National debt = ZERO: Austerity unnecessary. I'm sick and tired of people knowing little or refusing to talk about our banking system; we forget that we ourselves are all usurers.

submitted by Jesus from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Lincoln wanted to do this right before he was killed.

Lincoln was backed by whigs and radical republicans. His greenbacks were still debt bonds, and becme the forerunner of the FED system. People do not realize that. Lincoln worked for bankers of a different kind whilst the South worked for their own bankers. The people, all people, lost in the end.

Everything else, I agree with.

We need holding houses and silver certificates that are redemmable in the same amount of silver. Reserves as assets that are redeemable such as silver specie or silver bars that equal the exact amount without denomination devaluation.

That, with the ridding of interest bearing loans as public debt. That would prevent the banks from making a profit. Holding houses are the solution and money should be thr solution of an exchange of goods, not a deterrence due to the banks control over it.

As for the price fix system, I agree. It's largely based on Gold idolatry.

What do you think of a barter economy in a modern society?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Why did you delete your first reply?

Here are my responses:

No, it would not.

Yes, it would. You have no idea how the system actually works. You're just spouting misinformed libertarian clichés.

Just cut out the middleman and central bank.

There will always be a middleman, and central banks are good. The Great Depression was caused by lots of small private banks going bust. And if the US didn't have a central bank the Great Recession would have been much worse. Again, the problem is that most of the debt creation is initiated by private banks, and that the central banks are beholden to the plutocracy. In a Third Positionist regime that would't be the case.

By the way, nationalizing finance should only be a first step in dismantling the price system completely. That should be the long-term goal.

Lincoln was backed by whigs and radical republicans. His greenbacks were still debt bonds, and becme the forerunner of the FED system.

Yes, but it would have been a nationalized financial system. It's not ideal, but it's far better than what we got, and still have.

We need holding houses and silver certificates that are redemmable in the same amount of silver. Reserves as assets that are redeemable such as silver specie or silver bars that equal the exact amount without denomination devaluation.

This is more libertarian nonsense. Why silver? Why not water? Or shit? Or wood? Or sperm? Seriously, limiting your economy like that is madness.

That, with the ridding of interest bearing loans as public debt. That would prevent the banks from making a profit. Holding houses are the solution and money should be thr solution of an exchange of goods, not a deterrence due to the banks control over it.

I simply don't accept these reactionary solutions. It's extremely regressive.

As for the price fix system, I agree. It's largely based on Gold idolatry.

No, it isn't. You clearly have no idea what the price system is.

What do you think of a barter economy in a modern society?

Archaic lunacy. It's actually even worse than what we have now. We need to work towards a post-scarcity economy, and in order to achieve that we eventually have to dismantle the price system.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It might be regressive to you, but the constitution gives no right for conngress to lend out the fiscal and monetary policies to private corporations.

Indepedent treasuries are needed, as well as holding houses. This will decapitate usurers and speculation.

The banks create artificial scarcity. So, I agree with you in that dismantling the price system might work for the welfare of all.

central banks are good.

No, not when they are private and issue interest bearing loans.

The government through independent treasuries, under the auspices of congress has a right to issue their own currency debt free under the constitution. They refuse to!

Great Depression was caused by lots of small private banks going bust. If the US didn't have a central bank the Great Recession would have been much worse.

Boom and Bust cycles are built into a system that issues interest bearing loans. What the Catholic Church dissaproved of was this: The disapproval of money interest on money lent. Which is the system we currently live under. All the money you have is owed to someone by someone.

So, then I would say this... that money should have no value in itself. Rather, it should be issued solely as a claim on goods and services.

Technocrats' have us believe that their objection to a capitalist system is that its price system is based not on wealth, such as labor, public welfare, and doing good unto others, but debt.

So, I must agree here with you that a price system arises through the creation of debt. Radical "individualism, as contended by Howard Scott in the "Living Age" 1932, "is therefore favored under this system, since individualism can obtain a monetary equivalent proportional to then individuals ability (and opportunity?) to create debt!"

So, they thus object to the unit of measurement being a variable one.

Any unit of measurment under technological control owuld be certification of available energy converted ... into use-forms and services over and above the operational and maintenance of physical equipment and structures of the area.

Technocrats have yet to delineate their unit for energy conversion.

Maybe, their prospect would create some system without the hindrance of debt and sociological aspects. I don't know.

The negate, however, then source of man's power, which is ultimately spiritual.

As for income, its equal or more equal distribution, would still create a large unpurchasable surplus. This bankruptcy of producers would increase and savings of the lower class would be invested as any capitalist would do.

It isn't a price-system or that it is a proft-system, as the communists like to contend, that an objection is made here. Rather the ENTIRE SYSTEM is based and motivated by usury.

For Rome and Caesar, it was usury that broke the camel's back. All oeoples were is desperate competition for wealth, of which money is of no wealth. This ended up vested in a small subgroup of parasites. "Wealth" accumulators.

Ceasar would capture gold and silver in large quantities, they were direct in their prospect but when this could not uphold the debt-structure, as a proportion of debt, the money depreciated. Lead was thus put into the coins. Slaves were used to find some silver shackled in the caves, this went on until the money became valueless.

The only temporary way to salvage the money system under their rules is finding hoards of Gold or the devaluation of all currencies.

Ceasar finally adopted debt forgiveness! This was great but usury was still in operation and new forms of debt servitude at interest were performed by Goths, Vandals, and Huns.

Napoleon and Hitler both have many things in common. Both stood against the usurers of Europe.

Had Napoleon consented to abandon his financial system in place of the system of London-that is in favor of loans by the money market-he could have had peace at any time.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Central banks are good?

Okay.