What is economics?

First, economics as it is taught is completely fraudulent. It was designed specifically by numerous agents of The Trust (Smith, Marx, and, from the 20th century onwards, agents directed by Rockefeller) to create the mess we have today. That isn't really an argument however, merely a statement of fact that I suggest provides important context. In other words, it is essential to question "what we know" about economics.

Economics is the study of what drives decisions, generally as it applies to the management of life (domestic) affairs, but it really can apply to any decision making process. The "limited resources" stuff isn't necessarily applicable. Not that I suggest throwing out the idea, but we worry about it more than we need to (that's a larger argument than I want to discuss right now). In the case of this particular discussion (which system we adopt as a user interface for standard social economics), It doesn't apply at all.

Your suggestions presume that the benefits of learning won't be seen as worth the cost in time it takes to learn it.

It also assumes that it will be necessarily harder to use than what exists now.

I will start with the first assumption and work my way into the second.

Imagine that everyone is shown the real travesties that have occurred in the past with the monetary system proposed in your "system 2". What if they see that that system was created specifically to rule the world, and that adopting it necessitates future fraud, because it is built into the system itself? What if people see that the system was designed by a group of people several thousand years ago, and that that exact same group of people still rules the world today by that system? What if they see that if they do not change systems, it will happen again? What if they see that there are simple entries into your "system 1"? In fact, system 1 is a Free Market.

If any one individual wants to deal only in gold, or only in silver, or whatever, they can use that medium to their hearts content. The point is to create and present a system that encourages and allows for a broader adoption of barter. It doesn't necessitate anything. It's a Free Market.

Free means free.

A Free Market that requires (or even strongly encourages) a specific intermediary for barter is not Free. THAT is how the fraud is perpetuated.

It is tough to imagine a Free Market. We've never had one. I've been imagining it for almost two years now, and studying what came before to try to appreciate it; studying the laws that got us here, why those laws were created, and how they perpetuate the fraud. A truly Free Market is the only way. You can not have a Free Market unless that Market is a system of Barter at it's core.

Assuming all of those statements (masquerading as questions) are true, would people be motivated to adapt to a system of barter?

I suggest the economics of that decision are simple to figure out.

What is economics?

First, economics as it is taught is completely fraudulent. It was designed specifically by numerous agents of The Trust (Smith, Marx, and, from the 20th century onwards, agents directed by Rockefeller) to create the mess we have today. That isn't really an argument however, merely a statement of fact that I suggest provides important context. In other words, it is essential to question "what we know" about economics.

Economics is the study of what drives decisions, generally as it applies to the management of life (domestic) affairs, but it really can apply to any decision making process. The "limited resources" stuff isn't necessarily applicable. Not that I suggest throwing out the idea, but we worry about it more than we need to (that's a larger argument than I want to discuss right now). In the case of this particular discussion (which system we adopt as a user interface for standard social economics), It doesn't apply at all.

Your suggestions presume that the benefits of learning won't be seen as worth the cost in time it takes to learn it.

It also assumes that it will be necessarily harder to use than what exists now.

I will start with the first assumption and work my way into the second.

Imagine that everyone is shown the real travesties that have occurred in the past with the monetary system proposed in your "system 2". What if they see that that system was created specifically to rule the world, and that adopting it necessitates future fraud, because it is built into the system itself? What if people see that the system was designed by a group of people several thousand years ago, and that that exact same group of people still rules the world today by that system? What if they see that if they do not change systems, it will happen again? What if they see that there are simple entries into your "system 1"? In fact, system 1 is a Free Market.

If any one individual wants to deal only in gold, or only in silver, or whatever, they can use that medium to their hearts content. The point is to create and present a system that encourages and allows for a broader adoption of barter. It doesn't necessitate anything. It's a Free Market.

Free means free.

A Free Market that requires a specific intermediary for barter is not Free. THAT is how the fraud is perpetuated.

It is tough to imagine a Free Market. We've never had one. I've been imagining it for almost two years now, and studying what came before to try to appreciate it; studying the laws that got us here, why those laws were created, and how they perpetuate the fraud. A truly Free Market is the only way. You can not have a Free Market unless that Market is a system of Barter at it's core.

Assuming all of those statements (masquerading as questions) are true, would people be motivated to adapt to a system of barter?

I suggest the economics of that decision are simple to figure out.

What is economics?

First, economics as it is taught is completely fraudulent. It was designed specifically by numerous agents of The Trust (Smith, Marx, and, from the 20th century onwards, agents directed by Rockefeller) to create the mess we have today. That isn't really an argument however, merely a statement of fact that I suggest provides important context. In other words, it is essential to question "what we know" about economics.

Economics is the study of what drives decisions, generally as it applies to the management of life (domestic) affairs, but it really can apply to any decision making process. The "limited resources" stuff isn't necessarily applicable. Not that I suggest throwing out the idea, but we worry about it more than we need to (that's a larger argument than I want to discuss right now). In the case of this particular discussion (which system we adopt as a user interface for standard social economics), It doesn't apply at all.

Your suggestions presume that the benefits of learning won't be seen as worth the cost in time it takes to learn it.

It also assumes that it will be necessarily harder to use than what exists now.

