Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)  (Read 33891 times)


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Russia's Putin (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2017, 11:40:52 pm »


Putin may be falsely accused, just as Trump is
Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya
On 10 October 2006, 2,000 demonstrators called Putin a "murderer" during his visit to Dresden, Germany.[25][26][27] Putin replied: "This journalist was indeed a sharp critic of the present Russian authorities...but the degree of her influence over political life in Russia was extremely insignificant. She was well-known in journalistic circles, among human rights activists, in the West. I repeat, her influence over political life in Russia was minimal.[28] And in my opinion murdering such a person certainly does much greater damage from the authorities' point of view, authorities that she strongly criticized, than her publications ever did."[29][30][31]
When most people accuse Putin of killing “journalists and political opponents”, they mean Politkovskaya, killed in 2006, and the opposition leader and former deputy prime minister Boris Nemtsov, killed in 2015. Allegations that Putin was behind the killing of Politkovskaya and Nemtsov do exist – but very few people with knowledge of the cases believe them. What they do believe is that Politkovskaya and Nemtsov were killed by associates of Ramzan Kadyrov, the violent dictator of Chechnya. In the Nemtsov case, the evidence for the involvement of people close to Kadyrov is overwhelming. In the Politkovskaya case, it is more circumstantial (and with Politkovskaya there is considerable evidence of other efforts to harm her, including an earlier poisoning attempt that looked more like a government operation), but still the most likely scenario. And yet Kadyrov’s involvement does not absolve Putin, because Kadyrov works for Putin.

Christian persecution
One of Putin’s most recent controversial moves happened in July 2016 when Putin signed a set of laws, known as the Yarovaya laws, billed as anti-terrorism that banned evangelizing outside of designated religious locations. Based on the law, which has already resulted in religious figures being arrested, inviting friends or strangers to church in any way would be subject to criminal punishment. The laws would require foreign missionaries to have a permit from Russian officials to even speak at a church.


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Org vs Corruption (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #46 on: August 30, 2017, 12:11:27 pm »


Represent Us
You should join Represent.Us: against corruption.
Here are their Wins:
They're fairly non-partisan. They have some videos that explain how corruption works and how to reduce or end corruption.

They favor the Anticorruption Act:
That act seems pretty good, but it doesn't cover prevention of hacking voting machines etc.

They have chapters throughout the country. You can join one, or start a new one closer to you.

I signed this (only one week left): Petition Supreme Court to end partisan gerrymandering

Represent.US favors, as do I, Ranked Choice Voting To End the 2 major political parties' stranglehold on our elections and prevent the Spoiler Effect that lets major party candidates win with only 34% of the vote

Suppressed TV Documentary on Reagan Era Pedophilia Coverup

« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 10:55:53 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Org vs Corruption (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #47 on: October 21, 2017, 09:31:32 pm »

Social Media & Cell Phones are Dumbing Young People Down Bigtime


Agenda 21
(I'm moving this article I initially posted on Feb 10, 2013 from the Taxes thread.)
(Well, I heard about Agenda 21 last spring or so. I'm a little slow. It looks like I'm slow again, as this seems to have been discussed two years ago on the Daily Paul Forum. But the issue seems very important, if it's true. And it looks offhand like it is. - Luck)

Foreign Trade Zones Across America

“This is an urgent message! Read this and spread the word! 257 Foreign Trade Zones across America. This is unbelievable at first, but you will soon realize that there are several motives for the global communists to physically weave our United States territory together with communist China. Here’s what is going on!”

“Each and every one of our state governors has approved and allocated a certain amount of acres of their U.S. state land to be inhabited by Chinese communists –communists straight from China! They are to set up little towns and live here, supposedly for the purpose of producing Chinese products for sale in the U.S.A. The land the states are giving them for their little towns will be considered “foreign territory”!!! We are told that the laws of the state (in which these Chinese communists dwell) will apply to the communist Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ). Comment: If so, why are they allowed in here!??! Isn’t the whole set up unlawful??? There are 257 of these little communist towns to be built all over the United States.”

