An invitation to dialog

[CSummer]

To me, it seems one of the most important things we can do is to sit down together, share our truth and practice hearing and understanding each other. Below is some of what I've come to in pondering the Occupy movement. I post it here as an invitation to dialog. Please share your thoughts, perceptions, hopes, fears, vision.
_________________________________________

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something,
build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - Buckminster Fuller

They – the 1% (or 0.1%) - have a plan and are well organized around that plan. This, along with their positions of vast power, gives them greater effectiveness. Our power is in our numbers and our togetherness. To realize our true power, our challenge is to come up with a plan and come together around that plan.

Their plan is based on what they want: domination and control. We need a plan that's based on what we want (see below). We need to shift our focus from our grievances and what we don't want to formulating a clear statement of what we do want. Staying focused on what has happened and on our grievances tends to keep us stuck re-creating what we don't want.

If we want to get riled up, we can focus on what we don't want. If we want to make changes, we need to focus on what we want and use the positive energy for building something new..

I seriously question the wisdom of trying to reform or overthrow the existing political-military-economic systems. People have been trying to do that for a long time with little real success. Trying to reform the existing government or corporate structures is like trying to make a tractor into an airplane: it's not likely to succeed, will take enormous effort and we probably won't like the result.

So we need to start from a clear vision of what we want: governing and economic systems that are humane and healthy, and that will foster the qualities we want in our world. Once we have that vision, we can design new structures based on those functions and values and develop plans to begin building them. Here is what I believe most of us want:

A just society based on mutual caring and support; on sharing of resources, responsibility and power.

Collective planning and decision-making; working cooperatively to fulfill our plans and choices.

Ensure that everyone has access to the resources that are required to meet real human needs.

Peace: the absence of war and other forms of violence

Technologies that are ecologically sustainable, benign or restorative.

Compassionate treatment for all creatures.

There comes a time when the only thing that makes sense is to go for what we really want.
If not now, when? If not us, who?

Clint Summer

[someguy]

To me, it seems one of the most important things we can do is to sit down together, share our truth and practice hearing and understanding each other. Below is some of what I've come to in pondering the Occupy movement. I post it here as an invitation to dialog. Please share your thoughts, perceptions, hopes, fears, vision.
_________________________________________

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something,
build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - Buckminster Fuller

They – the 1% (or 0.1%) - have a plan and are well organized around that plan. This, along with their positions of vast power, gives them greater effectiveness. Our power is in our numbers and our togetherness. To realize our true power, our challenge is to come up with a plan and come together around that plan.

Their plan is based on what they want: domination and control. We need a plan that's based on what we want (see below). We need to shift our focus from our grievances and what we don't want to formulating a clear statement of what we do want. Staying focused on what has happened and on our grievances tends to keep us stuck re-creating what we don't want.

If we want to get riled up, we can focus on what we don't want. If we want to make changes, we need to focus on what we want and use the positive energy for building something new..

I seriously question the wisdom of trying to reform or overthrow the existing political-military-economic systems. People have been trying to do that for a long time with little real success. Trying to reform the existing government or corporate structures is like trying to make a tractor into an airplane: it's not likely to succeed, will take enormous effort and we probably won't like the result.

So we need to start from a clear vision of what we want: governing and economic systems that are humane and healthy, and that will foster the qualities we want in our world. Once we have that vision, we can design new structures based on those functions and values and develop plans to begin building them. Here is what I believe most of us want:

A just society based on mutual caring and support; on sharing of resources, responsibility and power.

Collective planning and decision-making; working cooperatively to fulfill our plans and choices.

Ensure that everyone has access to the resources that are required to meet real human needs.

Peace: the absence of war and other forms of violence

Technologies that are ecologically sustainable, benign or restorative.

Compassionate treatment for all creatures.

There comes a time when the only thing that makes sense is to go for what we really want.
If not now, when? If not us, who?

Clint Summer

Beautiful post Clint. I'm very impressed. And I echo your concepts of what we all really want for ourselves and our society. I also resonate with your analysis of the .1% having a plan and that reforming or overthrowing that plan is an exercise in futility. I think what is very important for us all to realize is that the .1% is above the law, and we the 99.9% seeing that grave injustice fall into the practice of demanding more laws to compensate for the current inadequacies. The problem however doesn't get fixed. No matter what law we pass, the .1% are still above that law, and the force of that law is passed down to the 99.9%. Essentially we keep tightening the rope around our necks with our good intentions, and subsequent regulations. I believe that the way to dismantle the .1%'s plan is to strip them of their power... Now we must realize that they print our money, run our government, own our media, tell us what is healthy, control the education system, etc.... So we must take back these systems. Not through reform, but through dismantling the current ones and creating new systems that make the .1%'s systems obsolete. We can do this by ending the Federal Reserve, or at least voting for Ron Paul who would take drastic measures to do so. We can stop funding the government by ending the income tax, and other taxes. Why should we give our money to these people for them to continue their systemic control grid? We have all sorts of means to produce alternative media and we must forge ahead with these means and disregard the conventional media sources. You can see where I'm going with this. We need to take control of our lives more, and stop allowing big corporations and government to decide what is best for us. Remember we always have freewill. No control grid or person can take that away, it is God given.

