FIAT CURRENCY – HOW HUMANITY HAS BEEN ENSLAVED WITH DEBT

[Anonymous 42]

They just change the scale of money. S~~~ will cost more, but you will also make more.

Everyone’s missing the real demon here, it’s not the product we can’t afford, it the rate of expansion by governments! Government grows and grows with more and more taxes! The dollars barely stay in the economy for more than a couple weeks before it’s mopped up by taxation at every interval!

The only armor against this; do whatever you can to generate self worth! Circumventing the tax chipper that eats quad-trillions of dollars to pay for foolish endeavors by narrowminded people that have inherently seized too much power!

When you provide for yourself using your god given ingenuity you’re depriving these fools the power (money) to control you! NOT liberating yourself from being dependent on the system for all your tax diluted needs, is a sure fire recipe for poverty, and an ever expanding welfare state.

Take the attack on coal and oil-well drilling by this president <VOMIT>, I was going to switch to clean coal technology by burning pea coal anthracite.
Dear leader says; NO MG-Tower, you’re going to do the things we tell you, in spite the fact they’re not affordable, and you’ll just have to go without, or shiver all winter.

I’m burning wood, plastic, and used motor oil, why? $4.00 dollars a gallon for dirty s~~~ #2 oil!
No thanks El manipulator to enrich your buddies, I’m opting for free heat, where I don’t shiver to save what few pennies I can before the tax chipper takes everything!

The powers that be, have created an event horizon using laws that are self defeating…

Just down the street from me is house that has needed a roof for more than a decade, another built on the dam has just split in two, and half of it is upside down after rolling over, while other sections in town enjoy much better and safer living conditions. We’re headed for a system where only rich and poor are the living standard, and we can thank it all on greed and corruption!

Nothing is more threatening (to the powers that be), than a nation armed and being driven into utter poverty! The guns will be confiscated for the sake of their remaining in total tyrannical control.

Throughout history, when people are disarmed, the killing fields yield multiple victims! Like sheep to the slaughter! BANK on it!

[NotMyProblemParticipant 965]

I see your point. I think it’s true that the world is decentralizing. Many centralized institutions will no longer be viable in the future.

I just don’t see it happening overnight. In the meantime, we still need a way of transacting.

What happens when the pump for your aquaponics system breaks? Does a robot just craft a new one and give it to you for free?

Someone still needs to set things up, whether it’s an aquaponics system or its writing the software to automate. No one is going to do that for free, just because they like you. As far as 3d printing, you still need to purchase the raw materials from time to time.

I can see trade being less and less necessary over time. But going away completely? I doubt it. Everything in life is temporary. Expenses will always keep coming up.

I’m totally with you on what your saying though. I’m big on the self-sufficiency thing myself. Have you calculated the costs for buying land, aquaponics, solar panels, etc etc? Solar panels are only good for 20 years before you gotta replace them. Nothing lasts forever.

This is why I work and save my money. So I can buy some land and set myself up.

Not my property... Not my problem

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Yes MG-Tower, but the rate of expansion of government is fueled by central banks and fiat currency, therefore they are the real demons. When a government doesn’t cooperate with them, they use other governments and military to kick them back in line. The game is international

[NotMyProblemParticipant 965]

If people aren’t inherently selfish when it comes to money, prove it.

Ill generate a bitcoin address and you can send me $100 anonymously through this forum.

Not my property... Not my problem

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

NotMyProblem wrote:

I see your point. I think it’s true that the world is decentralizing. Many centralized institutions will no longer be viable in the future.

I just don’t see it happening overnight. In the meantime, we still need a way of transacting.

What happens when the pump for your aquaponics system breaks? Does a robot just craft a new one and give it to you for free?

You’ll be able to print the parts using materials you’ve made from plants that you have grown. Look at all the uses for hemp. Plants are free. Nature is free. I don’t have to pay the Earth for plants. It’s only people who force other people to pay. You want to be “Sovereign”? That’s what independence is. It’s sovereignty, the right not to be ruled, the right to be independent and not need anyone else, and be the master and controller of your own destiny. Technology is going to do that.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

NotMyProblem wrote:

If people aren’t inherently selfish when it comes to money, prove it.

Ill generate a bitcoin address and you can send me $100 anonymously through this forum.