257 Foreign Trade Zones across America
Submitted by strikeforce on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 14:14
in Daily Paul Liberty Forum

This is an urgent message! Read this and spread the word! Subject: Foreign Trade Zones. This is unbelievable at first, but you will soon realize that there are several motives for the global communists to physically weave our United States territory together with communist China. Read On! Here's what is going on!
Each and every one of our state governors has approved and allocated a certain amount of acres of their U.S. state land to be inhabited by Chinese communists --communists straight from China! They are to set up little towns and live here, supposedly for the purpose of producing Chinese products for sale in the U.S.A. The land the states are giving them for their little towns will be considered "foreign territory"!!! We are told that the laws of the state (in which these Chinese communists dwell) will apply to the communist Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ). Comment: If so, why are they allowed in here!??! Isn't the whole set up unlawful??? There are 257 of these little communist towns to be built all over the United States. Go to this website and see the list of the states, and how many FTZ's are to be erected in each and every state! Our nation is being peppered all over with these communist closed towns called "zones"! This insane brainstorm by Washington, D.C. officials was just recently discovered by alert citizens in the State of Idaho, where an FTZ is being built there, just south of Boise, Idaho, possibly 30,000 acres of Idaho is going to be used for that FTZ. Check this site quickly before it is removed:

When you get to this website, be prepared by having enough paper to print 40 pages, listing all the FTZ's to be built over the whole United States! 257 of these FTZ's! It is absolute insanity!! How gullible are we??? The excuse given for creating communist towns all over our nation is that these Chinese people will produce products for sale in the United States, and the FTZ will eliminate overseas shipping costs of the products they create! A bizarre excuse!!! Can't we manufacture our own products anymore with American workers? How foolish are we to allow this??? Remember the hard-learned lesson taught to gullible people back in ancient times, when the Trojan Horse was built and they pulled it past their protective gates??? Do we Americans look THAT STUPID to the Chinese and to our Washington,D.C. leaders???

It will not mean jobs for Americans. All the help will be Chinese! Besides, it is to be classed as "foreign territory", remember! You won't know what is really going on inside the enclave. Is there any danger for Americans to allow this? What do you think?!!!

It is a known fact that China has been preparing for war against the United States! Many guns are pointed at us. Why should these FTZ's be allowed??? What is the real reason?? Is it that Washington, D.C. needs foreign help to disarm American citizens (who have privately-owned firearms) so that the federal administration can comply with Public Law 87-297, signed into law by J.F. Kennedy for "general and complete disarmament of the United States"? It is a law continually financed by Washington, D.C. That's the law that calls for us to have no more army, no more navy, and no more air force, all of which is to be transferred over on a permanent basis to the communist-dominated United Nations! That law also prohibits all firearms from being owned by American citizens!

Without firearms, there will be no more liberty, freedom, or justice in government. Guns are the main core of the check and balance system. Our nation's founders realized that firearms in the possession of the people are the indispensible safeguard upon which all of the other rights in the "Bill of Rights" depend! That's why the Second Amendment was meant to be honored, treasured, and preserved!

Some people are wondering if the American land in these FTZ's is being given as collateral for the huge debt we owe to China? Some people are asking: "Does China own us and is our land collateral in case we don't pay the debt?" China is allowing American businesses to get established in China as FTZ's. Americans must build the structures in China, and they must employ all Chinese people to do the work in what is built there. After a short amount of years, the Americans must vacate, leave the buildings and let the Chinese keep the technology and the active operation as on-going. What this amounts to is transferring American technology and management to communist China.

FTZ's are also known as SEZ's (Special Economic Zones) Please relay this information to all your friends. Someone has to answer for this on state and federal levels! What a set-up for sabotage, espionage, and a study on how to take over the whole United States in a war! Because the newspapers and other media are controlled, they will not be reporting on this unless there is a great public outcry. Remember when being a communist was a punishable crime in the U.S.A. My, how we have changed! Complete reversal. Best to take this information to local public officials as well as all your contacts. Please do not delay spreading this information. Check with Idaho Eagle Forum also for updates
Similar Subjects (Sometimes)

EB-5 Visas: Deconstructing the Sovereign United States 2/8/11
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 02:20:28 pm by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Org vs Corruption (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2017, 02:46:19 pm »

« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 09:35:01 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Real Economics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #49 on: December 08, 2017, 02:45:07 am »


"Worthless” dollars (that Ended the Great Depression)

