Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery. Hmm .. how is that any different in any crypto based system? I have to work to earn the crypto (backed by assets) to by the bread. If I want to eat bread I have to work - and thats still indenture by your definition.
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
Absolutely interested in your report - please tag me when you are done.
The system you describe has always led to slavery.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency. Again, if you disagree and believe it has been implemented in the past, would be great if you can include in your history report. I have a strong feeling we are talking about different things.
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
Not true, the people who control the new deposit will essentially steal wealth from everyone else. Exactly like when Fed prints more money. The only way to stop this is if the gold is distributed to everyone at the same ratio as their holding. Easier said than done.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things.
Actually this is not ridiculous at all. The population growth in last 100 years has been orders of magnitude increase. Newer generations will be vastly at a disadvantage compared to older generation as assets get scarce and get deflated. However, when you issue currency based on your own productivity this never happens.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value nor are they correlated with what the currency represents. Currency is a barter of items/services necessary. So currency should represent the ability to created these items or provide these services.
Its not. Almost every industry requires upfront investment to setup everything before you can start producing. We are considering the simplest case of an individual but it applies to every level. Without being able to have funds upfront, you wont be able to achieve beyond the barest survival level production.
I was mostly being facetious because he calls work before pay slavery. But yeah. I wonder what it was like when we switched from bartering to shells and such, it would probably be similar
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery.
That is not what I'm saying at all. First, there is a difference between labor, and future labor. Debt based economies are a fraud. We think that is the way, because that is the way it has always been. That is NOT the way it has always been, that is the design of the banker system. That is how we came to be where we are today. This debt, this future labor is called leverage. That's what it's actually called in banking accounting. It's called leverage for the exact same reason that it's called leverage in blackmail, because it can be used against a person.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency.
There is nothing special about your system. Sure, it's different because its "local," but it has been done many times before. This is the "deal with the devil" I was talking about. Any time you take out a loan, this is exactly what you are doing. You are issuing your own currency. You are indebting yourself to someone else (in this case the actual Devil, AKA the Cabal, but who it is is mostly irrelevant) and this debt is carried forward into your future. The entire time you are under leverage until the debt is gone. But its a currency, always based on your future labor, so you are never out from under the leverage.
And if you are somehow out from under the leverage, then the currency ceases to have value.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
What I think has value has nothing to do with my perception. On the contrary, what i think has value is only that which can be used to do work. That is not a perception, that is the law of the universe (if there is such a thing). That is not future work. It is not something that has to be fulfilled. It can be used to do work right now. If I have a bar of silver, I can use it to make an electric engine right now. Sure, I have to process it, but that's splitting hairs. It's value is in the present, not the future. I don't have to go into debt to give it value. It already has it.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value
I will never understand how anyone can say this.
value: worth in usefulness or utility
Both gold and silver have right now worth in usefulness and utility. They have it every moment of every day, and they always will (unless we become a super advanced society, then we will have to come up with something else, like energy as a medium of exchange).
Anyone who says that gold and silver don't have inherent value has never bought a wedding ring, or used an electronic device, or studied physics, or done chemistry, etc.
Okay I can summarize all the things we can agree to disagree on.
Firstly, there is a HUGE difference between me promising my labour for my own benefit and someone else promising my labour for someone else's benefit. That difference is the difference between slavery and personal responsibility.
Secondly, there has never been a system where an individual can issue their own currency backed by their own labour. All the systems we have is where the bankers issue debt in our name for their benefit and charge us interest. So we have never seen this proposal in action. Again we can agree to disagree since you dont believe there is a difference.
Third, you see any loans as evil. Personal loans are personal responsibilities. If you take a loan you cannot pay, then you will suffer. That doesn't make the loans evil, it only makes the person taking irresponsible loans, irresponsible.