This is cute, but I literally don’t have a dollar to my name. I have no job, no car, and I currently live with my mother. If I had an abundance of money, I’d be glad to send you $100. It’s easy to be generous when you have abundance. You just proved my point. It’s the artificial scarcity of the economic system that causes people to be stingy. Like wise there are many rich people who are extremely generous and simply GIVE millions of dollars to charities, organizations, etc. Kickstarter’s aren’t funded by people who are broke. You cannot refute the truth

[NotMyProblemParticipant 965]

I understand what your saying. I think overall the world is becoming more abundant.

The more technology advances, the cheaper everything will become, even with the government hell bent on f~~~ing things up.

If I had abundance, I would totally donate a portion of it and try making the world a better place…

So I get your point. And yes I’m trying to be independent, same as you. I love solar, 3D printers, and don’t get me started about aquaponics and permaculture. I have tons of books on those subjects sitting on my bookshelf behind me.

All I’m saying is lets imagine a world where we are on a 100% gold standard. No fractional reserve fiat money. Forget about Bitcoin.. Too experimental.

Do you think the world would be a more abundant place if we had real money, as opposed to currency?

Now imagine a world without money. You have to go mine the silica yourself and all the various parts to assemble a solar panel.

Does that sound abundant?

You see what I’m getting at? We can create independence and self sufficiency in our lives, but we still need money to get there.

We can’t just snap our fingers and have it all set up the way we want.

Money allows us to specialize in something, which reduces friction in commerce. Say you learn how to program and make 100,000 a year.

Now you can store your economic energy and trade it for solar panels and 3D printers.

Without money you have to either build a solar panel with your bare hands, or you have to go find someone who has a panel and then trade them a good or service that you possess. No one is going to just give you that stuff in our current world of scarcity.

Not my property... Not my problem

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

NotMyProblem wrote:

Do you think the world would be a more abundant place if we had real money, as opposed to currency?

Now imagine a world without money. You have to go mine the silica yourself and all the various parts to assemble a solar panel.

Does that sound abundant?

You see what I’m getting at? We can create independence and self sufficiency in our lives, but we still need money to get there.

Without money you have to either build a solar panel with your bare hands, or you have to go find someone who has a panel and then trade them a good or service that you possess. No one is going to just give you that stuff in our current world of scarcity.

1. [Do you think the world would be a more abundant place if we had real money, as opposed to currency?] Absolutely. It would be even better without taxation clamps to fix people into their roles into society, but again, if people become too wealthy it’s difficult to get them to serve you, because most of them have other things they would rather be doing.
2. [Now imagine a world without money. You have to go mine the silica yourself and all the various parts to assemble a solar panel.] Why would I mine it myself when I can have a robot do it? I don’t need mass quantities for just myself. I’d just have to locate some. Likewise, once we are able to travel the galaxy, we can send robots to other planets to mine things for us. You’re just not grasping the concept that humans will eventually minimize the need for labor. The most work we’d have to do is maintain and program the robots, but as you can already see with open source, once the framework for programs is done, there won’t even really be a need for that. People will be programming just for fun. Possibly battle bots like big kids XD
3. [You see what I’m getting at? We can create independence and self sufficiency in our lives, but we still need money to get there.] Yes, of course, a transition has to be made. I’d be a fool to disagree with that, and I agree that abolishing fiat currency and replacing it with real money would be a good first step in that direction.
4[No one is going to just give you that stuff in our current world of scarcity.] I’ve already disproven this by referencing programs such as kickstarter.com and very generous rich people. Not all rich people are evil, especially the ones who built their businesses from the ground up with honest labor. In fact, recently groups of entrepreneurs are banding together to change things in an effort called “Voice and Exit”. You should check it out.

[NotMyProblemParticipant 965]

It sounds like you want to be passive. Just sit there and wait for Men to go create technologies to make life more abundant.

And then finally in 20 or 30 years, the world will be so abundant that people will just give you stuff for free.

See what I mean? You are looking for a free lunch. It doesn’t exist.

I used to think like you, so I get your point of view. It took me a while for the lightbulb to go off in my own head.

You can’t look “out there” for someone to give you the things you want, or to set up life to be some perfect wonderland.

