Cassidy / St.Clair audio released in 4 videos

I would just like to add one more thing - if it was not made clear in my earlier posts.

The trade in gold and silver, as we do it, is really no different - in principle - than the exchange of paper. Gold or paper - its all the same. It is an exchange item; it is an avenue to accumulating wealth.

Consider Native American societies before the anthropological concept of "articulation" altered their economies, and before Euro-American political domination (an example made valid by recent discussion of the "Lakota bank"). Leaders in these societies were considered so because they plunged themselves into poverty so that their people had clothes or food. Being a leader meant being the poorest (in the capitalist sense) person in the community. Leadership was about material sacrifice, and often, some of the poorest men in Indian communities were the most honored, and the most powerful.

Currency - whether it is paper, gold, or energy itself - must be exchanged fairly, and not without profit. When exchanges are anything but equal, someone suffers; anyone who trades anything with the express goal of profit, they are siphoning the energy of their fellow men and women.

We must find another way. Gold is not the answer. If we turn our paper into gold, but treat that gold just like we did the paper, what has really changed? Nothing. And are we not all here to build a better future, not perpetuate the same old economic "truisms" of our failed past?

Just some thoughts, and I hope to get many responses.

[milk and honey]

Originally Posted by historycircus

I would just like to add one more thing - if it was not made clear in my earlier posts.

The trade in gold and silver, as we do it, is really no different - in principle - than the exchange of paper. Gold or paper - its all the same. It is an exchange item; it is an avenue to accumulating wealth. [...]

Currency - whether it is paper, gold, or energy itself - must be exchanged fairly, and not without profit. When exchanges are anything but equal, someone suffers; anyone who trades anything with the express goal of profit, they are siphoning the energy of their fellow men and women.

Trying to understand a seeming contradiction here...

You wrote: "Currency - ... - must be exchanged fairly, and not without profit"

Agreed. If you're selling an item or service without profit (ie, profit = excess income above outgoing cost) then there is no money for you to spend on yourself and thus, in a currency exchange system, your own needs are not being met without profit. So you need it.

Later in the paragraph you seem to be saying (to paraphrase) that "trading with the express goal of profit is merely siphoning the energy of one's fellows"

Are you trying only to treat the question of motive here? If so it's a bit confusing. If you were i'd just say that when turning over goods for sale an "express goal of profit" is not mutually exclusive to a sevice ethic. In a currency exchange system profit is included in one's goals. Otherwise you're working for nothing and have nothing to spend.

You must be talking about pure barter. But even then different goods and services have different values in consideration of how much work is involved in producing it..... mental and or physical.... Each has value.

[Josefine]

On the Creation of Money

About 20 years ago the German economist Margit Kennedy wrote the book "Interest and Inflation Free Money'. It has been translated into 18 languages. She wrote it after having spent some time with and been inspired by a group of North-American Indians. She recently quoted a German study showing that interest on borrowed money represents around 30-50 % of the prices of all goods and services.

More about her work can be found here: www.greenhealth.org.uk/MoneyCreation.html

She has inspired many groups in many countries, e.g. in New Zealand, where groups to establish regional money systems are being formed. The McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis gave her an award in their 'The McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis': www.mckeever.com/kent.html

At that time, 20 years ago, I was part of a small group in a Nordic country that set out to explore the possibility of local money modelled on the successful JAK-bank (Jord-Arbeid-Kapital, Soil-Work-Capital, originally aimed at credit to farmers) that had already been established in other Nordic countries. We were not successful, but in the process we learned that the Freemasons disapproved of our efforts. Then we knew we had been on the right track. Centralized banking favours the few, it acts as a vacuum-cleaner that spouts money upwards. At the same time one member of the group found a study showing how taxation cumulates in percentage on one monetary unit as it circulates. The number might even higher than that of interest added cumulatively, as cited by Margit Kennedy in ref. to the German study.

This research and conclusion was presented to some politicians at that time, without eliciting any response. This is understandably, as the monetary system is very poorly understood by anyone, within or without banking and politics. However, the Minister of Finance in this country at that time, who was presented with Margit Kennedy's work, said such a system (interest free banking) was premature at that time. Maybe it is an idea that now has reached its time?

In William Cooper's book, 'Behold a Pale Horse', a story on a young economic thinker is included. His take on the taxation of the US Federation by the FEDS shows that the growing national debt is unreal given the assets in natural resources held by that nation, that is, had the FEDS been an asset of the national government, as demanded by the American Constitution. This young man ended up in jail, for life, with no chance of recourse to justice in an open hearing.

Many local surrencies have in fact been established over the years in different countries. But has invariably been regarded as a threat to centralized banking and government. As with other whistleblowers, many of these pioneers have ended up dead before their time.

Centralized banking and centralized taxation both have a vacuum cleaner effect, sucking money upwards to a level that is hard to scrutinize and therefore easily lost from democratic control. What we may choose in the future is a combination of local monies and bartering, local taxes and a sharing of resources from the local to a larger area. Anyone performing a service to others deserves compensation, but the simple creation of a means of exchange, currency, may be done as a collective effort, without interest.

[Josefine]

[QUOTE=Josefine;88961]On the Creation of Money

Well, Moderator, I tried to move the contents of my post to appear the above thread as well, without success. Could you do it for me, please?
It is sometimes hard to know where to post as discussions cover many topics on many threads.