Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Master Jack's avatar

Silver is real money. A 1 oz silver Cannacoin would work well. The designs are very good.

Expand full comment
Mark Heffernan's avatar

The primary origination of the unit of acCount, as described in the so called "Modern Monetary Theory" and most all governments of the world, is as an illiterate exercise of a power that does not exist based on an illiterate notion that a unit of acCount is itself an item of value. Here's the thing: money creation/unit creation, from nothing and yet turned into a thing of 'value' - Poof! - is NOT a power that anyone actually has, not anyone, not any government, not any bank.

So the populace must throw off the imperial monetary illiteracy if they are going to free themselves and stop the war mongering or whatever else is on the imperialist agenda.

What freedom can any people have if their own monetary illiteracy makes them complicit with a system that destroys that freedom to control and direct one's own and/or a community's own enterprise?

bibocurrency.com

Marc Gauvin explains the logic like this:

"Money being used "to pay" is predicated on money having value a priori, so we are back to the circular logic of money is value because it is accepted as value and money is payment because it is accepted as payment, neither of which are valid proofs of money having value required for money to be payment.

In other words, we are using circular logic by defining money as payment just because we use it that way, ignoring that at the same time we make claims on real goods and services to satisfy "payment" yet real goods and services have intrinsic value and money does not.

On a systems level the whole illusion falls apart. By starting the system from a first transaction and then having all other subsequent transactions following the same logic consistently, we find that money cannot be both value and record value as follows:

1) Try to establish what relation the first annotation of a multiple of currency symbol can possibly represent that is consistent with all other subsequent annotations.

2) Ask if without any goods and services money has any purpose or not.

3) Then ask what possible purpose can it have in relation to existing goods and services in the first ever transaction. Example:

You have a horse, why would you trade the horse for a piece of paper with a multiple of a symbol printed on it? You wouldn't, unless you clearly understood what that particular symbol meant to you in relation to your horse. What is that relation exactly?

That is what has never been formally worked out (specified) unequivocally in valid logic in a common ratified way.

What exactly does that symbol represent other than itself? What do different multiples of that symbol represent? How does that representation logically fit with the logic of "payment" or "value reciprocation".

When we go through that exercise in terms of formal logic, math, decidable semantics, object data definition logic etc., you can only arrive to one conclusion i.e. money can only be a record of value.

Once you arrive at that conclusion you quickly realise how as a corollary, money cannot also be the object of trade equivalent to goods and services.

Thus, while money is a representation of value pending reciprocation in the future, it never substitutes value. While money records the value of goods and services required as payment to reciprocate past goods and services it itself cannot also "be" the payment."

Here we are in the 'scientific age' and the most basic principles of applied math and logic are completely ignored!

Expand full comment
27 more comments...

No posts