Star Trek / End of money for society

[ozmirage]

Posted by Justplain (here)
Hi Ozmirage, by 'diatribe' i meant long discourse, not anything more sinister. I respect your right to freedom of expression and to hold your own view.

In response to your points, and trying to get back on the topic of this thread:

1) Money supply, or more like lack of it, has been linked to economic downturns, no doubt. I believe Milton Friedman, the nobel laureat economist, identified multiple recessions in US history linked to money shortage that he believed the government could have averted.

In the context of a no money economy as described in star trek, the demand for goods is met by technology that produces what is needed. That scenario is not yet feasible here, but as stated in an earlier post in this thread, if new technology continues to emerge like zero point energy and 3D printers, then we may be closer to realizing that goal. In this scenario, supply matches demand and no need for currency.

2) US currency valuation: your info just confirms my contention that american fiat notes only have 'value' because people assign it value. It may be worthless paper according to the law, but people 'prize' it, so it has value, just as 'credits' would in a barter network. Case in point is the valueless german mark after WW2, no value cuz no one believed it had any.

In star trek economy terms, we never got exposed in the series to the complexities of a national economy, and how that would work, although i believe Deep Space 9 had some kind of galactic currency i believe. I think that in any case these currencies are 'fiat' because they only have value if the trading participants see it as such, so it doesnt matter if the currency is 'backed' by something because if no one values the 'backing' commodity then what is the currency worth? If gold was as abundant as limestone who would value it highly?

A currency has value if people have confidence in it, period.

3) Asset valuation: as stated earlier in this thread, assets on the market can be traded by cash or asset swaps or by issuing corporate stocks or bonds. Only cash is dependent on money in circulation. Other asset valuation is done via estimates, such as in-ground mineral wealth. Bonds (iou's between companies) are called commercial paper. All these methods of exchanging asset values without cash are used to bypass lack of available currency .

A way the central bank helps the process is by the overnight settlement process, where banks that have lent out more cash than they are permitted by deposit reserve requirements borrow the needed cash from the central bank.

From a star trek viewpoint, this type of asset valuation will probably have some continued use for mega ptojects, etc. I think asset valuation on a personal level may not have much meaning if all your personal need requirements for food, housing, health care, education and entertainment are provided at no 'cost', what is the need for amassing wealth?

4) Usury: i can understand the concerns of overcharging interest on loaned money. Again, to me, if regulated properly, interest is a cost of doing business. Otherwise, an individual or company may not obtain the assets they desire. I think that borrowing money is a personal choice.

To me, 'madness' arises when one borrows more than one can reasonably hope to repay, like our governments and many households. Then one becomes a debt slave, as seen in Greece, or where many western governments are headed.

In star trek, i dont believe individuals take on debt since everything is provided by the state and the technology. Obviosly large projects that the technology cant quickly provide for, have to be organized to produce for, such as building a city, space station or starship. This would probably involve some sort of budgeting and financing. But at that level i believe they would be state owned and controlled.

So that leads us to the problem of oversight. As in star trek and current times, the persons making the decisions on resource allocations is a key factor. I never saw star trek address this issue clearly, star fleet was set up on a military/corporate model of top down authority, with obedience of underlings being key to operations. I can see some necessity for that in organized activities, but it only works well with well informed and ethical leadership.

As current times show, we now need our government oversight to be ethical and accountable, and subject to democratic oversight, not controlled by special interest groups with self-serving agendas. I believe this is the great issue of currents times, making our governments accountable to the interests of common people. How we deal with this now will determine how the star trek society of the future deals with it. I believe we are smart and well educated enough to get the job done.

1) Money supply, or more like lack of it, has been linked to economic downturns, no doubt. [AGREED, BUT NOT FOR THE REASONS STATED]

2) US currency valuation.
This is the "sticking point." You assume current monies = money. I will try to be brief and not bury you in legalese.
"Federal Reserve Notes" are worthless securities emitted by a bankrupt government that are DEBT - therefore NOT fiat. They are LEGAL TENDER on obligated parties on said note. (Title 12 USC Sec. 411 lists the government as an obligated party).

“ The said notes shall be obligations of the United States ...and shall be receivable ... for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.”
- - - 12 USC Sec. 411

The rest of the sheeple are obligated parties on the debt, via FICA / Social Security Act of 1935. (See: "Contribution" in any legal reference). No, FICA is NOT insurance, saith the Supreme court. It's just a tax and bribe scam.