I will start with the first assumption and work my way into the second.

Imagine that everyone is shown the real travesties that have occurred in the past with the monetary system proposed in your "system 2". What if they see that that system was created specifically to rule the world, and that adopting it necessitates future fraud, because it is built into the system itself? What if people see that the system was designed by a group of people several thousand years ago, and that that exact same group of people still rules the world today by that system? What if they see that if they do not change systems, it will happen again? What if they see that there are simple entries into your "system 1"? In fact, system 1 is a Free Market.

If any one individual wants to deal only in gold, or only in silver, or whatever, they can use that medium to their hearts content. The point is to create and present a system that encourages and allows for a broader adoption of barter. It doesn't necessitate anything. It's a Free Market.

Free means free.

It is tough to imagine a Free Market. We've never had one. I've been imagining it for almost two years now, and studying what came before to try to appreciate it; studying the laws that got us here, why those laws were created, and how they perpetuate the fraud. A truly Free Market is the only way. You can not have a Free Market unless that Market is a system of Barter at it's core.

Assuming all of those statements (masquerading as questions) are true, would people be motivated to adapt to a system of barter?

I suggest the economics of that decision are simple to figure out.

What is economics?

First, economics as it is taught is completely fraudulent. It was designed specifically by numerous agents of The Trust (Smith, Marx, and, from the 20th century onwards, agents directed by Rockefeller) to create the mess we have today. That isn't really an argument however, merely a statement of fact that I suggest provides important context. In other words, it is essential to question "what we know" about economics.

Economics is the study of what drives decisions, generally as it applies to the management of life (domestic) affairs, but it really can apply to any decision making process. The "limited resources" stuff isn't necessarily applicable. Not that I suggest throwing out the idea, but we worry about it more than we need to (that's a larger argument than I want to discuss right now). In the case of this particular discussion (which system we adopt as a user interface for standard social economics), It doesn't apply at all.

Your suggestions presume that the benefits of learning won't be seen as worth the cost in time it takes to learn it.

It also assumes that it will be necessarily harder to use than what exists now.

I will start with the first assumption and work my way into the second.

Imagine that everyone is shown the real travesties that have occurred in the past with the monetary system proposed in your "system 2". What if they see that that system was created specifically to rule the world, and that adopting it necessitates future fraud, because it is built into the system itself? What if people see that the system was designed by a group of people several thousand years ago, and that that exact same group of people still rules the world today by that system? What if they see that if they do not change systems, it will happen again? What if they see that there are simple entries into the system? In fact, the system is a Free Market.

If any one individual wants to deal only in gold, or only in silver, or whatever, they can use that medium to their hearts content. The point is to create and present a system that encourages and allows for a broader adoption of barter. It doesn't necessitate anything. It's a Free Market.

Free means free.

It is tough to imagine a Free Market. We've never had one. I've been imagining it for almost two years now, and studying what came before to try to appreciate it; studying the laws that got us here, why those laws were created, and how they perpetuate the fraud. A truly Free Market is the only way. You can not have a Free Market unless that Market is a system of Barter at it's core.

Assuming all of those statements (masquerading as questions) are true, would people be motivated to adapt to a system of barter?

I suggest the economics of that decision are simple to figure out.

What is economics?

First, economics as it is taught is completely fraudulent. It was designed specifically by numerous agents of The Trust (Smith, Marx, and, from the 20th century onwards, agents directed by Rockefeller) to create the mess we have today. That isn't really an argument however, merely a statement of fact that I suggest provides important context. In other words, it is essential to question "what we know" about economics.

Economics is the study of what drives decisions, generally as it applies to the management of life (domestic) affairs, but it really can apply to any decision making process. The "limited resources" stuff isn't necessarily applicable. Not that I suggest throwing out the idea, but we worry about it more than we need to (that's a larger argument than I want to discuss right now). In the case of this particular discussion (which system we adopt as a user interface for standard social economics), It doesn't apply at all.

Your suggestions presume that the benefits of learning won't be seen as worth the cost in time it takes to learn it.

It also assumes that it will be necessarily harder to use than what exists now.

I will start with the first assumption and work my way into the second.

Imagine that everyone is shown the real travesties that have occurred in the past with the monetary system proposed in your "system one". What if they see that that system was created specifically to rule the world, and that adopting it necessitates future fraud, because it is built into the system itself? What if people see that the system was designed by a group of people several thousand years ago, and that that exact same group of people still rules the world today by that system? What if they see that if they do not change systems, it will happen again? What if they see that there are simple entries into the system? In fact, the system is a Free Market.

If any one individual wants to deal only in gold, or only in silver, or whatever, they can use that medium to their hearts content. The point is to create and present a system that encourages and allows for a broader adoption of barter. It doesn't necessitate anything. It's a Free Market.

Free means free.

It is tough to imagine a Free Market. We've never had one. I've been imagining it for almost two years now, and studying what came before to try to appreciate it; studying the laws that got us here, why those laws were created, and how they perpetuate the fraud. A truly Free Market is the only way. You can not have a Free Market unless that Market is a system of Barter at it's core.

Assuming all of those statements (masquerading as questions) are true, would people be motivated to adapt to a system of barter?

I suggest the economics of that decision are simple to figure out.