1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

when regulating trade turned to global distribution

Discussion in 'Government Offices and Programs' started by Days, Apr 16, 2017.

  1. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,541
    Likes Received:
    2,162
    Not so long ago, salt was money. All the market places in the world traded with salt. If you wanted to buy food at a market, you paid for it with salt. If the king or emperor wanted to pay his soldiers, he paid them in salt. Salaria is the Latin word for salt. When John the Baptist told the soldiers to be content with their wages, that meant how much salt they were paid monthly. When slave traders said a slave was worth his salt; that meant the slave was worth the asking price of the slave. When slave owners said a slave wasn't worth his salt; that meant the owner felt he paid too much for that slave... IOW, the slave was not working hard enough.

    Gold and silver was the money of kings. Large scale operations were paid for in gold. Gold and silver were the national currencies, when kingdoms or empires traded, it took place in gold.

    Enter the bankers.

    Kings began paying contractors in bonds, which were redeemable at the Treasury. The king's debt became currency to his subjects. If the king owed you $5000, you could use that debt to purchase $5000 of wood from the tree fellers, and they could redeem the bond at the Treasury... or use it to trade again.

    The birth of fiat currency.

    Coupons for gold stock became convenient for trade but another level was executed for distribution within a closed system. The Teutonic Knights ruled lands that Charlemagne conquered in middle europe and simply issued currency by what we would think of as a rationing, except, it was really a fiat currency, the Knights would put a mark on your money stick and that was good for that much value in the markets. The German Mark was purely a fiat currency from day one... a fiat controlled the entire currency and portioned out distribution for work accomplished within the system.

    When I say that our money system is a distribution model; it is because we have a purely fiat currency; gone is the gold and silver of the Constitution. In America, our entire money supply is created out of thin air when the Treasury creates a bond and sells it at auction. That bond is owed by the Treasury to the holder. Hence, the currency, which consists of the bonds and the trade they produce and the tools that they spawn, is a debt currency. Ultimately, the money is nothing more than a debt created out of thin air by the Treasury; no different than the tally stick produced by the king's exchequer. Since the value and supply of this currency is totally controlled by the fiat, the nature of trade has changed to methods of distribution. Global production and distribution goes forth on faith, and the money is supplied on an as-needed basis. It is all accounting these days, no money changes hands any more. And since the accounting is done on the internet, what we have today is an internet currency.

    Where does the Treasury get the money to redeem the bonds? How can they pay for something that was created out of thin air? At first, this was done with gold, but soon there wasn't enough gold, so we now use the same fiat currency to redeem the currency. Mostly this is achieved by producing more bonds; the net effect is a snowballing of debt, it never stops growing, so the metrics we use to measure the currency is simply to measure how fast the debt is growing. If the debt is growing faster than the trade it produces, you have a problem.

    A long forgotten factor of this currency is the method of redemption. Who is paying for the bonds produced out of thin air? Since the bonds are primarily produced to bring forth instruments of war; who is paying for these wars? The new bonds created merely kick the can down the road, and the debt just grows, someone has to redeem the bonds or the castle of cards would collapse in no time. So, here's where I have said, redeem the bonds with Treasury issue, stop taxing our wages to pay for wars. When you close the loop, and redeem the synthetic bond with synthetic Treasury Notes, the system runs on its own merit... if it produces something of value, the money has value, but if it wastes its production on war, the money loses its value; because there's nothing left from war to buy with the money... so when you close the loop, it forces the system to beat its swords into plowshares, capice?

    This is a very important concept needed to understand where private wealth merges with national wealth; at what point does a private bank become a central bank, and at what point does personal income need to be regarded as corporate income. When banks figured out how to set up accounts for currencies; literally banking whole nations, the holdings of the bank became irrelevant... although the bank may be private held so it's holdings are technically considered private debt; the reality is, a central bank is the clearing house of public debt; the operations of a central bank maintain the currency of the nation; in essence and practice, our Federal Reserve has taken over the Constitutional custody of the currency from Congress.

