accept because they go against everything we have been taught. Try it. You have nothing to lose, if only a hour of your time.
Stefan Molyneux’s recent speech:
What the constitution really is
Free book on the root problem : http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/EverydayAnarchy.aspx
Free book on an alternative societal model based on the non-aggression principal: http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/PracticalAnarchy.aspx
“Stefan fails to account for the predator/prey model which exists in every species. humanity is not immune. his religion tries to assume it away.”
The Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs), along with private military defense agencies, on the contrary do take this into account. That is their whole raison d’etre.
“(I’m always amused by atheists who are fundamentalist disciples of Austrian religion)”
I don’t see how accepting non-aggression principal and building a society around it makes one a religious fundamentalist. Religion by definition rejects reason and evidence, which is exactly what Stefan promotes. Maybe you can elaborate on this please?
“the republic was the attempt to keep the predators (monarchs) at bay. “
But the Republic is also a predator because by its very nature it assumes a monopoly on force to exist. If one is free to join or not the Republic, then it’s merely a DRO which one can voluntarily join. If one is forced to be part of the Republic and subjects to its laws/taxes/force, then it is the predator.
“I agree it has failed, largely because Jefferson/Adams were sent offshore while Hamilton’s monarchical system was built in the constitution. Jefferson was appalled when he returned from France to see that we basically rebuilt the British monarchy. and he knew the problem–the government’s ability to borrow and tax! “
So basically the Republic didn’t work out about because of a couple of dudes?
Also, I don’t see how a Republic can exist without some form of forceful taxation to pay for itself. Was Jefferson going to finance it all by himself to this day?
But let’s for a moment assume the constitution did originally include a clause stating taxes/borrowing was forbidden. Would that have made any difference long term? Have we respected any of the other article of the constitution to this day? How about state rights? Not really. Congress transgresses the constitution every day. Why? Because the state has a monopoly on force. So empirically, an additional non-taxation clause to the constitution would have made no difference.
” so design a monetary system that eliminates that. don’t throw out the idea of commonwealth or you’re resigning us back to the days of monarchy/oligarchy.”
Yes, by all means please create a new monetary system, but don’t force people to use. Let them choose which monetary system each person wants to adhere to and we’ll all be the better for it.
I’m not sure what you mean by commonwealth. Do you mean the commons? If so, I refer you to this article about the tragedy of the commons: http://austrianeco.blogspot.com/2009/12/tragedy-of-commons.html
I detect some minarchist tendencies in your comments, so you might find these debates relevant to your views:
Debate with minarchist Badnarik:
Debate with minarchist Jan Helfeld
http://www.youtube.com/stefbot#p/search/4/2gK2xB9F9Ag
I detect some minarchist tendencies in your comments, so you might find these debates relevant to your views:
Debate with minarchist Badnarik:
Debate with minarchist Jan Helfeld
http://www.youtube.com/stefbot#p/search/4/2gK2xB9F9Ag
Nobody in this conversation has yet mentioned the subject of land. My grandfather, who was a homesteader, was the most free and independent man I have ever known. Wall street, money, and the state of the economy were nominal concerns to him as he raised and made almost everything he needed, and traded (bartered) with neighbors for other things. It was a good life and his life of choice. Were it possible, I would have made the same choice as a young man.
My grandfather had lived in the city as a young man, but by the time he had returned from the Spanish-American War, he had had enough of the brave new world with its material blandishments, and headed to the country as homesteading was available at that time. There was nothing that a Madison Avenue could dangle before him that was of the slightest interest to him. After helping Teddy Roosevelt to ‘liberate’ our brown neighbors to the south, he just wanted to be free.
Access to the land has always been a source of freedom and independence to the people and the bane of those who would rule over them and create feudal and industrial empires. Control of people has always amounted to control of the land which is the source of all resources. During the feudal times the land was simply monopolized by the ruling elites who then reduced the people to bondage on ‘their’ estates. And, of course, as the economy industrialized people were forced off of the land to become the landless proletariat serving the industrial elites.
The enslavement of a people has always entailed the denial of free access to land, which is why land reform has always been an issue among oppressed peoples. Since none of us has created the land, what gives any group of people the right to claim exclusive control of the land? And why should not any individual have the right to a modest portion of the land adequate to his survival? And why should anybody have the right to tax an individual off of this land? It seems to me that denial of access to land is the denial of a fundamental freedom. How can a man be free when he is denied the source of his sustenance?
Once again, I agree with this as well. A man cannot possibly be free without being able to own land; free and clear.