[Thad]

_________________________________________

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something,
build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - Buckminster Fuller

Clint Summer

We have such imagination in the area the above quote would be hugely interesting to work with. I think the person honored below has much to do with the above.

https://www.northbayvoice.org/201111...of-change.html

What could we do with a 24/7 Makers Faire that intended to be part of the "occupy the future" movement.

The Great Handcar Regatta is no longer and the interest and talents brought about by that could very well be used to be an ongoing parade of dreams on wheels just looking to park and set up their vision of how they would wish to occupy the future and stimulate the economy at the same time.

[Hotspring 44]

... So we must take back these systems. Not through reform, but through dismantling the current ones and creating new systems that make the .1%'s systems obsolete.

I agree with that.

... We can do this by ending the Federal Reserve, or at least voting for Ron Paul who would take drastic measures to do so.

Okay, but what do we put in place that takes the place of that Federal Reserve money system?
What about other candidates for other offices?
What about the process of appointing Supreme Court justices? How could we change things so that appointing Supreme Court justices wouldn't be so politicized compared to the way it is now?... ...Should there be any amendment to the Constitution regarding that?... .. If so how should it be?


What about differing ideas of what the Constitution and the amendments are supposed to mean and the fact that slave owning elitists were the primary authors of the original draft of it and how it relates to us and what we desire now?

... We can stop funding the government by ending the income tax, and other taxes.

“The government” is supposed to be “we the people” (not we the corporations), why would we want to stop funding ourselves?
I don't think that what the “government” is supposed to be is up to date.
Okay, supposing that we eliminate income taxes; how does the government collect revenue? Or is it going to be a revenue-less government? If it's going to be a revenue-less government, what is the function supposed to be?
Will there be any taxes? If so, what would get taxed and how would it be taxed?... . ...After answering those questions how would it be possible to keep track of all of the transactions; If transactions are going to be what's going to end up being taxed?

If everybody bartered would it be possible to pay any taxes? There wouldn't be any cash! It would be just like if I were to trade you something of equal value, and I have no money and you have no money; there wouldn't be any money to pay tax from a transaction like that.

So I think the point is very specific about we need to state what we want not just what we don't want.
Okay, so you, someguy, (and others) say you don't want income tax but what do we do in place of that for revenue? The government cannot run without revenue.
Anyway, in theory; after getting rid of the Federal Reserve system, the government is going to be coining the revenue in the first place, so it has to be based on something. What is that something? Remember, we have to state what we want with reasonably good suggestions on how to do that not just say what we don't want.

Some people see the government as the bogeyman, sometimes it's because of income tax sometimes it's because of regulations etc.; but we the people are supposed to be the government; does that mean we are our own bogeyman, and we should do away with ourselves, we the people, so to speak?... ... I don't think so.

I've also heard some people say that we cannot reform the government because it is too corrupt. I have not heard any of them say what they want to do to actually accomplish having a different government, particularly in a nonviolent and peaceful way. Major revolutions like that are never peaceful and nonviolent. So I think reform is the only way to peacefully, nonviolently, (or at least maximum peacefully and nonviolently as possible) make such radical changes.

...Why should we give our money to these people for them to continue their systemic control grid?

That’s the inside the box, dogma trap we seem to be in; thinking that it's “our money” when in fact it is Federal Reserve notes and Federal Reserve notes are specifically not individually 'ours' in The first place; the Federal Reserve notes have always been property of the Federal Reserve and intended only for us to do trade with... ...example if I have a piece of firewood I can trade it to you for something else, or I can burn it, on the other hand, it is some sort of a federal offense for just you or me to arbitrarily, actually, literally, burn, Federal Reserve notes... ...why? Because it's not really "our money"!

Okay, so the government needs to start printing or coining Money and get rid of the Federal Reserve System; I agree with that but we need to figure out how to go into that proposed system from where we are now...
... Do we start from scratch where everybody starts out having the same amount of money? Or do we still give the ultra rich 1% fat cats the majority of the money that they already have only in new government stamped money?
Even if we've figured it out domestically, what would happen internationally? Does anybody have any good concrete ideas on that one? BTW, at the end of this full 3 hour + movie there is a possible answer (with some explanations) to that question; How International Bankers Gained Control of America - Money Masters - Full Docu

on YouTube (long version) about 3 hours 3 minutes to about 3 hours 27 minutes 27 seconds (shorter version without as many explanations) 3 hours 10 minutes to about 3 hours 19 minutes 6 seconds.

Note: This movie was made before the 1996 election so some of the timelines regarding the proposed solutions may be different now but the underline theme still holds, it seems to me.

