Do you know the European banking system was the reason of the revolutionary war? Do you really understand how the European banking system works? Do you know the founding father of the US and why they wrote the constitution? Do you know the Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by foregoing banks? Do you know what a promissory note is? Do you know a Federal Reserve note is a worthless promissory note?
Discussion
Even if any of that is true and accurate, what does it have to do with the fact that your pushing speculation as fact related to the note we're specifically talking about?
It’s all connected can’t you see??Creating credit (the opposite of money) out of thin air and loan it out at interest it’s the most profitable business on earth. That’s the reason why we lost 4 patriot American presidents history books hidden this facts from us.
I think is cristal clear at least you want to put your head under the sand.
The possibility of an explanation, that is, the absence of any refutation of it, does not indicate truth. You really are being intellectually dishonest here and I can't tell whether it's for ironic purposes.
Prove your claims with empirical evidence, not innuendo, and anger when people don't agree. You're making claims without any evidence establishing the truthfulness of them. If you honestly framed your speculation as speculation, I wouldn't have anything to say about it. But you're not. You're presenting speculation as fact, and relying on innuendo as your proof.
I am not angry. There’s plenty of proofs. I’ll be posting more about this soon, with dates, legislations, and their consequences. So stay tuned if you are interested, in finding the truth.
Just post direct evidence that Kennedy was killed by bankers, along with Lincoln and I'll spend the day proclaiming that you were right.
Obviously there is an alternative here: try to present the thing as a theory which may have merit (speculation but speculation to be inspected, taken seriously, and subject to scrutiny) and let everyone continue to hone in on evidence for or against, using incentives, facts that "connect" which might inform such incentives, etc., narrowing down the list of probable explanations and generating new ones. Each explanation has to be internally consistent to hold up, as well as to be able to be, in principle, confirmed or falsified by some DIRECT empirical facts.
It's called falsification, nostr:nprofile1qqsy6sd8e0ym0algfpx32jv64y2pcule5wwrwewvt4trr7s705mr8nqqsj590 , this is how you actually determine empirical facts which are highly dependent on contingencies, with a reasonable degree of confidence. Karl Popper might be a good read for you, he spawned this modern version of the scientific method. It is inferior to the Austrian method for economics, but it is great for determining historical facts and physical laws and whatnot.
There is nothing wrong with calling your theory mere speculation. It would actually allow us to take you more seriously.
Usury rules the world.. okay, now what? Do you have a solution for human attachment and greed? You can point out the 600 year tally sticks that led to the "stock" part of the Stock Market and the plethora of other usury acts but you still fail to grasp an ounce of empathy for usury's tragic necessity. Spend your energy elsewhere, thank good-fortune for BTC! #Bitcoin
"Usury" is just the result of individual acknowledgement of alternative processes that take time. You might as well say it is tragic and cruel that we have to work our way to the kitchen and make a sandwich before eating it. I'm glad you are at least convinced of its necessity. I wonder what can convince you of its benevolence and natural belonging as part of Creation.
You see necessity, I see manufactured inevitability.. but even saying '0% usury' feels like speaking an alien language. The mere suggestion meets resistance, not because it's impossible, but because few dare to imagine finance without extraction. Atomic transactability makes absolute kindness viable, yet the world recoils, conditioned to see interest as oxygen. If empathy for usury’s necessity exists, why not for its absence?
Do you think that a person's labor is as interchangeable as atoms of oxygen or as units of account on the ledger?
Labor isn’t oxygen, but 0% usury is just as natural when exchange is free from imposed cost. Bitcoin and atomic transactability make this possible, yet minds conditioned to rent time struggle to see it. If value can flow without toll, why cling to the gate? #Bitcoin
0% interest rates are possible, and may happen on a large scale in enough time. 0% usury is already the case because there is no such thing. You're using nonsense words.
You're arguing semantics while ignoring the actual issue. The question isn't whether 0% usury "exists".. it's whether we can imagine finance without extraction. If interest is "necessary" then why isn't kindness?
Btw Aristotle's definition of usury would interest you (pun intended).
I said nothing of kindness's necessity, and in my mind no implications have been made one way or the other regarding that. You are arguing within your own framework if ideas that I do not share.
What is extraction to you? What qualifies it, what are some examples?
The primal definition of usury, wealth which begets further wealth aka profiting from need, doesn't need to be an idea you or I share, it is a timeless idea. All I am arguing for is 0% usury, something last seen only in Ghadafi's Libya. Libya is a good example.. the last among the rare-few 0% mortgage rate nations to falter following the Bretton Woods termination.
