In my opinion, money shouldn't be backed by something exclusive or for rich people. Money should be backed by food. And food could practically be an infinite resource if people understood food forests
Food is money at harvest when it is clipped from the vine. Unfortunately, food rots.
Silver is money when harvested from the Earth. Silver does not rot.
Therefore, if you would like to have money raise a big garden. Then sell your food produce for silver before it rots and you will have preserved your money.
Thank you Sarah. Yes, I am certain that if I spend my time growing food then I have money. If I raise cattle, pigs, chickens, sheep and take care of the pasture and my garden, then I earn money at harvest and have valuable produce to trade.
If I mine for silver, then I earn money when it is harvested from the Earth just like food.
My food goes bad over time but silver does not degrade.
I trade my food for silver and store its value over time.
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?
"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!
I know Marc and would like to discuss/debate this with him. Value is only what is ascribed to it and that people agree too. There is something we could agree to value which makes sense and that is time. How much time went into making something. That is the real value. But even so it's not really the real value because value also incorporates whether someone wants it. It could be an ugly item and undesired and it wouldn't matter how much time was spent in making it. At least with time we can quantify some kind of sensible basis for value because it took effort, it took time out of someone's life to make it. Math is important but isn't relevant in this case. Theory is important but it doesn't always pan out in practice. He makes some really good points and it's great to hear someone who knows their stuff about this subject. He should come up with an alternative because money is what we now use and we can't just use nothing. If one makes a criticism they need to have another alternative or we all just defer to what's established alas.
The "money system" has always been a scam. The money lenders ( Big Banks in particular) have been allowed through Govt dictate, to acquire enormous power despite providing what should be, a very humble intermediary service. They have become high priests and gatekeepers.
Prof. Werner brilliantly explains how the banking system and financial sector really work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0G7pY4wRE The problem is psychological. We have largely bought into this system because it has somewhat worked since Nixon put the world on the Petro $$, that is US $ tied to barrels of oil instead of gold (because there is not enough gold to expand the economy). On the islands of Cinque Terre, the locals use cheese. I think we need an alternative to the Fiat System regardless of how all of this turns out. The new currencies (there should be many of them) need to be highly local and decentralized.
Yes indeed. We need alternative currencies that start of local but join together on a network as people travel a lot now and to have to use a different currency in every place one goes would not be the best. We can do anything really, so long as we have the will.
The issue of alternative currency choices is one of survival. We either diversify with alternatives, or we will be reduced to serfs. The best form of trade is direct barter. Canada had this with the fur trade up until the mid 19th century. It is easier to do in smaller locations.
Exactly. Barter is good for some transactions especially at first but we can't stay on barter as we could not progress very far just on barter. With digital tech we can easily have an alternative currency that we can use and that is issued by the sovereign individual. We are so used to a currency based on debt though that it will take some mental convolutions to think of currency in a way that generates abundance. I would have thought that people would have flocked to an alternative currency by now but I guess there isn't enough pain yet.
A rule we need to insist upon if we want to safeguard our freedom is that every digital currency has to have a physical component. How would you like to issue the money that you needed? That's what a currency based on sovereignty means. The work you do gets "logged" so that the data shows the production level. We have been brainwashed to think a currency has to be through debt, but no, it doesn't. That's how much money has changed our brain. A money system is totally arbitrary.
Silver is real money. A 1 oz silver Cannacoin would work well. The designs are very good.
In my opinion, money shouldn't be backed by something exclusive or for rich people. Money should be backed by food. And food could practically be an infinite resource if people understood food forests
Money is harvested from the Earth.
Food is money at harvest when it is clipped from the vine. Unfortunately, food rots.
Silver is money when harvested from the Earth. Silver does not rot.
Therefore, if you would like to have money raise a big garden. Then sell your food produce for silver before it rots and you will have preserved your money.
There's a few points I have to continue this discussion, but you seem so sure.
Thank you Sarah. Yes, I am certain that if I spend my time growing food then I have money. If I raise cattle, pigs, chickens, sheep and take care of the pasture and my garden, then I earn money at harvest and have valuable produce to trade.
If I mine for silver, then I earn money when it is harvested from the Earth just like food.
My food goes bad over time but silver does not degrade.
I trade my food for silver and store its value over time.
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!
I know Marc and would like to discuss/debate this with him. Value is only what is ascribed to it and that people agree too. There is something we could agree to value which makes sense and that is time. How much time went into making something. That is the real value. But even so it's not really the real value because value also incorporates whether someone wants it. It could be an ugly item and undesired and it wouldn't matter how much time was spent in making it. At least with time we can quantify some kind of sensible basis for value because it took effort, it took time out of someone's life to make it. Math is important but isn't relevant in this case. Theory is important but it doesn't always pan out in practice. He makes some really good points and it's great to hear someone who knows their stuff about this subject. He should come up with an alternative because money is what we now use and we can't just use nothing. If one makes a criticism they need to have another alternative or we all just defer to what's established alas.
The "money system" has always been a scam. The money lenders ( Big Banks in particular) have been allowed through Govt dictate, to acquire enormous power despite providing what should be, a very humble intermediary service. They have become high priests and gatekeepers.
Prof. Werner brilliantly explains how the banking system and financial sector really work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0G7pY4wRE The problem is psychological. We have largely bought into this system because it has somewhat worked since Nixon put the world on the Petro $$, that is US $ tied to barrels of oil instead of gold (because there is not enough gold to expand the economy). On the islands of Cinque Terre, the locals use cheese. I think we need an alternative to the Fiat System regardless of how all of this turns out. The new currencies (there should be many of them) need to be highly local and decentralized.
Yes indeed. We need alternative currencies that start of local but join together on a network as people travel a lot now and to have to use a different currency in every place one goes would not be the best. We can do anything really, so long as we have the will.
The issue of alternative currency choices is one of survival. We either diversify with alternatives, or we will be reduced to serfs. The best form of trade is direct barter. Canada had this with the fur trade up until the mid 19th century. It is easier to do in smaller locations.
Exactly. Barter is good for some transactions especially at first but we can't stay on barter as we could not progress very far just on barter. With digital tech we can easily have an alternative currency that we can use and that is issued by the sovereign individual. We are so used to a currency based on debt though that it will take some mental convolutions to think of currency in a way that generates abundance. I would have thought that people would have flocked to an alternative currency by now but I guess there isn't enough pain yet.
The problem is credibility. Digital currencies are only as good as the credibility of whoever is issuing it.
A rule we need to insist upon if we want to safeguard our freedom is that every digital currency has to have a physical component. How would you like to issue the money that you needed? That's what a currency based on sovereignty means. The work you do gets "logged" so that the data shows the production level. We have been brainwashed to think a currency has to be through debt, but no, it doesn't. That's how much money has changed our brain. A money system is totally arbitrary.