Skip to content

The Silly Pseudo Science That Is ‘Modern Economics’

July 4, 2014
Arthur Kitson

(Left: Arthur Kitson, in a rare photograph. Now languishing in a memory hole, his thinking was perhaps the most advanced in an era when awareness of monetary matters was at its summit: the twenties/thirties of the last century.)

All modern science has been utterly corrupted to the core through orthodoxy and political correctness, under the pressures of power and commerce. So why are people so surprised it’s the same with ‘economics’?

It’s all just complete baloney. And of the worst, most moronic kind. Their most fundamental propositions don’t add up at all and simply wither away under the gaze of critical thought.

The fact that critical thought is strictly off limits in today’s universities, where group think and the lowest common demoninator rule as ’eminence’, is the only reason book after book is written exalting these absolutely specious beliefs.

Compare it to allopathy, the trade of the men and women in white. They explain to you newborns need mercury, formaldehyde, lethal viral matter and genetically modified remnants of human foetuses to ‘enhance immunity’. You’re ‘irresponsible’ and ‘irrational’ if you happen to disagree.

Next, when these vaccinations have done their job and have destroyed your immunity and you get cancer a few decades later, they explain to you, you need mustard gas (‘chemotherapy’ is derived from that stuff) and lethal doses (according to the WHO) of radiation to ‘survive’. As a result far more people die of treatment than cancer itself.

It’s all ‘science’, you know. Proven! Honest! With double blind peer reviewed studies! Cross my heart, hope to die!

Totally corrupted, by commercial interest and thought/herd control. Promoting those who uncritically work hard to pass their exams, keeping back those going their own way.

And this is just medicine. It’s money and the economy through which they rule! If they do this to medicine, what does one really expect from the ‘science’ behind Capitalism?

Their laughable nonsense
We have already extensively dissected their ‘time value of money’. The idea that money is worth more today than it is tomorrow. And that the creditor thus loses when lending. For which Usury is then the ‘compensation’.

Is it any wonder that this is considered the absolute foundation of ‘modern economics’? Of course their witty rationales serve only to hide the heinous plundering of Usury. Of course ‘modern economics” most cherished belief explains why we need banks!

And of course it’s just rubbish. Totally irrelevant. The bank creates the money when it is lent out and retires it when it is repaid. It didn’t exist before the loan and doesn’t exist after it. It’s a sterile operation, completely neutral. No ‘value’ is created for the lender, none is lost to him. He only does it because he can plunder his unwitting victim with Usury on the ‘debt’.

There is no risk, because there is collateral. ‘Losses’ to ‘inflation’ (which don’t exist with credit based money) are simply because they cause inflation willfully. It’s all a total mirage.

Even with already existing money (the situation most people mistakenly thinks exists and must exist), the ‘time value’ can easily be undone by having savers pool money together, in exchange for giving them interest-free credit from the collected savings.

Or one slaps a demurrage on the money, when those holding money, instead of those borrowing it, pay a percentage per year. This proactively destroys the value of money and ends hoarding: people will sink money in assets, which is the way it should be anyway. Saving money is antithetical to its purpose as a means of exchange. The ancients worked with this money, when their money was based on receipts of warehouses for perishable produce. Because the goods backing the note perish, so does the money.

They built all the wonders of Antiquity with it, all the way up to the Cathedrals.

Price discovery

Frederick Soddy, another forgotten hero that most assuredly deserves more attention.

Frederick Soddy, another forgotten hero that most assuredly deserves more attention.

Here’s another example: price discovery. According to ‘modern economics’ price is a function of demand and supply. I think we can agree that this basic proposition rivals the ‘time value’ in importance for our crummy little pseudo science/mind job.

But, our banker friends have conveniently forgotten all about the third variable: money supply.

Without a money supply there cannot even be a price to begin with! Money’s secondary function is unit of account! Price is expressed in its monetary value!

Not only that, without the means of exchange, there is hardly any trade at all: demand and supply never meet, except the few trades that can be settled with direct barter!

So: price is a function of demand, supply and money supply. And this is really foundational in obscuring the second main issue with money: managing its volume properly.

Now, how relevant is this? Hugely. Because they ignore money in price discovery, they can have their maniacal Austrians/Neo-Liberals claim money is irrelevant, deflation fantastic and markets just don’t clear because they are not ‘free’. This is known as Say’s Law and is used to hide that the only reason we are in a depression is because of a deflating money supply.

Because price is supposed to be a function of demand and supply, only ‘structural adjustments’ (raping labor rights) to ‘correct’ ‘market inefficiencies’ blah, blah, blah.

This is how they sell austerity. Should we know about the simple truth of price discovery, we would always have the money supply in mind and this is not convenient for those who rule through money and manipulating its volume.

This is just how they sucker us with their word magic and Orwellian crap. Laughing all the way to the bank about the silly masses and their love of ‘the power of ideas’.

We are ruled by a Banking Cartel. About 40% of the disposable income of the common man is taken by Usury and related rents, another 20% by their Transnationals and their artificial scarcity through Monopoly. Yet another quarter by the State, which is another Monopoly they control. What remains is for the wife.

Who are we kidding? We are total slaves.

First we are interest-slaves through the artificial debt. Next we are relegated to wage slavery by scarce money, paying off the Usury by doing the jobs they want to have done. In effect digging our own graves in their Banks, Transnationals and Governments for sustenance.

Of course they own the ‘science’ behind it all. Of course they explain the rich must get richer through Usury for the benefit of all. Hell, even just studying ‘modern economics’ makes you a greedy bastard, it was recently shown!

Forget about their silly crap and read up on Margrit Kennedy, Bernard Lietaer, Arthur Kitson, David Astle and all the others in the know out there. I’ll even throw in my own interest-free economics page, it’s not a bad place to start.

We can do so much better.

Banking Is Institutionalized Murder!
Rationalizing Usury: the Time Value Hoax
Capitalism Is Jewish Usury

Interest-Free Economics
The Difference Between Debt Free Money and Interest Free Credit
More on Mutual Credit


  1. genomega1 permalink

    Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
    The Silly Pseudo Science That Is ‘Modern Economics’

  2. Kevin Boyle permalink

    Brilliant article yet again Anthony.

    I can tell you that physics, astonishingly, is as corrupted as medicine. When professional scientists ask the big-wigs of CERN to send them the evidence on which they declared the Higgs Boson ‘found’ (nice Nobel Prize for the ‘discoverers’, you may remember), they won’t forward it.

    The “new” evidence for the Higgs Boson is obviously the same as the old evidence for the Higgs Boson, i.e. it is entirely mathematical and based on theory and not physical fact.

    The Higgs Boson exists as Maths, a necessary explanation for observable facts that otherwise do not make sense.

    Just like Dark Energy and Dark Matter which suppose constitute 90+% of the universe. These also have never been detected but MUST exist because, without them, our existing Theory of Gravity (which works very well on the local scale) would be wrong.

    The Higgs Boson will never be discovered at CERN or anywhere else in the forseeable future because these accelerators detect mass. It is childishly simple really. If you detect (and thus interrupt) the thing creating the mass then, obviously, there will be no mass created and, therefore nothing to detect.

    There is no frame of reference within which the observation of such a Boson can be made.

    It would be like taking your bathroom scales, jumping out of an aeroplane with it and trying to weigh yourself on the way down.