Operational request to Damon (dvrabel):
It would be nice to be able to comment at a deeper level of nesting than your software currently allows. This could better organize some of the more complex discussions. It would also be nice to be able to edit one’s one comments under the condition that no one has yet commented on them, typos and such sometimes slip in and it is nice to be able to fix those. Maybe you can use the same software “Tyler Durden” over at zerohedge uses? (http://www.zerohedge.com/)
Damon wrote:
“it is the monetary system which creates the entrenched hierarchy and holds the government hostage to be top-down imperial government rather than bottom-up commonwealth. ”
I would say the monetary system is a very effective tool. Tools are created and used by sentient beings (people). At the root then lies the tool-users/makers, in this case the predatory entities. Willingness to submit to “entrenched hierarchy” is a state of mind of a person, so we are back to individuals again and their mental programing, (or lack thereof), that is conducive to the predatory system. Since you have previously identified state run education of the masses as a key problem I am thinking you agree with this statement. Fundamental to everything is the state of mind of people, and thus to make progress that can endure, not only do enough people need to understand how to voluntarily socially cooperate, and live that way, they need to pass on this understanding to the next generation (and so one). And so we always come back to education and the freedom to teach “truth” (truth- meaning what works based on experience). So then one of the best things that could happen in our society would be the end of state run education (those doubting this could start with the works of John Taylor Gatto be better understand more about that: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm).
I hope we can come to a consensus that “self sovereignty” of non-predatory entities (individuals, groups, associations) is the desired goal on the planet. In such an environment I think lies the best conditions for the predatory to learn to, (if possible), modify their behavior, when truly crime doesn’t pay.
I think Rigour’s prior statement put things rather well regarding “Austrian religion” as you put it. In any body of knowledge you have those, often new to the work, who either lack the cognitive tools, or have yet to do the cognitive work so that they can formulate and support concepts in rational logical ways. For what ever personal reasons, they may behave in non-rational ways and/or employ non rational means. Is it possible Damon that you have had some experience with such folks who call themselves “Austrian” and this is a factor in your earlier comment about the “Austrian religion”? I would also like to point out that since “self -sovereignty” and the non-toleration or predatory behavior are such threatening ideas, (from the perspective of predatory people), that there is a strong likelihood that the predatory will engage in disinformation campaigns to mascaraed as “Austrians” and exhibit absurd behavior, and also actively try to co-oped the movement to steer it away from effectively challenging the predatory establishment. This is known to have happened in the past with a faction that called itself “Austrian” and was being financed by the usual suspects.
I think if we focus on what does and doesn’t work long term, that we will be able to come to some basic agreements about the fundamental principles of liberty and what to do and not to do to promote it going forward, comments?
Pingback: Vrabel del 3 «
First off, you get to the heart of the matter and break it down extremely well. So well I think a kindergartner could get it. Please keep the tutorials up, as I can actually send these to friends and family. Thank you.
I’ve been fascinated by this topic of money (and what we are not supposed to know about it) since reading Edward Griffin’s book about the Fed.
But you may have come across another book, or even read it, it’s a fascinating read, published in 1899 called ‘The Coming Battle’ that deals with the ‘organized money power’ and their influence on America since it’s inception. The book deals with events throughout the 1800s in detail, and with what the banking cartel was then known as ‘The (International) Gold Trust’. It shows that even gold/silver based currency was not safe from their manipulation. Furthermore it goes into probably one of the greatest wealth confiscations of all time, the demonetization of silver, as well the cartel’s manipulation of the gold to force the US into a purely debt based money supply.
Someone is hosting it online, and its well recommended: http://www.mega.nu/ampp/comingbattle/cmgbtl.htm
For me it backs up your arguments, and the austrians/gold bugs should check it out, if they think gold is the ultimate answer.
I gather it has some amazon reviews too: http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Battle-Complete-History-National/dp/0965636909
all the best.
Hi Hicks:
I am not sure there can be any such thing as an “ultimate answer” where ever you have a system comprised on people with free will. Individual sovereignty and strictly voluntary exchange might come close. The kind of “Austrian” and “gold bug” I am would tell you that it is not so much about gold or silver for that matter, it is about no entity having the power to force a person to use a particular money system.
Is it your position that:
“the demonetization of silver, as well the cartel’s manipulation of the gold to force the US into a purely debt based money supply”
was in fact effective to “force the US …” to do that? Who was it who had monopoly legislative and enforcement power to force any one to do anything? Although manipulation in these areas might have been part of a process of trying to discredit these systems, (gold and silver), systems that put natural barriers to the level of fraud and theft of banks and the US Government since neither could create endless paper notes without revealing the fraud they were practicing, there were also key deceptions that were practiced to capture the legislative process to give birth to the 3rd central bank.