You have to look within yourself, and set up your perfect life. No matter which way to look at it, you still have to provide something of value to the world, if you want to receive something of value from the world.

Not my property... Not my problem

[NotMyProblemParticipant 965]

When I was younger my old man kicked my ass to get out of bed and go to work. As soon as I turned 14.

He forced me to turn off the video games and go get a job. I remember thinking that he was a prick at the time.

Now looking back I realize it was the best thing he ever did for me.

I remember him driving me to my first job, and seeing an old guy riding a bike on the side of the road, with a little flag sticking out the back.

He told me son, if you don’t work, that’s all your gonna have. A stupid little bike with a flag sticking out the back.

Not my property... Not my problem

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Veniversum wrote:

The reason money is obsolete, is because labor can be automated. At some point, it will, and then labor will be impossible to sell anymore.

I keep hearing about labor automation and the “real economy”… where is this concept coming from? I’d like to hear the rhetoric straight from the source.

“Money IS obsolete because labor WILL BE automated.” <– check your tense here. When labor IS automated, then we can talk about whether money IS obsolete. So far, a lot of labor has been automated, ideally with the result of moving former laborers into higher value producing opportunities. Those who have been incapable of adapting and moving up the value chain have fallen below the waterline of economic usefulness and have become wards of the state, living on the “technology dividend” that increased productivity and efficiency have produced over the generations.

Now, whether or not we should, as a society, continue to carry the economically useless along with us is another point of debate entirely, but ideally we want to reach a point of 100% unemployment where nobody has to do “work” (which I will define as effort expended for purely economic purposes) at which point we will still need to reward people for creativity, art, new ideas, service rendered and so forth… which is already what most of our economic output consists of today, anyway.

Money is not driven by labor, comrade, it’s driven by value production. If you think the money you get is a material representation of the time and effort you have expended, you are sadly on the wrong track. Maybe this is the logic that drives people to demand “living wages” that have nothing to do with the value of their output… but althoug time has been the metric of payment during the Industrial Age (when everyone was little more than a button pushing monkey) we are now in a world where your pay should and increasingly will be determined by the value of what you do.

So no, I’m afraid money is not obsolete. Maybe your time and labor will be, but money is not.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

And this idea that we’re going to starve the government to death by taking away fiat currency is the equivalent of saying we!re going to starve the dog by taking away its bowl. You think that dog isn’t going to find another way to eat?

There are three ways to end the welfare state:

1) convince the people that self-reliance is more important than mere survival
2) decide as a society that people who can’t fend for themselves don’t deserve to live
3) stop producing anything that can be confiscated and redistributed

Number 1 could take an entire generation and will be very difficult to do so I suspect this is not going to work, certainly not in the short term and probably not at all. Number 2 will only work once we come to some point of crisis where survival depends on individual productivity… this is more likely than not the way we’re headed. Number 3 is probably what will precipitate that crisis.

Just a few weeks ago I took a pounding here for saying that anyone who couldn’t pay their own bills was a loser… I stand by that statement and reiterate it here. If someone else (a boyfriend, your father, the government) is paying your bills, you are a woman… a parasite… with no responsibility and undeserving of any voice or even of basic survival except what you can suck out of someone else’s dick, literally or figuratively.

If this is you, money is not the problem, you and your ilk are… people who produce less than they consume while loudly demanding entitlements and special treatment in order to head off criticism and much deserved ejection from society. Your type want to get rid of work and money because your inability to do the former and earn the latter identifies you for what you are… but it’s you we need to get rid of. Those of us who produce value and earn a commensurate reward will be perfectly fine when you’re gone,

It’s r/K theory in a nutshell. You are incapable of competing for limited space and resources so you imagine a world where resource abundance occurs by magic and competition is banned. This is your r-selected thinking made into social policy. Your resource abundance is imaginary, however, because those resources aren’t “natural economy”, they’re the results of someone else’s hard work and ingenuity today or someone who designs, engineers, builds, programs, maintains and improves the robots you expect are going to give you everything you want tomorrow. You live in a K type reality and the sooner you and your litter of pink-eyed siblings die off, the better off those of us who are willing to invest in producing real value for ourselves will be.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