If I have a bar of silver, I can use it to make an electric engine right now. Sure, I have to process it, but that's splitting hairs
Thats splitting a big hair. If I have a bar of silver, its valueis what others believe its value is. I cannot make an electric engine right now nor would I want to create an electric engine, since what I want is a loaf of bread. Unless a silver bar can automatically transmogrify into a loaf of bread, its value is perceived value.
Again, I am all for asset backed currencies at a global level, and asset+productivity backed currencies at a local level. They both have their place. However, just because something is asset backed it does not magically give them a value. There are huge limitations of asset backed currencies and everyone should be aware of them even as they use them.
These are all the things we agree to disagree on. I will leave you with one last thought experiment.
If I just came travelling into a city and I am hungry need a loaf of bread but I have nothing to barter for it, however I am a skilled worker and I can get to work right after I am full and I have had rest - should I barter the clothes I am wearing to get the bread? Or should I promise to do work tomorrow and get the bread now.
Think about it, its actually much deeper than it seems.
That difference is the difference between slavery and personal responsibility.
Debt is debt. You are skipping the real issue. The issue is a debt based society v. a pay after you earn society. The difference is absolutely gigantic, as you will see when I expose the history of it.
there has never been a system where an individual can issue their own currency backed by their own labour.
This really is effectively what we have. It may seem like the bank is issuing the currency, but it is a "choice" that you make. (I put choice in quotes because its not really a choice but a purposeful design of our current system. It IS the fraud.) The money you get from the bank is created on the spot. A "loan" is not a loan, it is the creation of money at your request, for you to use as you please. It is backed by your future labor. What we have is exactly what your sentence says.
Thats splitting a big hair.
If I'm making a lot of engines, taking a bar and turning it into wire is placing it in a machine, coming back from lunch and having an engine. Don't create an argument where none exists.
If you take a loan you cannot pay, then you will suffer.
Why would we create a society whose primary design is "you work or else you suffer?"
If I have to work to save and then I can buy something, then it's mine. There is no need to "avoid suffering." If society is set up so that I can follow a reasonable path to work, save up and buy something, that is a society that encourages good, responsible, rewarding behavior. If society is instead set up so that I either "pay my debts" or "suffer the consequences" that is no where near as positive of a society.
History shows clearly that we never had such a debt based society until the CABAL forced it on us. If you go to a village in random BFE you will find that people work, earn, and use what they earned to buy something (through barter, with real assets). That is taking responsibility. That is working for what you want.
What you are describing is being responsible to avoid getting fucked by a system that is going to fuck you if you don't. What I am talking about is taking responsibility to work, then get what you want after you have put in the work, because the system is designed to encourage you to work to get what you want after you have done so.
Or should I promise to do work tomorrow and get the bread now.
I am NOT saying debt has no place. I am saying that creating a system that is designed around debt is a systm that is far, far worse than one that is not based on debt, but upon working for what you want, and then getting it after you've done the work.
If society is set up so that I can reasonable work, save up and buy something
I do agree with this goal, but practically I just dont see this happening unless we are in a "free energy" society. We dont want people working all their lives to save up for vacations or buying a home etc. I just cannot imagine a society where I can start working and afford to buy a home. Maybe its possible, I just cant visualise it.
In this part I agree. A person taking a loan can be irresponsible and the temptation will always be there. The difference is that the only people who suffer as a result are the people holding his currency. His currency loses value and he will be forced to live strictly within his means. This will help his currency slowly regain strength.
However it wont collapse the whole system, nor will he lose his house and all possessions because, as you will see if you analyse this more, it's not really a loan. It has no collateral. The only thing that takes the hit is the value of his currency which is how it should be.
It may seem like the bank is issuing the currency, but it is a "choice" that you make. It is created on the spot at your request. A "loan" is not a loan, it is the creation of money at your request
I understand how a bank loan is created, but its not the same as you issuing your own currency as I pointed out before. Firstly, you have to pay interest, and secondly a loan is deadly because it has collateral.