... During the 1920s, big Wall Street financial firms became over-leveraged. They became too indebted to each other. The collapse of key institutions caused a chain reaction that spread to other institutions. In 1932 the U.S. government passed the Glass–Steagall Act to separate commercial and investment banking, and thereby prevent another crash. In 1999 the U.S. government repealed Glass–Steagall, which led to the crash of 2008.
_Back in the 1930s the crash of the Wall Street firms did not affect Main Street as badly as most people believe. (Main Street meaning the real economy, as opposed to Wall Street and the financial economy.) By 1936 the real economy was almost back on track. Roosevelt’s New Deal was working. Production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels.
_This infuriated the rich financiers, who saw themselves as gods (just as they do today). “How dare the U.S. government take control of the economy? That’s our job! The government is actually reducing unemployment!”
_Right-wing “free market” neoliberals started whining that the New Deal was killing their profits, and “bankrupting” the U.S. government. They began a mass propaganda campaign saying that the U.S. government ran on loans and on tax revenue. They used a combination of bribes and threats to make their puppet politicians and the corporate media outlets start demanding a balanced federal budget. Joining the chorus was U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr.
_Roosevelt tried to fight back, but in 1937 the U.S. Congress cut deficit spending to zero, which caused a severe recession. Wages, employment, and manufacturing plummeted. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, their homes, and their farms. Industrial production declined almost 30 percent. Durable goods production fell even faster. The Dust Bowl made conditions worse still in the Midwest.
_This delighted the financiers and “free market” neoliberals. Meanwhile the corporate media outlets brainwashed the public to blame their suffering on Roosevelt. “See? This is what happens when the government goes socialist!”
_Wikipedia gets the following part correct…
In November 1937 Roosevelt decided that big business was trying to ruin the New Deal by causing another depression that voters would react against by voting Republican. Roosevelt called it a capital strike, and he ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look for a criminal conspiracy.
_A capital strike is when owners withdraw capital from a company in order to get concessions from workers. A labor strike is when employees withdraw work from a company in order to get concessions from owners.  In the USA, gratuitous austerity is a nationwide capital strike perpetrated by the federal government.
_Roosevelt unleashed a rhetorical campaign against monopoly power, which he said was the cause of the new crisis. Ickes* attacked automaker Henry Ford, steelmaker Tom Girdler, and the super-rich “Sixty Families” who comprised an industrial oligarchy. (*Harold L. Ickes was U.S. Secretary of the Interior from 1933 to 1946, and was responsible for implementing much of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal.”)
_Left unchecked, Ickes warned, the oligarchs would create “big-business Fascist America — an enslaved America.” Roosevelt appointed Robert Jackson as the aggressive new director of the antitrust division of the Justice Department, but this effort lost its effectiveness once World War II began and big business was urgently needed to produce war supplies. But the Administration’s other response to the 1937 dip that stalled recovery from the Great Depression had more tangible results.
_Ignoring the requests of the Treasury Secretary Morganthau, and responding to the urgings of Keynesian economists and others in his administration, Roosevelt embarked on an antidote to the depression, abandoning his efforts to balance the budget and launching a $5 billion spending program in the spring of 1938 in an effort to increase mass purchasing power. Roosevelt explained his program in a fireside chat in which he told the American people that it was up to the government to “create an economic upturn” by making “additions to the purchasing power of the nation.”
_Today you would never hear anyone say that. Today everyone claims that the U.S. government is “bankrupt.” Republicans claim it in order to attack social programs that help average Americans. Democrats claim it at the behest of their rich owners, and also so that Democrats can pretend to be our “only protection” from Republicans. And average people claim it for various reasons that I have discussed in other blog posts.
_In connection with this,  see the following cartoons about “printing money.” Then I want to comment on them.
_These cartoons are stupid. On one hand, people believe the lie that money is physical and scarce. On the other hand, people complain that the U.S. government (or the Fed) is creating too much money out of thin air. One cartoon above shows Obama (i.e. the U.S. government) printing too much money. Two other cartoons show the Fed doing it — as though money created out of thin air is “worthless.”
_So which is it? Is there no money? Or is there too much money? If money is “worthless,” then why are we all so desperate to get more of it?
_Confusion and self-contradiction are part of what I call the peasant mind-set, or the slave mind-set.
_Put more bluntly, most people are peasants because, collectively speaking, they are bullshitters.  They bullshit themselves and each other.  Money is scarce, yet money is too plentiful. That’s bullshit.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 09:30:38 am by Luck »


  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: Future School: Real Economics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2017, 11:29:58 pm »

I have a very sneaky suspicion I know what the response to this will be but....

Many of your sources for your various thoughts are...dubious.


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Real Economics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2017, 09:27:29 am »

ThomJeff, you provide no data and thus have no argument as yet.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 08:23:13 pm by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Real Economics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2018, 09:03:56 pm »




The wise lady at (which she hasn't updated since Xmas) said sovereign money is like play money in the game, Monopoly. It can be created at any time it's needed by the bank in the game. So I decided to see if I can make a similar game that might demonstrate that sovereign money would work just as well as she explained on her blog. She said taxes aren't needed by any sovereign government that has sovereign money, because the money is created whenever needed by the government. The government would act like the bank in the Monopoly game. So I'll try to remember the rules of the Monopoly game and then see if I can assemble similar rules for a liberal-libertarian utopia game.

