An Insidious Gold Standard

 “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth.

Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits,

and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.

However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear

and they ought to disappear,

for this would be a happier and better world to live in.

But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery

, let them continue to create deposits.” — Sir Josiah Stamp

Gold is an inert and precious metal that’s been coveted and hoarded since history records commenced.

Gold is a physical entity that has provided mankind with an excellent medium-of-exchange for thousands of years.

 Gold served an instrument of the banking cartel to introduce their diabolical government bond-based usury system of debt-enslavement and theft.

To be clear from the outset, my view is that physical gold in the form of coins and bars is an excellent facilitator in the market place.  It provides a long-term storage of wealth, is easily measured and divisible, and along with silver and bronze coins would be a sufficient, fair, and just component of a reality-based monetary system.

However, a gold-standard in which gold is allegedly held in central banks with pieces of paper and electronic binary code supposedly representing such gold is unfair, unjust, unnecessary, and an illusory-based money system.  It is unfair, as the government will dictate to the market how such funds will be distributed, it is unnecessary as there is sufficient physical gold, silver, bronze, and indeed cupra-nickel coins and bars in circulation, and it is unjust because it is an illusion.

There are plenty of Rothschild shills in the ‘alternative media’ working for the one bank, and thus the aims of the criminal cartel.  Such shills will be encouraging a new ‘gold standard’ as an alternative monetary system to the present illusory debt-based fiat one.  Their calls will include such nonsense as ‘gold is stable’, ‘gold is the only true form of money’, and other bull shit.  To understand and reject their claims it is important to first examine the current paradigm, and then seek alternatives ourselves instead of accepting their ‘solution’ to the problems created by their lord and master, the sinister criminal family known as the Rothschild clan.

The current monetary system

It is common knowledge amongst the ‘awakened’ that we currently use fiat currency issued by central banks, but what some fail to focus on is the fundamental feature of the insidious government bond.

In a nutshell, the government that allegedly represents the people, issues an IOU certificate that is then placed onto the open market and purchased by a variety of entities including hedge funds, pensions brokers, individuals, and the central bank of the region or country.  The government then pays this bond – with the interest attached – through taxation and other forms of theft.  The notion of taxation is sold to the general public as a necessary means to provide revenues for services, which is partly true, but they rarely if ever mention that much of the revenue is needed to pay the interest on a previous debt.

Even more fundamental is the birth of such a system.  At the outset the initial government bond is purchased with currency created by the central bank.  So for a quick example, the government issues a bond for $100 at 10% over a one-year period, and then the central bank creates the currency – out of thin air – and purchases the bond with $100 of ‘new’ dollars.  The treasury department then owes the central bank $110 at the end of the year, but as only $100 was created initially, more bonds must be issued to pay the illusory debt.

In other words, and in plain language:  the debt can never be paid-off.

The population being ‘served’ by the government is therefore placed into debt-enslavement indefinitely, and most of the economic energy, thus energy in general, is forever sacrificed to the parasitical banking cartel headed by the criminal House of Rothschild.

If it wasn’t so evil, I would actually admire the genius behind it, but as it is so evil, I am duty-bound – as all moral people should be – to destroy this system of enslavement.

Like all fiat systems, however, this was doomed to failure from the start and the Achilles heel of our present paradigm is the notion of compounding interest rates; circumvented/delayed somewhat with derivative programs, but nonetheless has a destiny to fail.  In fact all fiat monetary systems fail eventually because of the simple fact they are based upon an illusion.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”  Matthew 7:15

The Rothschild clan will be very much aware that their system is on its last legs, and will have instructed numerous shills and charlatens to be on both the mainstream media and the falsely titled ‘alternative’ media.  One suggestion they will no doubt make in the future is a return to a gold standard, but what type of monetary system would this entail.  May I suggest it would be an insidious gold standard.

An Insidious Gold Standard

Under a ‘new’ gold standard proposed by the shills, charlatans, and useful idiots, the entity known as a government bond would still be very active and used as the primary vehicle of enslaving the population through corrupt taxation policies.

Similar to the current system, the government would issue a bond, but instead of the central bank created binary code out-of-thin-air to purchase it along with a small amount of paper and base-metal coins gold would be used instead. 

Which entities would therefore purchase the bond?  Would it be all those avid gold-bugs in India, the prepper community in the western world, or would the Chinese be dumb enough to send their gold abroad to purchase the bonds?

Is it too far a stretch of the imagination to suggest the bonds would be purchased by the one bank headed by the devilish and criminal House of Rothschild? After all, what do you think these slimy creatures have been doing for centuries other than accumulate gold?  Do you believe they are currently buying illusory assets such as bitcoin?

It is highly likely these malevolent thieves have secured sufficient gold-holdings and have it stashed away in secure units – off the grid of any system currently in play.  Do you not reason they would be highly motivate to utilise the gold to purchase government bonds in the west like their forefathers did?

Another aspect of the insidious gold standard is that the governments simply cannot be trusted, and neither can those that audit the government.  As stated, the insidious gold standard would not involve physical gold floating around in the economy, the physical gold would be stored in the central bank for ‘national security reasons’, with pieces of paper – perhaps with gold ink on them – and binary code allegedly representing such gold circulating amongst the people and stealing their economic output.

It is the humble opinion and concern of the writer that not only is such as system being designed by the money-changers and marketed by shills, but that many ‘awakened’ people will fall for the scam.

Will you?


So, what are the alternatives?  Many cite a gold standard in which no bond is involved, similar to the silver certificate concept believed to have been firmly on the agenda of JFK.  Again, however, there is a problem with having a completely untrustworthy government with a connection to the one bank.  Ideally the government would melt down its gold into gold pennies – a 1/20th of a troy ounce – and circulate them amongst the population………but that really isn’t going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

There are many that seek a pseudo-greenback, which is effectively a debt-free, i.e. bond-free, currency generated and circulated directly by the treasury department and is a continuation of the fiat monetary system without the need for a Rothschild-controlled central bank.

Both the gold-certificate concept and the pseudo-greenback have numerous flaws in their make-up and whilst they share similar problems the latter is tainted with many more.  They both leave the government in control of monetary concerns, which is not a situation I would personally like to see.  The government warps the market with every decision they make, and whilst some policy makers may indeed have moral intentions, an individual should not be in control of such a fundamental feature of the market place such as the currency.  For example, they may tax the coal industry at 10% and the solar industry at 5% to encourage growth in the latter sector but such a move could leave the population without sufficient electricity and cause hardship.  Regarding taxation, the only type I view as valid and understandable is import and export tax with every other form from income to property being a means to both control and enslave the population.  From the perspective of the one bank, free trade should be encouraged whilst domestic taxation, e.g. VAT, should be continuous and increased:  The exact opposite of how a sovereign government should raise revenue.

As stated the pseudo-greenback theory has problems other than those of the gold-certificate due specifically because it is another illusory currency.  Although the Europeans engaged positively in changing to a fiat Euro from their fiat national currencies, none of the latter were in much crisis at that time.  More often than not, history shows quite clearly that when a fiat currency is in crisis, a return to monetary metal is the outcome, not another fiat.

This is why it is important to challenge those that seek to enslave their fellow man with a bond-based and insidious gold standard, as this alternative is far more likely in many parts of the world to a pseudo-greenback.

My humble suggestions

Firstly, may I make the point that we need competition in currencies to have a free market, and thus a repeal of legal tender laws?  Secondly, may I also ask you examine the history of currency throughout the world, and make your own conclusions as to what money has been throughout the ages?  From my own research I’ve concluded that the primary substance that has served as money is the humble metal known as copper, more usually in the form of bronze.  Furthermore, sterling silver is 7.5% copper, and US silver coinage is 10% copper, i.e. even the silver coins usually contain copper.  This is because alloy metals are more durable than pure ones.

May I also suggest that we cease ‘looking up’ to government for solutions that they themselves have created to benefit the House of Rothschild?  Do not ask anything of them; only seek to remove them from your life as much as possible.