    The other big question about accelerators and the hundreds of billions spent on them is ‘why bother’? No one has ever managed to do anything useful with a Boson (if they even exist) so why don’t we try to spend the money on something that might actually help people. The last particle for which we found a use was the positron (now used in MRI scanners).

    That was discovered 80 years ago!!!

    Since then Zilch.

    Many of your readers could think of better things to do with hundreds of billions of dollars than pour it into Corporate coffers in order to discover even more non-existent and useless particles.

    My God!

    Universities? Science? Integrity? Honour?

    Forget it. The people leading and managing these enterprises are the most corrupted bend-over whores on earth.

    You said it pal.



  3. Reblogged this on Revolt of the Barbarians and commented:
    Food for thought re ending financial enslavement and working towards a better way of living. From the article:
    Who are we kidding? We are total slaves.

    First we are interest-slaves through the artificial debt. Next we are relegated to wage slavery by scarce money, paying off the Usury by doing the jobs they want to have done. In effect digging our own graves in their Banks, Transnationals and Governments for sustenance.

  4. Another excellent article Anthony. Must follow up on those names. Thanks. Paul Stokes

    Sent from Paul Stokes’s iPhone


  5. What economic system would you regard as legitimate? What do you think about Modern Monetary Theory or Neochartalism? I like the notion of public banking but they appear to believe that usury rates are legitimately determined by market & govt forces. It doesn’t appear to be an intrinsic evil to their way of thinking.

    • A system where the commons are respected as nobody’s property and with access to the multitude well organized. Combined with free enterprise. Based on an interest-free credit based or demurrage money supply. Active combating of rents, not by outlawing, but by providing effective cheap services.

      So just access to a plot of land to live, access to interest-free credit, guaranteed eternal access to water and air (no privatization of the commons whatsoever), and common services where efficient, like mass transit and energy.

      The commons guaranteed against any private usurpation of the commons, either by Capital or the State or any entity. Exploitation of the commons on the basis of this understanding can be organized in a free enterprise kind of way.

      That more or less sums it up.

    • I still need to sit down to write an analysis of Chartalism/MMT PM. Main thing: it ignores Usury.

      • I’m looking forward to that.
        Yes, that’s right; every time I bring usury up to one of their proponents on twitter they completely ignore it as though it was completely insignificant or irrelevant.

        • Ross N. permalink

          Here’s a good critique of MMT:

          I also have run into many battles with MMT. They ignore that usury passes through your double entry ledger and onto the bankers own ledger.

          So, when they do their double entry mechanics, every thing balances out neatly. MMT folks have an accountants mind ,which in my opinion is blinkered. They see numbers but don’t see deeper into the real meaning behind numbers.

          MMT also worships Wayne Godleys sector balance equations. This is another accounting method that shows where banker credit flows. They then conflate banker credit with government. They also don’t break out the FIRE sector (finance insurance and real estate) in their sector balance equations.

          If they did this, it would show how finance is harvesting mankind. It would also show that 80 percent of all money as banker credit is based on real estate, and thus the relation between our money supply and industry (labor and goods/services) is fraudulent.

          They also don’t see how a banker debt money system puts people on a treadmill. The constantly draining money supply means that new usury based credit must come on line at a rate sufficient to overcome the destruction. This means that banker credit money supplies, based on FIRE, are inherently usurious. This mechanism cannot have good price discovery as it distorts markets, it siphons away to an upper loop, it does not funnel credit into proper production channels as it unnaturally allows bankers to control land.

          Since land is one of the four modes of production, that in itself is another ding on MMT. They will never understand the Georgist position.

          Also, MMT people, just like economists, think that swaps are even. If money swaps for a TBill, that is just numbers adding and subtracting on the ledger – again, and accounting monstrosity.

          Actually, it is two different unlike units swapping. A claim on money and money itself have different behaviors. But, don’t tell that to an accountant/economist/MMT person. Their minds cannot go there – they become un-moored and will react violently as their whole mind construct falls apart.

          • Interesting stuff and your last line reminds us of all these defenders of the different faiths out there. It has nothing ot do with science or engineering, let alone anything of moral/spiritual value. Everybody is just pushing his own mind job home.

          • Imagine thinking of money and economics without constantly asking ‘who benefits?’………….

          • Ross, you name four modes of production, I can think only of land, labor and capital, what is the fourth in your view?

            I was thinking of three modes: labor, capital and the Commons, where land and money are both part of the third.

          • Ross N. permalink

            1) Land 2) Labor 3) Capital 4) Commons.

            The public commons are a mode of production as identified by John Stewart Mill. When we all use the commons and are charged low access prices, we all are made more efficient. For example, clean water and clean air would be a commons that keeps labor from getting sick. Commons are closely related to Social Credit. Social credit is that which lifts us all up, and can best be identified when it is gone. For example, Nikolai Tesla’s social credit was electrical power gifts to humanity, which made us many hundreds or perhaps thousands of times more productive, yet Tesla didn’t gain monetarily. Power infrastructure is now a commons.

            Three kinds of markets: Elastic, Inelastic and Mixed. Inelastic markets are those markets that have no natural (elastic) competition. For example, you cannot have two competing sea ports side by side, as that is not a likely geographical feature. Or, having two competing navy’s, or two sewer lines, or competing power lines – it would be crazy as the costs go up. Imagine that, government done right, lowers costs.

            Inelastic markets are some times also commons. Inelastic markets need to be regulated or owned by government .

            So, government’s role is to own or regulate inelastic markets thus making sure monopoly interests dont try to take rents on the commons. Neoliberalism theory is to take over the commons by privatizing, and then charging high access fees.

            Those that argue that money is metal, or money no relation to law, and that government has no role – generally are groups who are trying to take rents on the commons. Their real hidden agenda is to skew reality so they can become oligarchs, or maintain a rentier oligarchial position. They want to charge high access prices to the former commons, thus shifting your output to them.

  6. Further to Ross N’s comment above on MMT, double-entry accounting, and how these ignore / hide the usury mechanism.

    For those who have noticed that, throughout the ages, an (inevitably) authoritative “religion”, or, aggregation of doctrines, held to religiously by its “high priests” and adherents, tends to become established as the ruling orthodoxy, then in the context of the so-called “science” of modern economics, take a look into (trace) the specific concept of “equilibrium” that lies at the heart of our ruling economic orthodoxy — the neoclassical economic theory.

    In particular, take a look at the concept of equilibrium viz. the “macrocosmos” and “microcosmos”, as enunciated in certain strains of religious / philosophical thought, dating back to (big coincidence) the exact same period when usury made its initial comeback to the world stage (mid/late 15th through 16th C).

    In particular, dig deeper into the specific beliefs embraced in the last two systems / strains of thought mentioned here, beginning with the sentence “The 900 Theses are a good example of humanist syncretism…” –

    Note that the Oration on the Dignity of Man was/is considered “The Manifesto of the Renaissance”.

    Note too, that this period — the end of the so-called “Dark Ages” — is when double-entry bookkeeping rose to prominence (think carefully about that: “balanced” entries; “credit = debit”; “balance the ledger”), as a mechanism by which merchants could “prove” that they were NOT practicing usury (cf. Jane Gleeson-White’s excellent book ‘Double Entry: How the Merchants of Venice Shaped the Modern World’)

    Next, trace the evolution of those last two strains of thought (Hermeticism, Kabbalah) across the Channel in England and the royal court.

