Money

[mannybash]

It may sound trivial compared to so many of the things on this and other forums but needs to be reminded. Money is the most worthless thing on this planet. Surely we need it after all how do we survive and wouldn't it be great to have millions and buy the house of your choice? Well yes up to a point. Even so wouldn't it be better still if the money didn't exist and we would have the freedom to do what we wanted? Money is like friction the more of there is around the more we think about what we should do and how to do it instead of just doing it and just living our lives. What do others think? Too simple? I am not so sure

[iamhe]

Because Earth is Hell, there is always going to be some form of slavery system here. Funny thing is how the supposedly enlightened ones call it service or worse, downright profit from it and don't even see their hypocrisy.

[mannybash]

It is also a way of controlling women first and through them the men. Since women are always interested in security looking after the home, getting a good education for kids and so on, they always want security first. Even to the point of getting a bad man because of money. Probably this is the basis of hollywood and paedophilia in some form. They always gravitate towards money instead of real security. As Rhett butler said to Scarlett o'harassment in gone with the wind: "I think you'll always be more attracted by glister than by gold". Gold is perhaps not a good analogy but you get my point

[Andy_Mann]

We were demonetised in the Uk in 1946 when the last of the silver was removed from the shilling. We now have something intrinsically worthless, FIAT (let it be) currency, issued by the government, who can make it illegal and thus worthless overnight. The uk government has recently made three forms of currency illegal tender, the pound coin, the five and ten pound note.
It's THE method of controlling everybody!

[mannybash]

This I did not know effectively we are under their thumb. How can they have money going around and at the same time calling it illegal tender?

[aura]

Originally Posted by mannybash

Money is the most worthless thing on this planet.

"Worthless" than what? Worth less then.

To infer money has no "value"? This is not correct, while money is being redeemable (accepted) for goods and services.

Originally Posted by mannybash

Surely we need it after all how do we survive and wouldn't it be great to have millions and buy the house of your choice? Well yes up to a point.

If everyone was given "millions" then the price of all items would only increase, where the cost is no different than how its presently being measured against such property.

Originally Posted by mannybash

Even so wouldn't it be better still if the money didn't exist and we would have the freedom to do what we wanted?

You would have to present a test case in history which showed how a "moneyless" society was beneficial. So far none has ever been produced to support such a concept. 1. one that held a society together and did not turn into a free for all, of stealing each-others resources and property "freely" taken by those who are non-productive. 2. A society "without money" (while none has existed) would only revert back into a primitive state. 3. Who would do all the dangerous jobs without any incentives? 4. No advancements would be made.

If you think this through logically, rather than holding a disdain for money, there is no supporting case for such concepts helping to protect an individual or society from complete exploitation, people would plunder the resources from one area then move to another. No incentives makes for a downfall to a primitive society. The only person promoting a "moneyless" society nowadays is Michael Tellinger, he lost his home turned against money, then projected his own disdain onto his unsuspecting viewers saying "money was created by Aliens" to enslave mankind etc.; yet even animals understand the concept of money. (see the Keith Chen/monkey research).

[edit: see how the founding of the Bank of England in 1694, lead to the industrial revolution, a "moneyless" society would only revert society backwards. Its normal behavior seen how all forms of materials have been attempted to represent property, monetized in either paper units, coins, gold-silver, wood, animal skins, stones, buttons, bones, clay tablets, spices, tobacco or now digital representations etc.]

“The sole use of currency is to facilitate the great process of exchange, by superseding the necessity for barter. Nor has it any other use than what is either directly or indirectly incidental to this purpose. For were it the case in any country, that no one therein had ever occasion to exchange any property or privilege which he possessed, or any service that he could render, for something which another possessed or could render in return; or, that only such exchanges were desired as barter could readily accomplish; then, in such country, currency would manifestly be of no use, nor indeed would it have any existence.”

– Edwin Hill, "Principles of Currency: Means of Ensuring Uniformity of Value and Adequacy of Supply" (1856), page 55

Originally Posted by mannybash

What do others think? Too simple? I am not so sure

So far, yes.

[aura]

Originally Posted by iamhe

Because Earth is Hell, there is always going to be some form of slavery system here. Funny thing is how the supposedly enlightened ones call it service or worse, downright profit from it and don't even see their hypocrisy.

Its easy to blame the negative effects of money, "on money" itself, although to hold a disdain for money rather than its subverted nature is too simplistic.