We have all sorts of means to produce alternative media and we must forge ahead with these means and disregard the conventional media sources. You can see where I'm going with this. We need to take control of our lives more, and stop allowing big corporations and government to decide what is best for us. Remember we always have freewill. No control grid or person can take that away, it is God given.

I don't know if it was so much God-given any more than it would be anywhere else in the world where there are far fewer freedoms for those people Compared to us here in the USA as it was hard fought for with an ocean of insulation between North America and Europe , where the “fight for independence” occurred at that particular time in history.

I think discarding the conventional means of media is a very good idea, but I think that one thing I have not heard anything about in any of the occupy movements anywhere is the fact that well-planned strategic boycotts are going to be necessary to fulfill that quest of dethroning the 1%.
On that note, I wonder what the occupy list of products to boycott is going to be; or, if and or when it's going to start?

Everybody in theory, has free will but the practices of particular militaries and police in certain areas in the world and the US for that matter come down pretty hard on people that actually practice their free will to disagree with their government or whatever regime it may be that is doing something they, the people don't like.And sometimes the authorities end up actually persecuting people that express there free will to gain enough public attention for a movement to actually make the changes that the people really want and need.

Anyway, I do like the idea of dialogue here.

[zenekar]

I agree with that.


Okay, but what do we put in place that takes the place of that Federal Reserve money system?
What about other candidates for other offices?
What about the process of appointing Supreme Court justices? How could we change things so that appointing Supreme Court justices wouldn't be so politicized compared to the way it is now?... ...Should there be any amendment to the Constitution regarding that?... .. If so how should it be?


What about differing ideas of what the Constitution and the amendments are supposed to mean and the fact that slave owning elitists were the primary authors of the original draft of it and how it relates to us and what we desire now?


“The government” is supposed to be “we the people” (not we the corporations), why would we want to stop funding ourselves?
I don't think that what the “government” is supposed to be is up to date.
Okay, supposing that we eliminate income taxes; how does the government collect revenue? Or is it going to be a revenue-less government? If it's going to be a revenue-less government, what is the function supposed to be?
Will there be any taxes? If so, what would get taxed and how would it be taxed?... . ...After answering those questions how would it be possible to keep track of all of the transactions; If transactions are going to be what's going to end up being taxed?

If everybody bartered would it be possible to pay any taxes? There wouldn't be any cash! It would be just like if I were to trade you something of equal value, and I have no money and you have no money; there wouldn't be any money to pay tax from a transaction like that.

So I think the point is very specific about we need to state what we want not just what we don't want.
Okay, so you, someguy, (and others) say you don't want income tax but what do we do in place of that for revenue? The government cannot run without revenue.
Anyway, in theory; after getting rid of the Federal Reserve system, the government is going to be coining the revenue in the first place, so it has to be based on something. What is that something? Remember, we have to state what we want with reasonably good suggestions on how to do that not just say what we don't want.

Some people see the government as the bogeyman, sometimes it's because of income tax sometimes it's because of regulations etc.; but we the people are supposed to be the government; does that mean we are our own bogeyman, and we should do away with ourselves, we the people, so to speak?... ... I don't think so.

I've also heard some people say that we cannot reform the government because it is too corrupt. I have not heard any of them say what they want to do to actually accomplish having a different government, particularly in a nonviolent and peaceful way. Major revolutions like that are never peaceful and nonviolent. So I think reform is the only way to peacefully, nonviolently, (or at least maximum peacefully and nonviolently as possible) make such radical changes.


That’s the inside the box, dogma trap we seem to be in; thinking that it's “our money” when in fact it is Federal Reserve notes and Federal Reserve notes are specifically not individually 'ours' in The first place; the Federal Reserve notes have always been property of the Federal Reserve and intended only for us to do trade with... ...example if I have a piece of firewood I can trade it to you for something else, or I can burn it, on the other hand, it is some sort of a federal offense for just you or me to arbitrarily, actually, literally, burn, Federal Reserve notes... ...why? Because it's not really "our money"!

Okay, so the government needs to start printing or coining Money and get rid of the Federal Reserve System; I agree with that but we need to figure out how to go into that proposed system from where we are now...
... Do we start from scratch where everybody starts out having the same amount of money? Or do we still give the ultra rich 1% fat cats the majority of the money that they already have only in new government stamped money?
Even if we've figured it out domestically, what would happen internationally? Does anybody have any good concrete ideas on that one? BTW, at the end of this full 3 hour + movie there is a possible answer (with some explanations) to that question; How International Bankers Gained Control of America - Money Masters - Full Docu

on YouTube (long version) about 3 hours 3 minutes to about 3 hours 27 minutes 27 seconds (shorter version without as many explanations) 3 hours 10 minutes to about 3 hours 19 minutes 6 seconds.

Note: This movie was made before the 1996 election so some of the timelines regarding the proposed solutions may be different now but the underline theme still holds, it seems to me.


