Author Topic: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...  (Read 15666 times)

Offline chris

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3168
  • Karma: 1034
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2011, 05:34:53 PM »
Hare, I love ya man but like I said what you are talking about is a wonderful fiction.

So are justice and mercy, but the inability to achieve them universally doesn't mean we should stop striving for them. Back to the topic, the secret of oz method of funding govt is inflation. It will take the bankers out of the loop, but that's it only redeeming feature. Success through inflation? Maybe that's possible, Keynes might have been right after all.

Offline ModernSurvival

  • Just a Desperado Under The Eaves
  • Administrator
  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3060
  • Karma: 305
  • Liberty is precious, fight to keep it!
    • The Survival Podcast
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2011, 10:46:40 AM »
How about the next time we're sitting around a campfire together eating your killer chicken, we'll arm wrestle to see who's the better economist?
:hare:

LMAO, your on.

Offline The Professor

  • Tactical Skittle Assassin
  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2714
  • Karma: 379
  • All we have to do is create another universe
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2011, 11:16:40 AM »
For fear of letting even more of my professorial side show. . .

In re "Free Market Money". . .

Honestly, most of this is going to depend upon what the definition of "money" is.

While I will admit that I fear the FUTURE of Hare's argument is speculative fiction, the fact is that it has worked.  However, the royals/leaders at the time did everything they could to eventually control it.

Once again, we have an example of those who govern moving to secure more power over the governed.

The Professor

Offline ModernSurvival

  • Just a Desperado Under The Eaves
  • Administrator
  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3060
  • Karma: 305
  • Liberty is precious, fight to keep it!
    • The Survival Podcast
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #33 on: October 28, 2011, 11:28:12 AM »
For fear of letting even more of my professorial side show. . .

Honestly, most of this is going to depend upon what the definition of "money" is.

The Professor

Key is we know what money is, money is period "a collective agreement of a symbol for value with in a society".  The main reason I believe in a public currency is that I firmly believe that any nations sovereignty is contingent upon 100% control of it's money. 

On the whole, "it worked in the past" argument for private gold that never actually holds up when you look into it.  What actually has worked was public currencies, hell tally sticks worked for over 500 years.  What ruined em?  Gold.  The Continental worked just fine until the British killed it with counterfeiting because they wanted to control money with what?  Gold.  We went from the Greenback to Gold and who did it help?  Bankers.  Who did it harm?  The common man.  Bronze fiat currency made Rome ruler of the world, until year ago I always believed that fiat money killed the Roman economy, turns out the REAL story is a move back to gold is what did it. 

History is a bitch!  It is so easy to say, "well it worked", until you actually look at the time and examine this system that was working and ask, whom was it working for and whom was it working against. 

All this is pointless anyway, cause here is what is going to happen.

In the next 5-10 years the world economy will move back to a gold backing, the dollar included.  All the cheers will stop when people start counting up what the new money will buy and realize that debt is still in the equation.  The people will get screwed and the bankers will get richer at the expense of the people, yet again.  Gold bugs will say it's because the government is still involved, etc. 

Gold is nothing but a metal folks, it isn't money.   Gold lost 9% of its value in the last 60 days it is a commodity, a valuable one but there is nothing special at all about gold compared to many other substances. 

Offline The Professor

  • Tactical Skittle Assassin
  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2714
  • Karma: 379
  • All we have to do is create another universe
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #34 on: October 28, 2011, 12:40:12 PM »
All this is pointless anyway, cause here is what is going to happen.

In the next 5-10 years the world economy will move back to a gold backing, the dollar included.  All the cheers will stop when people start counting up what the new money will buy and realize that debt is still in the equation.  The people will get screwed and the bankers will get richer at the expense of the people, yet again.  Gold bugs will say it's because the government is still involved, etc. 

Gold is nothing but a metal folks, it isn't money.   Gold lost 9% of its value in the last 60 days it is a commodity, a valuable one but there is nothing special at all about gold compared to many other substances. 

Well, there's a lot to argue about in all of this, not just Jack's comments.  In the past 20 years, the US Dollar has lost approximately 43% of it's buying power, whereas gold's value has increased over 368%.