“Two persons having an equal amount of money or an equal quantity of goods, wares and merchandise, cannot both make money out of each other. What one gains the other loses. This rule is true of any number of persons, nay, it is applicable to all of the individuals of a nation. It is only when there is an increase of the original capital that there is a legitimate object of commercial pursuit. It is the same when the amounts of original capital are dissimilar, the proportions must be maintained or there is trickery or injustice, not to say robbery.”

– Charles H. Robinson, “The Destruction of Poverty” (1898), p127

[aura]

Originally Posted by Andy_Mann

The uk government has recently made three forms of currency illegal tender, the pound coin, the five and ten pound note. It's THE method of controlling everybody!

The unit is still the same, even while the old circulation has been recalled and changed to a newer medium; you can still take this to be redeemed at the treasury or mint and then exchanged into the modern equivalent.

Originally Posted by mannybash

This I did not know effectively we are under their thumb. How can they have money going around and at the same time calling it illegal tender?

The term "illegal tender" is incorrect though, its still the same "legal tender" only no longer being accepted (redeemable) in the exchange of goods and services in any normal transaction.

[iamawaveofthesea]

all fiat currencies eventually become worthless. The dollar has passed its ascendancy and is now on a downward trajectory towards 0

[aura]

Originally Posted by Andy_Mann

We were demonetised in the Uk in 1946 when the last of the silver was removed from the shilling.

We now have something intrinsically worthless, FIAT (let it be) currency, issued by the government, who can make it illegal and thus worthless overnight. The uk government has recently made three forms of currency illegal tender, the pound coin, the five and ten pound note.
It's THE method of controlling everybody!

The materials used to represent the money of a given nation is of no importance. As seen when the countries of the world abandoned the "Gold Standard" (which never provided a "standard" in either supply or value.) What happened? Each nation started to recover from the 1930s "Great Depression." As for "intrinsic value" this does not even exist or reside in any fixed material when used as money. The value is always fixed by law. When used independently the following is a common outcome has seen throughout history.

“In former times, before the invention of paper money, the actual circulating silver coins, then the standard money, often became very much the worse of wear and tear natural and otherwise. When the fact became recognized and it was found that coins of all degrees of depreciation were circulating side by side with better coins people began to refuse the worse coins except by weight. Of course the masses of the people had no means of estimating the metallic value of the coins and constant disputes arose especially in the payment of wages. The state of things that had come to pass in England before the great recoinage of silver in 1696 has been described in a graphic passage by Macaulay. (1)

“Nothing could be purchased without dispute. Over every counter there was wrangling from morn to night. The workman and his employer had a quarrel as regularly as the Saturday night came round. No merchant would contract to deliver goods without making some stipulation about the quality of the coin in which he was to be paid. (…) The simple and the careless were pillaged without mercy by extortioners whose demands grew even more rapidly than the money shrank…“

(1) – Cf, “Money and Monetary Problems'” p6-7
– J. Shield Nicholson, “Inflation” (1919), p53

[aura]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

all fiat currencies eventually become worthless.

Please explain to us all how "all fiat currencies eventually become worthless."

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

The dollar has passed its ascendancy and is now on a downward trajectory towards 0

How vague and "insightful," such platitudes.

[iamhe]

Originally Posted by iamhe

Because Earth is Hell, there is always going to be some form of slavery system here. Funny thing is how the supposedly enlightened ones call it service or worse, downright profit from it and don't even see their hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by aura

Its easy to blame the negative effects of money, "on money" itself, although to hold a disdain for money rather than its subverted nature is too simplistic.

“Two persons having an equal amount of money or an equal quantity of goods, wares and merchandise, cannot both make money out of each other. What one gains the other loses. This rule is true of any number of persons, nay, it is applicable to all of the individuals of a nation. It is only when there is an increase of the original capital that there is a legitimate object of commercial pursuit. It is the same when the amounts of original capital are dissimilar, the proportions must be maintained or there is trickery or injustice, not to say robbery.”

– Charles H. Robinson, “The Destruction of Poverty” (1898), p127

That's kind of a rocket science thinking (not). Of course a slavery based system is all about trickery, injustice, robbery and coercion. Gee, I wonder why no one ever mentions a max cap on income, besides a guaranteed minimum universal income (made possible by automation, machines and artificial intelligence). Let there be a comfortable minimum AND maximum cap on income and a free market in between. Then we shouldn't have people ego tripping over funding space programs while their fellow humans are starving to death. As for money being a tool for the evil, if it's not that, it's another, because slavery system, doh.

[aura]

Originally Posted by iamhe

That's kind of a rocket science thinking (not). Of course a slavery based system is all about trickery, injustice, robbery and coercion. Gee, I wonder why no one ever mentions a max cap on income, besides a guaranteed minimum universal income (made possible by automation, machines and artificial intelligence). Let there be a comfortable minimum AND maximum cap on income and a free market in between. Then we shouldn't have people ego tripping over funding space programs while their fellow humans are starving to death. As for money being a tool for the evil, if it's not that, it's another, because slavery system, doh.

Its not rocket science though; money is represented in units, its merely an accounting system, one that is portable used to overcome the limitations of barter.

“The true money standard of any country is not the material of which the money is made. The standard is not a concrete object, but a numerical relation. It is the relation between the number of units composing the monetary circulation of the country and the numbers of the population. It is the legal-tender function that constitutes money. It is the power which the law imparts to any material to pay debts and liquidate obligations. It can not for a moment be doubted that the money function, being conferred by the supreme authority, is the all-sufficient guarantee of the money value. There is no necessity for re-enforcing that value with any inferior value that may attach to the material on which the money stamp is placed. The money function is immeasurably the most important that can be conferred by society upon any material, and it is absurd to urge that that function is not of itself sufficient for the maintenance of the value of money. All the value that money can possibly have the totality of value that can exist in the shape of money in any country will attach to anything upon which the sovereign authority stamps it, whether the material on which the stamp is placed be gold, silver, paper, or anything else.” — John P. Jones, "Speech of Hon. John P. Jones, of Nevada. May 12 And 13" (1890), p 78-79

Are you saying automation is the end of an employment? If so, ask yourself this, do robots consume that which is produced? The industries will naturally adjust, even the machines require maintenance. See for example Japan. Where does the money come to fund a "minimum universal income"? If not from the same source has modern welfare. There's little difference, only a name re-branding that sounds better for marketing.

[iamhe]

Originally Posted by aura

Its not rocket science though; money is represented in units, its merely an accounting system, one that is portable used to overcome the limitations of barter.



Are you saying automation is the end of an employment? If so, ask yourself this, do robots consume that which is produced? The industries will naturally adjust, even the machines require maintenance. See for example Japan. Where does the money come to fund a "minimum universal income"? If not from the same source has modern welfare. There's little difference, only a name re-branding that sounds better for marketing.

I didn't say automation will eliminate the need for human labour. It will just significantly reduce it, to the point that many will not be able to get a job to put food on the table, while the owners of the machines amass all the wealth. Unless adjustments in the system are made fast, many will suffer, just wait and see.

[iamhe]

Originally Posted by aura

Its not rocket science though; money is represented in units, its merely an accounting system, one that is portable used to overcome the limitations of barter.



Are you saying automation is the end of an employment? If so, ask yourself this, do robots consume that which is produced? The industries will naturally adjust, even the machines require maintenance. See for example Japan. Where does the money come to fund a "minimum universal income"? If not from the same source has modern welfare. There's little difference, only a name re-branding that sounds better for marketing.

Money to fund a minimum universal income should obviously come from a redistribution of wealth (think 1%). In this day and age, it's becoming increasingly unacceptable to make people work for basic food and shelter. In a brighter future, people should not be worked to their grave but most would work for themselves in a cooperation system, labour in the essential industries would be highly valued and remunerated and people would have the choice of how how many hours they want to put in (now they mostly don't because bills). That would be just the beginning of eliminating slavery and all the evil associated with it.

[mannybash]

We do not have the freedom to do what we are best suited for. Either society has not found a use for that particular talent or is unwilling to take it up. The talent may be great but does not pay bills so we are obliged to do things that society wants rather than what benefits society. Reducing the importance money partly aleviates this problem but does help it run more smoothly

[eurosianguy]

Originally Posted by mannybash

We do not have the freedom to do what we are best suited for. Either society has not found a use for that particular talent or is unwilling to take it up. The talent may be great but does not pay bills so we are obliged to do things that society wants rather than what benefits society. Reducing the importance money partly aleviates this problem but does help it run more smoothly

Millions of people make money off of what they love doing- Their special talents. Its up to you to make that happen-

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by iamhe

Money to fund a minimum universal income should obviously come from a redistribution of wealth (think 1%). In this day and age, it's becoming increasingly unacceptable to make people work for basic food and shelter. In a brighter future, people should not be worked to their grave but most would work for themselves in a cooperation system, labour in the essential industries would be highly valued and remunerated and people would have the choice of how how many hours they want to put in (now they mostly don't because bills). That would be just the beginning of eliminating slavery and all the evil associated with it.

how are you going to 'redistribute wealth' when the top 1% keep their wealth offshore and out of the reach of the taxman?

universal basic income sounds great on the surface but lets consider it within the context of the conspiracy

The workers have traditionally had their LABOUR as their primary bargaining chip. They organised into trade unions to be able to create a collective bargaining power based aorund their labour with the threat of the withdrawal of their labour used to try and get improved pay or work conditions

So what the elites are doing is building robots and AI that will replace labour thereby destroying the bargaining power of the workers

On top of that the elite are bringing in poor immigrants who aren't unionised to replace workers as well

Universal basic income would create in the place of work a dependancy on government who would then hold the power of life and death over every worker because anyone who did not comply with government dictats would have their UBI stopped

On top of this they wish to have a digital currency that would enable the government to 'bail-in' money directly from peoples bank accounts allowing them to clear out the accounts of the middle class (not the super rich who keep their money offshore)

Also digital money would enable the government to spy on and record EVERY single transaction made by private individuals

[eurosianguy]

Money is not the problem in itself. Money is just another form of exchange. I rather have some bills in my pocket than having to carry around a big bag of turnips or whatever to barter with.

the problem is acces to resources as I see it, and how some big companies can end up with almost all of the resources like water food energy ect. and the bailouts of banks is a problem.

I can imagine a capitalistic system run in a fair way-

Another things is that not everything is about money- stop limiting your thinking that way. think in terms of abundance instead.

Abundance can come in many forms.

for instance, after a crisis in my live I moved myself and my dog to spain, the plan was to stay there 6 month or so and live of some money I brought with me.

I ended up being in Spain 7 years. I think I worked for cash maybe 30 days in all, the rest of the time I would do it in alternative ways.
Sometimes some of my non Spanish friends would have to go back to their native country for a while for what ever reason, and they would ask me to stay in their house and take care of it. So I stayed in houses like that most of the time there. I grew my own veggies and weed when possible. I would collect free water from a spring ( the natives did the same)

just an example of how its possible to be abundend without money

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by eurosianguy

Money is not the problem in itself. Money is just another form of exchange. I rather have some bills in my pocket than having to carry around a big bag of turnips or whatever to barter with.

the problem is acces to resources as I see it, and how some big companies can end up with almost all of the resources like water food energy ect. and the bailouts of banks is a problem.

I can imagine a capitalistic system run in a fair way-

Another things is that not everything is about money- stop limiting your thinking that way. think in terms of abundance instead.

Abundance can come in many forms.

for instance, after a crisis in my live I moved myself and my dog to spain, the plan was to stay there 6 month or so and live of some money I brought with me.

I ended up being in Spain 7 years. I think I worked for cash maybe 30 days in all, the rest of the time I would do it in alternative ways.
Sometimes some of my non Spanish friends would have to go back to their native country for a while for what ever reason, and they would ask me to stay in their house and take care of it. So I stayed in houses like that most of the time there. I grew my own veggies and weed when possible. I would collect free water from a spring ( the natives did the same)

just an example of how its possible to be abundend without money

after world war 2 the countries with the biggest economies got together at the bretton woods and accepted the dollar as the world reserve currency

The US run by the rothschild-cabal federal reserve however abused this power and used their ability to print money to build up a powerful military which they used to benefit the zionist enterprise and expand the reach of the mega-corporations which the rothschild-cabal owned

Now the world is rejecting the dollar and this will see dollar reserves abroad flood back to the US market causing hyper-inflation. Also all the dark money that the globalists have stashed way after the printed trillions of dollars to enrich themselves will then need to be spent once they realise their fiat money is about to become worthless

They will then seek to spend that money into the economy causing a massive surge of money chasing the same amount off goods also boosting inflation

The value of the dollar will be wiped out

This will cause a crisis which the globalists will then seek to use to further centralise their power. They will offer an alternative globalised currency such as for example IMF 'special drawing rights' which they may turn into a digitised currency

It is as you say possible at this time for private individuals to transact in various ways however you can be sure that if the globalists are allowed to continue their march towards totalitarian power they will legislate in ways to stop you living outside of their system in the same way that they have legislated against off griders and against rainwater collection and other things