I’ve never heard the term “real economy” so I have no idea what you are talking about. Point taken on the tense issue with money. Who gets to decide who is “economically useless”, Doc? I have spent my entire life honing my music skills, which are not marketable because people no longer pay for music on the internet, but instead pirate it. Does that make me “economically useless”? How do you appraise the intrinsic value of a human being? You can’t. Furthermore, I’m a human being, not a f~~~ing tool. I don’t have to be useful to someone else. If I want to mind my own business, and provide only for myself, I should be able to, and anyone who attempts to prevent me from doing so is deserving of violence. The way you are talking is that if people don’t agree to slavery, then they should just die. Do you *really* think like that? Value production? That’s a joke. Value extraction is more like it. The more people you can harness the production from, the more you get paid. The people who have the most money aren’t the ones making things happen. Their employees are. Self reliance is not authorized by government. It is not the prerogative of society to decide for someone else whether they deserve to live or not. Only NAZI’s think like that. “Society” is also a fiction created by the ruling class to convince the public that doing what’s best for the ruling class, is actually better for everyone, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. Fascism, communism and national socialism all share in common the explicit premise that the individual must subordinate himself to society’s needs, or as Hitler would phrase it: ‘Society’s needs come before the individual needs. You must be getting ready to vote for Hilary Clinton. What you are saying here to me now is very different than what you said to me at my introduction: “I’m guessing you’re now in your mid to late 30s and that you’re technically adept, artistically expressive and willing to do hard work under difficult conditions. And you’re clearly articulate and possessing of self awareness. That makes you a better person than 90% of the people I know. Definitely not a loser, just needing to make a transition. There’s no shame in that.” But NOW, suddenly I’m a loser again because I’m saying that people shouldn’t be forced to pay in order to exist. “Government is founded on property, Property is founded on conquest, Conquest is founded on power, All power is founded on brain and brawn.”
― Ragnar Redbeard, Might is Right The issue isn’t that people produce less than they consume. The issue is that the extra wealth they create is stolen from them via taxes and inflation. If I had the money back that I have actually earned that I was required by law to pay, or was stolen from me via inflation ($-95%), I would have plenty of money to live on right now. The hamster wheel is intentional, and the taxes are for clamping people into serfdom. Your “produce less than they consume” statement, sounds just like what George Bernard Shaw said when he was sympathizing for the Nazi’s https://youtu.be/hQvsf2MUKRQ. YOU are the one infected with the ideologies created by the ruling class. Hell the central banks would LOVE everything you are saying. Hell you might even get elected president to go through and kill all of the impoverished people. They will gladly fund genocide for you. Resource abundance is NOT imaginary. There’s a reason why the law prevents people from simply producing their own goods, and why people are forced to pay taxes on land that they own. If people were allowed independence, they wouldn’t have to be worker drones. There is a reason why family farms are being attacked by big Agriculture and biotech industries. Government WILL starve to death without their fiat currency. Greece just recently proved that. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you should have a look at it. Could you be any more condescending and disgusting sir? Really? Pink Eyed siblings? I have earned my way. Even you have to acknowledge that the people have been stolen from since day 1.. and you are actually going to argue that they don’t have money because they do not create value? You have no argument sir. None. All we have to do is compare the value of the dollar in the 60’s to what it is now. You’re either for freedom, or you are for slavery, and if you advocate slavery you are my enemy.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

“It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase in population must be limited by it, at least after the food has been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. … To act consistently, therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operation of nature in producing this mortality, and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases: and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased … we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty and yet few be absolutely starved.” – Thomas Malthus.

Are you a Malthusian Doc? You might be the next Hitler.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Veniversum wrote:

Who gets to decide who is “economically useless”, Doc?

The “invisible hand” of a free market does. If nobody is willing to exchange the tokens of their time, effort, intelligence and creativity for your products and services, then you are, by definition, economically useless.

This has nothing to do with your intrinsic value as a human… but bear in mind than in a society where there is no collectivist safety net, no charitable individuals and no self-sacrificing suckers, if you can’t catch, you don’t eat. In these circumstances, your intrinsic value is effectively zero… unless you can care for yourself or convince someone else to feed, clothe and shelter you, you will die.*

r-adjusted individuals require that safety net, K-adjusted ones do not. Right now, with the growth of collectivism, identity politics, bleeding-heart liberalism and the welfare state, the r-types appear to have the upper hand… they can survive and do well by living off the confiscated value of the K-types. But come the crisis, those collectivists will be the first ones up against the wall. The real world is K-type and if you aren’t an individualist, able to take care of yourself and fairly exchange real value for value with other individualists, you’ll be f~~~ed when there is no longer anyone willing to expend their resources to pay your way.

This is what MGTOW say to women and their children of other men and it’s what I say to parasite manginas pretending to be MGTOW. Just to be clear, I am not judging you or anyone, I don’t have to. Reality will. It’s up to you to decide which way that judgement is going to go.

*Note that I have said nothing about producing for other people. You are not producing for them, you are producing for you. But you need them to consume what you produce in order to be able to consume what they produce (economics!) unless you intend to live by yourself on a magical island.

And as for taxation and interest… produce only what you need, borrow nothing and promise to give nothing to anyone else and neither will apply to you, Interest is only meaningful to people trying to consume beyond their ability to produce and taxes are only meaningful to people who want to confiscate what someone else has produced. If you fear taxation and interest, you would be far better off embracing my individualistic world view than supporting the collectivist one, if indeed you are.

[Tiga KParticipant 1693]

I think I agree with just about everything Doc is saying except for the pretending to be MGTOW part. Sure, self sufficiency leads to one better living their own way, but that is not a requirement in my definition of mgtow. As long as a man rejects society’s blue pill way (the one that leads to marriage), he is going his own way. That said, I’m not really understanding Veni’s stance on the issue. I am also a parasite since I live with my parents, but I recognize that I don’t deserve it and I plan on being self sufficient soon after I graduate college.

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Doc, you claim to be an individualist but you subscribe to society. You make no sense to me. Your philosophy that people who can’t produce what society decides it has a use for should just die, is collectivist…period. Not only that, but it’s 100% communist/socialist. If the market decides what I do is obsolete, then I am obsolete as a result? That’s collectivist bulls~~~. Hitler talks exactly like that in the overpopulation section of “Mein Kampf”. There are plenty of people who add no real value to society who have millions of dollars. I AM an individualist, which is precisely why I think it should be an option for people not to participate in an economy. I am well capable and strong enough to take care of myself on my own piece of land. It’s because I don’t currently have something to offer someone else that you think I deserve to die. That’s Nazi ideology.. and banker ideology. That’s precisely how they have enslaved the entire globe to fiat currency. Sorry sir, but your entire ideological framework is as evil as it gets.

[Bob BashboshParticipant 160]

What a fascinating debate. I think everyone has made a lot of valid points and I’m still trying to digest them all but on the whole, I’ve got to side with Veni on this one, after all, ‘value’ is, for the most part, subjective. I know very little of economics and finance but isn’t it possible to retain the useful facility of currency as a bartering instrument without it becoming a means of enslavement?

[VeniversumParticipant 492]

Bob Bashbosh wrote:

I know very little of economics and finance but isn’t it possible to retain the useful facility of currency as a bartering instrument without it becoming a means of enslavement?

No, because psychopaths will always use violence and superior weaponry to control the money supply, justifying that they deserve it simply because they are capable of it.. and because drones go around unwittingly parroting Social Darwinism and Nazi ideologies because they have unknowingly been programmed by the social engineering. They have had their beliefs furnished to them by the ruling class, instead of entering critical and independent thought, themselves. If we could cure psychopathy, medically, then maybe we might have a chance.

[Bob BashboshParticipant 160]

Veniversum wrote:

No, because psychopaths will always use violence and superior weaponry to control the money supply, justifying that they deserve it simply because they are capable of it. If we could cure psychopathy, medically, then maybe we might have a chance.

I’m inclined to agree with you Veni but isn’t that more of a reflection on those psychopaths than it is on currency per se? Almost anything with a useful facility can be abused in the wrong hands. I know the MGTOW ‘way’ is one of dignity and stoicism but how does one defend oneself from a system that refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of individualism? Or to put it another way, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you, along with several other individuals, purchase/lay claim to an Island in the middle of the pacific, far from the notional sovereignty of existing civilisations with the intention of creating an egalitarian, individualist Utopian commune. How would you implement a form of economics that facilitated the equitable distribution of resources according to each inhabitants needs, wants and entitlements?

[Author]

Posts