    Lastly, take a look at ancient works such as the Corpus Hermeticum, and more latterly, the writing of notables in the world of occult “magick” such as Eliphas Levi, and Aleister Crowley:

    An obsessive, doctrinal belief in “equilibrium” as a universal force (compare “general equilibrium” in neoclassical), that unifies the “above and below”, the “macro and micro”, a force which initiated adepts can tap into and direct by way of “magick” to achieve their earthly goals and aspirations, lies at the heart of modern neoclassicalism, DSGE and IS-LM modelling, etc.

    A few other points of note:

    * Pico della Mirandola, who wrote the Oration on the Dignity of Man, had none other than bankster and de facto ruler of the Florentine Republic, Lorenzo de’ Medici (“Lorenzo the Magificent”) as his patron. It was Lorenzo’s second son, Giovanni, who became Leo X, the first bankster pope, and who (in 1515) began the process of formally dismantling over 1,000 years of usury prohibition, by sanctioning the clergy’s own “monte di pieta” –

    * Pico was the student of Marsilio Ficino, “one of the most influential philosophers of the Renaissance” (otherwise known as the “Hermetic Reformation”). Ficino’s lifelong patron was bankster Cosimo de’ Medici (“Cosimo the Elder”). It was Ficino who was responsible for reviving Hermeticism in the Renaissance, via his translating the rediscovered works of the Corpus Hermeticum from Greek to Latin –

    * The above-mentioned author of ‘Double Entry’ informed me that Luca Pacioli, the father / populariser of double-entry bookkeeping, had as his patron none other than … wait for it … Pope Leo X, who gave him his position as chair of mathematics at the University of Rome in 1514.

    • Ross N. permalink

      Psalmistice, pretty profound stuff – thanks. Bankers do swaps and conversions. That is part of their con game.

      For example, during housing bubble mortgage backed securities were hypothecated (created from) mortgages. A claim on money begets a claim on money, but during the conversion process banker puts his magic thumb on the scale, and weights it to his benefit.

      Quantitative easing is creating money from nothing at the FED, which then ultimately buys (swaps) for mortgage backed securities. FED money is allowed to buy a fraudulent claim on money, and the law is subverted because the evidence disappears. Sheriffs then give up on prosecuting bankers because the evidence is gone – evidence is now residing on the magic double entry ledger at the FED.

      Swapping, converting, rating, price discovery and markets are GOD – all are part of their hypnosis and magic spreading.


      “Observe well that there is never any real equivalence or measurable relation between any two things, for each is impregnably Itself. The exchange of property is not a mathematically accurate equation. The Want is merely a conventional expression of the Will, just as a word is of a thought. It can never be anything else; thus, though the process of making it, whether it involves time, money, or labour, is a spiritual and moral synthesis, it is not measurable in terms of its elements.”


      A real money system would consist of units that are impregnably themselves, performing only function they were designed to do.

      Our current money system is a silly pseudo science ….magic. We have allowed ourselves to be hypnotized.

      • Yes Ross. It’s all “magick”.

        The other link I posted re Eliphas Lévi on the Baphomet is also worth considering —

        “In the introduction to Doctrine in Transcendental Magic, Lévi identifies Baphomet with a force he calls the Universal Agent:

        ‘There exists in Nature a force which is immeasurably more powerful than steam, and a single man, who is able to adapt and direct it, might change thereby the face of the whole world. This force was known to the ancients; it consists in a Universal Agent having EQUILIBRIUM for its supreme law …’

        …As we have seen, Levi’s image of Baphomet is not a representation of the Christian Devil but a symbol of the astral light, the DUAL current of occult force behind all magical work.”

        It is worth noting that Frenchman Léon Walras, pioneer of the theories of “marginal theory of value”, “amorality of theory and value”, and also “general equilibrium” theory which dominates modern neoclassical theory, lived contemporary with both Lévi and (later) Crowley; that is, during a period when (according to Wikipedia), “Spiritualism was popular on both sides of the Atlantic from the 1850s … ”

        In context of the rise of double-entry (“balanced”) bookkeeping, and, the fundamental emphasis on “equilibrium” at the heart of our prevailing economic orthodoxy/s, this particular line of research is most interesting.

        • Correction: “Frenchman Léon Walras, pioneer of the theories of ‘marginal theory of value’, ‘amorality of UTILITY and value’…”

        • It is indeed most interesting Psalmistice, thanks for this. Another example is De Mandeville (a Rotterdam based Satanist) did a great job for them with his poem of the bees, explaining the profit motive is what drives people to improve the world. This is also a foundational axioma and of course quite nefarious.

          If you look at his picture (in the link), you see their smirk on this guy’s face. It just travels to the ages, for all to see, while he’s going about his murderous business.

  7. Our current debt based monetary system necessitates the lies, deception and corruption. Why? Because financial debt with interest (USURY, any interest) is mathematically impossible to pay back in the aggregate. How? When loans are made, principal is lent b ut not the interest…..furthermore…(this part is hard to believe) When homeowners or students or even businesses borrow money, they, are creating “NEW” money in the system/economy. Believe it or not, banks do not lend money, they actually “steal” through a deceptive adhesion contract, the “NEW” money created by the so-called borrower and make them sign a loan with interest. We are all guilty, including myself, of the pyramid scheme we have bought into. Best solution: Wake-up and understand money and begin to issue credit to the people, by the people and for the people.

    Check out our new website: and watch the PREZ


    P.s. Hope you all had a great 4th of July, 2014

    • Great stuff davidsnieckus! Someone else pointed me at your site the other day too and I’ve just posted on the RC Facebook page to help spread the word!

    • The only thing we can honourably do is AFV (Accept For Value) all their demands or charges – some now include a promissory note with their AFV’d settlements. Winston Shrout and others have been teaching this for years.

      • PS a completed Mortgage Application Form once signed by us becomes a Promissory Note which the bank then steals. We then pay them back our money with interest – NICE eh???

  8. Dark Dirk permalink

    Anthony, I think that you still mix up terms “money” and “monetary asset”. “It didn’t exist before the loan and doesn’t exist after it.”. That is NOT money. That is monetary asset. That is entry in a banking book. Bank’s trick you that you can pay to somebody with that “money” via transfer from your bank account to his bank account when, meanwhile, bank have lent the actual money in cash to somebody who pays interest on them. True bank reform have to forbid bookkeeping. All electronic money should be crypto currencies like bitcoin and payments should be allowed only with such currency or in cash. Then you can currency like freicoin in electronic and paper form to apply demurrage. That way you cannot have fractional reserve banking. Only full reserve, because if you what to make a payment you will need paper cash or fixed crypto coins to make it.

  9. Ross N. permalink

    So: price is a function of demand, supply and money supply – AM

    Anthony, that is really a brilliant summation of reality. I don’t think it has been expressed before in so few words in all of history. Please anybody, find a source anywhere where this truth has been uttered in the long history of the world. Usually you won’t find truth revealed in a blog. You expect it by great thinkers as written in their books; but, on the subject of money, our great thinkers also miss out on important mechanisms. Greats like Kitson, Soddy, Douglas, Gesell, should be read as advanced individuals who strove to understand, and if they made mistakes it was due to their human limitation, not due to some evil desire to spread falsehoods. They all have their heart in the right place. Anthony, you fall firmly in the category of a thinker who strives to understand -and to then speak truth to power.