    This is why the super rich are no longer private wealth in my mind. Goof balls who try to input public status to mid-sized corporations because of this ("you didn't build that company, you rode the public service of government - roads, trade, banks, etc") have still not grasped any understanding of critical mass, or, the levels at which this happens. Trump is still a private businessman. His wealth was not gained by banking the bonds sold at auction for whole nations. Trump filed bankruptcy however many times because he was not too big to fail. Lehman Brothers, OTOH, was banking on an international level, was caught holding the old USSR bonds after they were defaulted on, and was too big to fail, they can not complete the bankruptcy, after five years of trying to complete the bankruptcy, they gave up, it just isn't possible, because Lehman Brothers is not really a private bank, it is an original stock holder in the central bank, it is part of the infrastructure of the currency.

    We have had many rich people who got there the old fashioned way; they built industries and made a profit. But there is a huge gulf between the rich and the super rich. The super rich got there banking whole nations and taking over their currencies. There are many rich, there are very few super rich, and the super rich are not competing against the rich, they are providing the playing field for the rich to compete on; the super rich run the entire currency that the rich are fighting to obtain.

    What the "economists" tend to misunderstand is the difference between getting the super rich to share the wealth and getting the rich to share the wealth. Jesus spoke to the rich, Trump is speaking to the super rich... when we try to get the super rich to share the wealth, what we are doing is trying to get policy changed. It is no longer a matter of taxes, now it becomes the method for redeeming the nation's bonds.

    Where I agree with the socialists is on the level of the super rich. Chavez' daughter was super rich in a nation as poor as Venezuela, but only because Chavez paid off the national debt. When misfits would point at various debts held by Venezuela, they are not discerning the difference between debt and the national debt; the national debt is part of the currency; it is the money supply; unless you can increase the real money supply to match the money supply lost when you pay off the debt; your nation will become poorer. What people do not understand is the difference between a real money supply and a debt currency. In America, our only money supply is our debt; if we ended the FED, the currency would collapse, and it would be Armageddon. In Venezuela, they tried to go back to real money, they paid off the national debt and closed down their central bank; in the USSR they defaulted on the national debt, started a new republic and named it for the old land of the Czars, and went to real money; when the globalists see real money (like what Libya was starting to do) they see competition. Not competition like the rich compete with each other within various industries, but competition of a different system of money. So the globalists will attempt to shut the competing system down before it replaces the system they are running. When I agree with the socialists it is on this level, I want to see the debt system of currency modified so it becomes a better model of wealth distribution; currently, it mostly works to rob the masses and give to the super rich, with a few crumbs going to the rich... I want to see the system tweaked to redistribute more evenly back to the masses. Going as far as Venezuela, Libya, or Russia is not necessary; they are trying to replace the entire system (along with END THE FED nuts) ... I want to bring back both systems and let them work side by side without destroying each other and I want to tweak the debt currency so it no longer taxes the masses to pay for the wars; once the super rich have to pay for their own wars (you don't do that through taxation, you do it through redemption of the bonds) ... when we reach that point and we return the silver dollar into circulation; hey, that's a huge social change, that's a revolution in itself.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  2. georgephillip

    georgephillip Governor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,573
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    Michael Hudson writes a great deal on this subject:

    http://store.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Killing-The-Host_PDF_V7.pdf (p.28)

    "Driven by the mathematics of compound interest – savings lent out to grow exponentially – the overgrowth of debt is at the root of today’s economic crisis. Creditors make money by leaving their savings to accrue interest, doubling and redoubling their claims on the economy. This dynamic draws more and more control over labor, land, industry and tax revenue into the hands of creditors, concentrating property ownership and government in their hands. The way societies have coped with this deepening indebtedness should be the starting point of financial theorizing."

    Hudson argues debt generated by the "magic of compound interest" siphons wealth from the circular flow of economic activity until the productive economy collapses.
    [​IMG]
    http://study.com/academy/lesson/cir...ity-the-flow-of-goods-services-resources.html
     
  3. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,541
    Likes Received:
    2,162
    I couldn't agree more, and frankly, it is high time we outlawed compound interest. Daily interest is intrinsically criminal, why it is still allowed is beyond belief. Credit cards give a double blessing; compounding interest daily.

    However, it isn't the same as the simple interest we pay on Treasuries. The focus should never have been on interest payments in the national debt; the focus should be on WHO is paying the debt. The system creates the debt out of thin air; it is a synthetic debt. The system should have destroyed the synthetic debt with a synthetic payment; the bonds should transform into currency at maturity. Hanging the redemption of the entire currency on taxation was loony tunes; to begin with, how on earth could that possibly work? You can't redeem the whole with a fraction of what it produced. If I create a dollar out of thin air, how can I expect to pay for that dollar with a 28% tax? that's just crazy. And the guys that dreamed that up knew damn well it was crazy. It is a system of global enslavement... by design. But we can tweak the design and make it work. Just redeem the bonds with a synthetic credit; aka, automatic redemption of mature bonds into currency. The ten billion in Treasuries becomes ten billion in dollars at maturity; no need to redeem the bond ... it transforms on its own (by decree of the fiat; that's how fiat currency works; it does whatever the fiat says it does).
     