Monopoly Game Rules:
1. Everyone get an allowance;
2. Invest in properties by being lucky;
3. Pay property owners when unlucky;
4. Take a turn in jail when very unlucky;
5. Go broke with really bad luck;
6. 1 player gets everyone's money if very lucky; everyone else dies poor.

Liberal-Libertarian Utopia Game Rules:
1a. Founders (=All Residents) start Town;
1b. All Residents own equal parts of town land and infrastructure;
1c. All Residents own adjacent land to grow new separate town/s;
1d. All Residents own Bank business;
2a. All Residents rent lands to businesses;
2b. All Residents own shares of businesses;
2c. Some Residents start businesses;
3a. Workers (= some of the Residents) receive salaries from bank and businesses;
3b. Bank workers (= some more of the Residents) create money for loans & to pay dividends;
4. All Residents receive dividends and rent from bank and businesses;
5. Residents buy goods & services from businesses;
6. All Residents prosper.

Cryptocurrency and/or blockchain can be used for money along with USDs and local currency.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 01:43:06 pm by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Real Economics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #53 on: April 03, 2018, 02:06:31 pm »




See Part 3
Part 4

_I've organized Mathis' Update Papers Index into 4 posts, the last showing the most important papers IMO.
_Mathis has been writing these papers for several years, mostly since 2010, and is still writing.
_He seems to be extremely good at detecting deception in historical and news events etc, via logical analysis, including photo analysis.
_Many conclusions are tentative, but most seem rather probable in light of his fairly thorough analyses.
_I guess his overall finding is that clever aristocratic Jews intentionally intermarried with European aristocrats at least since the Middle Ages where they have now gained large-scale control of most or all nations, which they exploit for maximum profit and power.
_They have become experts at deception and have faked many major events and used false flags to make it appear that others were responsible for their actions.
_I recommend especially the papers on Watergate at
and the Occult at
_Mathis does genealogical study of many of the people discussed in his papers, which generally are not of much interest to me, but I skim through until I find more interesting reading.


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Politics, History (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #54 on: April 08, 2018, 12:23:20 pm »



New History Lies: Nabokov, Stephen Hawking, Alamo
- [This site shows that most historical events have been faked or managed.]
[See also from prior post
and ]

[Alamo fake is plausible because I heard good evidence on "Ancient America", I think, a few months ago that Davy Crockett returned to his farm after the Alamo event]
[Here are the last two paragraphs of this article.]
I’ll wrap this paper up by saying that if the Texas Revolution was a real, grassroots revolution, the Republic of Texas wouldn’t have handed itself over to the U.S. ten years later without any protest. These people supposedly fought long and hard to win their sovereignty. What reason did they have to give it all up by voting to approve their own annexation? It reminds us of the French Revolution, which resulted in France being handed right back to the Bourbons. The last President of Texas, who facilitated its annexation to the U.S., was Anson Jones.** That name should tip you off to the fact that he was related to all the other phony revolutionaries – Travis, Bowie, Lamar, Crockett – proving the entire revolution was managed by the same families from beginning to end. Once the Alamo finished serving its purpose as a false flag, the governors no longer had any use for Texas as its own country. It’s much easier to manage one large nation than several little nations, anyway. It cuts down on overhead costs.
I frequent several libertarian websites, where I often encounter commenters from Texas who like to talk big about secession. They often have the Texan or “Don’t Tread on Me” flag as their profile icons. Knowing what I now know (thanks to Miles and others), I feel sorry for these folks. They’ve been duped. They’ve been led to believe if they can only break off from the evil federal government and create their own libertarian utopia, they’ll finally be free. They don’t understand that the enemy is already inside the camp. They think that to attain freedom, they need only rearrange the borderlines on the map. If only it were that easy. If you want real freedom, stop trying to use geopolitical means to achieve it. Take Miles’ advice. Stop buying the governors’ products. Stop watching their televised propaganda. Stop getting sucked into their social media rabbit holes. Stop wasting your time debating the minutiae of the non-aggression principle on masturbatory libertarian forums. Stop buying bitcoin. Base your life on something more substantial than making money. Live simply. [etc]
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 12:32:29 pm by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Economics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #55 on: April 12, 2018, 04:17:40 pm »



(Best sites I've seen so far.)

Liz Harris Sovereign Money
Etc. See Archives at

Mythfighter on Sovereign Money

Michael Hudson on Economics


Liz Harris said sovereign money is like play money in the game, Monopoly. So let's test that idea by making a similar game with the goal of making everyone prosperous, instead of making all but one poor.

Game1: Monopoly; Rules:
Two or more people are players;
Everyone get an allowance;
Take turns;
Invest in properties with luck;
Pay property owners with bad luck;
Take a turn in jail with bad luck;
Go broke with bad luck;
1 player get everyone's money with good luck.

Game2: Liberal-Libertarian Utopia; Rules:
Founders start Town with x Residents;
Residents own equal parts of town land;
Take turns;
Residents rent lands to businesses;
Residents own shares of businesses;
Residents receive dividends from bank or businesses;
Workers receive salaries from businesses;
Residents buy goods & services from businesses;
Residents own Bank business;
Bank create money as needed to pay Residents dividends;
Residents hire bank manager & clerks to create money for loans & to pay dividends;
Residents own adjacent land to grow new separate town/s;
All Residents prosper.

What else needs to be added to make this game a proper experiment or simulation?

I first wrote about this at Free Town Project: PRACTICE ECONOMICS GAMES
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 04:36:38 pm by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Economics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2018, 01:17:20 pm »



The epic mistake about manufacturing that's cost Americans millions of jobs
_Economists have long been aware that computers and electronics, a relatively small sector of manufacturing, has powered much of manufacturing’s growth in output over the past few decades. But until 2009, no one had connected this fact to the puzzling paradox of surging manufacturing output alongside dwindling employment. That’s when Susan Houseman and her colleagues first took a crack at it—and, in the process, discovered something funny going on with data.
_She had been working with a team of Federal Reserve economists with access to more granular data than was publicly available, which allowed them to strip away the computers industry output from the rest of the data. That revealed just how the rest of manufacturing was doing—and it was much worse than what Houseman and her colleagues expected.
_In fact, according to Houseman’s data, without computers, manufacturing’s real output expanded at an average rate of only about 0.2% a year in the 2000s. By 2016, real manufacturing output, sans computers, was lower than it was in 2007.
_It’s not perfectly clear what, exactly, is the culprit behind relatively anemic growth in manufacturing output. But the signs indicate trade and globalization played a much more significant role than is commonly recognized.
_Another important paper ... estimated that competition from Chinese imports cost the US as many as 2.4 million jobs between 1999 and 2011.
_There are also observable signs that automation wasn’t to blame. Consider the shuttering of some 78,000 manufacturing plants between 2000 and 2014, a 22% drop.
_Then there’s the fact that there simply aren’t that many robots in US factories, compared with other advanced economies.
_“We didn’t have the intelligent debates about what was going on with trade, etc., because a lot of people were just denying there was any problem, period.”
_Two decades of complacency among US leaders gave companies in Asia and other emerging export bases time to create world-class factories and robust supply chains. Tellingly, even as the real output of the computers subsector has appeared to grow astonishingly quickly, the sector has been steadily losing market share to Asian competitors, according to a 2014 paper
_[Trump's] campaign ignited a vitally important national conversation on the relationship between US trade policies and manufacturing’s decline. Since he took office, however, Trump has paid minimal attention to boosting US manufacturing. Instead, he’s favored counterproductive protectionism and ignored currency manipulation, preferring the punitive over the constructive.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:16:15 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #57 on: July 15, 2018, 04:54:17 am »



Do you know more than a university economist? Now you will
Friday, Jul 6 2018

Federal finances are much different from state & local government finances, and different from business and your personal finances.

Many people find the federal government’s finances to be counter-intuitive, because the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, while state & local governments, businesses, and people themselves are monetarily non-sovereign.

The purpose of today’s post is to demonstrate a step-by-step logical progression, that will make federal financing more intuitive and defendable.

All science begins with certain propositions or axioms that in themselves, cannot be proved, but are assumed to be true. From these axioms flow the conclusions of the science.

For example, in Euclidian (plane) geometry, there are five propositions:

1. A straight line may be drawn between any two points.
2. Any straight line may be extended infinitely.
3. A circle may be drawn with any given point as center and any given radius.
4. All right angles are equal.
5. For any given point not on a given line, there is exactly one line through the point that does not meet the given line.

None of the above can be proved. They are statements that are felt to be self-evident. From these statements, all of plane geometry flows.


For millions of earth’s years, there was no U.S. government and no U.S. dollar. Finally, in 1792, a group of men arbitrarily created certain laws out of thin air. Like all laws, these laws had no physical existence. They were mere concepts.

The laws created, also from thin air, a legal entity known as “The United States dollar.” Although some U.S. dollars are represented by printed paper, dollars themselves have no physical existence. Dollars are nothing more than bookkeeping entries.

The men who created the U.S. dollar created as many dollars as they wished. They could have created many more or fewer.

The original dollar arbitrarily was given a value related to 371 grains of silver, and since then, Congress and the President have retained the power to give the dollar any value they chose.

Just as a car title is not a car, and a house title is not a house, the dollar bill, being a title to a dollar, is not in itself a dollar. The vast majority of U.S. dollars are not represented by paper dollar bills.  All dollars — indeed all forms of money —  are nothing more than bookkeeping records.

The popular belief that gold or silver are money or once were money, is false. Gold never has been money. It is a barter commodity. In world history, many commodities have been used for barter: Cattle, horses, wheat, diamonds, land, buildings, silk, etc., though none is money.

Money is the debt of an issuer. Dollars are the debt of the U.S. government. All debt has collateral, and the collateral for the U.S. dollar is the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. See: Full faith and credit.

Six propositions, a basis for U.S. Monetary Sovereignty, are bolded:

    All money is debt.
    (Money is a debt of its issuer, backed by the issuer’s full faith and credit. Debts are bookkeeping entries, having no physical existence.)
    The U.S. dollar bill is a title to a U.S. dollar, not a dollar in of itself.
    The U.S. Congress and the President retain the unlimited ability to create as many sovereign dollars as they wish.
    The U.S. dollar, like all commodities, is valued according to its Supply and Demand [Value = Demand/Supply].
    (In 1971, President Richard Nixon arbitrarily decided that the Value of the dollar no longer would be related to gold or to silver, and the Supply of dollars no longer would be limited by the federal government’s Supply of gold or silver.)
    The Demand for a U.S. dollar is based on Risk and Reward. [Demand = Reward/Risk]
    The Risk of owning a dollar is inflation. The Reward for owning a dollar is interest.
    (The dollar not only is a “good” in its own right, but also is an exchange medium. Its market Value is related to the market Value of Goods & Services. The formula for the market Value of the dollar):
    Dollar Value = (Demand/Supply of dollars) / (Demand/Supply of goods & services)

The U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. It is sovereign over the dollar, and has the unlimited ability to create, destroy, or change the value of the dollar.

Other Monetarily Sovereign governments include Canada, Japan, China, Australia, and the UK.

Governments that are monetarily non-sovereign include those of euro nations, and U.S. cities, counties and states. These governments do not have the unlimited ability to create their sovereign currency, as they have no sovereign currencies.

They can run short of money and be unable to pay their financial obligations.

(Continued below)
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:16:37 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #58 on: July 15, 2018, 04:54:55 am »


(Continued from above)

Do you know more than a university economist? Now you will
Friday, Jul 6 2018

The six propositions lead to the following conclusions:

    Every form of money is “fiat,” i.e. created by the fiat of an issuer. (Contrary to popular belief, “fiat” does not mean “paper” as opposed to gold. There is no “paper” money, nor is gold money. Unlike barter commodities, money has no physical existence. )
    The U.S. government can pay any obligation denominated in U.S. dollars. It is impossible for the U.S. government unintentionally to run short of its own sovereign currency.
    No agency of the U.S. government can run short of U.S. dollars unless that is the intent of Congress and the President. (This includes such agencies as the White House, the Supreme Court, the military branches, Social Security, and Medicare.)
    The U.S. government neither needs nor uses tax dollars nor borrowing to pay its bills. (Because the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government cannot unintentionally run short of its own sovereign currency, it has no need to obtain dollars from outside sources.)
    FICA does not pay for Social Security of Medicare benefits. (Even if FICA  were $0, the government could pay unlimited benefits, forever.)
    The federal government does not borrow. (It accepts deposits in Treasury Security accounts. It does not use the dollars in those accounts. The dollars remain in the accounts until maturity, at which time they are returned to the account owner.)
    Deposits in T-security accounts provide a safe depository for U.S. dollars (which stabilizes the dollar), and assist the Fed with its interest rate (and inflation) controls.
    Raising interest rates increases the Demand for dollars (to purchase dollar-denominated debt.)
    All dollars received by the U.S. government are destroyed upon receipt. (They disappear from any money supply measure.)
    There are two ways to create dollars and two ways to destroy dollars:
    Create Dollars
    I. Lend dollars
    II. Federal deficit spending
    Destroy Dollars:
    I. Pay off a loan
    II. Federal taxation
    Lending creates dollars. When a loan is supported by a loan document owned by the lender, the loan document is money. Like a dollar bill, it represents dollars owned by the lender, while the borrower receives new dollars. That is the difference between a loan and a payment. Though both are transfers of dollars, loans create new dollars, payments do not.
    Federal spending creates dollars. To pay a creditor, the federal government sends instructions (not dollars) to the creditor’s bank, instructing the bank (“Pay to the order of”) to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account. The instant the bank obeys those instructions, new dollars are created an added to the money supply (M1).
    Paying off a loan destroys dollars.  It reduces or eliminates the value of the loan document owned by the lender.
    Federal taxes destroy dollars. They remove dollars from all measures of the nation’s money supply.
    State and local taxes do not destroy dollars. These taxes are held in private bank accounts (M1 and M2), from which the state and local governments take them for paying creditors.
    The purpose of federal tax dollars is to control private spending (i.e. “sin” taxes, tax deductions for businesses, etc.)
    The Social Security and Medicare “trust funds” are bookkeeping fictions. (In private-sector trust funds, receipts are deposited and invested. In federal trust funds, receipts are recorded and removed from the nation’s money supply. Spending creates new dollars, ad hoc.)(Medicare Part A supposedly is paid by a fictional “trust fund,” while Medicare Parts B and D are paid out of the Treasury’s “General Fund.” The Medicare “trust fund” supposedly is running short of money; the General Fund never can run short of money.)
    The formula for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is: Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports.
    Federal deficit spending stimulates GDP growth by adding dollars to the economy, i.e. by increasing Federal Spending and Non-federal Spending.
    Reductions in federal deficit spending lead to recessions. (Vertical bars are recessions. Red line is deficit spending.)
    Recessions are cured by increases in deficit spending.
    Decreases in federal debt lead to depressions.
    1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
    1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
    1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
    1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
    1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
    1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
    1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
    1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001
    The Federal Reserve controls inflation via interest rate control. (Interest rates support Demand for dollars.)
    The primary cause of inflation has been an insufficient Supply of goods, not an excessive Supply of dollars.(Most modern inflations have been related to a shortage of oil. Every hyperinflation also has been caused by a shortage, usually a shortage of food.)
    Despite endless concerns that the federal “debt” (deposits in T-security accounts)) may be a “ticking time bomb,“ the federal government has no difficulty servicing its “debt” and inflation has averaged close to the Fed’s 2.5% target.
    Red line is federal “debt.” Blue line is inflation.
    The commonly referenced federal Debt/GDP ratio has no function or meaning. It does not indicate economic health, nor does it indicate the federal government’s ability to service its obligations (which is infinite).
    Interest rate increases are economically stimulative. They force the federal government to pump more interest dollars into the economy.
    A trade deficit is more beneficial to a Monetarily Sovereign nation’s economy than is a trade surplus. In a trade deficit, the Monetarily Sovereign entity receives scarce goods and services, while sending money it has the infinite ability to create from thin air. In a trade surplus, the Monetarily Sovereign nation, receives money it doesn’t need in exchange for goods and services it must create by valuable labor and scarce resources.
    People stimulate GDP by being creators, producers and consumers. Political entities (nations, cities, counties, states) that have net immigration grow compared with entities that have net emigration. GDP is a spending measure; adding immigrants increases government and private spending.
    Federal anti-poverty spending is economically stimulative. It increases the nation’s money supply, and it helps the poor population to be more creative and productive.
    Bigotry is economically depressive. Bigotry marginalizes a population (a gender, a race, a religion, a sexual preference) and prevents that population from being as productive as it otherwise could be.
    The sole purpose of government is to improve the lives of the people.  Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

In answer to the title question, now you know more than most university economists. Read the “Ten Steps” below, and you’ll know even more.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:17:52 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #59 on: July 22, 2018, 09:02:33 am »



Part 1 of 3 [1a. Bundy's; 1b. Bundy's; 2. Zuckerberg's]

1a. Bundy Ranch Standoff Fake

[Mathis is good at asking questions that most of us don't think to ask most of the time.]

Donald Trump allegedly pardoned the Hammonds last week. I say allegedly because the whole story is part of a long running fake project. It concerns the Bundys and Hammonds in Oregon, as part of that whole highly publicized series of standoffs going back to 2014. It is supposed to be between cattlemen and the Feds, but it is another manufactured and staged play, meant to keep your eyes off other things. Trump didn't really need to pardon anyone, since this entire saga has been another hoax. I can tell this just from the names, and you should have caught those, too. Hammond and Bundy. Top families we have seen many times. The Hammonds we saw in my paper on Bob Dylan, since a Hammond was head of Columbia Records, being the man behind both Dylan and Leonard Cohen. The Bundys we saw in my paper on Ted Bundy, who spent some time in the Northwest, as we know. He was in nearby Washington state, pushing forward various projects in the 60s and 70s. He was at Washington State and then worked on Rockefeller's campaign in Seattle. He was actually a Rockefeller delegate in 1968. Amazingly, this links us back to Simon Cowell above, since Bundy is supposed to have been born as Theodore Cowell. What are the odds?

In that paper I linked Ted Bundy to McGeorge Bundy, a head of the CIA. So we have all sorts of obvious red flags in this story about the standoff in Oregon. The Bundys involved there are Ammon and Cliven Bundy. We get another clue very fast, since Cliven's wife is Carol Turner. Another name from the same families. Ammon Bundy was the leader of the occupation in Oregon, which is curious since before that he was a car fleet manager living in Arizona. His father Cliven Bundy was born in 1946, and these Bundys of Utah are related to Russells who came from Vermont in the mid-1800s. The CIA Bundys are also from Vermont, and Ted Bundy has links to Vermont—being born in Burlington. This means the Bundys in Utah are (posing as) Mormons. However, since the Mormons were created by Jews and now often act as a front for them, you see how it goes. These Bundys are also related to the Funks and Barnums. And, as LasVegasNow reported in 2016, they are also related to Abbotts and Leavitts. The Abbotts we have seen many times before in these hoaxed events, and Leavitt is an old Jewish name, a variation of Levy. The name Abbott also confirms my link to the east-coast CIA Bundys, since those Bundys had a branch that was part of the Boston Brahmins, along with the Abbotts. The Abbotts are not on the main Brahmin list at Wikipedia, but like the Bennetts, Ayres, Edsons, and several others, they either should be on the list or exist just off it. However, the name Dwight is on the Brahmin list, so keep that in mind. You are about to see it again.

Perhaps the best way to see that this was all staged is by the fact that all charges in the Bundy standoff were later dropped “due to prosecutorial misconduct”. Right. That's convenient, isn't it? It fits perfectly with all the other fake trials we have unwound. In the Malheur NWR occupation, Ammon Bundy was acquitted on all charges. My guess is these people didn't spend one minute in jail.

Here's another way you can tell it was fake. Go to the Wiki page for the Bundy standoff, and note that it began in April 2014 when armed protestors demanded their confiscated cattle back from BLM and local sheriffs. We are supposed to believe the Feds backed down, releasing the cattle. No arrests were made, no citations issued, and nothing was done about overdue grazing fees. Bundy took the cattle right back out onto the federal lands and continued to graze them, despite being forbidden by court order from doing so since 1998. Does that sound like a true story to you? The Feds just failed to enforce a court order for 16 years, and when they finally got around to confiscating the cattle, they just gave them back when Bundy and some friends showed up with guns? Sure. Even more risible is that we are told the BLM had cancelled a cattle roundup in 2012 when Bundy threatened them with violence. Funny, because I thought that threatening government officials with violence was a serious offense. According to this mainstream story, it isn't. We are told the County Sheriff's Dept. wouldn't help BLM because the court order had become “stale”. Really? We are supposed to believe that? We are supposed to believe the BLM, a federal agency, relies on the gunpower of local Sheriffs? BLM can't call in back-up from the FBI, the military or the National Guard? That's not what we were led to believe in Waco in 1993, was it? There we were taught that if you cross any federal agency they send in the stormtroopers and burn you up with your children, down to the last babe in swaddling clothes.

Another way you can tell it was fake? Two days after the confrontation of April 2014, Cliven Bundy appeared on both Sean Hannity's and Glenn Beck's national programs, demanding that locals “disarm the federal bureaucrats”. Right. Who believes this stuff? He calls for armed insurrection on national TV and we are supposed to believe the USGov just looks the other way? I encourage you to read the long Wikipedia page on this event and see if it makes any sense. That may be easier for you to do now that four years have passed.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:11:32 am by Luck »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up