Now. . what does that mean?  Exactly Diddly and Squat.  Unless you were smart and purchased lots of gold 20 years ago, then you may be a happy camper.

I wholeheartedly disagree that the US or the Global economy is going to return to a gold standard.  That's beside the point.  In all honesty, whatever happens will be controlled by somebody and we are going to have to adapt to those changes. 

I'm not rich.  I'm better off than most and despite the assertions of the OWS'ers, probably don't realistically fit into that mythical 1%.  Even I can see that no matter which way the wind blows, no matter what form of "money" is in effect. . .it's going to be a rough ride.

We can sit here and argue until we're all blue in the face, but I sincerely doubt that any of us are going to have a voice in the direction taken by those in charge of our economy.  Is it going to hurt?  For most of us, yes. 

Will those who can afford to invest in certain commodities do better than those who can't?  Possibly.  I know I have a higher value in certain sections of my portfolio because I did buy gold and silver somewhat heavily back in the 90's (I lost certain parts of my anatomy when the stock market crashed, though).  Will I still be able to say this tomorrow?  Only time will tell.  However, I don't fully bank my future on speculation and hope.  While a lot of people rail on and on about buying/investing in gold, I'm not one of them.  I took a risk.  I got lucky.  "Luck" is defined as ". . .Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions. " 

While I did take the action of purchasing a commodity, I had no say in the increase in the value of said commodity (actually, my contribution is better described as miniscule).

When Gold hit $1700, I liquidated a sizable portion of my investment (not all of it, though).  This is a risk, too. 

Despite my LUCK, I will unequivocally state that I feeel gold is not a good investment if you're looking for a barterable item.  As a form of currency with it's current value, it's too bulky to use.  I didn't invest in it as a survival currency.  I took the gamble that it would increase in value.  Is it money?  Some of it is.  But I'm not going down to Wally-world and buying a week's worth of groceries with a $20 gold piece.  Hell, I don't even know if they'll take it.

What should be the ultimate goal for us?  As Jack has said repeatedly: self-sufficiency.  Doff the burden of debt. Minimize the threat of such an economic (or other) collapse as much as possible.  For some, this is easier than others, but it is still a goal towards which we should all be working.

As to investments in such commodities. . .if you can spare the money and can afford to lose it. . .throw the dice.  Do this only after you can safely state that you have done everything in your power to ensure than any effects of economic upheaval will be minimized.  It's wiser to invest in your pantry, in your physical plant and in those items that insulate you from the changes that truly threaten your continued being.

Please forgive the changes between direct responses to Jack and those in general.  Also please forgive the potential derailment of the thread away from the original topic.

. . .and now: back to your regularly-scheduled program.

The Professor

inbox485

  • Guest
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #35 on: October 28, 2011, 05:17:26 PM »
The only way I ever see a stable monetary system is if the currency is literally a % of the nation's GDP. You could even call it a BONG (billionth of the National GDP) ;) . The federal government could then do one of the few things it is allowed to do and administer the printing of the currency according to the increase and decrease in the GDP. Then they couldn't pay things with debt unless a lender truly gave them their portion of the GDP they had possessed.

Offline The Professor

  • Tactical Skittle Assassin
  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2714
  • Karma: 379
  • All we have to do is create another universe
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #36 on: October 28, 2011, 06:52:18 PM »
BONG. . . Dude, that's perfect!

When the percentage goes down, the Newspapers headlines will read : "Nation takes a BONG Hit!"

When we need an increase in tax revenue, they can call for "More BONG WATER!"  (Wage And Tax Emergency Reconciliation)

The Professor
(Who, obviously, has spent entirely too long correcting papers, today.)

Offline chris

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3168
  • Karma: 1034
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #37 on: October 28, 2011, 08:36:12 PM »
The Continental worked just fine until the British killed it with counterfeiting because they wanted to control money with what?  Gold. 

According to whom? I'd always read, and this is well documented, the Continental was destroyed by inflation. I'd love to see your sources.