It has NOTHING to do with public confidence, and everything to do with LAW.

TENDER - An offer of money ... Legal tender is that kind of coin, money, or circulating medium which the law compels a creditor to accept in payment of his debt, when tendered by the debtor in the right amount.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1467

[Note: FRNs are legal tender on the obligated party of those notes - the Federal government. . . AND the 320 million enumerated socialists.]

. . .

"Federal reserve notes are legal tender in absence of objection thereto."
MacLeod v. Hoover (1925) 159 La 244, 105 So. 305

. . .
Enumerated "Human Resources" (via FICA) can not object to the tender of "their" notes.
. . .
Furthermore CONgress has no power to CREATE money. It is empowered to coin money (stamp bullion) or borrow money (like NOTES). It cannot create bullion. Nor can it give such a power to anyone else.
. . .
Restating, since 1933, no lawful money has circulated, with which to "pay debt." Since that year - the start of the EMERGENCY - everyone fell to a low status at law (bankrupt / pauper / indigent) and came under a host of rules and regulations under the Federal governments' power over bankruptcy.

3) Asset valuation: as stated earlier in this thread, assets on the market can be traded by cash or asset swaps or by issuing corporate stocks or bonds.
True. But how do you explain the DEBT? No creditor lends "assets" at usury. He either lends money or extends credit, at usury.

You cannot have "asset evaluation" of 269.6 trillion -and- debts of 145.8 trillion -with only- 1.4 trillion in circulation... (in dollar bills, with no par value, no less!) It would mean that the whole supply of paper notes had cycled 104 times to wrack up that amount of debt.
I M P O S S I B L E.
-or-
F R A U D U L E N T.

4) Usury: i can understand the concerns of overcharging interest on loaned money. Contrary to the modern definition, usury means ANY INTEREST, in money, for the use of money.

Usury is mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system. Due to the exponential equation used to calculate compound interest, an infinite money supply is needed. Since this is impossible, a portion of debtors shall default simply because enough money can never exist for all to pay their debts. (This goes back to my point about "not enough money.")

To add salt to the wound, Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) are borrowed into existence AT USURY. Which means that CONgress has to have a perpetual deficit to authorize borrowing MORE with which to pay the outstanding interest due.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET...T-2015-BUD.pdf
● 2015 Federal Deficit $312 billion (estimate)
● 2015 Debt Service $252 billion (estimate)

CONgress is borrowing MORE than it pays in interest on the existing debt.
And this INSANITY cannot be challenged pursuant to Clause 4, 14th amendment, USCON.

● 14th amendment, Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned.

Are you still not sure that the world is barking mad?

One last example, re: usury.

I previously wrote that USURY is mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system.

http://www.monetary.org/a-brief-hist...terest/2010/12

In 1836 John Whipple, an American lawyer, showed the impossibility of sustaining long term metallic usury in this fashion:

" If 5 English pennies... had been invested ... at 5 per cent compound interest from the beginning of the Christian era until the present time, it would amount in gold of standard fineness to 32,366,648,157 spheres of gold each eight thousand miles in diameter, or as large as the earth."

To pay usury over the long term, would require THIRTY TWO BILLION EARTH SIZED SPHERES OF GOLD. (Is that impossible enough for you?)

....
You, too, can play along . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_value

To further illustrate unsustainability of usury:
Future Worth (FV), based on Present Value (PV)

FV = PV x (1+ interest)^time
Let N = total sum of money tokens
Let PV = 0.1N = 10% of N, the amount invested at 6% per annum, compounded daily

How long does it take for the investment to match whole sum of money tokens?

(N/0.1N) = (1 + .06/365)^ time units
Solving for time units
time units = log (N/0.1N) / log (1 + .06/365)
time units = log (1/0.1)/ log (1 + .06/365)
14008.54 days
38.37 years

After this point, the outstanding obligation will exceed the whole set of money tokens, making repayment IMPOSSIBLE.

Can you now perceive why eCONomists are apologists for usury and have no trouble using a variable (current monies) as their unit of measure, and come up with "asset evaluations" that are nothing short of INSANE?

The Emperor (of eCONomics) IS Nekkid!

And to paraphrase "Soylent Green" - - -
"Tell them, tell them that dollar bills are PEOPLE."

[ozmirage]

END OF ?