What is extraction? Distraction preventing traction resulting in action. It’s the friction that impedes free exchange, the artificial barriers that divert wealth toward those who create nothing. What qualifies it? Any mechanism that enforces dependence rather than enabling sovereignty. #Bitcoin
Fascinating. You seem to be onto roughly the same goal as me, from a moral and utility standpoint, but you are depicting it as a strictly ethical phenomenon, that is, a dynamic that can be seen directly between interacting people. You're perceiving an external representation/indicator that I am only inferring through multiple steps of inspection into a man's thought patterns, his failure to allow for less friction in exchange by exercising his reason and pursuing his self interest within the NAP.
Also, who manufactured man's separation from his refrigerator? Is this manufactured alienation caused by the will of a human being? Which human being or beings? If not, who else manufactured this separation? I see nature. Nature everywhere. This is not merely manufactured by man. This is how we have always been. Wolves even must hunt for food. This takes time. There are costs incurred over time. What artificial imposition is made there? Does the wolf deserve instant gratification by nature of being a wolf? Does man deserve 0% cost money whenever he asks? But there is a cost to asking, he must expend energy! An injustice!! Do you demand pleasure domes with no values other than instant pleasure, constantly provided by nature? Who or what is imposing the cost? What is the standard of value?
You are very close. Yes, nature has costs, but no, the ones closest to the money supply didn’t get there by some divine law of wolves and refrigerators. Seigniorage has always let them siphon off value before it even reaches the rest of us, whether it was tally sticks, gold, or fiat. The real trick wasn’t just charging interest.. it was making people believe that not charging it was unnatural. If we can empathize with the necessity of usury, why not with the idea that we don’t have to rent time just to exist?
We’ve been so conditioned to see usury as "just how things are" that even imagining a system without it (thanks satoshi) makes people recoil like it's breaking physics. #Bitcoin
Seniorage, you mean first mover advantage? If so, then on the contrary, Bitcoin has that in common with gold. Fiat allows printing up money for free, which makes it far more imbalanced, and thus substantively different in terms of human interaction, since ethics seems to be what you are trying to distinguish. Gold and bitcoin both can be mined, moreso by those with the knowledge and positioning to do so. Fiat is privileged to a select few not in a free market, which would be merely unsustainable, but in a monopoly, which can extract value from people for a long, long time. This I guess you could argue is usury. But the key thing is that extraction of value is taking place arbitrarily against the consent of the people using the money (because they are forced via taxation and the police force that taxes pay for to use it), whereas in bitcoin, extraction is voluntary. Value will be derived from all participants in the network, as causality cannot be completely separated into private, discrete entities with no entanglements, and values are SUBJECTIVE.
In your prior comment you asked me what is extraction, yet here I see you speak of a different extraction. Indeed they are not different at all.. whether it’s fiat seigniorage siphoning value before it reaches people or a monopoly enforcing artificial scarcity, the mechanism remains the same: an imposed cost on participation.
The key distinction isn’t whether extraction exists, but whether it is voluntary or coercive, concealed or explicit. Fiat, taxation, and enforced debt function as inescapable tolls, while Bitcoin presents an alternative where participation itself is the price, but without an intermediary dictating terms. We are both on the same page here.
The real question isn’t whether extraction should exist.. it always has. The question is: who holds the power to impose it, and is that power just? If you are familiar with the1919 Gold Fixing and have been keeping up with today's 2020 Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism, then you will see there is no black and white answer, hence my original empathy. We have conversed quite a bit so I'll leave you with this:
"So I’ll get down upon my knees and bless the Working Man,
Who offers me a life of ease through all my mortal span;
Whose loins are lean to make me fat, who slaves to keep me free,
Who dies before his prime to get me round the century.
Whose wife and children toil in turn until their strength is spent,
That I may live in idleness upon my ten percent.
And if at times they curse me, why should I feel any blame,
For in my place, I know that they would do the very same.
(John Turmel, Thoughts of a Rich Man on Usury)"
You strike me as someone who is very familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. I have been meaning to read their work. Perhaps that will help me understand your perspective.
Here is my final thought: I completely agree that what makes money unjust is the justice of the method. Coercive monopoly is what is unjust to me, but I agree that we should strive to make transactions easy for people too. That's asking for a solution to everything now though, and is too difficult, even impossible a thing for people to just suddenly know how to do. It is not unethical for them to fail to do it, in my view. I work for solutions, to things I value, as an individual. I follow the NAP and build a world that's better and gives people lower transaction costs. That's my solution. I don't put it in the realm of ethics. I just make it something I care about and pursue. It is a moral value. Even disregarding this value for other people's wellbeing though, this is what ethical capitalists do. They exclude no one from having the power they need, but rather they create the means for everyone to achieve even greater success at what they value.