Quote
Bronze fiat currency made Rome ruler of the world, until year ago I always believed that fiat money killed the Roman economy, turns out the REAL story is a move back to gold is what did it. 

Same as above, but debasement instead of printing press inflation.

Quote
History is a bitch!

It certainly can be, if we're using different histories.  ;)

Offline Rorschach

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Karma: 3
  • ...sombody knows why. Somebody knows!
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2011, 01:23:06 AM »
Sorry Chris, this is a long post.  Feel free to work around me.

Note: just for clarity 1:23 would be 1 minute and 23 seconds, 1:23:45 would be 1 hour, 23 minutes and 45 seconds.

The premise is that debt backed currency is the problem (3:03, 4:30).   Then he blames gold for ruining economies, for example the switch from tally sticks to gold).  Is gold a debt backed currency?  Why couldn’t they have had IOUs in tally sticks?  Maybe the tally stick standard kept the government limited to a certain number of tally sticks, but that would work for gold.  Some of the video is factual and interesting, but the conclusions he comes to are fallacious or self-contradicting.  The reason is that he does not take into account all of the historical facts.

For instance one error is his analysis is the shortage of coins that he discusses at 23:00.  This shortage was caused by a monopoly in minting caused by… wait for it… government (http://mises.org/store/Good-Money-P519.aspx); I think the narrator would have wanted me to say gold.  He doesn’t mention, or probably even consider, the monopoly power of a government created cartel over money as being a potential problem.  A note about the book listed/link above:  If you look at the dates for the time period you might say that it is not relevant to the discussion, but prior to the time period is when the monopoly strength of the British government over the minting of coins was the strongest, and the book discussed the prosperity that ensued when the monopoly was loosed, and people used copper and silver as money.   The next objection I might hear is the Oz video is right about gold being a problem or unusable as money (57:11 the problem is that gold is scarce), but again the problem was government, because it created the gold minting cartel that caused the shortage of gold coins, and this was essentially maintained before, during, and after the time period in question, while a free money in silver in copper created prosperity.

At the 23:56 mark when he quotes Ben Franklin, the narrator focuses the change in the monetary unit rather than the British governments threat (and ultimately actual) use of force to try to enrich themselves at the colonies expense by controlling the money.  Going back to the premise presented at the beginning of the video is that debt back currencies are the problem, but a gold standard is not a debt backed currency.  If the government can screw us with or without debt backed currencies then the 1st premise is wrong.  The conclusion that the narrator should be coming to is that government controlled currencies are the problem.  The narrator really supports my thesis in a prior post(that is a “freedom standard” is better than a gold standard or fiat standard) at 23:37 when he begins to discuss the 1764 Currency Act threatened the livelihoods of the colonies when it reduced the freedom of people to choose their own money, rather enforced a centrally controlled currency.

So at 26:11 the narrator finally comes around to contradicting himself and denying the initial premise that debt backed money, or even the kind of money at all is not the problem, but rather the important factor is “Who controls the quantity of money”.   Although before the end of the film at 1:38:07 debt backed money is the problem again, and then 1:42:14 the problem is who controls the quantity of money again.

And at 28:28 he tells us that the inability for the government to issue credit(create debt- there goes that debt free thing) is at the root of all of our economic problems today;  because we all know that the government does not issue much credit at all; it’s very, very stingy with spending money and borrowing credit(sarcasm for those that cannot tell). 

He also bolsters the argument that coin money is the only money that the federal government is supposed to create since at 28:12 he notes that the ability to borrow money, but silence on the federal role in printing paper money, and it then specifically prohibited for the states from “emitting bills of credit” (the language of the day meaning to “print money”).  Anything not enumerated as a power for the federal government is not supposed to be able to do(read Article 1 Sections 8 & 10).

The Continental and the Swedish Money (28:35), both debt free money’s failed, but he comes to the conclusion at 30:00 that we need a debt free currency controlled by the government.  Translation:  The government should have a debt free currency controlled by the congress.  Truth:  The government continues to fail to provide all kinds of services, except genital massage, they do this well.  So Pennsylvania had a strong currency for a while (27:45), but was not allowed to run the course of fiat currencies to the graveyard as Chris Martenson explains about fiat currencies in general: (http://www.lewrockwell.com/martenson/martenson10.1.html).