In America's case, if 97% of Americans withdrew from FICA, the "dollar bill" would be undercapitalized and those non-participants could OBJECT to the tender of worthless notes. Thus billionaires* become zero-aires, over night. And since no government instituted to secure rights can tax rights, all those pesky taxes on privileges tied to "dollar bills" are eliminated.

Reducing the Federal Budget by 97% is a good start, not a finish. Withdrawing from socialism, usury, gambling, underwriting (insurance) and other abominations will have a massive effect on the economic system. Prepare for an economic [expletive deleted] storm, as the lack of tax revenues, inability to borrow, and other factors put the Federal government behind the Eight Ball. Without funds to pay for the military, it’s a good bet that the two Asian unWars would be effectively over. Hopefully, the personnel will be able to get transport back home. As to the material and weaponry abroad in bases, etc., - - - who can tell? Perhaps former adversaries will generously offer transport home.

The point at which the Federal Reserve Note is no longer fungible nor acceptable as tender, will mean the end of international trade denominated in “dollar bills.” It will affect the economies of countries that use the “dollar bill” as their local currency - such as Panama. It will cripple international trade in petroleum - until a new reference is established. And it will cause a massive shock to all usurers / financiers. I would not be surprised if they fomented wars just to get business back.

Sadly, the remedy, though effective, will not result in a peaceful transition, if human nature is any guide.

The nature of usury is cyclical destruction. The nature of socialism (collectivism) is enslavement and dispossession. The nature of democracy is eventual collapse, once the majority votes to dispossess the minority. Combine all three, and you get the current mess we’re in.

It Won't End Well.


(*If you assume that "wealthy" people "own" assets, remember this tidbit: pursuant to the constitution, only gold or silver coin "pay debt." Since 1933, no American "paid debt." No one can establish title to anything purchased with worthless notes. We're talking "the law" - not what we're told to believe. Billionaires truly become zero-aires, owning NOTHING, by law, once their paper wealth evaporates.)

[halcyon026]

I am really liking the Ubuntu movement out of Africa that is a no money, no government 'system'. They use contributionism for handling the communities needs. So say you take a community of 30,000. Each person works 3 hours per week. You now have 90,000 hours of community services happening every week for free. Think how much it would cost in our current system to pay out 90,000 hours to politicians/government workers each week.

This type of 'system' also does something else great for us. In a money system it's always about creating more jobs, in a no money society the opposite would be true, we would be designing ways to eliminate jobs, making robots and machines that do it for us. So we aren't paying for 90,000 hours a week to clean toilets, serve food, etc, we have machines doing that. We put those 90,000 hours into alternative energy, ending hunger, clean water around the world, technologies that benefit the people (not the Cabal).

Part of the way communities would work also is by generating 3x it's needs, so 1/3 goes to the local community, 2/3 goes out to the rest of the world. So at a larger scale we are still giving and receiving technologies, foods, etc from all around the world. Say the Bay Area might be designing the latest and greatest XYZ (whatever it is), the idea is that they don't keep it to themselves, they pass it along to the rest of us, then we get better/faster at what we do and that compounds across the globe. Imagine a world where all of us have access to the leading tech, no patents, no secrets, etc. & only working 3 hours per week. Star Trek!

Michael Tellinger is leading this Ubuntu movement, he also believes in ancient aliens, free energy technology being hidden from us, etc. So part of his push is also that we the people get those technologies, every home has free energy, replicators, etc. The technology already exists, it's just in the hands of Psycho's, IMO.


I believe going to a no money society and evolving as humans go hand in hand. If we evolve consciously, we won't need/use money.

I believe the barter system & money both have a weak point in them, that ruins the whole system. With both barter and money, 1 person or a group of persons can still capitalize and end up owning far more than others, and thus start controlling.
Say 25 farmers decide they want to control the food supply in a town, they could still use a barter system to their benefit and come out ahead & owning the town.

In a barter system, one group may still war with another. As long as items have a perceived value and you have to earn it, you will have people killing and fighting. You can still have corruption, people abusing the system.

In a barter system I'd also wonder if we'd be dumb enough to keep allow patents, which means 1 person or group of persons can have the corner on some fancy farming tool or water purifier and start demanding more to be traded for it. Something else we could eliminate in a no money society.

I honestly think the no money society is the best answer to a peaceful, non-Cabal, non-government, non-corruption society. If everyone has everything they need, access to all the latest tech, health care, etc, who would you need to war with?