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
  4. georgephillip

    georgephillip Governor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,573
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    Have you ever heard any politician explain debt in this way? It seems to reveal a great deal about our current economic downturn in a relatively straightforward manner that could be easily understood across the political spectrum.
     
  5. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,541
    Likes Received:
    2,162
    Politicians are all puppets that dance on bankers' purse strings
     
  6. georgephillip

    georgephillip Governor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,573
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    [​IMG]
    If the economy is the base of society, the puppets and the bankers could find themselves buried in the superstructure?
     
  7. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,541
    Likes Received:
    2,162
    that's the hope. You will never get the rich to agree to share with the poor; the rich are by definition the people in society who believe in taking from the poor. You will never get the rich to follow a new structure of government or society that forces them to share with the poor - they will always find a way around it (it is their nature). But even the rich have to work within the existing superstructure, and in America we have a Constitution that allows for modification of the superstructure. It is damn hard to get these puppets to do something intelligent, but it is possible, if all the planets align, and someone were to get in power that understands how the system works, it isn't hard at all to make the proper tweaks to process; the public wouldn't even need to know it is happening. Globalists are not harmed in the least by automatic redemption of national bonds; it actually saves them the cost of redeeming the bonds. There isn't any real opposition to this idea, the problem is, no one has thought of it yet. (I have been preaching it for five years, but I haven't seen anyone pick up on it)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. georgephillip

    georgephillip Governor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,573
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    How would this automatic redemption of national bonds differ from the status quo? Can you point me to a very elementary source on the mechanics of national bonds?
     
  9. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,541
    Likes Received:
    2,162
    sure...

    Schedules of Federal Debt Debt Position and Activity Report (Link)

    ... it doesn't get more basic than that! The Treasury sells bonds at auction (through the Federal Reserve) and those bonds come back for redemption.

    I guess what I am trying to say is, the US Treasury is the true fiat of our currency. The Federal Reserve Act lends that fiat to the central bank, it does not replace it. The Federal Reserve is under authority to and derives their authority from the Treasury. Ultimately it was an Act of Congress that set up the Federal Reserve currency, but the Treasury maintains the pulse and flow of the bonds and decides what types of bonds to put out. The Federal Reserve manages the distribution and redemption of the bonds, so the central bank is the go-between for the Treasury and the open market. But the bonds come back in for redemption on the schedule set by the type of bond offered by the Treasury. So, the system in place is still controlled by the Treasury, they create the bonds, then the central bank sells them to the open market.

    Now there is lots and lots of mechanics that can be learned, and the Federal Reserve will be happy to school you. But what they won't tell you is this; the Treasury can build any type bond it wants to. If the Treasury sends a bond to market that self redeems, then that bond will self redeem, it is that simple. Just stipulate it on the bond, no different than selling a bond that is redeemable in silver or gold, the Treasury can create whatever type of bond it wants to create.

    It is the Treasury that decides how to redeem its bonds. Currently they do that by taxing our incomes, taxing corporate income, and selling more bonds, but they can change that any ol' time they please. The president can write another one of those orders and make that change any ol' time he pleases. This can be done under the current law and it is being done under the current law; it just isn't being done the best way at the moment but if we had representatives in Government who desired to do a better job of it, they could choose to do so ... they could draw up a self redeeming bond, this morning. I'm not talking about changing the law, I'm talking about what happens every day under current law.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. georgephillip

    georgephillip Governor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,573
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    If a T-Bill "self-redeems" how does that affect payouts to bond holders?
     
  11. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,541
    Likes Received:
    2,162
    It guarantees it, since there would be no waiting on process.

