paper denominations (i.e. money) ALWAYS end up collapsing and loses all its value
Fiat currency never loses value. It never has any to begin with. You must force people to use your fiat currency through taxation. NO ONE will use it without force because it has zero value, and everyone knows it (at least in the beginning). If the government doesn't strong arm people into giving them some of the fiat currency every year, no one will work to have any. If no one has to work to have any, no one will use them for anything. They would just use barter, or perhaps use gold or silver, or something else of value as an intermediary. No one trades for something of zero value. Fiat currency's value is as a note of protection from the government that is trying to kill you.
This is a great post, I just felt this was an important distinction. People need to realize that what we have been trained to call "money" can't lose value it never had. It didn't start out good and get worse, it started out as fraud. It started as a Ponzi scheme and a protection racket rolled into one.
If you have ever watched Bill Still's "The Money Masters", it provides an astonishing history of paper denominations. It starts out as a receipt of something of value, usually redeemable in gold or silver. US currency once stated this on every paper dollar printed. But then the shell game soon starts and the silver and gold is stolen. More receipts (paper currency) is printed than the treasury has in its coffers to back up the receipt. This is when the fraud that is perpetrated is a crime. So, the federal reserve for example, in lockstep with the City of London makes rules of how much theft is acceptable.
I have watched the money masters. I understand redeemable notes. I do not think the timing of events that he proposes is correct.
Redeemable notes are not fiat currency (legally prescribed currency which (at least since the invention of paper money) has no intrinsic value). Redeemable notes are also not paper currency. Paper currency means that paper is the thing that is exchanged, not real assets. Carrying a note of deposit from a bank in Rome to a bank in Venice is not "paper currency." It doesn't become paper currency until it is the actual thing that exchanges hands on a regular basis. Fractional reserve lending and paper as a currency came about at the exact same time, from the same people, for the purpose of both. It wasn't just to increase their money. It was to change the way we perceive money.
All of these "historical expositions" always rely on the concept of greed as the motivator. My research suggests it was never about "greed" as we understand the term. It was always about control. It has always, from day one, been about controlling the entirety of society, which is accomplished by controlling everyone's daily decisions, which is done by control of the economy, which is done by creating the concept of paper money, which only works if there is a fluid money supply, which is why they created fractional reserves and took all value out of the intermediary of exchange for barter.
The illusion that it still had value, because you could ostensibly go to a bank and exchange "paper currency" for gold was exactly that, an illusion. Yes, some people could do it, but by the time paper had become a currency, there was never a moment when everyone could do it. The little they passed out to those who demanded it was only to keep up the illusion. This was a society wide illusion, designed specifically for control of society.
The difference between my version and the Money masters version is that Money masters thinks it was an organic development based on greed. I think it was planned out to progress exactly as it did from the beginning for the purposes of control of society. That is what my investigation has shown me. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it was a mix of both, but the exact same people have had control of the money supply, doing the same sort of things for at a minimum of 3500 years. I don't know where in there it became "the plan" to transition to fiat currency, but every attempt to create fiat currency can be traced back to the same people, and they have been trying it for a very long time.
You should publish your research and see if your audience compares to what Bill Still has. In the mean time, Bill Still is recognized as an esteemed expert on the history of currency. No one of standing has ever disputed his research that I'm aware of. He's opened many eyes.
Wait, what I said may or may not be true because of how many people believe it? Is that how truth is measured? I don't expect you to believe me. In my short response I gave no evidence. The evidence is a huge exposition, which I am working on. Part 1 is here. Regardless however, I made points, and you didn't address them, rather you gave an argument on credentials. Credentials have nothing to do with any investigation into the truth of a thing.
Fiat currency never loses value. It never has any to begin with. You must force people to use your fiat currency through taxation. NO ONE will use it without force because it has zero value, and everyone knows it (at least in the beginning). If the government doesn't strong arm people into giving them some of the fiat currency every year, no one will work to have any. If no one has to work to have any, no one will use them for anything. They would just use barter, or perhaps use gold or silver, or something else of value as an intermediary. No one trades for something of zero value. Fiat currency's value is as a note of protection from the government that is trying to kill you.
This is a great post, I just felt this was an important distinction. People need to realize that what we have been trained to call "money" can't lose value it never had. It didn't start out good and get worse, it started out as fraud. It started as a Ponzi scheme and a protection racket rolled into one.
If you have ever watched Bill Still's "The Money Masters", it provides an astonishing history of paper denominations. It starts out as a receipt of something of value, usually redeemable in gold or silver. US currency once stated this on every paper dollar printed. But then the shell game soon starts and the silver and gold is stolen. More receipts (paper currency) is printed than the treasury has in its coffers to back up the receipt. This is when the fraud that is perpetrated is a crime. So, the federal reserve for example, in lockstep with the City of London makes rules of how much theft is acceptable.
I have watched the money masters. I understand redeemable notes. I do not think the timing of events that he proposes is correct.
Redeemable notes are not fiat currency (legally prescribed currency which (at least since the invention of paper money) has no intrinsic value). Redeemable notes are also not paper currency. Paper currency means that paper is the thing that is exchanged, not real assets. Carrying a note of deposit from a bank in Rome to a bank in Venice is not "paper currency." It doesn't become paper currency until it is the actual thing that exchanges hands on a regular basis. Fractional reserve lending and paper as a currency came about at the exact same time, from the same people, for the purpose of both. It wasn't just to increase their money. It was to change the way we perceive money.
All of these "historical expositions" always rely on the concept of greed as the motivator. My research suggests it was never about "greed" as we understand the term. It was always about control. It has always, from day one, been about controlling the entirety of society, which is accomplished by controlling everyone's daily decisions, which is done by control of the economy, which is done by creating the concept of paper money, which only works if there is a fluid money supply, which is why they created fractional reserves and took all value out of the intermediary of exchange for barter.
The illusion that it still had value, because you could ostensibly go to a bank and exchange "paper currency" for gold was exactly that, an illusion. Yes, some people could do it, but by the time paper had become a currency, there was never a moment when everyone could do it. The little they passed out to those who demanded it was only to keep up the illusion. This was a society wide illusion, designed specifically for control of society.
The difference between my version and the Money masters version is that Money masters thinks it was an organic development based on greed. I think it was planned out to progress exactly as it did from the beginning for the purposes of control of society. That is what my investigation has shown me. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it was a mix of both, but the exact same people have had control of the money supply, doing the same sort of things for at a minimum of 3500 years. I don't know where in there it became "the plan" to transition to fiat currency, but every attempt to create fiat currency can be traced back to the same people, and they have been trying it for a very long time.
You should publish your research and see if your audience compares to what Bill Still has. In the mean time, Bill Still is recognized as an esteemed expert on the history of currency. No one of standing has ever disputed his research that I'm aware of. He's opened many eyes.
Wait, what I said may or may not be true because of how many people believe it? Is that how truth is measured? I don't expect you to believe me. In my short response I gave no evidence. The evidence is a huge exposition, which I am working on. Part 1 is here. Regardless however, I made points, and you didn't address them, rather you gave an argument on credentials. Credentials have nothing to do with any investigation into the truth of a thing.
I expected better from you.