    God commands us to think as part of our free will. Calvanist and other false doctrines that suggest all human activity is pre-ordained are control mechanisms for occluding thought. We are in God’s image because we think and create, and we have the power to fix our money creation. God is probably waiting on us to rise to the occasion.

    Price mechanisms cannot work properly in our modern world, it is an impossibility because monetary systems we use are in the grip of many falsehoods – especially falsehoods about volume.

    I can add that volume is manipulated as money supply may be vectored away using many mechanisms e.g. money types, equivalences, time, path, velocity. Path, or what I call flow, may be manipulated unlawfully into channels that do not serve labor, thus taking rents on society.

    Also, demand as a force is conflated with money as demand and hence this need to make money scarce and put demand above labor i.e. Gesell’s contribution.

    • Dark Dirk permalink

      Antony is great thinker and this is his book. Now, internet is the main publishing media. Times have changed.

      Actually Gesell wrote about that too.

      • Ross N. permalink

        Don’t get me wrong, I think Gesell is one of the Greats. We can learn from the ancients, but that doesn’t mean they had a complete hold on the truth. For example, Gesell was weak on bank credit as money. He referred to credit as another tributary that would allow commerce when floating money became blocked (his ice analogy whereby a frozen river blocked flows). It’s unclear to me if he thought of credit as “goods” or as money. They both existed at the time of his writings.

        Today’s western economic model is bank credit as money. Governments no longer issue floating money and get first seigniorage. OK, only a tiny fraction of the supply as coins gets first seigniorage. Bank credit as money is already under velocity pressure to return to the ledger, a fact that escaped Gesell. Therefore, credit as money – already under drain pressure, should not have demurrage.

        Floating money does not disappear, and Gesell focused on this money type. This type of money recirculates, and to manage its volume and velocity it is taxed. Respending by monetary authority would be into channels of production, thus making Gesel’s type of money well behaved. I believe respending and new creation should be into households, thus giving people first seigniorage and letting them have money power. (Social Credit theory, albeit updated)

        Gesell also believed in some sort of nebulous world linkage, yet taxation central to his ideas are at their root – law. Taxation is fiscal policy and a function of law. Law in turn is a sovereign prerogative of a nation’s people. Therefore Gessel is in logical contradiction with himself.

        The others also made mistakes, often a function of the times they lived in, and their human limitations.

        Our predecessors used letters to write to their contemporaries. This helped them distill their thoughts; For example, Jefferson and Adams had an extensive writing relationship, sometimes difficult.

        That people like Gesell had original thought in a “low speed” writing environment is completely remarkable. It is also not clear to me if he even had contemporaries to discuss things with. He was a merchant/clerk – beneath contempt to mainstream economists of that day.

        We have an advantage with high speed communications, thus there is onus on us modern humans to rise above our ancients – to rise to the occasion.

        • Dark Dirk permalink

          “Gesell was weak on bank credit as money” ???
          Credit is NOT money. You and Antony are mixing up that terms “money” and “monetary asset”, and because of that you both think that mutual credit system will work. You are both wrong. And some day, sooner or later you will recognize that.

          • Ross N. permalink

            Mutual Credit issues money that stays in its system. This type of credit can reflux back to its debt instrument for destruction. Therefore, this type of credit is different from bank credit. Credit in general is accepted into the money supply and is spent as money. Credit is a doppleganger for money. Mutual credit’s system is inhibited by wide acceptance because it is not good for taxes. Any manager of a mutual credit system is charged with maintaining balance between the debt instruments and the “credit as money” issued forth.

            There is no confusion. Money stands in as a good at the moment of transaction. Credit as a money doppleganger may also stand is as a good at the moment of transaction.

            Bank credit will have a debt instrument vector away from its debt money, therefore the contract becomes usurious by nature, as it cannot be consummated.

            Mutual credit needs to learn from bank credit, because MC will suffer some of the same ill effects if managed incorrectly.

            Monetary asset as a term is a confusion. It is better to describe monetary unit’s properties and how it flows in its system. How does it flow, what is its period of reflux, what is its velocity, how is it created and under what conditions? Is the contract even where debtor and creditor have equal skin in the game? Can the contract be consummated?

            Unfortunately, there are many forms of money that humans trade, including claims on money (debt instruments).

            In my view, a balanced economy should have debt free money with demurrage, and also sovereign credit. Both of these units are lawful, and can then be controlled. Mutual Credit may also become lawful if the system is so designed.

            A body can drown from too much water, and can die from too much food. It is the same with money and credit, each unit has its properties, and should be used to their best effect. These effects may be observed and their properties understood by said observation.

            Unfortunately, usurious rent seekers continually muddy the waters and cause confusion in the mind of man.

            My statement stands, Gessel was weak on credit theory. Another hero of mine, Douglas – was weak on floating money. That they had some weakness does not diminish their contribution.

          • How do you mean, Ross, Bank credit will have a debt instrument vector away from its debt money, therefore the contract becomes usurious by nature, as it cannot be consummated.

            Mutual credit needs to learn from bank credit, because MC will suffer some of the same ill effects if managed incorrectly.””?

            Are you referring to a situation where a lot of the Mutual Credit based units will be hoarded and thus not available for debt destruction?

            If so, do you think this will be a real problem without Usury on the money supply, hindering circulation? Will not people automatically prefer assets if money no longer grows?

            What I think would be optimal for credit money based savings is just the obligation to partake in savings pools for more interest free credit. In this way the community does not suffer from the saver’s abuse of the means of exchange as a store of value and savers actually have a purpose in the system. They would of course be guaranteed against any losses and could also obtain rights to interest-free credit themselves in return.

          • Ross N. permalink

            see above for long reply

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            If you need to participate in savings pool, thats not mutual credit system. The idea of mutual credit is that you can create your own money and you do not need to borrow from saving pools (banks). But I have shown to you that mutual credit system without limits is not possible. That article proves that you recognizances that prices depend on money supply and without limit you cannot determine price of product. But if you have limit, mutual credit system is just a subcase of current money system where all people have reached their credit limit and money creation via mutual credit is no longer possible. If there is no demurrage there is no reform. Only demurrage money can accelerate money velocity, because if there is no demurrage there is no incentive to spend money. And if you read Gesell carefully you will see that prices depend not only on money supply, but on money velocity too.

          • the savingspool is of course not part of MC proper, but I see no reason why MC based units cannot be handled in such a way?

            I don´t understand why you think volume cannot be managed under MC?

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            Because I think that volume in MC system is equal to number of participants multiplies by maximum allowed credit per participant. I just cannot accept the idea that some people will have bigger credit then others. And also cannot accept the idea that money will be backed with something physical (real asset or metel). And why credit ? when you can just give the maximum amount of money to a new participant. Unless credit is tied with some kind of repayment plan and debit with demmurage. The simple examples of MC with some accounts plus and some accounts minus (debit and credit) just does not make any sense. And why risk with fractional reserve system in witch the money can be multiplied facilitating rapid expansion of credit (boom) and then when the system reach the limit (there is always some kind of limit) rapid imposion (bust), when you can have stable money supply by Silvio Gesell model of demmurage money.