37:29 If you control the quantity of money you can cause inflation or deflation any time you like.  This is true and I’ve said it before (http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/one-nation-filled-with-ants/comment-page-1#comment-132712), but some deny this (http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/one-nation-filled-with-ants/comment-page-1#comment-132650).

49:57 (quoting the banking cartel)- See your congressman at once and engage him at once to support our interest that we may control legislation.  Translation: the government is in the pockets of bankers.  Truth:  politicians often bow to various interest groups, but they will bend over for the bankers.

1:12:03 that and expansion of currency was in fact a legitimate way of improving the condition of the farmer but the economy as well.  Translation:  Inflation is good for the people.  Truth:  Inflation is a means of wealth transfer.  This is why the government has outlawed counterfeiting; it hates competition (http://billstclair.com/blog/images/dont-steal.jpg).

1:14:42  Coxey was a greenbacker and his idea was simple, the government should build public works, and pay for them with public money.  Translation:  More green(Red, yellow, black or white they are precious in a banker sight) pieces of paper will make every one wealthier.  Truth:  Bernanke is nodding his head approvingly and telling us to come to the dark side (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north910.html), (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north958.html). 

1:21:52 An inflation rate of 2-3%; Which the government could spend 1:22:05; and it should act in the public interest 1:22:10.  Translation:  The government should already do what is says it telling us it should be doing and is trying to do.  Truth:  The governments keeps trying to do this and failing.

1:26:35 the narrator is in favor of the state governments, in contrast to federal government, banks using fractional reserve banking.  Translation:  Ignore the stuff about not having fractional reserve banking (1:25:40- “One Dollar Capital Theory” by Karl Denninger = Banks can only lend out money they have.) Truth:  this video was not thought out well enough to keep the contradictions more than a minute apart.

1:26:41 States would then make loans to themselves for infrastructure. Translation: the money should debt free, but your state government should not.  Truth: Jack is right when he warns about debt, so he should be warning us about this video, rather than endorsing it.  Super anal analysis (or maybe a voice of experience):  making a loan to yourself doesn’t work, just trying writing a check for a million dollar to yourself then cashing it; it is both an asset and a liability and cancels itself out.

1:26:45  “When the loans are repaid the money is extinguished.  The beauty of the system is that you create wealth without creating a permanent increase in the money supply”.  Translation:  People are made wealthier by an accounting gimmick; money can move in and out of existence and this makes people wealthier.  Truth:  the narrator was actually right earlier on when he was talking about how increasing and decreasing the money supply is bad for the average person-  see around 44:00 through 47:00.

1:27:50 Byron Dale(and the narrator agrees):  “Now a new money should be in circulation without debt…it really doesn’t matter how you do it.”  The state central bank will then spend it into circulation…the banks will create the money 1:27:58. Translation:  You still can’t use gold.  Silver is off limits also; you should use paper.  Truth:  The denial of people the use of silver is a fact that they berated before with the whole William Jennings Bryan story.  They argued for freedom ealier, but now want you to have the government as master.

1:29:20- “the North Dakota state bank is dealing with it’s larger surplus in years.”  Question:  Could it have to do with the oil boom?( http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-09-09-dakota-drilling_N.htm).  Notice the date on the article is in 2008 even before this video; this is not even remotely hinted at in there analysis; again more missed facts about complex event.
1:29:30 to 1:31:10- The small town/local Swedish bank performed better than a big Federal bureaucracy.  Translation:  We want a centralized federal bureaucracy anyway (a paraphrase of the films sentiment).  Truth:  Competing institutions, such as the local banks, would be better than a monopoly of a fascist bank(think: Federal Reserve) or Congress(think:  lying lawyers, or do I repeat myself)

1:33:00 then there is the Iceland example of deregulation.  Translation:  Government should do more than just punish fraud and theft; it should implement measure to prevent it.  Truth: the government was heavily involved (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bagus1.html), which is why the reputation was transferred to private hands and not earned as it would be in the free market.  I sincerely hope that Iceland has learned its lesson; it seems like they may have with some of the quotes at the end.