This serves as a good example of why it is bad idea for an entity to have monopoly enforcement and adjudication powers as this shows the great effort of predatory parties to capture this monopoly power for their own criminal ends. We who advocate true “free markets” would tell you to focus on this example to help to understand why no one can not be trusted with such monopoly powers that can dictate to people what they can use as money. The bankers hated gold and silver because that forced their receipts to balance or face fraud charges but this in not the primary point. I hope we agree that their long term goal was to use the monopoly power of “government” so they could debase the currency without suffering the pesky fraud charge and also force people to use their monopoly money. With out the coercive power of the organized crime syndicate called the “state”, there would be no way to force people to take the funny money and their plans would have been pointless from the very beginning.
Are you a constitutionalists? Do you think the answer lies in getting people to follow the “rules” of the constitution so that “government” can “work”? (Art. 1 sec 10: No State shall …. make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts …). Do you see the problem here?
Hi Sun Shines,
Oh boy, where to start. I’m with Damon, in that a whole new enlightenment (particularly spiritual) needs to happen for things to properly change. I’m talking about the higher aspects of what makes us different from animals and/or purely the profit motive. I don’t see him attacking asset based money per se, but highlighting what all theories don’t address, that regardless of what type of currency, fiat or asset based, it is about the flow of capital and who controls it, and your labor.
@ Hicks:
Ah very good. I myself am very much interested in this kind of future and freedom for humanity. Those who might embrace such a future seem to me to be the same people who could , based on principle, understand that you can not hope to create a free system if you build it on tyranny. In which case the idea that the system be based on voluntary exchange, with no reliance on initiating force or deception, seems to me to be the very place to start. One does not establish a free system by giving some the power to enslave others: (no “taxation”, no monopoly of adjudication, legislation, or enforcement). This means someone such as Damion (and myself for that matter), needs to carefully consider the pitfalls of trying to help this new condition to arise by trying to follow an old paradigm that we have reason to believe will always eventually lead to slavery, such as – the constitution of a Republic such as the USA, or parliamentary systems, or democracies, or monarchies, or ANY minarchy for that matter !
I am thinking I see Damon and others trying to come to a better understanding of what can be done to help bring in this “whole new enlightenment”. I suggest that a system based on mutual freedom and respect for self-sovereignty, while creating the perfect environment for wealth creation, peace, and health, also is the preferred state for people to self-actualized towards the “whole new enlightenment” some seek. As long as we do have physical bodies, then their will continue to be physical aspects to our existence and if we start with the basic axiom the each person “owns” himself, as long as there continues to be physical aspects to life, there will continue to be the need for the idea of “property” to sustain that body.
I would ask those who feel a strong affinity towards “a whole new enlightenment” not to jump the conclusion that a system of maximum individual liberty, which is postulated to be the ideal environment for creating wealth, is not by its nature hostile to either the planetary environment or those who want such a future that you hope or expect to see arise.
There are those who support a truly “free market” who are able to make what I think are compelling arguments for why such a society would result in vastly better environmental conditions and reductions in pollution, the conservation of threatened species, the fastest possible transition away from a fossil fuel based civilization, and other advantages that might seem counter intuitive to those who associate the words “free market” with greed, corruption, domination, pollution, and materialistic thinking.
In a world of exceedingly powerful technologies it becomes all the more important to exercise the moral principle of “stewardship” at the same time and this necessitates that domains of stewardship are clearly defined and not left to the “tragedy of the commons” or the tyrannies associated with monopoly coercive/predatory control. It is my contention that those who are able to practice basic mutual respect by honoring the idea of “self ownership” and “self-sovereignty” of all others, form a moral foundation and humility to begin to tackle the truly profound issues that we as a species face us as we grow ever more technologically advanced and even step beyond this planetary cradle. Thoughts?
Correction: Damon, no Damion
Hi again,
. I think we are all pretty much on the same page. Maximal freedom is ideal of course. Yet what stops people with free-will from abusing others. This will happen. How long before another tyranny rises? The system we have now is built purely on commerce. A future system created from humanity, should reflect the higher aspects of humanity, and also not be built on fraud.
@Sun Shines:
That’s a lot to chew on
take care.
Its easy to advocate the “good” independent bank in North Dakota when the place is sitting on a big oil deposit. Its going to be a beehive of activity, how can it not do well?