          • Credit IS money Dirk, if we agree it is. I use as the definition for money ´that which is agreed upon to use as means of exchange´. Nowadays all money is credit and (almost) all credit is money.

            Recently I´ve been realizing that credit is in fact implicit money. The need for credit stems from the need to pay without having money.

            We then want to ´promise to pay´. But for a promise to pay a ´credo´ (I believe) is necessary.

            Because credit becomes necessary immediately when using money, there is a very natural process of our promise to pay (if accepted) becoming money itself.

          • Dark Dirk permalink

            But if you allow to pay with credit, you have fractional reserve banking. So you can multiply money. Fractional reserve banking is not somebodies evil invention. It happened naturally. When you borrow money from a bank, pay to somebody, and that person deposits that money into the bank again, then the money are multiplied. Bank does not now that that money are the credit money that it gave to first customer. So if you allow credit to be money (i.e. pay with it) you automatically have fractional reserve banking.

          • For sure! Mutual Credit IS ´fractional reserve banking´ (double entry bookkeeping).

    • Thanks for this Ross, I had missed the preceding dialogue and your compliment when responding to your later post……!

  10. Ross N. permalink

    [How do you mean, Ross, Bank credit will have a debt instrument vector away from its debt money, therefore the contract becomes usurious by nature, as it cannot be consummated.]

    – Perkins, in confessions of an economic hit man, discusses this mechanism. A debt instrument is hung on the whole population, while the bank credit money created flow path is through country’s leadership. Time goes by, and former credit money is no longer in the local supply. It becomes usurious because the original contract was fraudulent, as IMF gave loans that could not be consummated in future. Future exchange rate collapses as the country tries to exchange local currency for dollars to pay the debts, and this then turns the third world into an oligarchy. So, it is more than usury, it is also about letting credit as money find its debt instrument – even across time. A mutual credit system needs to understand this mechanism and be on guard for it. If you have an exchange rate this opens a window for abuse. Beware of exchange rates as a money medium should not be traded for a money medium. However, it may be a necessary evil to get people in your system, and hence it must be controlled.

    [Mutual credit needs to learn from bank credit, because MC will suffer some of the same ill effects if managed incorrectly.””?]

    -Bank credit, by its nature cannot pay credit/debt contracts due to usury. Also, debt instruments can vector away from the bank and into markets e.g. mortgage backed securities. Be on guard for this with Mutual Credit, as the contract needs to be protected. It must have law rules about its nature. People must agree to a vigorous non usurious contract before signing. One reason for their being in your system is trust and honesty. Contract needs to be held in such a way that credit can swim home to its source. The system is mutual credit, but it is really individual credit – similar to banker credit. Individuals are offering their credit for others to use. MC authority is the people’s agent.

    [Are you referring to a situation where a lot of the Mutual Credit based units will be hoarded and thus not available for debt destruction?]

    I suggest that if you have a mutual credit system, some of it should be floating money. You can do this by releasing credit obligations. This unit then morphs and becomes money. Take a page out of the Chinese playbook. Floating money unit is good for savings and can have a light demurrage. This demurrage is aimed at savings, and thus savers are encouraged to also hold real assets (not money). There are going to be defaults anyway, and it can be put to use. When people agree to your mutual credit system, they agree to your “rules” and management approach. Mutual credit, like all credit, has to be paid back, so it automatically is under velocity compulsion for destruction. Hoarding is difficult for this unit. People want to hoard some, it makes them feel secure. The demurrage can be light, and only on that percentage of savings that is floating money. If 10 percent of your system is floating, then you can only tax that amount. This plus fees will pay your costs. You are being paid for your management skills and knowledge.

    [If so, do you think this will be a real problem without Usury on the money supply, hindering circulation? Will not people automatically prefer assets if money no longer grows?]

    Workout a deal with industry and local business, whereby they pay partial wages or offers services in a MC unit. This allows your customers to also buy local stocks. So, yes assets are an important part which allows people to store their output safely. Local currency also has channels of production that cycle back to the local economy – making it an easier sell. People are sick of their wealth leaving their hands and flying to foreign money centers.

    [What I think would be optimal for credit money based savings is just the obligation to partake in savings pools for more interest free credit. In this way the community does not suffer from the saver’s abuse of the means of exchange as a store of value and savers actually have a purpose in the system. They would of course be guaranteed against any losses and could also obtain rights to interest-free credit themselves in return.]

    A savings pool of MC is deactivated credit (not in motion) and will make money saver desire to be paid interest. They know their unit is under compulsion for destruction eventually. Better if the unit is floating money in a savings pool, then light demurrage tax will encourage velocity and flight into real assets. Real assets then become foundation basis of the system, not money. You can always convert a real asset to MC credit money at any time, thus beating bankers at their own game. Figure out how to get real assets on your ledger, and hence allow customers in your system let you hold their assets as a time gift to stabilize your system, and hence savers gain from good management. You will not be hypothecating, but instead will use assets as a resource base similar to mutual banking (see Bagehot and Kitson).

    People in your system must agree to the rules and bylaws. All money systems must be controlled, there is no natural equilibrium. They obey by the rules because they are fair and mutually beneficial.

    • Dark Dirk permalink

      Real assets cannot be foundation, because their value depend on whoever wants them. If nobody whats them, they have value equal to zero. There is many abandoned “real assets” that have no value. So define term “real” please. Only people can put value on something. Having an building does not make you rich by default. In mutual credit system money supply can be controlled. It depend on whoever what’s credit. Mutual credit system is open to abuse. And as you sad, you need demurrage to make money float though the system.

      • Dark Dirk permalink

        Correction: In mutual credit system money supply CANNOT be controlled.

        • Ross N. permalink

          It’s true, all credit as money depends on people taking out loans. Credit supply (Bank Credit) today is controlled by bankers using open market operations and interest rate adjustments.

          Floating money is not credit. It is in the system jumping from transaction to transaction. It is the same as what Gesell referred to. Gesell further focused only on tangible paper notes, not on the ledger.

          We are no longer in a tangible money world, so some of what Gesell writes about has lost reelvance. The ledger can still have demurrage, as in fees charged on savings. We call it a fee, but it is a demurrage tax.

          Mutual Banks, as conceived by Bagehot and adopted by Kitson, use land and money as gifts from the rich, and then that money stays in the system and “floats” from then on – as a gift to posterity. Anthony should do the same – gifts of property will offset seingnioarge created by credit morphing into floating.

          The assumption is people will need a base volume of money like the sun comes up and goes down, and this money volume relates to goods and service production. Or, something like a nuclear power plant has base power. In a closed MC system, base money will have to be offset by some sort of asset. The credit relations are already mirrored, or offset.

          In my opinion, any credit system has to have some base money (floating money). Money pays credit, but not vice versa. I have no idea as to the proper composition of Credit/Money in this type of money supply. No system can work without both types of money. Credit applies to the future, and money applies to past wealth accumulation. Your body needs different elements to function.

          As Gessel says, there is not such thing as value, only price. And price in turn is Demand, Supply, and Money Supply. Value is subjective and is discovered in markets, when markets work right.

    • We´re very much on the same page Ross.