I am of the firm and deep belief that physical gold, silver, copper, and nickel are sufficient mediums-of-exchange to enable a healthy and flourishing economy.  They are de-centralised, they are already in existence, and almost every person has at least some coins to trade with.

Gold and silver are for large purchases whilst copper and nickel are for smaller purchases.  From a Grand Palace to a single apple, there is a monetary metal that would function sufficiently as a medium of exchange. 

It is important not to ‘peg’ gold to silver or to copper or nickel, as each metal is unique with its own demands and properties.  The ‘mistake’ made in the US constitution was to peg gold with silver, which allowed those that controlled the gold to therefore control the silver, demonetize it, introduce the FED, and as they say; “the rest is history”.  Always remember that the one bank headed by the Rothschild clan is managed by the most sneaky, snake-like, devious, deceitful creatures ever to walk on this wonderful planet.  Pegging the metals together would allow a window of opportunity for them to enter, and spread like the cancer that they are.


Physical gold is an excellent medium-of-exchange especially suited for the more expensive purchases in the market place.  Along with physical silver, copper and nickel – the latter usually found in the form of bronze and cupra-nickel – it is a sufficient medium-of-exchange for the market place to function in a fair a just manner.

An insidious gold standard is most likely on the cards before the contemporary bond-based fiat system finally witnesses the fat lady singing and it’s important to challenge the assumptions of those that advocate this to be a good method of change.

A pseudo-greenback is unlikely if one examines history, as the cycle from fiat to monetary metal is extremely common.

Final Point

Many people seem puzzled with my borderline obsession with the base metals of copper and nickel, but I will continue with my promotion of the two as I believe they have a fundamental role to play in demolishing the one bank.  Similar to the little and seemingly insignificant hobbits, these metals hold a vital strategy in creating a just world.

Please remember that all market places desire ‘change’ and that many of the smaller players only hold ‘change’, and are able to play and survive with just ‘change’.  Furthermore, if the smaller player becomes better with his/her moves then the ‘change’ will become more significant mediums.  In other words, a certain amount of copper and/or nickel could/will be exchanged for the precious metals of gold and silver by such smaller players in the future.

If you want to know more about this please click here if you’re in the US, and here if you’re in the UK.  My apologies for not writing about other countries, but the concept is similar throughout the word.

Thanks for reading.

46 comments to An Insidious Gold Standard

  • the only thing that corrupts a money supply is usury – nothing else. it does not matter what is used as a medium of exchange. whether a society submits itself to gold, silver, fiat paper, bushels of wheat, beads on a string etc. etc. the currency will remain sound (and therefore useful) as long as it is not subject to usury. usury is money breeding money. a gold standard will be equally as unjust as our current fiat standard as long as the government does not criminalize usury. usury results in the theft of the purchasing power of all money in the system. usury is a crime. it disadvantages those with the least much more than anyone else. the crime of usury goes intentionally unnoticed by most people because most people’s income is directly hinged to usury. most of the ‘work’ that people engage in to earn money points is useless and socially debilitating. all pensions, all insurance games, all investments, the sock market, the currency markets – virtually everything on the planet is illusory wealth and can only exist because of the codification of usury. it’s almost too simple to understand.

    • It’s true that money can be anything, so why not encourage competing currencies, Jim? Let the market decide and become more dynamic through a repeal of legal tender laws.

      Usury artists simply should be NOT be protected under law; i.e. they should be forced to peddle their games on the ‘black’ market and no other. Ban on government bonds should be your priority if your plan is to campaign to ban things.

      Didn’t realise the sock market was that important, aim to get myself some woolen ones this winter :-) kiddin’

  • if usury was criminalized like any other theft then bonds could not exist. so rather than try to eliminate bonds themselves why not just focus on usury? – that’s where the problem resides!

    competing currencies?

    we have them now, gareth. but we do not need any of them. all we need is one form of currency that is not subject to usury. the free market would not bother itself with competing currencies if it had one that was honest. competing currencies are simply a diversionary kenard propagated by those who don’t really understand what money actually is. one form of currency is also much more efficient than several competing currencies.

    money must be used to pay taxes to support government. should the government be obliged to accept every form of currency in a multi-currency regime? seems silly, doesn’t it?

    one runs into an endless number of dead ends when attempting to design a fair monetary system if the criminalization of usury isn’t the central feature.

    hey…pick up a pair of warm ones for me too

    • Fair enough, and how do you believe you can ‘ban’ usury?

      “competing currencies are simply a diversionary kenard propagated by those who don’t really understand what money actually is.”

      There are countless self-proclaimed monetary experts out there in the world, i’ll assume you’re one of them, Jim, and overlook your condescending tone.

      “money must be used to pay taxes to support government”

      As stated, I think only two forms of taxation are valid: import and export taxes…..let the multinationals pay or leave – their choice.

      Since you think only one currency should be in play, do you recommend a single world currency, and if so of what nature…, fiat etc, and more fundamentally which group should be pulling the strings of this entity, Jim. Some group that you know, yourself since your the self-proclaimed all-knowing guru on the topic?

      You are essentially suggesting a continuation of government monopoly of currency supply……is that correct?

      I agree on your stance on usury, but your misplaced trust in government is alarming and your condescending “I know more about money and its nature than you” to be extremely off-putting.

      PS History shows quite clearly what the favoured form of ‘money’ is.


  • gareth – the government does not have a ‘monopoly of currency supply’. in fact our government has very little to do with the supply or size of the money supply. all money is created by borrowers when they go to a bank to get a loan. it’s true that the government is also a borrower and therefore it, too, creates money. but all this borrowed money is eventually extinguished when it is paid back to the banks. the only money that never gets destroyed is the money the banks receive as the interest on all these loans. consequently, the money attached to usury is the only money that remains in the money supply. and the banks own all of it!

    over the years, this continual drip of money into the pockets of the banks ultimately creates inflation. because all created money is eventually destroyed it cannot cause inflation. only the money representing the banks interest in the loan transaction (usury) lives eternally. it is never extinguished or removed from the money supply.

    the reason usury is a crime is because it never was attached to a good provided or a service rendered.

    money is only an accounting tool – it has no value. it can never have a value. the value is in the goods provided or the services rendered. banking is nothing but a scheme to acquire the money of others without the inconvenience of having to work for it.

    ps – it doesn’t matter what history show as the most favoured form of money. our ancestors had no better understanding of the nature of money than we do today. some of them actually thought that things like gold and silver were money!

    • I understand the mathematics behind it, Jim.

      Regarding government monopoly of currency supply: This would depend on whether you perceive central government and the central bank to be completely different entities or one-in-the-same, i.e. have the same controller. I’m assuming you believe the central governments are not in cahoots with the central bank, i.e. you don’t perceive the central banks such as the FED and BofE to be government per se? Either way, it’s a trivial point.

      “some of them actually thought that things like gold and silver were money!”


      Well, I’m sure even you will agree that some substances/forms/material needn’t be part of a functional currency to have ‘value’? In other words, even they become demonetised the material used to make the currency still has value……let’s see…..mmmm……10,000 uses for silver and zero uses for a binary code :-)

      G’luck, Jim.

  • gareth – i think you give to much credit to the idea that the central banks and the government are in bed together. i, personally, do not believe that the bankers or the politicians are intelligent enough to pull off a conspiracy of such grand proportions. in fact, i do not believe that the bankers or the politician understand the system they have been tasked to manage any better than anyone else on the planet.

    only the collective ignorance and greed of the human spirit could possibly account for such a horrific monetary system. in the final analysis it is all the money borrowers and all the money hoarders that are to blame. i’ve talked to bankers and i’ve talked to politician – they both seem to have the minds of children. it’s not possible that they have designed this mess – altho they seem to be the main beneficiaries.

    and, by the way, i appreciate the label of idealist. :)

  • SimpleInnocentPerson

    Ah, I see where the problem is.