    Currently, the Treasury "sells" bonds (T-Bills are the same bonds, they are called Treasury Bills if the term of the bond is one year or less) through the auction at the FED. Although that sale actually happens in that, bidders for the bonds will price the bonds... the price is always the same, what they are bidding on is the rate, if this bidder bids to buy $50 billion 5 year bonds at 1% and another bidder bids to buy the same bonds at 0.9875%, the 2nd bid wins because he's paying more for the bond; he is getting the bond at a lower rate so it pays less interest at his bid, so that's a higher bid to the Treasury. So, while there is an auction and they set a price for the bonds (which sets the daily rate for the bonds) when the smoke and mirrors are all finished, the FED banks the sale, which is to say, the FED credits the Treasury general account; in essence, the Treasury has a checking account at the FED. So now, the Treasury has $50 Billion in Federal Reserve Notes, FED dollars, to pay off redemption of bonds or any other thing. This is just goofy as hell, because the FED dollars are US dollars, aka Treasury dollars, it is a convoluted process for creating dollars through creating debt instead of just printing up the dollars straight from the Treasury. The Treasury creates the currency either way, but by doing it this way, the currency is owed to the banks, hence it is debt currency. And the banks do not pay for the bonds, they are employing fractional reserve lending; when a bank buys a bond, it is making a loan, the interest rate on the bond and the type of interest and term of interest on the bond is the interest agreement on the loan... this is no different than a mortgage Note, it is a loan. Hence, the FED dollars are created out of thin air, the same as Treasury dollars are created out of thin air, the only difference is process. At the Treasury the process is simply issue, the Treasury issues the money... prints it up. At the FED the process is fractional banking, the FED banks the loan, which credits an account.

    So, when the bond comes in for redemption, the Treasury pays for it with FED dollars which are drawn at the general account at the FED. The Treasury could just as easily pay for the bond with Treasury dollars; in reality, both the Federal Reserve Note and the US Note are US dollars, it is the nation's money, the only difference between the two is process. If the Treasury sold bonds that self redeem, turned into dollars at maturity, that would fall under the process of Treasury issue. Remember, none of these dollars are ever going to see paper and ink, it is all accounting and process.

    So how would a self redeeming Treasury bond affect pay-out on the bond? There wouldn't need to be a pay-out, the bond automatically transforms into dollars, now instead of a bank needing to sell or redeem the bond to liquidate it, the bond would turn into dollars, it would self liquidate. So the banks would like this type of bond better than the current type.

    The only opposition to the idea might come from the FED itself. Because the FED - while claiming they are not controlling or coercing the government - are very much into controlling and coercing the government. The current process is 100% under their control, it uses all Fed dollars, there is no Treasury dollars in circulation. What I am proposing is to end the bond cycle with Treasury issue, which makes perfect sense since they are Treasury bonds to begin with, but that takes control away from the FED, remember, the FED is the fiat (authority) of the FED dollar, but not the fiat for the Treasury dollar. The Treasury is actually the fiat for both dollars, the Treasury is the authority under which the FED operates, the Treasury can do whatever it wants to do with the currency, and yet, because the Treasury is run by bankers, it chooses to give full reign to the FED. The president is in authority over the Treasury, so he can order the Treasury to start selling self redeeming bonds at auction any ol' time he wants to do that.
    The last time the president issued a Treasury order, he was shot in the head six months later, and the order was immediately reversed, although no one knows who authorized the reversal, I don't know of any order signed by LBJ to stop issuing silver certificate Notes (dollars redeemable in silver) but the JFK Notes were totally destroyed before they were issued. There's another invisible coercion at play with our money; the supposedly defunct Illuminati that was never part of the process but managed to print their symbols all over the money and the president's seal... something strange is going on because no president will mention the money or the secret societies since JFK was murdered. I mention this because, it is obvious that the FED desire to control the whole process is due to the FED itself being controlled by the Illuminati. Right now, Congress is trying to find the nerve to audit the FED; of course it isn't in the papers, and one truly wonders how the Federal Reserve has operated in total secrecy for 100 years, while it had total control over the nation's money.