      Concerning `Be on guard for this with Mutual Credit, as the contract needs to be protected. It must have law rules about its nature.´:
      Indeed. People partake in the system based on agreement and there are a few clear cut rules. The main one being, that ´both parties (credit facility and member) can end the contract without notice (outstanding positions must be settled). This gives the Credit Facility full control always. There is no ´freedom´ other than to exchange equitably with other members.
      The system is totally managed. For instance: if certain parties should acquire too great holdings of units (hindering circulation, concentrating power), this can be proactively managed by simply telling them to liquidate or get lost (in the final analysis of course, things are managed on a good will basis).
      In this way all rent seeking can be actively combatted.

      In this way members can also simply be forced to partake in a savingspool if they want to hang on to some excess units. This does not have to bother them at all: it could be organized in such a way, for instance, that when they have larger balances they are obliged to put it in a savings account indicating when they want it back for spending (3, 6, 12 months). The longer it is in the saving account, the more interest-free credit they can get in the future from the saving pool. In this way all usurious lending is out of the question.

      Just for elucidation: does the above mean you agree a demurrage can be slapped on an MC unit? Or is it just on the floating money bit? Personally I don´t see a reason why a demurrage could not be combined with a credit based unit.

      I agree with the ´floating money´ bit. A credit based money supply is useless if it is only used ot finance day to day exchange. However, my basic thesis is that there will always be a greater demand for credit than for money. People will always need mortgages and business loans.

      Hence the challenge will not so much be to have a money supply, it will be to satisfy the additional demand for credit, after all the credit has been created needed for the money supply. Hence the savings pool.

      I am, by the way, not at all averse to hybrid sysmtems, where some debt-free money circulates next to some credit based units.

      • Ross N. permalink

        “Just for elucidation: does the above mean you agree a demurrage can be slapped on an MC unit?” AM

        It seems unfair to charge demurrage on a credit unit that is already under compulsion to have velocity. However, a lot of credit can be created per unit time, making it behave like a floating money unit. Bubbles in an economy are too much credit as a function of a positive feedback loop. This then makes a high speed credit bubble. Time is always a factor that is hard to comprehend. Time also makes a mockery of economists who use the = sign in their math. The bubble creates credit that is in the system at first in large amount, and later goes into oblivion at a high rate. But, during the first period, said credit is there doing a transaction function and not going away.

        If a MC unit goes into some sort of unwanted positive feedback, some sort of circuit breakers will need to be thrown. Perhaps in that case a tax would be a control mechanism.

        Or, the extra cash is diverted into a savings pool. I call that throwing a switch and forcing the flow into beneficial channels, thus preventing prices from spiraling. So, in some circumstances credit begins to behave as floating money – maybe a demurrage or tax is not onerous in that case. Again, the rules have to be thought out in advance, and the people agree to them – or they get thrown out.

        If you have an exchange rate, there will be many wanting to trade their legal tender money for your unit, and probably will be trying to protect their wealth. I’m presuming the MC unit does not have too much inflation due to its well managed nature. That also will have to be managed, as this trading of exchange media (money is really an exchange media – an abstraction) can flow in and flow out of your system quickly. Beware the exchange rate.

        But, I don’t see a way around an exchange rate, as the system needs to grow to become valid. Mountain hours and other units that just come into being from nothing, are in effect floating money. You will have to exchange newly created floating money for exchanged money.

    • Hi Anthony
      I check in once in awhile to see if you are still under siege by Field Marshall Strobach! 🙂

  11. meeli permalink

    The parasitic nature of alternative currencies, leeching the value from the existing national currency, upon the unsuspecting user is no better. How can you be advocating against “Usury” while purposing a so-called tax on people’s savings, both are unnecessary evils. So how would that work, you enforce savers to spent their money on products and services they have no interest in, otherwise you’ll punish them via taxation. Both options upon the populous are unwarranted.

    How is it that none of you individuals that attempt to pose an objection against “Usury” can even articulate why you hold such a stance? The fact that everyone of you advocates contradictory works, is in affect evidence to the level of “uncritical thinking” existing in such shared forums. Aside from the ranty vibe of this article, there contains a few more contradictory assertions. Read through with a critical observation and you’ll be able to locate them. Further evidence, along with past articles that all those Anthony advocates are no better than the present destructive system.

    • Ross N. permalink

      Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia Colony would allow the population to take out loans against privately held land. This was credit money that went into the supply, and then re fluxed for destruction later as all credit money does. The colony also spent additional script, created from nothing, into the money supply. This was spent usually on bridges or roads – e.g. the public commons. Since the path was constructive, meaning the public commons was enhanced, then this recycling interest was non usurious. Think of the interest as being a tax on loans in this case, yet it was beneficial, and contract between government and the people was honorable. The extra script put money into the supply to pay the interest. It also improved the commons so everybody’s labor value increased simultaneously.

      The revolutionary war interrupted this experiment. But, if enough time had gone by, then a bidding war on now “short in supply” land would have ensued, as that which is untaxed is pledged to the banker in the form of interest. So, a land tax helps keep land prices down and keeps banker rents from being taken.

      During the railroad era, railroad Barons took rents on the population as their “land” improved in value by the inputs of regular laboring people, yet the Barons did nothing thus gaining unearned income. They almost undid the U.S. through their monopoly actions – so the idea of taxing properly via fiscal policy is very non-trivial. Undoing the U.S. would have undone the experiment that regular people can have political control and freedom.

      Fiscal policy is the flip side of monetary policy. Taxation can put money back into productive channels. It can also be done wrong, and many people knee jerk with a “tax = bad” unthinking or perhaps ignorant reaction. The idea behind “flat tax” is also that it must be fair because it taxes everybody equally. But, anybody who has passing acquaintance with finance capitalism knows that unproductive usury capital paretos into the hands of financial oligarchs..the .01%, who in some cases own over half of their country’s wealth. Why would you tax Maria, and not Carlos Slim. Financial Oligarchs own money power and have shifted the law to their benefit – they have parasitized governments.

      Neo liberal and Neo Con thought control states that markets are magic and they have perfect information. Other lies are the nature of money is international, and it is must be based on private bank credit, etc. Yet more lies are that all taxes are bad (so that oligarchs can be free to take rents on the innocent and unsuspecting). Don’t listen to the hypnotic lies, or fall under their spell.

      Taxes and Fees are fiscal policy and a necessary component of any monetary system. The real idea is to have a non usurious contract.

      A local monetary system is an excellent way to teach people in real time how money should work and also fight back against those that sneakily take rents and steal from the mouth of labor.

    • Meeli, are you Abu Aardvark or some other Daily Bell associate?

      What’s wrong with you people? Haven’t I let you be?