So in both these aspects it's different. You dont pay any interest and you issue your own currency, which is not a loan - there is no collateral. The person accepting your currency is accepting it knowing fully well that it may lose value.
So thinking more about this - it's not debt based at all, since there is no collateral nor the ability for anyone to force you to do anything. All you lose is the value of your currency, as it should be.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery. Hmm .. how is that any different in any crypto based system? I have to work to earn the crypto (backed by assets) to by the bread. If I want to eat bread I have to work - and thats still indenture by your definition.
Absolutely interested in your report - please tag me when you are done.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency. Again, if you disagree and believe it has been implemented in the past, would be great if you can include in your history report. I have a strong feeling we are talking about different things.
Not true, the people who control the new deposit will essentially steal wealth from everyone else. Exactly like when Fed prints more money. The only way to stop this is if the gold is distributed to everyone at the same ratio as their holding. Easier said than done.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
Actually this is not ridiculous at all. The population growth in last 100 years has been orders of magnitude increase. Newer generations will be vastly at a disadvantage compared to older generation as assets get scarce and get deflated. However, when you issue currency based on your own productivity this never happens.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value nor are they correlated with what the currency represents. Currency is a barter of items/services necessary. So currency should represent the ability to created these items or provide these services.
Yeah... payment before work sounds like communism
Its not. Almost every industry requires upfront investment to setup everything before you can start producing. We are considering the simplest case of an individual but it applies to every level. Without being able to have funds upfront, you wont be able to achieve beyond the barest survival level production.
I was mostly being facetious because he calls work before pay slavery. But yeah. I wonder what it was like when we switched from bartering to shells and such, it would probably be similar
That is not what I'm saying at all. First, there is a difference between labor, and future labor. Debt based economies are a fraud. We think that is the way, because that is the way it has always been. That is NOT the way it has always been, that is the design of the banker system. That is how we came to be where we are today. This debt, this future labor is called leverage. That's what it's actually called in banking accounting. It's called leverage for the exact same reason that it's called leverage in blackmail, because it can be used against a person.
There is nothing special about your system. Sure, it's different because its "local," but it has been done many times before. This is the "deal with the devil" I was talking about. Any time you take out a loan, this is exactly what you are doing. You are issuing your own currency. You are indebting yourself to someone else (in this case the actual Devil, AKA the Cabal, but who it is is mostly irrelevant) and this debt is carried forward into your future. The entire time you are under leverage until the debt is gone. But its a currency, always based on your future labor, so you are never out from under the leverage.
And if you are somehow out from under the leverage, then the currency ceases to have value.
What I think has value has nothing to do with my perception. On the contrary, what i think has value is only that which can be used to do work. That is not a perception, that is the law of the universe (if there is such a thing). That is not future work. It is not something that has to be fulfilled. It can be used to do work right now. If I have a bar of silver, I can use it to make an electric engine right now. Sure, I have to process it, but that's splitting hairs. It's value is in the present, not the future. I don't have to go into debt to give it value. It already has it.
I will never understand how anyone can say this.
Both gold and silver have right now worth in usefulness and utility. They have it every moment of every day, and they always will (unless we become a super advanced society, then we will have to come up with something else, like energy as a medium of exchange).
Anyone who says that gold and silver don't have inherent value has never bought a wedding ring, or used an electronic device, or studied physics, or done chemistry, etc.
Okay I can summarize all the things we can agree to disagree on.
Firstly, there is a HUGE difference between me promising my labour for my own benefit and someone else promising my labour for someone else's benefit. That difference is the difference between slavery and personal responsibility.
Secondly, there has never been a system where an individual can issue their own currency backed by their own labour. All the systems we have is where the bankers issue debt in our name for their benefit and charge us interest. So we have never seen this proposal in action. Again we can agree to disagree since you dont believe there is a difference.