1:41:35 “The solution if government backed money, that is the most democratic way.  It maximized freedom in a republic instead of the centralized control of the international plutocracy we are rapidly devolving into.”  Translation:  trust your elected officials will do a better job with your money than you.  Truth:  A good price on ocean front property in Nebraska (where Jennings was born) is more likely.  This guy is talking about ‘decentralizing’ the money of 300,000,000 people into the hands of a little less than 535 (minus Ron Paul of course, and a small handful of others) scumbags and idiots into one entity, Congress, huh.

1:42:11 “Others will say that congress isn’t responsive to the people as it is.  Well of course not.  Politicians are responsive to those with the power.  Right now the banks have the power.  We have to take back the ultimate power of any nation, the power over its money.  With the power of banks diminished, politicians will become responsive to the voters once again.” Translation:  trust your elected officials will do a better job with your money then a central bank when they have it. Truth:  If having the power of money will make congress responsive to those in power, and congress has this power, why would it need the people?

1:43:17 “Let the big banks fail…no bank is too big to fail” Truth: I am just letting you know when this guy actually says something right.

Jack’s premise that controlling money gives sovereignty is incorrect even by his stated definition of money.  Since money is an agreement, how do you control the money?  You have to be able to control the people, and there preferences.  To do this you must be able to control the use of force (at least the threat of it), or education (how they understand the world) since most people will respond to one of these in a way that would lead to the desired effect.  Jack has also basically told us, rightly so, that our country is the way that it is because this is the way that people want  at some level; they accept it out or apathy or in hopes that it will benefit them at the expense of others.  Because so many are willing to go along with the inappropriate use of violence against their fellow citizen the system lurches along with increasing instability.

The video does identify some sad realities of our money system, but still makes many errors.
 
Also, this guy had so many locations, outfits and poses; I am wondering the calendar is going on sale?

Let me write Jack’s answer to this post, and save him some time:  Dorothy pay no attention to the man behind the ink mask!  So if anyone else has some thoughts I would be interest.

Offline chris

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3168
  • Karma: 1034
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2011, 06:02:25 PM »
Let me write Jack’s answer to this post, and save him some time:  Dorothy pay no attention to the man behind the ink mask!  So if anyone else has some thoughts I would be interest.

While I agree with your analysis, I'd like to hear Jack's. Since none of us were present at most of these historical events we have to assimilate as much data as we can to craft an analysis. You and I seem to share similar sources, and consequently, similar analysis. In the interest of the best analysis, I'm open to any additional sources that have changed Jack's mind. I had always though of him as an Austrian or very nearly, and his present analysis seems just the opposite.

Offline Rorschach

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Karma: 3
  • ...sombody knows why. Somebody knows!
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2011, 06:48:02 PM »
Maybe a TRTAM 2.0 could address some of those issues.  Here is a different take on the tally sticks from Michael Shedlock(http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-does-fiat-money-seemingly-work.html), apparently the good king created a credit boom with the tally sticks.  Also it doesn't seem that the tally stick was necessarily used as a debt free money, but also certficates of debt (http://www.bus.lsu.edu/accounting/faculty/lcrumbley/tally%20stick%20article.pdf)

Offline atleif

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: 8
  • So long and thanks for all the fish
Re: Jack suggest listening to the secret of oz...
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2011, 09:43:23 PM »
I'm curious to what system of money you think might work best Rorschach. what I'm getting is that pretty much all of them are flawed and have failed at some point.  i guess my simplistic perceived problem with the current one is 1) the national debt can never be paid off since principle+interest is always greater than principle (unpayable interest compounds over time) and 2) unpayable interest leads to confiscation of real assets (land,property ect) and transference of powers to private banks vs gov't(not that i m want the govt doing these things either, not sure what the solution is)  3)it sounds like the debt backed part is the only reason we have federal income tax going to the fed essentially.   Im not an economist just some thoughts I had after watching it.