    • here, here
      cognative dissonance is their default setting

      Representative Lindbergh on monetary reformists (trojan infiltrators like Ellen Brown and Bill Still) who insinuate themselves into the national discontentment, and lead the people to nowhere in the service of the money power, to induce the people to vote for something that is contrary to their interest

      Second. That in pursuance of said conspiracy to promote the object of the conspirators aforesaid and as part of that general scheme to induce Congress to legislate upon the monetary and banking system as stated hereinbefore, said conspirators caused to be organized the so-called Citizens League, with headquarters in the city of Chicago, to act as a mother organization and promoter to induce organization of the several states of auxiliary and affiliated leagues, and by misrepresentation to the public and to the origin of said mother league and its purpose to induce citizens who should have no knowledge of the said conspiracy and would be innocent of any wrong intention, and whose motives and intent would be to act in the common interests of their country, to join in the formation of auxiliary league throughout the several States in order to give the outward and surface appearance of respectability and honor, and that in pursuance of that plan the conspirators succeeded in organizing affiliated leagues in 45 of the States; that when organized the conspirators hereinbefore named, themselves directed who should be sent to these organizations as speakers and instructors, and also the kind of literature that should be distributed to the members and to the general public, the design of which was to have only such speakers, instructors, and literature as would discredit the then existing banking and currency system and prejudice the people in every way possible against it; but notwithstanding the then existing banking and currency system was bad and unfitted to the demands of the Nation and the needs of commerce and trade, and such campaign was by its conspirators aforesaid directed not to designate to the public what sort of a banking and currency system would be adopted in its stead, but the promoters of the conspiracy should pretend that the object of the campaign was to aid in every way to create a new monetary banking and currency system to take the place of the then existing bad one, and, as far as it could be done, the conspirators should pervent the people getting together to prepare a plan of their own to be presented to Congress: that the purpose of the conspirators was simply to make the public believe that a new banking and currency system was absolutely necessary and at the same time keep the public from finding out what would be its form and details, all this for the reason that the conspirators aforesaid had their own preconceived plan prepared as a part of their conspiracy, which they would secretly manage in their own way to have presented to Congress as the plan in response to all this public sentiment which the conspirators themselves had ingeniously worked out through the campaign aforesaid, and with the intent that Congress and the President would legislate the conspirators’ said plan into effect; that it was part of said plan to create many offices and positions with lucrative salaries, which offices and positions would be equivalent to a bid for the ambitious to support it, because these offices and positions would be filled by the leaders and most active persons who would join in the campaign to put the conspiracy into effect and influence Congress and the President for the purpose of securing the legislation.

      Third. That in further pursuance of said conspiracy and to be in control of the information and literature that should be distributed through the Nation, the said conspirators then having control of a large number of magazines, newspapers, and publishing companies, used all of these, and proceeded to procure control of as many more as could be purchased or subsidized to publish articles prepared by subsidized writers who would criticize the existing banking and currency system so as to create public sentiment against; that of the thousands of country newspapers, a majority of them use so-called “patent” articles not edited or even practically controlled by the owners of the papers, which patent articles are commonly called “boiler-place” stuff, and no responsibility as to the influence such articles have upon the public attaches to anybody; that those writing this “boiler-plate” stuff so published, many of them were also subsidized and controlled by the said conspirators, so that the small newspapers were practically forced to carry on a campaign against the then existing banking and currency system along the same lines of the others referred to hereinbefore; that readers generally do not have the opportunity to distinguish between “boiler-plate” articles and the articles which the editors of the smaller papers write themselves; that the news-distributing agencies through the telegraph and telephone were then and still are largely controlled by said conspirators, and the operators of the news agencies have been allowed to report only such news relating to a new banking and currency system as would promote said conspiracy, and required to suppress everything in the way of information or news that would tend to encourage the people to prepare for themselves a concrete plan for banking and currency in the interest of all the people; that the general play of the conspiracy was to suppress every article, statement, and thing so far as possible, which would give any information as to the existence of said conspiracy all of which was for the purpose of enabling the conspirators aforesaid to deceive the people as well as Congress and the President, in order that said conspirators might finally consummate their aforesaid conspiracy.

  12. Anthony, what do you think about the Bradbury pound? Any flaws?

  13. The idea of economics being a pseudo science and then trying to build everything from the ground up is not very helpful. Reality is the way it is and economics is effort to formulate laws of behaviour as they exist. By definition this is a difficult effort as many factors apply. Holding all other things constant is one of the ways to simplify the analysis.

    If I can lend out money at zero percent, it must be worth the risk considering other investments. First, the currency needs a demurrage to compensate for the risk of lending out money, otherwise I will not lend out at all. Second, if there are alternative investments, the yields on those investments need to be taken into consideration.

    If there is mutual credit at zero percent, negative balances need to be matched by positive balances. Economic laws will tell you that, there will be more demand for negative balances when people can achieve better yields elsewhere. Everyone wants to borrow at zero percent to lend out at a positive yield, if this is possible.

    The usury problem is purely arithmetic. You can corner the market for currency by usury and therefore make all others dependent on you, at least if the amount of currency is limited or controlled by you. The current solution is to let central banks print more currency if there is a shortfall, but the system is controlled by an oligarchy.

    The alternative is having a fixed amount of currency with a demurrage, making the maximum interest rate zero, and leave the markets alone (no government or central bank intervention). If there is a crisis, it should not be met with currency printing, but it should be left to the market to sort things out. The demurrage will act as a constant stimulus and the economy will quickly recover.

    See also:


    Frederick Soddy on demurrage and its propagators:—
    “What tangled web we weave……”

    • Ross N. permalink

      I repeat, floating money can go off and hide. Greenbacks got trapped in reserve loops of banks as they behaved exactly as gold. Greenbacks were also useful when they were spent into productivity. Man, or some men, seem to have the inability to learn. Perhaps its pride, the main defect of man. A lifetime spent on a wrong positions is hard to let go of.

      Demurrage was applied by Gessel only on physical currency, which kept it from hiding – thus allowing floating money to perform its true transaction function. Labor must be able to trade their output, and that can only happen when money is a neutral veil. Too much demurrage and at the wrong time, would make the veil not neutral.

      All of the ancient thinkers made mistakes. Soddy was confused on reserve banking. His mistakes have since been reformed and fixed by Huber.

      Huber is a currency theorist and is not confused by metal/intangible, fiat/law, or credit. See

      A regional currency can be made lawful, and its units can be made beneficial and non usurious.

      • once again, thank you

        other people would have noticed that the point is that Soddy cannot be used by advocates of drunken sailor money to give credibility to their giberish

        • Ross N. permalink

          Quoting the ancients is not the same thing as understanding them. Using their quotes as a bludgeon and taking something from history and applying it without context wins no points, and makes you sound like a bully.

          Money systems morph and hence the outputs change. For example, derivitives and QE are new; the large amount of Bank Credit in the supply is new; and today’s system has morphed from what Soddy, Kitson, and all the others understood. We can only look at their insights and see if they apply. Often they do apply, but have to be put into the context of their era and system at that time. That would be useful – would you do that instead of trying to score infantile points?

          Drunken sailor demurrage tax is certainly appopriate when floating tangible money has gone off to hide. It needs to be taxed or forced out of unproductive channels. We don’t have that kind of money in today’s economy – it is almost all bank credit.

          I’m sure all of this flies right over your head – to return the ad-hominem.

  15. paper is poverty, it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself. One hundred years ago, they had twenty odd millions of coin. Since that they have brought in from Holland by borrowing forty millions more, yet they have but twenty millions left, and they talk of being rich, and of having the balance of trade in their favor. —Thomas Jefferson, to Edward Carrington, May 27, 1788.

    • Ross N. permalink

      Read your own blog:

      Blood sorrow and silver. Babylonian Woe.

      Intangible numbers on clay ledger grow with usury, and make impossible claims against the tangible “silver” coin supply. Said supply cannot grow fast enough and hence it is an impossible contract. Dig stupid humans dig, waste your labor energy on finding metal to pay for something abstract. When you cannot pay the growing numbers on ledger, then humanity is harvested for their real property or persons as they become slaves.