Third, you see any loans as evil. Personal loans are personal responsibilities. If you take a loan you cannot pay, then you will suffer. That doesn't make the loans evil, it only makes the person taking irresponsible loans, irresponsible.
Thats splitting a big hair. If I have a bar of silver, its valueis what others believe its value is. I cannot make an electric engine right now nor would I want to create an electric engine, since what I want is a loaf of bread. Unless a silver bar can automatically transmogrify into a loaf of bread, its value is perceived value.
Again, I am all for asset backed currencies at a global level, and asset+productivity backed currencies at a local level. They both have their place. However, just because something is asset backed it does not magically give them a value. There are huge limitations of asset backed currencies and everyone should be aware of them even as they use them.
These are all the things we agree to disagree on. I will leave you with one last thought experiment.
If I just came travelling into a city and I am hungry need a loaf of bread but I have nothing to barter for it, however I am a skilled worker and I can get to work right after I am full and I have had rest - should I barter the clothes I am wearing to get the bread? Or should I promise to do work tomorrow and get the bread now.
Think about it, its actually much deeper than it seems.
Debt is debt. You are skipping the real issue. The issue is a debt based society v. a pay after you earn society. The difference is absolutely gigantic, as you will see when I expose the history of it.
This really is effectively what we have. It may seem like the bank is issuing the currency, but it is a "choice" that you make. (I put choice in quotes because its not really a choice but a purposeful design of our current system. It IS the fraud.) The money you get from the bank is created on the spot. A "loan" is not a loan, it is the creation of money at your request, for you to use as you please. It is backed by your future labor. What we have is exactly what your sentence says.
If I'm making a lot of engines, taking a bar and turning it into wire is placing it in a machine, coming back from lunch and having an engine. Don't create an argument where none exists.
Why would we create a society whose primary design is "you work or else you suffer?"
If I have to work to save and then I can buy something, then it's mine. There is no need to "avoid suffering." If society is set up so that I can follow a reasonable path to work, save up and buy something, that is a society that encourages good, responsible, rewarding behavior. If society is instead set up so that I either "pay my debts" or "suffer the consequences" that is no where near as positive of a society.
History shows clearly that we never had such a debt based society until the CABAL forced it on us. If you go to a village in random BFE you will find that people work, earn, and use what they earned to buy something (through barter, with real assets). That is taking responsibility. That is working for what you want.
What you are describing is being responsible to avoid getting fucked by a system that is going to fuck you if you don't. What I am talking about is taking responsibility to work, then get what you want after you have put in the work, because the system is designed to encourage you to work to get what you want after you have done so.
I am NOT saying debt has no place. I am saying that creating a system that is designed around debt is a systm that is far, far worse than one that is not based on debt, but upon working for what you want, and then getting it after you've done the work.
I do agree with this goal, but practically I just dont see this happening unless we are in a "free energy" society. We dont want people working all their lives to save up for vacations or buying a home etc. I just cannot imagine a society where I can start working and afford to buy a home. Maybe its possible, I just cant visualise it.
In this part I agree. A person taking a loan can be irresponsible and the temptation will always be there. The difference is that the only people who suffer as a result are the people holding his currency. His currency loses value and he will be forced to live strictly within his means. This will help his currency slowly regain strength.
However it wont collapse the whole system, nor will he lose his house and all possessions because, as you will see if you analyse this more, it's not really a loan. It has no collateral. The only thing that takes the hit is the value of his currency which is how it should be.
I understand how a bank loan is created, but its not the same as you issuing your own currency as I pointed out before. Firstly, you have to pay interest, and secondly a loan is deadly because it has collateral.
So in both these aspects it's different. You dont pay any interest and you issue your own currency, which is not a loan - there is no collateral. The person accepting your currency is accepting it knowing fully well that it may lose value.
So thinking more about this - it's not debt based at all, since there is no collateral nor the ability for anyone to force you to do anything. All you lose is the value of your currency, as it should be.