  • Gareth

    We all are entitled to an opinion, Jim, and although I respect this fundamentally right I simply do not accept the the notion that the elite banking families such as the Rothschilds, and their cohorts in government cannot or do not understand the monetary system. Although I will concede that governments are usually full of ‘useful idiots’.

    “in the final analysis it is all the money borrowers and all the money hoarders that are to blame.”

    We are not the only animal that stores items, Jim. Squirrels store items for the winter months, and k-9’s bury items in the ground. This is perfectly natural and a feature of survival.

    This notion of storing is simply extended to the concept known as ‘money’ or ‘currency’ or the medium-of-exchange for us human beings, and as such hoarding of such an entity is inevitable and completely natural. An elderly person is effectivley in the squirrels ‘winter months’, and as such will have wanted to have stored some stuff – money……just like the squirrel will have stored some nuts.

    This concept is fully understand by the diabolical and sinister Rothschild clan, and they have substituted a natural element of storage money – gold, silver, bronze – and replaced this entity with the paper promise of a pension. The human being is then encouraged to store for the winter months in a form that they can then leverage and create the biggest ponzi scheme ever created – the government.

    The notion of borrowing and paying into the future are features of this evil system we were all born into.

    However, the notion of storing for the ‘winter months’ is as natural as the sunrise, sunset, the tides and other beautiful aspects of the world, and it is not a behaviour only us humans engage in.

    To fail to understand this notion of an innate need to ‘store for the winter months’ is a fundamental flaw in your understanding of what ‘money’ is, and what it represents. To state it must be ‘spent’ immediately – as you have in previous comments – is pure fallacy, and demonstrates that although you may have examined and elanorated upon money systems, you have neglected your observation of the natural world and all the wonderful creatures with their behaviour to store. We human are apart of nature, not seperate.

    There is NO BETTER form of ‘money’ for storage than monetary metal in the form of gold, silver, and bronze.

    G’luck, Jim.

  • gareth – as everybody knows, animals do, in fact store food for lean times. no disagreement there. however, it seems obvious to me that god holds mankind to a fundamentally higher standard than the squirrels. you have graced your original post with quotations from the bible and have also alluded to ‘satan’ in the graphics that append your post. may i assume, then, that you have an abiding respect for the message and commandments found in other verses of the very same text?

    such as

    1. neither a lender nor a borrower be

    2. when you lend expect nothing in return (meaning…. you should not lend but give)

    3. do not lay up treasure for yourself here on earth

    4. where your treasure is there will your heart be also

    5. do not trust upon your own understanding (let alone gold or silver!)

    these are only a very few of the commandment that you might apply to the world of money or treasure

    but there is also a mathematical reason why a monetary system in which people ‘save’ money is deficient and unjust.

    imagine a society in which the money supply was $100. The $100 represents the cumulative value of the goods and services available. this $100 is all necessary to transfer the goods and services between all members in the society. if any of it should be mysterious absent then someone somewhere at sometime will not have the sufficient number of units of exchange (currency) to be able to trade with. the missing currency/money will do more than simply retard trade – it will force someone to borrow. the only entity to borrow the money from is from those that have saved it. if the ‘saver’ is unwilling to ‘lend’ it or even give it freely to the borrower then the entire society will have to create additional new money so that all the parts of the society will run smoothly again. in other words, the society will have to inflate (grow) the money supply. and, of course, inflation is theft by another name.

    the sad truth is that no money system will ever work effectively or honestly as long as a percentage of the population is selfish enough to desire to save money. the bible doesn’t lay out the math behind the obvious truth that saving money is actually a form of theft (inflation always results) but, perhaps, the human conscience was design so that we should intuitively understand these matters!

    there is nothing ‘beautiful or natural’ , as you suggest, about saving money.

    and, if you’ll allow me, there is another point to be made about saving money.

    it is impossible to save money. why? because money is a concept – its a measuring system. you cannot ‘save’ concepts or abstractions. for someone to actually believe that they are saving something when they say that they are saving money, indicate that they do not understand what money actually is. can you save minutes? can you save ounces? can you save inches?

    people who ‘save’ money (with the intent or receiving interest on it or not) have the very same constitution and world view that bankers have. and it’s a view based on the ignorance of….

    1.the biblical commands regarding money and life in general

    2. the simple mathematics that illustrate what actually imposes inflation on a monetary system

    3. the recognition that money is not a thing of value itself (like gold or silver) but a symbolic representation of that value in the form of an accounting system.

    to advocate that gold or silver be used as money is exactly what the bankers want you to obsess over because it forces you to consider money as having value in and of itself. you are, in a sense, being played for a fool. the very last form that money should ever take is a form that confuses the general public about its understand of the nature of money – ei…is money a thing of value itself or …is it barren and only represents or symbolizes goods and services that we communally recognize as useful and beneficial?

    • Gareth

      I find parts of the bible – and other texts such as taos – to be useful at times, but am not religious per se, and therefore don’t consider human beings to be intrinsically superior to other creatures…….so we definitely have yet another disagreement there, Jim.

      Under a competing currency system, without legal tender laws, another barter item or medium-of-exchange would compensate for the deflation of one easily recognised barter item/money/currency. It is one of the reasons I favour such a system.

      The concept of money is not decided by you, Jim. Sorry to burst that ego of yours, old chum, but reality falls along a scale of subjectivity to objectivity. At a philosophical level, there must of course be something that we often refer to as ‘truth’, but it’s most probably beyond the comprehension of us limited capacity humans with our over-reliance on the five senses of sight, hearing, sight, smell, and touch.

      Do you live as you preach, Jim? Do you have any savings at all? Even a $10 bill hidden somewhere?

      I have savings, but not in the contemporary currency, but of a bygone age.

      Like I state, ‘money’ means something different to different people, and ‘money’ needn’t be the common currency – this is a timeless truth, and you can convince yourself otherwise if you so wish as that’s your mindSET. I view ‘money’ as something I can store for a later date, that needn’t be the contemporary currency. In this context a few tins of food is ‘money’.

      May I ask if you have any food stored in your house, Jim? If so, why are you doing this if you believe an almighty entity will always feed you?

      “to advocate that gold or silver be used as money is exactly what the bankers want you to obsess over because it forces you to consider money as having value in and of itself”

      Silver and copper have value in and of themself, Jim, and I’m puzzled why someone that appears to have intellect fails to grasp this very simple concept? No if you’d stated certain types of currency, or even the concept of currency doesn’t have value in and of itself, I would agree. I suppose this one distinction between the concepts of money and currency.

      “is money a thing of value itself or …is it barren and only represents or symbolizes goods and services that we communally recognize as useful and beneficial?”

      This depends on the substance it is made of, Jim, but I really am re-iterating myself over-and-over, and feels like I’ve hit a brick wall with you. Certain materials DO NOT NEED TO BE CURRENCY to have value BUT COULD SERVE as a currency if the people wanted it to. OTHER FORMS OF CURRENCY eg digital binary code HAVE NO VALUE IF NOT USED AS CURRENCY – assuming that was the reason for their code in the first place.

      The bankers don’t want us looking at gold and silver, Jim, have you gone into some parallel universe or something? LOL. They would like us to have a currency they can control very easily such as digital fiat, of that I am very sure – the ‘cashless’ society.

      I think our dialogue has run its course, Jim. We disagree on many things, and sometimes it’s better just to ‘agree to disagree’.

      Sincerely, Jim, good luck, and I do hope for your sake that you are correct about some form of benevolent higher being that will take care of you since YOU REFUSE to save for the future yourself.

      Competing currencies, Jim, competing currencies………..

    • James Tetreault

      I think “neither a borrower nor a lender be” is originally from Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

      And we already have societies without usury. Some islamic countries do not permit banks to charge interest. So, what do they do, how do you buy a house if you cannot have a mortgage? Well, from what I’ve read, it goes sort of like this. You go to the bank, present them with information about yourself and your income and you tell them that you want to buy a certain house that’s selling for, say, $400,000. The bank buys it for you and then charges you $500,000 asking for 360 payments (on a 30 year loan . . with NO interest) that all together add up to, say, $500,000. It’s still a bit cheaper overall but you simply can’t get away from the time value of money. This is just a work around that satisfies sharia law.