      Or, since metal is supposedly money, we can melt it down – spirit it out of the country and make our enemies money supply collapse. This is exactly what happened when the Jews were kicked out of England and allowed to take their metal with them.

      Money is an abstraction whether it is in physical form or intangible. It is an invention of humans like mathematics. It can come under control only by good law and design. Just because tangible currency can be held in your hand doesn’t change it’s abstract nature.

      Money’s highest and true nature is a division of the law. Making it a division of metal or of debt instruments is “international” and a perversion of sovereignty. Law, by definition cannot extend past a countries borders, and hence making money international should be forbidden.

      Don’t confuse the permanent nature of floating money with metal. It matters not what it is made of. Lycurgus of Sparta dipped his iron peleanors in vinegar to make them brittle and useless. This kept Sparta out of the clutches of the Usurious international money lenders. His metal money was then really fiat money used only in Sparta.

      Rome grew behind Fiat law based money – copper money, which effectively was the equivalent of today’s fiat paper. It is only after the second Punic war when Rome adopted Gold/Silver that her decline into the dark ages was assured.

      Floating money simply is, and it can jump from transaction to transaction forever and efficiently, hence it is low cost. This type of unit can exist as ink on a ledger, or in physical form. It matters not what it is made of, it matters the design i.e. the law. Floating money has its downsides too, it can go into non productive channels, it can go off and hide, and it can be trapped by bankers when it is used to pay off their credit.

      • Thank you for supporting me in my low opinion of these groupies and reformators.

        Other people would have noticed that I merely posted a genuine Jefferson quote, to show what Jefferson’s view was….. it zoomed right over your head

  16. Ross N. permalink

    “Saint-Simon, Claude Henry de (1760-1825): French reformer best known for recognizing the need to replace debt relations by turning saving into equity (stock) investment. Among his followers, the Pereire brothers helped create the Credit Mobilier basically as a mutual fund. With less effect, St.-Simon sought to abolish inheritance so that people would possess only the fruits of their own labor.”

  17. Valgeir permalink

    The more i read about our societies institutions and their history i realize the best name for its condition is not the establishment, but The Replacement. Everywhere have the bankiers put their commisioned ideology at work and received a society that goes corrupt and defunct. Our institutions just ceases to work as they are supposed to.
    For this development i think Pico dello Mirandola is a good starting point. Whether he was paid, had good intentions or not doesn’t matter so much. The bankiers have always used good intentions as their cover. Its very reasonable, if you want to establish the empire of evil, you will have to camouflage it in goodness, and that must happen in a convincing manner or it will be dead on arrival.

    The dignity of man – how noble an aim ! I want it widespread too.
    Illumination – the age of reason. Common sense before superstition.
    Unfortunately it didn’t happen but in glimpses.
    Science have been cut down by the use of reason and objectivism. What we use are usually very limited versions of science. And if that is not enough, political and marked guidelines are allowed to triumph over most of health research.
    Humanism are by “science” and “reason” reduced to secular humanism, in effect empty shells. Without any metaphysical views, the human is reduced to a machinery, fit and matching psychologys behaviourism.
    And as “liberalism” has “liberated” us from the old monarchies, they have put in their own subjugated royalties as distracting points of exposure.

    To expose the Replacement one just have to look for substance and coherence. Truth as a measurement between description and reality, intention and result.
    We don’t have to start on scratch on everything, most things in the Replacement are just hampered with to become dysfunctional or to favor the bankiers and their chosen.

    Economy. I too want it to benefit the people. But how can one guarantee this to those always without power?
    The peoples revolution is just a myth started by the the bankiers and perpetuated by the press. The ancient mandate of heaven is now replaced by the Chosen of the Mass media , and they choose those who pretend to be the people.

    As i read diverse pages on alternative economy, i find this widespread assumption and premise; that somebody will recognize these alternative economic systems as just and establish them because they are right and legitimate.
    Why should anyone put up a system which was mechanically fair and didn’t favor its instigator?
    Or in other words, how can you create economic systems which do not recognize or debate its function as power and foundation and catalyst for more power?

    Any installment of fair economy systems will be shortlived as long as the mechanisms of power is ignored in the ideology. If the supreme power of a society is not aimed at letting ressources rain over society’s nobilities and making them work for the society, they will work against this society. End of experiment.
    To secure the money system is a question of securing the society closest to it. We must acknowledge that the Rothschilds do maintain power by spending almost all their money on the intelligentia, think tanks, formation of political trends and parties etc etc. Its gone as far that some already have said that most of USA are bribed to go against their will.
    So, in order to create a successful economic system, the proper way to install it in society is a needed part of the ideology.
    Therefore, to create a system to benefit of the people, solutions will lie in creating the connection between nobility and its people. To create such connections, exposure is needed. Exposure of the sneak bankiers are also needed and there we see they are aware of this point as the press is already hijacked by them.

    Another thing i would like to see on alternative economy websites. How to become a succesful capitalist in a system created to not benefit you?
    Obviously it is walking uphillwards if trying to be better in the game they have created, but economy is needed and vital. To benefit upon their expenses is green economy.
    I would also like to hear more about the boom/bust cycle, if its well monitored, those who care to be informed will not be losers.
    Economic warfare. Still too little is written upon the theme. Creating discreet courses/schools connected to new political parties could be an idea.

  18. krle permalink

    all trades could be settled in barter, even be it something like “cattle certificate”. it is not allowed, or should I say, it i s allowed, but you still have to pay tax on top of it (in money)..

    money has no time value inherently.. the underlying assets have time value, of which money is a so called representation. so money does have “time value” (if you do not have it). What none of these geniuses says though, is that for the lender, money is inherently worth less now than later. i.e. when he is going to need it, as opposed to now that he doesn’t need it, and the fact that the “lender” controls the value of money stems solely from the monopoly and scarcity of money, the fact that someone else needs it/is persuaded he needs it.. without the borrower , lenders money is as much worth as the things he can buy for it.. since he already has more than he needs, it is actually of very little worth..

    there is no price discovery, there is no demand, and there is no supply, there is a sum of needs, wishes, possibilities, corruption, price fixing, persuasion, coercion, innovation and profit maximization.. even mainstream economists have abandoned the ideas of demand and supply. They now say supply creates demand, which is equivalent of saying supply is the same as demand, which would be more correct, as the object/service in question (i.e. a car) is one, but not true; as it only depends on the price, and price these days does not necessarily depend on either.. it depends on how much the provider of a service or of the object in question is able to charge you, how much you need it, or want it, what your time horizons are, and what either of you aims to achieve, supply, demand and price discovery are obsolete concepts for all intents and purposes.

  19. I hope what you advocate doesn’t have the value of money decaying too fast. You mention several times that people used to be able to work 15 weeks out of the year and could support the family the entire year. What if someone works for two years straight and wants to use the money he saved up to spend with his family while taking a break from work? If we were truly prosperous this should be easy to achieve.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. July 2014 | Farganne's Newsfeed
  2. The Silly Pseudo Science That Is ‘Modern ...
  3. The Silly Pseudo Science That Is ‘Modern Economics’ | The Return of Sol
  4. CIS – Does Rothschild own all Central Banks? | ronaldwederfoort
  5. How Usury Encloses The Commons | Real Currencies
  6. How Usury Encloses The CommonsShift Frequency | Shift Frequency

Leave a Reply to thetruthnotdoctrine Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *