Image text:
This is the promissory note of a private corporation. KB 462798601 82 KB 46279860I 11E, 100 It is not backed by anything of value. The entire economy is based around the shuffling of IOU notes, which only exist because of a belief that it is of real value. It is because we have allowed a private corporation to take over the money supply that the national debt exists, a debt that cannot be repaid.
Shared via https://contex.st
Let's a little more cllear and honest.
It isn't really a private corporation, it is a semi public entity that can be shut down at any time, and also whichust give all profits back to the US Treasury.
The fed presidents and chair are all publicly nominated and confirmed with term limits.
Congress can audit anytime they want, they can kill it, change it, restrict it.
They choose not to.
You do not need fiat or the fed to run a deficit and rack up debt. That is completely untrue and counter to history.
Prior to 1913, the US government has plenty of debts. It is easier with the fed and fiat, absolutely. But countries have always borrowed and debased 'sound money'.
Everything in life only has value because Use a belief it does collectively.
The dollar, gold, oil, Bitcoin.
There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Bitcoin has value because we say it does.
“The fed presidents and chair are all publicly nominated and confirmed with term limits.”
wow, nostr:nprofile1qqsg4mwgw9sgr8jfpjcpv2ktmry6ymteuc7mwn6mrdje8yqjjf987pgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qy8hwumn8ghj77npwqh8wct5vd5q0s44ez that’s the only thing he got correct in his entire post.
but it doesn’t matter.
our entire monetary system comes from the unholy marriage of politican and banker.
the entire “no intrinsic value” thing is a purely subjective concept of value, which is behind incoherent.
good thing I explain it philosophically in my book for laypeople.
On track to be out end of june
Are you fucking kidding? Everything I wrote was accurate.
Was there US debt before 1913? Yes.
Have governments always had debt and debased their currency? Yes.
Does the fed have to give all profits back to the Treasury? Yes.
Can Congress end it? Yes.
Can Congress audit or control it? Yes.
What you value and I value are different. There fore nothing has intrusive value. You may value your book. If your note is any indication, I wouldn't.
So again, what was innacurate?
that’s the problem with fiat debt-based money, the word “debt” itself becomes incoherent.
when civilizations debase money, they soon cease to exist.
giving profits back, what does that have to do with anything? the extraction of productive energy occurs through debasement, the expansion of the money supply.
ending, auditing, oversight, all just an elaborate show to make people think it’s not what it is.
if value was purely subjective, then there is nothing logically wrong with fiat. it’s valuable because we say so
a gnostic speculative fantasy
but there is this thing called objective reality, we all exist in it.
value is hylomorphic, both objective and subjective.
work, expended energy toward an end, objectively grounds all value in reality.
yes, we subjectively value things differently, but value not tethered to objective reality is logically invalid.
it’s not your fault, most people aren’t philosophers and aren’t capable of examining their thoughts to ensure the logic is valid all the way down to metaphysical bedrock
that’s why u need my book. then you can be your own node and reject the stupid incoherent bullshit people mutter
I don't think you understand what people mean when they talk about a subjective theory of value, unless I missed something. I'm seeing a lot of needless arguing about definitions and failure to understand each other.
i understand Mises, he mistakes a partial truth for the whole.
unfortunately, this causes much confusion
How do i get there?
Go east.
it’s not “wrong” but it’s not a complete or sufficient answer
but that provides a market opportunity to write on the subject
Interesting perspective. I really think there are just multiple (objective or subjective) standards of value for subjective value in the sense that the Austrians mean it, and there is also another type of value, the value at exchange, which is part of a broader objective cost (what is being given up, what does the actor forfeit? this can be an input into a standard of value system)
Like I thought that it was obvious that Mises and Menger were not giving a complete solution to what people do value nor what they should value, they were not trying to. There is no contradiction still in the core essentials of the economics they put forward.
That being said, it is one of my goals to learn the Aristotelian branch of philosophy better. I tend to agree with Aristoteleans on so very much stuff though I arrived at the conclusions entirely without a guide. That's always a good sign.
I don’t remember the exact quote off the top of my head but it’s something like “value is not inherent in the object, it is within us” -Mises
Thats the problem when you invert the order of operations,
Philosophy: metaphysics, anthropology, epistemology, ethics ALL come prior to economics.
when you skip over, it’s easy to build off incomplete information.
it’s ironic that the Austrians are the spear head against all the lunacy of today’s monetary system, yet they provided the axiomatic foundation for fiat: monetary gnosticism
value by decree
I understand there are different types of value, the issue is what creates it, brings it into existence, and a hylomorphic answer is the only logically valid one
Yeah it comes prior and everyone has their own version of it they develop as they grow up. I'll have to learn more about hylomorphic metaphysics to understand you any further, I've been meaning to get to it soon.
all good, funny how ideas laid out by Aristotle thousands of years ago end up being proven most relevant today.
when it’s true, it lasts
in my book, i do my best to explain hylomorphism for the average person, something that easily makes sense and can be applied day to day.
I have all the line citations in the footnotes if you wanted to read the relevant passages yourself
marx gets his labor theory of value wrong from the other direction.
which is why philosophy is so important, when you know metaphysically reality is hylomorphic, any “theory” that doesn’t account for “both” outs itself as not according to the whole, not addressing reality
“subjective value” vs “objective value”
is stupid because it’s both
What a long way to say your entire correction was accurate....
Everything you wrote was accurate but it was mere nitpicking. The original concept of the original note is essentially true, at least from a certain way of interpreting it. And the government and banking cartel are in some respects the same entity. The government provides the scaffolding for the member banks to have their immense say on monetary policy with immunity to questioning in the minds of the average person.
The government is just a large security corporation which is intimately involved with other corporations such as the Fed.
Yes, because I believe in at least trying to be accurate whenaking arguments/statements.
Bitcoiners, and especially NOSTR is full of philosophical nonsense that sounds great but isn't historically accurate, factual nor logical.
There are tons of issues with the fed, global fiat systems and government in general. We don't need hyperbole, nonsense, and falsehoods to persuade people.
People somehow fail to grasp however how things actually work. For instance for almost 2 years theoney supply has been shrinking. Yet if you talk toany bitcoiners they say and think that the fed and government is printing nonstop to cover their debt.
That isn't true, currently savings are being used to fuel the debt and spending, NOT monetary expansion.
That's an aside to this, but I think you get my point.
I see, so you want better precision in our language. I think maybe we are just speaking a different language, but the goal is still something I should consider. Federal deficit expansion has a met inflationary effect long term, because it pumps dollars into the system and those dollars have to come from somewhere, and they're basically being issued as federal debt, which is bought up by global investors or the Fed. When the investors don't feel it's attractive enough for the Fed's liking, the Fed will print and the money supply will increase. Until then it's a localized expansion of available dollars (an increase in supply, an inflation-like event) in the U.S., especially close to government contracts and whatnot, at the expense of dollars elsewhere. Not actually inflation of the money supply, but it tends toward more future expansion of the money supply, because the government is not incentivized to own up to its mistakes. So what we're saying on a long enough time scale is true. If we say that the Fed specifically is printing right now, well yeah that's false (aside from a little bit a few days ago there)
Not better precision, rather not untrue bullshit that 'feels.good'.
Yes, in some ways it can be inflationary to move from saved dollars to spend. In other ways however, it means less money is available to lend, buy products, buildings, inventory...
It's just different consumers and projects.
The current system skews natural forces heavily.
In the overall economy, I don't know that evidence suggests the direct transfer from savings of dollars to government causes direct inflation short term. Foreign investors that have dollars can certainly bid up real estate, stocks, Bitcoin, and many other direct assets. However they do not typically buy a bunch of retail food or clothes or whatever.
Long term you are absolutely right that the fed is merely bidding time until they start again to come to the rescue as savings dry up and leverage increases. Currently, the only reason the are able to shrink or maintain is due to the absolutely insane covid and 2021 cash inflows.
I believe we are on the same page overall cheers.
Yeah, I don't think we can really call fiscal expansion inflation at all if we are defining inflation as an expansion of the money supply, unless we call the debt instruments it uses money itself. Although, that debt could be thought of as a form of credit, so it could be considered (I think) an expansion of credit which drives production toward what the receiver of these funds (government) wants, pretty much immediately, and if this represents poor allocation of resources, it makes everyone worse off even though it was not technically monetary inflation. Keynesians like to pretend that the government either always or usually knows better than individuals, and their prescriptions, which bolster the current monetary order's perceived legitimacy and beneficence, rely entirely on that flimsy snuck premise. Add to this that there is precious little effective feedback to the government regarding its expenses and how to allocate them, and you can almost guarantee that every government program is a misuse of funds vs what the private market would do, and thus lowers living standards and dollar purchasing power by that opportunity cost. That does not mean that every single thing government officials or politicians do will be that bad of a misuse, Thomas Massie exists. But he is not the norm.
I have much more to learn as regards money, but yeah you and I are pretty much on the same page on this matter. Cheers!
I might be wrong on a lot of this. I'm still kind of a noob on monetary theory.
Congress Can But Never Will. Your point is laughable
The bankers own Congress
Do you tell people you are in debt to what to do???
The fed only owns a fraction of the overall us debt. I have no idea what the hell you are rambling about. Less than 15% and shrinking.
You seem to be confusing 'owned' with want to change. I said they can, didn't say they will. The point is they aren't a private company. That's a bullshit talking point that isn't true.
Ask yourself instead, why would Congress end the Fed? Not because they are owned by the banks. Rather it gives them power, money, and allowed they to never have to actually pullonry from constituents to pay for things.