    • Ghana Serapis

      Father was clear when he gave us the 10 commandments. He sent an emissary, his first individually aware creation in the flesh to add one more and seal it with a resurrection. To confer his testimony and to legitimize our Father and his purpose. Love each other as I have loved you, love one another. If, it was not true the Sanhedrin would have posters in the Talmud as well as testimony out the proverbial wahzoo carved into relics being dug up daily. Sanhedrin gone, The Truth, Light and Way? Still preaching the Good News with apostles like Jim and others. The formula is there Jim. Do not idolize any graven image. Do not covet thy neighbors things. Do for others as you would have them do for you.

      Currency: a scheme to confiscate the only valuable commodities in the universe; human imagination and labor. Nothing has value until we assign it and we were clearly told: “Assign no value to graven idols from the earth, because they have no life in them.” “I AM a living God.”

      FukuAll, Japan has made it clear that the seals are opening faster and faster… 1/3 of the oceans will turn black and the water will become bitter and kill men when they drink it. Welcome to the knew age… to the knew age… welcome to the knew age… the new age. We’re all radio active… radio active… Welcome to the knew age. Yeah, he knew, he predicted it… We all better pray that this time is cut short or no flesh will be left, not even the elect.

      Dio said it clearly; “We will find if we are evil or divine… We’re the last in line…” “OH YEAHHHHHHHH… the last in linnnnneeeeee…”

      There is little time to repent. Peacefully strike and remove your imaginations and sweat from the system. The elements will melt away before these words come back unfulfilled, says the Lord.

      The formula is there Jim and Gareth; 10 + 1 = 11

      Fair warning,


  • gareth – as a matter of fact, and because you’ve asked….no i do not have any ‘savings’ in any tangible form – food, money (even $10), shiny bits of metal, prestige, or time. if anything i’m probably in debt to a slight degree because i owe the electric company some money for last months bill ( dollars are all they’ll accept – no alternative currencies will work). by the way, did you ever get me a pair of socks?

    • Gareth

      Not yet, but if you send me an address to my email, I promise to send you some for the winter months :-) Mention your favourite colour, dude.

  • thanks, gareth. plain old vanilla would be fine – no gold or silver trim please

    2211 s. aldrich street
    milwaukee, wisconsin 53207

  • james – thanks for the correction re: shakespeare vs bible, but the principle remains the same. in a monetary regime in which usury is outlawed the value of a home would drop enormously. in fact, the price paid for everything would drop enormously. it has been estimated that over 40% of the price of all goods and services is directly related to usury. at every step along the way from production to distribution to consumption all the participating players are borrowing at interest to fund their role. i believe it was an british economist by the name of kennedy that did the calculations. if that percentage is true, and i believe that it is, then the cost of a home would be appreciable less.

    in a society without usury there would not be any banks operating in the fractional reserve paradigm to begin with – so you would not be going there for money. they just couldn’t/wouldn’t exist. after all banks only are established for the purpose of making money from money. they are not organized and operated for the good of the borrowers!

    so, to buy a home you would simply enter into a contractual agreement with the seller and pay him on mutually agreed upon terms. the seller takes the risk of default just like any other exchange transaction.

    in a monetary system without usury human beings would be forced to create relationships with other human beings – not with banks or government bureaucracies. of course, this would create untold problems for most people because most people are petrified of the thought that life is about creating serious and meaningful relationships with other people. usury preys upon this basic fear of mankind – as does the entire global financial architecture. banks only leverage the selfish fear we all have of our neighbors.

    all money is, at its core, is a tool that conveniently allows us to enter into exchange with each other without the requirement of knowing or trusting who we are dealing with. the price we pay for this ‘happy state of being’ is usury – and usury spawns alienation, disregard, inflation, frauds of all kinds, wars etc. etc.

    money does not have a time value. money is a concept – like an inch, an ounce, a gram. only in a system based upon usury can one be manipulated to believe that money has a value over time different than its original value. the value of money should be constant, and would be constant if usury was eliminated and criminalized. if money has a value, it is only the utilitarian value that we, similarly, place on any other measuring scale. the purpose of money is to measure the desire we place on things – it does not have a value in of of itself. money is a symbol not a ‘thing’.

    • James Tetreault

      You state with such conviction that money doesn’t have time value and that this is only created by usury yet you ignore the example of islamic societies where there is no usury and yet, despite your pronouncement, it seems that money has time value. You can’t simply declare that away. There is the possibility of a party defaulting on the contract. So, whether it is a bank or a seller directly contracting with me, if I’m buying their house, it will be cheaper to pay for it all at once than to pay for it over time. Interest rates where there is usury are intended to account for inflation and the risk of default. Taking away the former does not take away the latter. As a result, money has time value even without usury.

  • james – the inflation that you mention is, in fact, CAUSED BY USURY. interest and usury are the same thing. they are not two distinct properties. they’re identical.

    in an honest system, money has no time value. only in a system like ours, based on usury, does the available money continually loose its purchasing power. it MUST continue to loose purchasing power DUE TO USURY.

    of course, it less expensive to buy something/anything without paying interest.

    in any contractual agreement both parties are taking a risk. if you sell something to me, say a house, and give me 5 years to pay off the entire purchase price, then you are taking the risk that i will honor my word and pay you completely. i, on the other hand, am also taking a risk as i continue to make payments to you. i am risking that the house which i purchased from you will not fall over in a heavy storm. both parties to the contract are taking a risk.

    what does the purported time value of money have to do with it? nothing.

    if this transaction occurs within a monetary system built upon interest (like our current system) then the money that the seller of the house receives will have less purchasing power when he gets it in the future as opposed to if he got it immediately. why? because all money ( the money supply itself) within a system subject to interest gradually becomes inflated just to cover the cost of the interest. so, sure, IN OUR SYSTEM, money appears to have a value over time – and its alway less!

    but in a system devoid of interest (usury) this inflationary problem does not, nor can not, exist. in a system where usury (interest) is outlawed the real cost of all things will be reduced.

    how much will they be reduced? in aggregate, by exactly the same amount that is getting sucked out of the current usury system by banks, insurance companies, stock brokers, currency traders – in short, the entire non-productive financial sector. at least 40% . that means that if it takes 100 hours a month of dedicated labor to make the payments on a home purchase now, the in a usury (interest) free environment you could make the same purchase with only 60 hours of labor.

    Islamic tradition and practice outlaws interest (usury). but in practice they do charge usury thru the semantic gymnastics of defining ‘profitable investment’ as something distinct from usury, when in spirit they are two sides to the same coin.

    money, within an honest system, has no ‘time value’. only in a corrupted system can one be convinced of the opposite.

    money is a concept – its a symbol not a thing.

  • James Tetreault

    Oh, come on, Jim. You and I reach a contractual agreement whereby I’m going to sell you my house. You have almost zero risk in my fulfilling the contract. You’ve been through the house. You’ve had it inspected. You know the age and condition of the house and all its features. You have almost zero risk in my fulfilling my part of the contract. All I have to do is simply leave the house. But if you’re not going to pay me the $400,000 right now then I have ongoing risk, for years, of you not fulfilling your side of the agreement so I, quite reasonably, want some kind of premium to compensate me for that risk. No reasonable person would agree with you that we’re taking equal risk. I’m fulfilling my side of the bargain quite easily in a couple weeks. You’re agreeing to fulfill your side over decades. How many people these days stay at the same job with the same company for 30 years? In regard to what percentage of the working populace would you say that you have full confidence that a person doing this or that job will not have any disruption of his career or earning power over 30 years time? I bet that percentage is a hell of a lot smaller than the likelihood that I can get my stuff and get out of my house in a couple weeks. The risks are not equal.