    Anyhoo, the Treasury can sell whatever type of bonds it wants to sell. So the battle to change process is really just a battle to modify Treasury policy. Ultimately, that policy is set by the president, but you never see the president go anywhere near it. The masses are plum stupid and that is by design, if the masses had any idea how easy it is to tweak this system and stop making them pay for the nation's wars (and spraying the skies with chemtrails) ... ya think maybe the masses might decide to stop kicking themselves in the ass? The IRS is part of the Treasury. The Treasury is illegally taxing our wages and legally taxing corporate profit to deliver some FED dollars to the general account at the FED which they use to do everything, but the biggest thing they do with it is redeem their bonds. The bond redemption costs more in a fiscal year than the entire budget of the federal government. No one will ever show you that; it is all slight of hand. The most you can find is a pie chart that includes the interest payment, but no one ever published a huge pie chart showing total payoff from the Treasury. If you want to calculate that on your own, go to that Link I gave you ...
    ... the bottom line is process. Currently we give total control over the nation's money to the FED and the FED runs it so that US corporations and citizens pay for the redemption of the bonds, which is to say, they create the money out of thin air, then loan it to us at interest, and finally, make us pay for the creation to boot. When Abraham Lincoln issued Treasury dollars (US Notes) to pay his army in the Civil War, that was a move to bypass selling bonds to the banks... a change in process... it seems every president that tried to change the process at the Treasury fetched a bullet in the head. Garfield comes to mind. That's why I say the president shouldn't sign any order, just whisper in the ear of the Treasury Secretary and he could whisper in the ears of those under him and they could change the small print on the bond sales and nobody needs to be the wiser.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017
  12. georgephillip

    georgephillip Governor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,573
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    Is this similar to what Lincoln did with his Greenbacks?
    If so, would it still work today without exorbitant levels of inflation?
     
  13. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,541
    Likes Received:
    2,162
    The greenbacks were so coined because they were - as the Continental currency was that Washington paid his men with - a fiat currency. No gold or silver behind the money.

    Today, all we have in America is a fiat currency. There is two different processes for creating the fiat currency, one is through the FED, which produces the debt currency in use at the moment (the only type of money we've created since 1932... well... created and put into distribution; JFK's silver certificates never made it into distribution)... while the other is to issue the currency directly from the Treasury. Lincoln issued his greenbacks directly from the Treasury. Washington issued his script directly from the Continental Congress, and before the revolutionary war, American colonies were built on a fiat currency from banks in mother England. Hard currency was the experiment of the Constitution, and it lasted 150 years, but the central bank manipulated the government to stop making that money. Of course that's a conspiracy theory, but you can be damn sure that no one voted to end the gold eagle or have their gold confiscated... the government suddenly decided to pull that on its people and put all the confiscated gold into Fort Knox. So it appears that the Federal Reserve was behind it, in order to force everyone onto their paper dollar.

    Would it work today without inflation? Well, it is what we have had for the past 85 years, we live on a synthetic currency, that's what our money is. Has it been inflationary? Hell yes, the banks inflate the living hell out of it. Cutting the banks out of some of the process might make it a tad less inflationary, or not, but it won't make it more inflationary. The inflation happens when the banks use the bonds for asset reserve and loan ten times as much out. That creates 10 times as much money. If we redeemed the bonds automatically, the banks will still have used them for asset reserve and loaned against them, so it won't stop the money inflation, and it doesn't change the bond from being turned into dollars at maturation, so it really doesn't change the process at all from an inflation perspective. Like I said, the banks would not care one bit if the bonds auto-redeemed, they are not hurt in the least bit. Neither does it change distribution... it just relieves taxes. Instead of taxing the people to redeem a synthetic debt, we redeem the synthetic debt with the same synthetic currency... only instead of using the FED dollar, we use the Treasury dollar. This in my mind was how the system should have been drawn up to begin with ... it is, after all, just a convoluted process for creating the dollar; it still starts and should end with the Treasury... the Treasury is still the fiat for the American dollar. There is no Federal Reserve in our Constitution, only a Treasury. And the Federal Reserve Act is not a Constitutional Amendment, hence, the Federal Reserve exists solely as a process of the Treasury.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017
  14. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    16,541
    Likes Received:
    2,162
    Think about how stupid Americans are when it comes to money.

    GeorgePhilip asked this question about inflation because the political landscape has pushed the idea of ending the FED and for maintaining a money supply printing Treasury Notes instead. This was a legal response to what is plainly an illegal system of operation (the central bank changed Article I, took over the custody of our currency from Congress, changed the currency from hard currency to a fiat currency, in short, broke Constitutional law and not just broke Constitutional law, but fundamentally changed the republic into a different animal altogether). The banker's response? "Oh, that would create hyper inflation".

    Now think. If we ended the central bank operation, which we could, we could stop selling bonds at auction and just print dollars in our mints, and use our money to run our government. We not only could do that, we did do that, in fact, that was exactly what worked for the American colonies, and when the Europeans asked Benjamin Franklin how in the heck those colonies were doing so well financially (against all odds) Franklin's answer was, "we have a totally fiat money supply"... no hard currency holding back our economy....