I don’t understand what is the big deal about your rearrangement of asset-liability entries in a spreadsheet. All you say is “Hi, I represent the new authority of the commonwealth. Public ownership is guaranteed”. And I’ll say: “You have simply replaced the bond racket with something more opaque. And the fact remains that “spending money into a real economy” (yeah like gambling will disappear) will require taxation to control inflation and a real bona-fide resource base that doesn’t exist except in a few locales like North Dakota. Who cares about spreadsheets anyways?
Its easy to advocate the “good” independent bank in North Dakota when the place is sitting on a big oil deposit. Its going to be a beehive of activity, how can it not do well?
I don’t understand what is the big deal about your rearrangement of asset-liability entries in a spreadsheet. All you say is “Hi, I represent the new authority of the commonwealth. Public ownership is guaranteed”. And I’ll say: “You have simply replaced the bond racket with something more opaque. And the fact remains that “spending money into a real economy” (yeah like gambling will disappear) will require taxation to control inflation and a real bona-fide resource base that doesn’t exist except in a few locales like North Dakota. Who cares about spreadsheets anyways?
And where is the Grand Commonwealth of Public Goodness that Damon Vrabel and Ellen Brown advocate? Why its none other than North Dakota which is sitting on top of a huge oil deposit. But wait, Damon said wealth is some numbers on the left side of the balance sheet in a computerized spreadsheet. Perhaps not. Screw the bondholders, says Damon. So where does Damon fit in the Big Oil Deposit in North Dakota Public Equity Gambit? Well hes the liar at the top filling in spreadsheet entries as he likes. See, its still the same spreadsheet universe as it was with the bondholders and the same old lies. Now he’s worried about Google Central as if the spreadsheet universe ever had anything to offer besides systemic fraud.
Hey Damon, if you love freedom so much, why is this forum moderated?
Sun Shines puts a finger on an absolutely critical issue, the problem of means and ends. Is it ever proper to use improper means in order to achieve an end. History seems to demonstrate that the means become the ends. As is pointed out, the regulators are always captured by the regulated (predators). Those who are most disposed to the use of force and coercion will always capture the mechanisms of force. Just look around you.
Whenever a group seeks monopoly power they always seek to establish a regulatory agency by which they can enforce their monopoly. Without force there can be no sustained monopoly. Do not forget that after certain large banking houses drew up the plans for the Federal Reserve System, it was sold as a mechanism to regulate the power of these same big banks. It was called ‘Federal Reserve System’ in order to disguise the fact that it was a private central bank. The same big banks who planned and financed the Fed then put up a great hue and cry of opposition to their own creation. This was simply a show put on for the boobs on Main Street…a case of Br’er Rabbit saying to Br’er Fox, “Oh please don’t throw me in that briar patch, Br’er Fox”.
Not only is the use of force by one individual against another immoral, it is counter-productive to the ends sought. If one truly believes in the concept of liberty, the use of force by anyone against another is unconscionable. What right does anyone have to deprive another of life and liberty? The nobility of the professed cause cannot justify the threat or use of force. All force other than that for actual self-defense amounts to tyranny.
One may have the right to espouse any doctrine and to voluntarily join with others to express that conviction, but how can one possibly justify forcing an arrangement on others, be it a religion or a so-called government. Remember, a governmental system is just somebody’s idea. What actually exists are individuals. In times of old, force was justified by a god or gods or some other transcendental entity or principle. If we recognize the equality and sovereignty of individuals, which is what you and I are, can we really justify tyranny based upon such idolatries?
@ Rigour:
Great links you gave! I am adding them to my collection.
Operational note:
What’s with this board and and the posting dates of messages? Large numbers of post that predate others by many days can stay unseen as if they were never posted and then just appear all of a sudden? Also I will repeat my request to be able to sub-nest posts to an infinite level as needed to more clearly follow complex threads.
Great job in explaining a very complex system legal of theft!!! What I wish you would go more into is the Uniform commercial code.
In my interpretation, the people could use the UCC to bring the banks and the government back into compliance with their own rules. The banks and government uses peoples own ignorance of the rules of the game to trick them. If we taught the people the UCC, they couldn’t pull a fast one on us and we could use their own laws against them.
For example, contracts must have certain elements to be valid. Most contracts that we have with the government are tacit agreements, there are no antecedent contracts. Just demand to see the contract. No lawful contract exists!
When we enter into these contracts with governmental entities, we have a right to enter them “without prejudice” or with all of our constitutioanl common law rights reserved. That way they don’t have the power to make demands.
I would appreciate if you could elaborate. Thanks!