  • james – if the buyer is unable or unwilling to fulfill his side of the bargain the property would simply return to the seller. that’s how a standard land contract works now. the buyer is risking losing title to something he has labored to maintain.

    but the bigger point is this….both parties are compelled to trust each other for the term of the contract. if the seller had reservations about the ability of the buyer to fulfill the contract then he would simply look for another buyer in whom he was more confident in. if he couldn’t find anyone to trust then he would have to assume that his house was way overpriced.

    in an economy freed from usury it is highly improbable that a home would sell for large amounts of money. the entire value structure of goods and services would be transformed. human relationships would necessarily be valued much more and personal property values much less. its impossible to know exactly how dramatic these value alterations would be because the human family has never experienced living in a usury free economy – and probably never will.

    but this unfortunate recognition does not give anyone the license to make the claim that money has a time value. if everyone on the planet was a thief should we then teach our children the fine arts of robbery and fraud?

  • Gareth

    At James and Jim:

    Interesting discussion, just like to add a few things:

    1. Inflation. There needn’t be usury in the system for inflation to occur. Monetary ‘true’ inflation is simply an expansion of the currency supply which could occur through many conditions, e.g. a discovery of gold reserves when a gold standard is the norm. Another example would be a trade surplus where the standardised medium-of-exchange increases due to more ‘moneyy’ flowing inwards than outwards. It is true, however, that usury provides the conditions to make inflation necessary – although a series of defaults would result in ‘true’ deflation. In a nutshell, there will always be both inflation and deflation, but usury makes the whole thing more likely and inflation necessary for the bankers scheme to be successful. Clear?

    2. Not 100% sure of the ‘time’ concept Jim is referring to, but if one stores monetary metal, then it is clear that it will have value ‘through time’ – i.e. there is no rush to ‘spend’ it before it loses value.

    3. The banking system James refers to is quite simple really. The bank charges a FEE to the borrower to provide a loan. For example, the lender borrows $10k and the bank charges a fee of $1k. The $10k is taken from other FEES and also the FEES are used for running costs. @ Jim, if this system is not preferable, AND, you believe no-one should save, then how would someone purchase a house? I agree that they’re overpriced due to usury, but if one doesn’t save at all, then purchase of house would be impossible unless one’s day’s wages was amazing? There are too many contradictions with your theory, unless of course you believe folk should build houses as a community activity?

    Anyways, keep going, debate is ALWAYS good.


  • gareth – inflation is not simply an increase in the money supply. inflation is an increase in the money supply that is not hinged to a proportionate increase in goods or services that the members of the society deem worthy or credible.

    an honest monetary system is one where there is a direct correspondence between the units of currency and the credible goods and services which they represent. any variance between units of currency and the goods/services that they represents will either cause inflation or deflation.

    if gold was used as money/currency, then the new mining of gold would inflated the money supply. if there was no new mining of gold and those possessing the existing gold decided to hide it in a hole in their back yard it would deflate the money supply.

    an honest monetary system would be characterized by the money supply remaining as constant as possible with all units of the accepted currency continually in circulation. if the production of goods and services in such an economy increased then the price of those goods and services would go down – but this reduction would not be deflationary. if the goods and services in such an economy fell then the price of those goods and services would increase – but it would not be inflationary.

    in fact, it does not matter how many units of currency (pounds of gold in this case) exist in the money supply. all that’s required is that the units remain constant and continually in circulations. once new gold is introduced (thru mining) or any of the gold is removed (people saving/hoarding) then the entire system falls apart. this is one reason why gold should not be used as currency – it’s supply is not constant, nor is it possible to prevent its use for purposes other than use as currency continually in circulation..

    money is simply the name we use to title this system of accounting for the relationship between the units of currency and the goods/services available. currency is the physical/concrete devise/symbol we use for calculating this mathematical relationship.

    gold is not money. no ‘thing’ is money. money is a concept. we have symbols to represent the concept of money. those symbols are called currency. they are called currency because they must keep moving – as in circulation. once the currency stops moving it is no longer useful. sure, gold could be used as a currency but if it did it would have to keep moving (circulating). it could never be parked in savings because that would cause the mathematical relationship between units of currency AVAILABLE and goods and service produced to be at odds with each other – in which case someone will suffer unjustly.

    • Gareth

      ‘Kim’, is this ‘Jim’s’ wife :-)

      I’m well aware of what you’re stating, kim.

      For example the total goods and services is 10 loaves and bread and there are ten pound coins in circulation. Assuming no-one is saving then each loaf would be £1. If 5 more £’s are added with any corresponding loaves then PRICE inflation would occur resulting in a loaf costing £1.50. However, if a further 5 loaves are produced along with the 5 pound coins, then the loaves would remain PRICE CONSTANT at £1 each. Also, if only five loaves were produced due to a problem at the bakery and still there were the original ten coins, then a loaf of bread would become £2 each. Obviously this imaginary economy is very simple, but I hope it illustrates that I understand the interaction between g&s and the currency.

      TRUE inflation is an expansion of the currency supply and really shouldn’t be conflated with PRICE inflation. At the moment we have price inflation in some items, but price deflation in others.

      What is this ‘honest’ money system you desire, Kim?

      One with a central controller attempting to ‘match’, the currency supply to the corresponding g&s in the economy? How would do they do this, and who would do this? It is complete delusion that a system in which the currency supply would ‘match’, ‘anchor to’, ‘correspond with’ the amounts of g&s in the economy……..the economy is ‘alive’ and therefore any attempt of ‘central control’ would fail – probably fail quite miserably……apart from for those with the ‘keys’ to the central control room, of course.

      Anyway, don’t CONFLATE price inflation with TRUE inflation, and stop deluding yourself that there is anyone, any group, or any other entity such as computer, that could feasibly ‘match’ the currency to corresponding g&s. To think it is possible is HALF the reason we’re in this mess to begin with.

      • Gareth

        “If 5 more £’s are added with any corresponding loaves ”

        should read, “If 5 more £’s are added withOUT any corresponding loaves”

  • Gareth

    This is re-posted as there appears to be some Gremilins eating my posts.

    ‘Kim’, is this ‘Jim’s’ wife :-)

    I’m well aware of what you’re stating, kim.

    For example the total goods and services is 10 loaves and bread and there are ten pound coins in circulation. Assuming no-one is saving then each loaf would be £1. If 5 more £’s are added WITHOUT any corresponding loaves then PRICE inflation would occur resulting in a loaf costing £1.50. However, if a further 5 loaves are produced along with the 5 pound coins, then the loaves would remain PRICE CONSTANT at £1 each. Also, if only five loaves were produced – perhaps due to a problem at the bakery – and still there were only the original ten coins, then a loaf of bread would become £2 each. Obviously this imaginary economy is very simple, but I hope it illustrates that I understand the interaction between g&s and the currency.

    TRUE inflation is an expansion of the currency supply and really shouldn’t be conflated with PRICE inflation. At the moment we have price inflation in some items, but price deflation in others.

    What is this ‘honest’ money system you desire, Kim?

    One with a central controller attempting to ‘match’, the currency supply to the corresponding g&s in the economy? How would do they do this, and who would do this? It is complete delusion that a system in which the currency supply would ‘match’, ‘anchor to’, ‘correspond with’ the amounts of g&s in the economy……..the economy is ‘alive’ and therefore any attempt of ‘central control’ would fail – probably fail quite miserably……apart from for those with the ‘keys’ to the central control room, of course.

    Anyway, don’t CONFLATE price inflation with TRUE inflation, and stop deluding yourself that there is anyone, any group, or any other entity such as computer, that could feasibly ‘match’ the currency to corresponding g&s. To think it is possible is HALF the reason we’re in this mess to begin with.

  • gareth – no you do not need central planning of any kind to create an honest system. what you need to do is criminalize usury in all its disguises. the purpose of the system that we call ‘money’ is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. it is not designed to generate money from money or the trade money for money. money is is a concept. it has no value other than the utilitarian value of facilitating the exchange of of goods and services via symbolic expressions called currency. currency cannot represent itself any more than an inch could represent a minute.

    if all usury ( trading or selling one amount of currency for a different and higher amount) were eliminated than the only thing currency could represent would be bone fide goods and services. so, that’s how you do it gareth – you simply outlaw usury. if course, this solution is far to simple and logical to get much traction in our very ‘sophisticated’ world. we all are persuaded that solutions need to be complex and nuanced – even when something so obvious is starring us in the face.

    so i return to the premise of the very first comment i made to you at the top of all these conversation – ‘the only thing that corrupts a money supply is usury-nothing else’. this is the very first law of money.

    can we eliminate usury? probably not. but what we can do as adults is admit to the unambiguous certainty of this law.

    • Gareth

      Fair enough, but since we it is doubtful an outlawing of usury will occur soon, where does that leave us?

      Would you outlaw saving too, Jim?

  • if usury was criminalized there would be no point or purpose to ‘save’ the currency/points/tokens/symbol that constitute the money supply. after all, you couldn’t invest them at a bank and collect interest because interest would already have been outlawed.

    but what you could do with any extra currency in your pocket is purchase some thing and then save that something. saving of currency would/should be outlawed but not the saving of something purchased with the currency – maybe in your case, gareth, you might choose to save in gold or nickel. i, on the other hand, might purchase socks with my expendable income.

    outlawing the saving of currency would be much more difficult to enforce than the outlawing of usury. but i think that if the government outlawed usury the entire texture of society would change in such a dramatic and beneficial way that most people would begin to finally recognize that a much better world is possible to create through the legislation of honest money – and therefore most would never think of saving for their personal benefit sometime in the future. most people would spend every penny they earned as soon as possible because they would understand that to keep the economy honest and just for everyone money has to be spent back into the system – the faster the better.

    i know i’m out on the skinny branches now because this is all conjecture.

    but do you know what, gareth?…. none of us have to engage in usury or saving right now. we can all choose to move into a healthy monetary paradigm this very instant. spend what you have to fulfill the needs of your family, friends, even strangers – and neither a lender nor a borrower be. it not difficult to do once one understands the nature and purpose of money. you’ll never get rich but you will have something very valuable to share with everyone you meet – the truth about money!

    • Gareth

      I believe what I term as ‘money’ could be different to you, Jim. What you are referring to is what I would call ‘currency’ – which as I wrote several points back is not the same. I regard currency in my location as £sterling, in your location $US, and across the channel the currency is the euro. I regard ‘storable’ things as ‘money’, and as such my silver, bronze, and cupra-nickel are ‘money’, and I suppose so are your socks :-)

      You state, however, that you are not a fan of competing currencies, so where does this position lead you to – a pseudo greenback type currency, or local fiat currencies, or………..? Your position on the issuance of currency is unclear.

      I’ve written many times on the nature of diabolical usury, even dedicated complete articles to the topic, so I’m in complete agreement with you on this issue, but I do differ on ONE crucial thing.

      Please note that I write ‘outlawing’ of usury, rather than ‘banning’ of usury. I realise this might appear at first to be the same thing, but there is a subtle difference. When something is ‘banned’, law enforcement agencies actively seek out those that are committing the behaviour that is banned. When something is ‘outlawed’, then it is by definition ‘out’side of the ‘law’ – and therefore not protected by law.

      I recognise this a minor difference, but similar to how ‘banning’ weed smoking costs society an absolute fortune in policing, I feel than ‘banning’ usury and tracking down those perpetrating it would also costs the rest of society an absolute fortune to police.

      Simply ceasing protecting the usury artists, and forcing them underground, i.e. to slither back under their stone is the option I would encourage. The simple fact they are protected under corporate law enforcement is a major thing in itself, as they just steer the laws in their favour. Force them underground…i.e. ‘outlaw’ them and make their behaviour only available on the ‘black’ market.

      Do you understand this subtle difference between ‘banning’ and ‘outlawing’, Jim?

      Which brings me onto another legal matter: Legal tender laws. I feel legal tender laws should simply be abolished.

      To sum up:
      1. ‘Outlaw’ usury
      2. Abolish legal tender laws.

      PS I do not save in your definition of ‘money’ as I view £sterling as ‘currency’ and not as money.

  • The Young Economist

    About the “pseudo-greenbacks” that you refer to.
    You attempt to make the point that this money is an “illusion”.
    You have missed one key fundamental point…
    Under these “pseudo systems” (Honest Money), new money should only created to maintain price inflation at 0%. This means that when new money is created, it is not backed by “nothing”, but is rather BACKED by the labour and growth within the economy (GOODS AND SERVICES).

    While it is true that this fiat currency has counter-party risk (it is a liability to society’s new increase in goods and services), it is wrong to assume there is no wealth behind it.
    In fact, debt-free monetary system have existed in many places at different times in history. ALL of them were successful (with the exception of the continental currency that was funding the war for independance, and not an increase in productive goods and services). ALL of them were SHUTDOWN by the BANKERS. Benjamin Franklin is even attributed with a quoted saying that he thought the war for Independence was fought because the colonies were using debt-free colonial script. When new legal tender laws prevented the colonies from using colonial script it caused a depression, which caused the War for Independence.

    When debt-free money is issued by the state, it DOES NOT have to MONOPOLISE THE CURRENCY MARKET. During the reign of King Henry the 1st, the Tally stick system was introduced. This meant that state taxes were only repayable in tally sticks. Which could be reused by the government in spending on infrastructure etc. This money system co-existed with gold, silver, and other independent free-market currencies. People could use whatever currency they wished, but they need a retain a certain amount of tally sticks for taxes. This system co-existed quite well and unfortunately was shutdown around 1834, coincidentally during the rise of the Bankers.

    A whole list of successful debt-free money systems have been shut down by the Bankers:

    -Tally Sticks; shutdown by parliament during the rise of the Rothschild’s Bank of England.
    -Colonial Script; caused war for independence. Replaced by USA currency which was subdued by the bankers (as we all know).
    -Isle of Guernsey; Semi-independent government issued own debt-free currency. Eventually shut down by bankers.
    -The Worgle experiment; saved local Austrian towns and economies. Discovered by Austrian Central Bank and subsequently shutdown (due to it’s demand for currency monopoly).

    Ultimately it works! You can have debt-free state currency and the bankers WILL shut you down.

    You can object by saying “currency should exist independently of a government guarantee’s, with no counter-party risk”. My solution, in the words of burrito/taco girl “why can’t we have both?” :)
    A hybrid debt-free state issued currency with competing currencies in circulation has already worked once (Tally sticks). To reject this idea is foolish. There are already organisations in the UK pushing for debt-free money:

    My next point is the flaw in your logic for taxation. You state that we should not have domestic taxation, but revert fully to Tariffs like the Founding fathers. While I partially agree, your point of saying that the government should interfere with the market could also be applied to trade. Whilst trade isn’t a level playing field and free-trade is not great in practice (it’s used by the bankers), fully relying on Tariffs is unsustainable and eliminates choice for the consumer in the free-market.

    I purpose a better solution: A Bank Transaction Tax. It’s neither regressive or progress, but proportional. It is unavoidable and is a flat/fair rate that can generate all the revenue required by a government. Calculations have been down in Australia, and it is predicted that all 125+ taxes (with exception to tariffs) could be scrapped and replaced with the flat rate of a 1% debit tax, whilst simultaneously generating a $200 Billion surplus. Unfortunately, it has only been recently discovered by a minor political party founded by the freedom movement and has no coverage:

    • I believe I mention that competing currencies is the best option, and I’ve no objection to debt-free treasury notes being circulated, but IF domestic taxation was implemented would folk therefore need this form of currency just to pay taxes?

      The group ‘positive’ money desire the BofE make debt free currency available to the government to spend. I do not see anything regarding a repeal of legal tender laws in their theory……..have I missed something?

      The bank taxation tax sounds interesting, but would that mean the government would be motivated to force bank transactions as the norm, and as such eliminate cash transaction……the ‘cashless society’?

      Finally, the term illusion is correct, as it is defined as:

      a. An erroneous perception of reality.
      b. An erroneous concept or belief.
      2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
      3. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.
      4. Illusionism in art.
      5. A fine transparent cloth, used for dresses or trimmings.

      From my perspective, as with many others, the only form of ‘money’ should be something that has a use other than as a currency. For example, copper, silver, and gold can be used in other ways than currency – plus they can be a store-of-value other than, say, seed.

      Having said that, I’m glad you agree that COMPETING currencies is an excellent alternative, and if that also includes a pseudo-greenback then that’s fine as far as I’m concerned…..still leaves the taxation problem there as what form of ‘money’ would be used?

      PS History is littered with dead fiat currencies, and although banking houses will be responsible for many, I doubt they’re responsible for ‘all’ as you claim.

  • dear young economist,


    i was beginning to sink into a deep funk, assuming that no one who visits this website has an instinct for understanding the nature of money. you has revitalized my spirit!

    however, let me offer this for your consideration….

    as far a a tax on bank transactions goes, it is not necessary or useful. why? because in a usury free environment, where usury is outlawed, there would not be any reason for banks to exist. and if they do not exist then there are no transactions to tax.

    the only way honest method of taxation is for the government to spend fiat, interest free sovereign currency to fund project determined important through a popular vote. this caused inflation uniformly to the currency that everyone holds. a sovereign nation does not need to tax its citizens if it understands that it has the authority to create (spend) it own currency. a transaction tax might be a good idea, temporarily, as a sovereign nation awakens and begins its move from bank created currency to debt free government currency but in a free society, governed by serious human beings, there is absolutely no rationale to support taxes – other than inflation.

    if a government spent approximately the same amount year after year, this inflation (currency unattached to goods or services) would not compound itself. it would be a static one time event – something we all could happily endorse.

    • Gareth

      “assuming that no one who visits this website has an instinct for understanding the nature of money”

      To paraphrase, “Anyone that disagrees that a pseudo-greenback is the best alternative doesn’t understand ‘money’. I, however, do understand ‘money’, and so to disagree with me make you a moron”


  • gareth -you understand a great deal but you do not understand money.

    money is a system of SYMBOLIC communication similar to any other art form. why do you have such resistance to accept this???

    when you and virtually everyone else on this site advocates for gold/silver to be an appropriate currency in the symbolic system called money simply because precious metals ‘have value in and of themselves’ you are then claiming that the currency in the SYMBOLIC SYSTEM called money should not itself be a ITSELF BE A SYMBOL.!

    all currency, whatever it is, in a monetary system, can be nothing other than a symbol! if it has a nature that is not symbolic then it cannot exist in a symbolic system because SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS ARE COMPOSED OF SYMBOLS – not THINGS like gold and silver.

    when you use gold/silver as currency you do not have a monetary system – you have a barter system. you are exchanging something of perceived value for something else of perceived value – AND THAT IS CALLED A BARTER SYSTEM not A MONETARY SYSTEM.

    does that mean that gold/silver cannot be used as currency? of course not. but if it is, it will in very short order be hoarded by savers. banks will arise. the concept of interest will be developed. people will be manipulated to imagine that symbols actually can have value. in no time jealousy and greed will overtake the human imagination and we will all suffer.

    get it now, gareth?

    money has to be a symbol and only a symbol. symbols have no value and never will. symbols are created in the minds of artists – they are not dug out of a mine. they are not smelted, nor are they polished or cast into trinkets.

    believe what you will, but in my estimation anyone who thinks that gold/silver have anything whatsoever to do with money, or will somehow minimize inflation because of their scarcity, simply have no concept of concepts themselves.

  • Gareth

    Money has a variety of definitions attached to it, Jim. Sorry to burst your ego again, but the system you advocate is viewed by many as a ‘currency’ system, rather than a ‘monetary’ system. There is an entire school, often referred to as the Austrian School, that have the clause ‘store of value’ in their definition of ‘money’, and as such, we do not have an up-and-running ‘monetary system’ at the present.

    This is, of course, mere psycho-linguistical, but it IS important to clarify what a word means, as a word itself is merely a representation of a concept.

    In other words, Jim, and as clear as I can possibly be: The word ‘money’ has different meanings to different people and groups. As a tip, I suggest you use the word currency when explaining your grand solution.

    That aside, let us address this notion of 1. ‘barter systems’, 2. ‘common medium-of-exchange systems’,3. ‘monetary systems’, and 4. ‘currency systems’.

    1. A barter system is direct as you should know. So a trade of ten apples for ten oranges is barter.

    2. A ‘common medium-of-exchange’ system is when, well a ‘medium’ acts as a go-between for goods/services in the economy. Traditionally this was indeed shiny peices of metal, but usually of different weights and purity, and so wasn’t a monetary system per se. An individual oould then trade his ten apples for this shiny metal of different shapes/sizes/weight/purity with the confidence he could use it at a later date to trade for another good/service (or simply keep it and use it for jewellry). Thus, shiny metal was the COMMON medium-of-exchange before monetary systems were organised. There would have been other mediums, of course, but shiny metal was the most common.

    3. A monetary system is one comprising of the Austrian School definition of money, i.e. shiny pieces of metal of the same weight and purity. In other words UNITS of currency in the form of metal.

    4. A curreny system is one where the units are made from anything including intangible binary code, paper, coins with noiminal value etc. It is indeed purely symbolic.

    I won’t be as rude to suggest you don’t understand money (as you commonly do, Jim), but I will suggest there is a difference in the definition of ‘money’ between you and I (and you and many others, and I and many others). When you describe your theory, all I hear is ‘currency’, and not ‘money’.

    It is extremely clear that you do not resonate with people here at DTOM, so it is a puzzle why you frequent this blog?

    You may believe you are ‘educating’ us, but most here DO UNDERSTAND the differences between currency and money – and prefer the latter. Furthermore, many here do not favour the top-down ‘new collective’ solutions you propose, as such approaches have always been destroyed in the past. Preference is given to bottom-up approaches……..decisions an individual can make.

    As I’ve told you before, your views are a product of ideology and have no basis in reality, and as such are pure fantasies of some socialist utopia.

    Finally, Jim, get off your ‘high horse’, people here may have given you praise for that essay you wrote many moons ago, but no-one thinks your ‘grand solution’ is worth a second thought. A mixture of mathematical formula and ideology……YOU do not understand people, YOU do not understand the principle of cycles.

    Like you asked me: Get it now, Jim?

    Probably not :-)

    God bless ya my little socialist utopian day-dreamer…..the currency system will be whatever the masses select it to be.

  • money is not whatever any one chooses to call it. nor is beauty in the eye of the beholder.

    money is an art form just as beauty is. there happens to be a very careful science (as in ‘knowledge’) that underpins the design of beauty and the same is the case with money. money is a specific and particular expression. the fact that very few are familiar with this knowledge does not negate it’s existence.

    your careful slicing and dicing of systems ( monetary – currency – common medium of exchange – barter etc. etc) is mere sophistry – creating a lot of heat but not too much light. please, don’t take that as an insult.

    can you name any thing other than money that can be whatever anyone wants it to be? or is money (a symbolic expression) the only concept with such a varied potential? perhaps a better question would be….

    if the definition of money is a moving target, then what is your personal reason for pontificating about its nature? why bother yourself or anyone else? is there a point to all your careful assumptions that will, somehow in the end take hold and benefit anyone? as clearly evidenced by your thoughtful writing, you seem to have a purpose in mind. just what is it ?

    if money can be anything then there is nothing to understand, no vision to share and certainly nothing to celebrate in the future.

    this little debate that we are engaged in has been going one for centuries. it’s the debate about whether or not currency in a monetary system is itself valuable or is it simply a mechanical tool used for accounting. if its valuable, then one ( bankers, loan sharks) are entitled to rent it at a profit. if it, in fact, is only a symbol within a numerical accounting procedure then it has no value and renting a symbol should be criminalized for the fraud that it is. you gareth, are on the side of the bankers because you cannot bring yourself to even give money a proper definition -other than to slip into never, never land when you allow money/currency to be whatever the “masses select it to be”.

    god bless you too :)

    a serious and careful man.

  • Gareth

    “other than to slip into never, never land when you allow money/currency to be whatever the “masses select it to be”.

    And in the same response also writes:

    “can you name any thing other than money that can be whatever anyone wants it to be?”

    So which is it; money can be anything the masses choose it to be or not, Jim? You appear to contradict yourself UNTIL you write, “it’s the debate about whether or not currency in a monetary system is itself valuable or is it simply a mechanical tool used for accounting.”

    Which is EXCELLENT progress for you, Jim, as you’ve now realised that you are indeed engaged in a debate instead of simply informing others that you are correct, whilst those with a different view are wrong.

    Mmm, but then again you do commence your statement with, “money is not whatever any one chooses to call it”, so you do sort of have a rather mixed message that is kinda like, “money is what I think it is, and whatever others believe it to be is wrong. Furthermore, any elaboration other than within the boundaries of my comprehension is pure fallacy, and I have, err, ‘science’ to back me on this”.


    So, you also believe I’m also on the side of the bankers as I have indicated numerous times that the medium-of-exchange should have value in-and-of itself. I suppose you’re entitled to your opinion, Jim. Every advocate of Austrian economics must really aspire to have your deeper and greater understanding such as the almighty Jim, shouldn’t they LOL

    I will answer your question regarding my motivation to examine and ask questions about what ‘money’ is:

    I wish others to do the same.

    Unlike you, however, the self-proffessed all-knowing guru with socialist utopian tendencies, I am actually willing to examine another’s view without automatically rejecting it.

    If consideration to the opinion of others with an open-mind makes me a ‘serious and careful man’, then all the better, as I really wouldn’t wish to have delusions-of-grandeur that would make be encourage a fallacious ‘solution’ that has little chance of getting off-the-ground :-)

    On another issue: Not think you’d resonate more this side of the pond, Jim? There are a few groups you’d probably have a lot in common with.

    Good luck, Jim.

  • gareth – you may make fun of me to the full extent of your imagination but it will not alter any of the truths i have deposited into your mind.

    yes, gareth, i do know more about money than the austrians, or anyone else you are likely to bump into. is that so impossible for you to cuddle up to?

    Q…why do i know something/anything about money? and why don’t you?

    A….because i have been provided the insight to understand during over a half century of study that money is an art form and follows the disciples intrinsic to all art forms. art, gareth, is the most powerful force on the planet. all human enterprise is subject to it’s rule. money, is just one of those humanly conceived and designed enterprises. money is not ‘special’ or more complicated, of in any sense unique. it is just another art from. (yawn)

    so…to understand the ‘nature of money’, rather than understand what many notables have had to say about money, you need first to understand something about art and the power of symbols. this understanding does not come overnight. if you are content with classifying me as a moron then live with your judgements. if, on the other had, you have heard something/anything from me that challenges your otherwise predictable status quo point of view, then hold to it, at least as a curiosity. you have nothing to gain by attempting to denigrate me or ‘catch me in a contradiction”.

    most people think that money has value, just as most people think that art is good. they are both almost identical concepts that go unchallenged. what is your experience with art, or design, or the manifesting of beauty, or the animating properties of convincing composition, gareth? and what do thiese realities have to do with money, gareth? and what do the austrians have to say about honesty, gareth? are their and your idealized free markets in any way hinged to the greed and callousness of those with the most unearned chips?

    gareth, from this point forward, i will not waste your time with any further commentary about money, currency, usury, inflation etc. – but if your want to engage in a more fundamental conversation about art or the design of anything make it clear to me. as things stand now, your comments are all vitriolic and service neither of us in any useful capacity. in fact, your last reply made no sense to me, whatsoever, even after reading and rereading it several times. i couldn’t even find the dots, let alone connect them. you have my personal email and my personal address. let’s give this website a break for the time being, ok?

    would love to hear from you

    i’m impressed by your tenacity.

    • Gareth

      I agree we should leave the conversation of ‘money’ between us two, as we won’t make any grounds, nor agree on solutions to our problem of being born into a usury-based currency system. We are simply on a ‘different page’, Jim.

      Hope you find ‘kindred spirits’, Jim, ones that agree with you.

      Best of luck.

  • Gareth

    Oh, and you wrote, “if you are content with classifying me as a moron then live with your judgements”

    I’ve never suggested that you’re a ‘moron’, Jim. Check the context in which that was written. I rarely use nouns, and tend to used adjectives. For example, I would state someone is foolish not a fool.

    I do however, stick by opinion that the chances of a benevolent government managing a currency system for the benefit of the people is not going to happen and as such your ‘solution’ is a red-herring.

  • you’re absolutely right about the ‘red herring’.

    but, as i’ve mentioned elsewhere, i’m not trying to change the system. i’m trying to change ‘minds’. the more one understands the system the less one is able to pretend that they are simply an innocent bystander. everyone is culpable. particularly me. i, therefore, do not need to invent someone other than myself to blame for this state of servitude we all seem to find ourselves swimming in. your a smart guy, gareth – it has been my undeserved honor to engage you.

    happy swimming. jim

    • Gareth

      I’m assuming that from your ‘half century’ of study you’re a boomer, Jim? Perhaps your generation will be reflecting more on their past, and have generated a lot of debt to be passed on to future generations, such as my 1-year old son. However, some are more ‘culpable’ than others and have actively encouraged rather than simply ‘followed the herd’. I agree, therefore, that change starts ‘with the man in the mirror’, which for many is simply no longer playing the rigges game and following the herd.

      To be honest, I don’t blame myself much as I’ve no pension scheme, savings in a bank, and before 2010 I honestly couldn’t care less about ‘money’ – never had much use for it. As long as I had a bag of weed, a fit bird (hot chick), some good friends and my own free will I was very happy. I obviously ‘felt’ something was wrong with the world, but tended to look at environmental issues rather than usury etc.

      Furthermore, I don’t particular blame the boomers, nor the generations before them, as they were simply naive and trusted their mallicious government following their lead into debt and immediate self-gratification. I believe and hope my generation and those to come including my son’s realise and differentiate between whst they ‘need’ and what they ‘want’, with the latter being achieved in a manner more in sync with nature (our environment).

      Like I stated, some are more ‘culpable’ than others, and those that encouraged this mess are such people. Those with the ‘keys’ such as the Rothschild family are are highly culpable, and as such I desire people to know their NAME.

      I’m not ‘smart’, Jim, I’m just another mere mortal trying to make sense of it all…… endless cause, I’m afraid.

      Keep going, and get some gardening (appreciation of the wondeful environment) done outdoors, feel the wind and sun on your face, and remember you and I are just visitors to this realm. We should try and leave it in a better state than we found it (I’m sure that is your intend these days).

      G’luck :-)

  • ubear

    I think we have several problems.
    1. State legal tender law, which enables authoritarian fraud.
    2. Fiat currency which is not a store of value, so wide open to abuse.
    3. Central Banks which use inflation to effectively tax a population via net inflation, and cycles of inflation and deflation for pump & dump asset theft cycles, a form of fraud.
    3. Private lenders allowed to issue insanely leverage fractional reserve fiat debt, which is outright fraud!
    4. Compounded interest, which makes old style Usury seem trite, and this fraud can be far worse than outright theft of value.

    Simple answer: revoke State legal tender law, recognise multiple currencies as tenders, require that only money or fully backed currency can be used for tender or offered as debt, on penalty of fraud prosecution, class fractional reserve banking as fraud, and only allow fixed installments payback on fully funded debt with a fixed total management fee i.e. fixed interest, with no compounding, and predefined fixed penalty fees for any late payments.

  • if you are of the persuasion that compound interest is a problem (and it is!) why don’t you see the very same problem with simple interest? what in the world makes you imagine that fixed interest is somehow better than compound interest?

    all interest is a fraud!!!!!

Support our fight with a one time donation.


Over 300+ Videos