    Now think. Because the banks said printing money straight from the Treasury would create hyper inflation for a reason; they were pointing at that very result in other systems that tried it, of course those were extremely small economies and they tried to increase their economy through printing money, so of course it didn't work because all they did was inflate the money supply, which deflates value....

    Now think. If America were to stop selling bonds and just print US Notes in our mints to pay for everything. Would it hyper inflate the money supply?

    We have two processes by which we have created our money supply. The original process of printing money in our mints and the new process of creating money through fractional banking of our bonds. The new process multiplies the money supply ten, twenty, even thirty times the bond sales. So if we stopped using the bond sales to create money, what would happen to the money supply? .... Think! It should be obvious. If we stopped using the process that hyper inflates the money supply, we would stop hyper inflating the money supply. (duh) This is why I never advocated for ending the FED, I said the FED is illegal, which it is, I said the FED fundamentally altered the Constitution without being a Constitutional Amendment, which it did, I said the FED should be shut down by law, which it should, but I never said, we should end the FED. Why not end the FED? Because the money supply would collapse. The banks hyper inflate the money supply, if you stop using that process, the money supply would hyper deflate. If the dollar has been devalued by 99% over the past 100 years by the Federal Reserve system - and it has - what happens when you stop using that system? It goes right back to the other system, which means our money supply would be reduced that 99% it was increased, because the 99% drop in value is a direct result of 99% increase in money supply. Worse yet, the drop in supply would happen much faster than the century it took to increase supply; once the banks stop loaning money, the whole mechanism locks up... like it did in 2008, so it drops really fast. In other words, the money supply would collapse... which also collapses the economy and you get financial Armageddon, you also get a real Armageddon, but that's another post.

    However, if we keep using the bond process to create money... and if we were to tweak the process so it works, because what is in place is not working, so if we fixed the process and properly destroyed the bonds, retired the debt, through the same synthetic process that created the debt; which only makes sense, people, if you don't retire the synthetic debt with a synthetic issue, you have unleashed a monster that never stops growing, and that's what the central bankers unleashed on the planet and they knew exactly what they were doing. All we have to do is fix the process. Retire the debt. They know that. Any banker knows that. But Americans can't grasp it for their lives, and it is costing Americans their lives... four generations running... but God help this land, these people are stupid. It was stupid to think we could end the FED without collapsing the money supply. It was more stupid to listen to the bankers say ending the FED would hyper inflate the money supply... when it would do exactly the opposite. And it was most stupid, for those of us who knew the bankers were lying, to think that we should end the FED because we would want to hyper deflate the money supply.

    sigh.

    The Treasury could sell bonds that auto redeem into dollars upon reaching maturity. That's what a fiat bond should have been doing all along. The Treasury could declare that all our bonds floating in the market; roughly $14 Trillion of them, will henceforth auto redeem and so will all future bonds, sold at auction, and in a moment's time, the Treasury could fix the process on the spot, solve the problem with the process that has plagued us for a full century. That's called being the fiat, you have total authority over your currency, it is whatever you say it is; that's how a fiat currency works; it is the currency of the fiat. You produce whatever type of coupon you want to produce, you produce whatever type of bond you want to produce, if people use your money, they use your money, the money does whatever you design it to do.

    A note of caution about money; make as little changes as possible, especially to the money in circulation in the markets. Jill Stein wanted to retire all student debt... through the FED, I guess she figured the FED would want to cooperate with her ideas if she was president. Others have said, just forgive the federal loans, but those loans are not really federal, the notes are held by the banks. Others have said, just print up a couple trillion dollars in our mints and pay down all student debt... and while we are at it, keep printing and continue to make college education free. There are consequences to each change you make to the currency. Let me ask you; would retiring all student debt hyper inflate the currency? Yep. You would be injecting a couple trillion into circulation... so yep, it would devalue the dollar. And this is exactly what you have to be most careful about; the money in circulation, the money that is being used daily in the market place; that is a fragile situation, you don't want to be reckless with that.

    tweaking the redemption process doesn't change a thing. the bonds go through the same process and they still end up redeemed for cash, nothing changes, all we are doing is repairing the process; the process itself doesn't change, hence, there is no change to the money supply.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017

Share This Page