I don't know if it was so much God-given any more than it would be anywhere else in the world where there are far fewer freedoms for those people Compared to us here in the USA as it was hard fought for with an ocean of insulation between North America and Europe , where the “fight for independence” occurred at that particular time in history.

I think discarding the conventional means of media is a very good idea, but I think that one thing I have not heard anything about in any of the occupy movements anywhere is the fact that well-planned strategic boycotts are going to be necessary to fulfill that quest of dethroning the 1%.
On that note, I wonder what the occupy list of products to boycott is going to be; or, if and or when it's going to start?

Everybody in theory, has free will but the practices of particular militaries and police in certain areas in the world and the US for that matter come down pretty hard on people that actually practice their free will to disagree with their government or whatever regime it may be that is doing something they, the people don't like.And sometimes the authorities end up actually persecuting people that express there free will to gain enough public attention for a movement to actually make the changes that the people really want and need.

Anyway, I do like the idea of dialogue here.

There is face to face dialog at the Occupy General Assemblies (GA) everyday -- 3:30 pm in Santa Rosa -- like a town-hall meeting but in a circle, where people express their concerns and listen to others'. It is a way to learn to work together to organize. People in this society have been conditioned to look to a leader. In the Occupy movement there is a facilitator or facilitation team but no leader. Decisions are made by consensus. Everyone has an equal voice.

We live in a disfunctional society and you can expect to experience the disfunction carried over to the Occupy GA, but people are consciously working as a group to find solutions -- being the change we want to see happen.

So, come to Santa Rosa or go to Oakland or San Francisco, or visit your local Occupy camp. Nobody is treated as an outsider. Listen, learn and participate in the evolving democratic experiment. Don't expect easy answers or miracles. It's primarily about the process -- the journey, coping with reality along the way -- no woo woo.

Dialog, like here on Wacco, is ongoing at the Occupy camps -- one on one, small groups and at the Assemblies. Try it.

[zenekar]

Not sure if this is where it should be posted, but I received this email from Philip Harlan after I posted my reply here.
It is a logical followup to my previous invitation to come to participate with the Occupy camp in Santa Rosa.


There will be a Santa Rosa City Council meeting tomorrow, Tuesday November 8, at 4:00 pm (100 Santa Rosa Avenue).

I was at the negotiations today, between Occupy Santa Rosa and the City and I also stayed for the General Assembly of Occupy Santa Rosa. It was decided tonight that Occupy SR would accept the permit process. The details are to be worked out tomorrow, with a GA at 1:00 PM. I will be there.

The City Council is expected to reach a final decision on the agreement at the 4:00 Pm meeting. This is no secret to the Tea Baggers and they are expected to turn out in force. WE NEED AS MANY SUPPORTERS AS POSSIBLE TOMORROW.

If you cannot attend, could you please phone or fax city hall or write the Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers? As last week some text and email addresses are below.

If we are to change the direction our country is going, now is the time and the Occupy Movement is the force, please stand up for the 99%. THAT’S US!

I am asking you to please write the councilmembers and to show up at the city council meeting if at all possible. I have written sample text and contact information for the Council below.

Thank you,
Philip Harlan
Phone: 707-235-5606


Dear (Mayor, Vice Mayor or Councilmember),

I am writing in support of the Occupy Santa Rosa Movement.

As the Occupy Movement spreads and gains support all over the nation, I gain hope that it will result in legislation that will benefit the citizens of the United States of America. But the movement can only sustain itself with the support of the public and those who have been charged with leading us.

Santa Rosa, proudly, has the distinction of having the largest Occupy Movement in the nation in proportion to the population of the city. I urge you to support this movement by allowing the tents to stay up.

Occupy Santa Rosa needs the support of all of us.

Respectfully,
Your Name and contact information.

The Santa Rosa City Council's mailing address is:
100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 10
Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Phone: 707-543-3010 Fax: 707-543-3030

You may email the Council at the addresses below.

Mayor Ernesto Olivares
[email protected]

Vice Mayor Jake Ours
[email protected]

Councilmember Scott Bartley
[email protected]

Councilmember Susan Gorin
[email protected]

Councilmember John Sawyer
[email protected]

Councilmember Marsha Vas Dupre
[email protected]

Councilmember Gary Wysocky
[email protected]

[Hotspring 44]

I Received an email from Barry that that was titled "Lost post on WaccoBB". It said:

I'm very sorry but we have had to restore the WaccoBB database to Tuesday morning after encountering too many problems with a system upgrade. This post is no longer on the the system. It would be a big help in returning the database to the most current form if you would return to WaccoBB.net and repost this under your account. Note that the buttons below won't work. You should be able to copy the text below and paste it into your new post. You are welcome to make whatever changes that may be appropriate.

...So I am re-posting it here less the emoticons as was requested.
I also noticed that the post from someguy that I was replying to was also "lost" (?)

someguy wrote:
Well what should take place of the private federal reserve bank should be whats written in our Constitution, which is a gold standard to ensure that our spending is kept in check, and reverting back to allowing our congress to print money.

I'm guessing maybe you did not watch this 3+ hour movie: How International Bankers Gained Control of America - Money Masters - Full Docu
? They did a very excellent job on explaining why the gold standard will not work and would put us right back where we are right now.

Anyway, I think you should do some homework on that one; Google “what happened to the gold in Fort Knox?” to get a better understanding of what I am talking about.

After you've done that homework, if you could then explain to me why the gold standard would work considering the way that things are now; I am quite interested in a reasonable explanation of how the richest 1% wouldn't already have the same advantage as they do now and the rest of us 99% would make any gains in making equitable the imbalance in the economic system the way it is now if the “gold standard” system were to be mandated into law now.

The unfortunate fact is that the international bankers (“Money Masters”) already have the vast majority of the processed gold and claims on the known mineral deposits, etc. so the gold standard is as old-fashioned and out of date for us 99% as the model T is on the interstate where the speed limits are 70 and 75 mph and is also as out of date as Orville and Wilbur Wright’s first aircraft compared to an F 16 fighter jet.
I think your thinking on that particular issue is either based on a lack of information about the gold situation or some form of rigid mindset regarding what you believe the Constitution is supposed to mean to be so absolutely literal about being only gold standard.
That was adequate for the times, I suppose, but it wouldn't work for the 99% the way things are now; it would just backfire on us rather hard and rapidly.

We need a different paradigm than the gold standard at this point.
Anyway, that movie I put the link to is rather long and it took me several times of listening to it and watching it, and I will certainly need to listen to it and watch it 10 more times to really fully get a grasp of all of what was said; but, I think it's extremely important to realize all of what was said about how the system which they were describing works and how to get out from under it to save the country/world before it's too late.

someguy wrote:
As far as appointing Supreme Court justices, I really don't know how to go about reforming that situation. Maybe you might have some ideas Hotspring44?

I most certainly do not have any absolute answers, but one suggestion would be that there should be a pool of judges, which have made decisions on controversial issues, and another pool of judges either current or retired maybe even both, and also the current, elected politicians and then maybe even an odd number of citizens who are elected by the locals (citizens) to decide out of the pool of selected judges and prospective Supreme Court justice nominees, which few of those should be considered for each individual seat. (?)

The reason I mentioned controversial issues that they (the perspectives) presided over is because of how they made their decisions and what their decision/s were based on and how the other justices helping the process would consider their decisions.

Then there would be the politicians that are the current elected representatives, and then there would be citizens, who are specifically elected by other citizens in their local areas to represent the citizens just for that one single pool that would be able to ask questions directly to each prospective....

..At that point, I'm not sure exactly how but that pool of justices left over to decide on would be narrowed down to somewhere between three and five perspectives.
Also, there is the possibility that somebody does not necessarily have to have been a judge, but also a prospective could actually be a extremely well-balanced and astute law professor or lawyer or both and that person would quite likely be a good, Supreme Court Justice that could also be in that pool of final persons being considered for Supreme Court Justice for that particular position.

I have not processed those thoughts very thoroughly, but that's just what's on the top of my head at the moment. {For the sake of dialogue, you know.}.

someguy wrote:
That is why we have a democratic republic to hash out these ideas among the people. Albeit difficult with a corrupt corporate media structure that is monopolized by what, like three mega corporations now? Regardless of who wrote the Constitution, it still stands as the best document ever devised by a country. It gave the most freedom and equality to this country, maybe not at its conception, but throughout American history it has enabled our country to grow and realize these guarantees promised in that document.

I realize that nothing is perfect, but there are some mighty strong forces out there that have been gaming the system and they, by doing so have been royally kicking our collective ass!
We have to make some extremely difficult to do changes to make them stop!
They won't stop it until they can't do it to us anymore!
Remember that the democratic republic was based on servitude to get the job done; some of which was not voluntary. That's why there was a draft into the armed services.

someguy wrote:
Also the Constitution can be amended and has been several times. That is another beautiful aspect of the document and the people who wrote it.

That’s where the political gaming has come into play. If a certain number of paid for by the 1% people in the House of Representatives in Congress are in office, there will be no amendments that would amount to any advantage to 99%; that’s where I think we are at now.
Also on that note, the Electoral College system may have to be reconsidered for amending because that has been gamed into the ground and favors the few at the cost of the many (IMHO).

There is more to this reply but I am still editing it and I am too tired to continue on it tonight.

[Hotspring 44]

someguy; You stated the problem well. It is not we the people, it is we the corporations. That is why we should stop funding the corporations and retain our own wealth.

I also did state: "it's not our money" and I might add at this point in time; nor is it our gold now ether.


Could you be more specific? What do you mean when you say, “our own wealth”?.. ...Because that term could become quite subjective; so I need to have a reasonable understanding of what you mean, when you say that for me to be able to make a reasonable reply to it.

someguy; The government should collect revenue, from tariffs, sales taxes, and usages fees. But the Federal Government really shouldn't be very big. I would argue that local governments should be collecting the majority of taxes from the people directly in those communities.

Okay, so you say tariffs. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say “tariffs” Do you mean taxes on imports from foreign countries?... ... Or other states?... ... Could/would that include; production of goods or commodities, consumption, or purchases of fuel, minerals, or any other energy and for mining related commodities (only) for (one) example, or?


Sales taxes; are you referring to the original sales were the way it is in some States like California where when a retail business buys something wholesale, they have to pay the state sales tax directly upon original purchase. Then when they sell that product to you, then you pay that State sales tax as it shows on your receipt?... ...Or something to that effect?

Anyway, what about if somebody buys something from the retail store (and of course pays the tax that the merchant charges) and then sells it to somebody else; would it matter? Would they have to pay sales tax under your proposal?... ... Would that sales tax be state, county, community, or?... ... or could it possibly be some combination of the above?... ...I see the potential for tax based, localized discrimination on that.

”Usages fees”, usages fees could quite easily become abusiveages fees!
A local area could just discriminate against certain class of people and force upon them by so-called "reasonable" usages fees a “sin tax” so to speak, but not because it's actually reasonable, no, instead, it really would be because they can get away with it and make painful tax burden onto the people who may have lifestyles they (the local supervisors, or majority vote) decide (unconstitutionally (?)) they don’t approve of.


Usages fees is one of the most horrible ways to tax, unless it's federally (or at least state) based on a product which needs processing after use, such as un-recyclables that cost the public after use to deal with like petroleum, Natural Gas, and other things that have consequences to all of us even those of us that don't directly use them but still have a share in the burden of the costs and loss of use of the public lands due to mining drilling, and pollution, etc. , also, on some recyclables for example; bottles, cans, plastic etc. , the California CRV on particular beverage containers is one example.... ...


Then, what about when it comes to funding for roads and other infrastructure? Would there be any tolls for using a Highway instead of gas tax or any other already existing taxes? If so who will collect the money for the roads, highways and bridges etc.? What about train or, mass transit?...
...Usage fees certainly aren't enough to put together and maintain infrastructure like that.


There are just so many things to consider when it comes to revenue.
I think that's why people like to have the comfort of foisting those decisions off onto others of whom they call leaders (politicians).
And those I mentioned so far are just the domestic things.


What about international things and actual defense?... ... Military?... ...International trade and other treaties that may have been forged by the 1%'s stooges that we may be on the hook for, which may be to our collective economic disadvantage?

someguy; We need to decide what we want the government to do for us. Do we want our government to occupy countries and bomb children?

I would hope not! I sure don't!

someguy; Do we want a government to give tax breaks and subsidies for the mega rich? Do we want the government spying on us? Do we want a government telling us how to build our homes, what we can do with our land, or a government that forces us to buy goods and/or services from their big business buddies? If your like me, I would say no to all of the above. And that means the government needs far less revenue than it is receiving currently.

I'm not so sure if I can say that I entirely agree with you on the:... ..."what we can do with our land" part of what you are saying, because, in my line of thinking, that depends upon whether or not doing that (whatever it is) on your land (with “your own” property etc.) endangers the community at large in a real substantial way.

I don't want a nuclear power plant built in bodega Bay, or Point Arena which happens to be on the San Andreas Fault zone area. Each of those almost got built, by the way. PG & E. did own the property there at bodega Bay at one point in time and they were going to build a nuclear power plant there.
So, shouldn't PG& E or anybody else for that matter be regulated at some level? With very powerful entities like PG&E, Oil and Gas conglomerates, etc.; The locals don’t have a chance without Federal Regulations that protect the people from being overrun and abused and even sometimes, poisoned by the bigger, for the profit benefit of the very few who don’t even have to once set foot on the places that they pollute, destroy, and make a living hell for the ones that have nowhere else to go to live?

I think we have to be extremely careful when we talk about deregulating and disempowering federal government regulatory systems without reasonable immediate replacement where it counts, because doing that could turn the huge corporate dogs on us and they could end up biting us real hard on the butt!... ... More than once!... ...and more than one corporate dog!

There are good reasons for regulations (yes federal government environmental regulations for one) that the government enforces.
You wouldn't want your next-door neighbor to just dump his poop out of a bucket onto the ground under your kitchen window, would you?... ...(I know, that’s local but scale that up and the neighbor could be a sewage importer!).
Or what about somebody that wants to burn tires in their wood stove and you happen to be downwind choking on the black smoke; You wouldn't want them doing that would you?... ...( I know, that’s local too but scale that up and the neighbor could be a toxic waste management disposal site operator).

What about regulations about banking? The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act without any reasonably good alternatives to change it was just like pulling the rug out from under us, it is one of the things that many of us 99% believe that helped feed the current economic crisis we are experiencing now.

Wouldn't abolishing the fed have to be some sort of “regulation”?

I think people have to be more aware of the situation and be well informed so that regulations that do come in the future are good necessary ones and not onerous, absurd, bad, or unbalanced ones that favor somebody that has enough money to bribe and twist a few arms, politically, and get away with something nobody else could get away with without the power of big money.

Then there is a multitude of humanitarian things to consider regarding federal regulations, such as: the ingredients in baby food to how to treat prisoners You know the people that get put in prison for possession of marijuana and other essentially victimless crimes, for example?
Not to mention the ones that get put in prison for crimes committed that are not victimless.

Food and adequate shelter for the less fortunate, unemployed, homeless, disabled,... ...single teenage mothers that have been abused and have no family back-up, etc etc etc.

There are always going to be humanitarian considerations, and most baby food is not poisonous, but shouldn't a poor mother's baby that gets poisoned by bad baby food still get timely, competent medical treatment?


Also, prison sentences aren't life sentences, eventually the vast majorities of those prisoners are going to come out and most of them will need to become normal, working citizens. That is pretty much impossible if they are not treated humanely inside of the prison walls, particularly when the unemployment level is so high.

We have to figure out how to rein in the power of big corporate money; particularly international and “shadow government” (also see: https://www.shadowstats.com/).
We also have to figure out a way to rein in and abolish the “prison industrial complex”.

Then there is farm labor; shouldn't there be some kind of humanitarian regulations regarding farm laborers and their access to drinking water, shaded rest spots and allocated times for that when working in the open under the hot sun, and bathrooms so they don’t have to hold it or go in the field?
What about medical care for those who become ill in the field or anyone that becomes disabled from work-related injury or illness?

someguy; Well like I said and you implied, the government is not we the people, on the contrary it is a system for the oligarchs, aristocrats, corporate cronies, and war criminals. Those people are truly bogeymen, and we have to strip them of their power and influence over our daily lives. Just think how much power we strip from these people when we stop them from printing money and giving it to their friends. Just think about how much power we reclaim by keeping what we earn to better ourselves and our community.

It sounds to me like you are leaning back towards the gold standard discussion again.


Remember, “They” have the vast majority of the gold already in their vaults, they also have the deeds and long-term government leases to most of the gold mines and other valuable mineral deposits.


They already have the advantage in their contracts regarding the gold and other precious metals that could be used in such a way as gold has been used to base the money system on.
We have to figure out another way besides something that would preemptively disenfranchise us, and we also don't want to end up in a position where we would just have to wrench the power back and away from the 1% repeatedly throughout eternity.

To go by, the old gold standard now would be fools gold for us!

I don't really have any specific answer for that, other than the gold standard is not the answer that is for sure. I'm absolutely certain of that.

The only way the gold standard would work is if the government seized the gold since the gold isn't really that important, it would not be worth having a huge bloody world war over it.
There must be a better way to use something other than metal that would not preemptively disenfranchise us for the purpose of having a stable, equitable, and fair monetary standard.

I think human creativity and sharing is a good standard on which to use as a baseline to derive a new monetary standard to formulate something better than what we have now.
Figuring out exactly what that is, is beyond what I am capable of formulating in my head at the moment.
I think most people would have a difficult time formulating something like that properly or reasonably without most of everybody's input as to what would be valued and could actually be utilized in a fair and balanced manner.

I think using something like gold and silver coins etc. and all that sort of thing was good practice for humans to learn from but it most certainly is not the final answer by any means, it's just a step along the way of our evolution that we have made.

someguy; While it is true that when people express their freewill they can be repressed by the same forces that I'm arguing should have their power striped. But on a deeper level even if our freewill results in repression, we still have it. Everyone has it, not just Americans. And that is what is most threatening to the status quo...

For the most part, I don't think an individual's free will means one hair on a gnat's ass to the status quo per se, but two or 3 billion people's combined, organized, and relentless resolve most definitely is.
That's what we need, two or 3 billion of us to start with, and then it has a fair chance of growing into something that has a reasonably good chance of succeeding. That's what I truly believe our challenge to the 1% is supposed to accomplish.

Anyway there is probably a multitude of things that the 99% want change, but I think that to keep it together it would, at first, have to be narrowed down to maybe three things.

(1) One thing (here in the US) is to get rid of corporate personhood. Corporations are not people!


(2) Another thing would be to get rid of the money creation, with the fractional reserve banking system and replace it with something like the greenback.... ...(also for a detailed history of that: https://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html).


(3) Another thing would be to During a time of war in other words, such as; Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. there should be written into the Constitution that a progressive income and/or profit tax rate on corporations and possibly individuals that Increases to at least 75% In ascending steps and also taxes charged on all transfers on Wall Street to pay for and to discourage wartime profiteering, particularly by foreign, corporate entities. In other words, make it unprofitable to have war!

[CSummer]

For some time now I have thought that we suffer from major illusions about what we have the power to do.
For example, if we think we could - "dismantle the .1%'s plan . . . [and] . . . strip them of their power," I don't
see how we have the power to do that.

On the other hand, more and more of us recognize that we live in a very un-democratic society and some
may believe that this is our only option. This may also be an illusion, though. It may be that we do have the
power to create true democracies, at least on a small scale. This, it seems to me, is what the Occupy
movement is attempting to demonstrate, and is what many egalitarian intentional communities have
tried to do.

Responsibility and power are inextricably connected. We live in a culture in which the accepted way of life
has involved giving responsibility to others - to authority figures and economic entities (e.g., corporations)
over which we have little or no control in order to meet our needs. In doing so, we give vast power to others -
and often have no idea who those others are. This is very dangerous, of course, and leads to all kinds of
power abuses due to the lack of accountability. The economic and governing systems are based on this
way of life and facilitate the surrendering (hence concentration) of power and responsibility. This, I believe,
is the core of our dysfunctional, violent and destructive socio-economic systems, at least on the level of
human society. (There is another, even more basic core on the personal/psychological level that I won't go
into here. It is, though, our greatest obstacle to creating a society based on mutual caring and sharing of
resources and power.)

My "two bits" on money: The only real value is human energy (work-hours) and what it produces, so it seems
to make sense to have that as the basis for a medium of exchange. Gold is a finite, scarce resource, but the
supply of money needs to expand as more people produce more goods through their efforts. Basing money
on a scarce resource results in a scarcity of the medium on which economic activity depends (e.g., money),
hence creating an artificial scarcity. If we want an abundance-fostering economy, we need a medium that expands
with everyone's real or potential productive work.

CSummer

[Iolchan]

This is Really a wonderful Thread ! At last, we are getting somewhere !

someguy wrote:

Well what should take place of the private federal reserve bank should be whats written in our Constitution, which is a gold standard to ensure that our spending is kept in check, and reverting back to allowing our congress to print money.

Hotspring 44 wrote:

I'm guessing maybe you did not watch this 3+ hour movie: How International Bankers Gained Control of America - Money Masters - Full Document ? They did a very excellent job on explaining why the gold standard will not work and would put us right back where we are right now.

Anyway, I think you should do some homework on that one; Google : “what happened to the gold in Fort Knox?”to get a better understanding of what I am talking about.

After you've done that homework, if you could then explain to me why the gold standard would work considering the way that things are now; I am quite interested in a reasonable explanation of how the richest 1% wouldn't already have the same advantage as they do now and the rest of us 99% would make any gains in making equitable the imbalance in the economic system the way it is now if the “gold standard” system were to be mandated into law now.

Hotspring 44 wrote:

Remember, “They” have the vast majority of the gold already in their vaults, they also have the deeds and long-term government leases to most of the gold mines and other valuable mineral deposits.

They already have the advantage in their contracts regarding the gold and other precious metals that could be used in such a way as gold has been used to base the money system on.

We have to figure out another way besides something that would preemptively disenfranchise us, and we also don't want to end up in a position where we would just have to wrench the power back and away from the 1% repeatedly throughout eternity.

To go by, the old gold standard now would be fools gold for us!

I don't really have any specific answer for that, other than the gold standard is not the answer that is for sure. I'm absolutely certain of that.

The only way the gold standard would work is if the government seized the gold since the gold isn't really that important, it would not be worth having a huge bloody world war over it.

There must be a better way to use something other than metal that would not preemptively disenfranchise us for the purpose of having a stable, equitable, and fair monetary standard.

I think human creativity and sharing is a good standard on which to use as a baseline to derive a new monetary standard to formulate something better than what we have now.

Figuring out exactly what that is, is beyond what I am capable of formulating in my head at the moment.

I think most people would have a difficult time formulating something like that properly or reasonably without most of everybody's input as to what would be valued and could actually be utilized in a fair and balanced manner.

I think using something like gold and silver coins etc. and all that sort of thing was good practice for humans to learn from but it most certainly is not the final answer by any means, it's just a step along the way of our evolution that we have made.

(1) One thing (here in the US) is to get rid of corporate personhood. Corporations are not people!

(2) Another thing would be to get rid of the money creation, with the fractional reserve banking system and replace it with something like the greenback.... ...(also for a detailed history of that: https://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html).

CSummer wrote:

My "two bits" on money: The only real value is human energy (work-hours) and what it produces, so it seems to make sense to have that as the basis for a medium of exchange. Gold is a finite, scarce resource, but the supply of money needs to expand as more people produce more goods through their efforts. Basing money on a scarce resource results in a scarcity of the medium on which economic activity depends (e.g., money), hence creating an artificial scarcity. If we want an abundance-fostering economy, we need a medium that expands with everyone's real or potential productive work.

The reason why "going back to the Gold Standard" won't work is because roughly 90% of the Gold that has ever been mined, milled, and melted into ingots, has been deposited in Zurich, Switzerland, in the vaults of Credit Suisse – [which vaults, curiously, are not located in the bank itself, in downtown Zurich, but under the tarmac of the international airport at Zurich.] I learned that from Francis Shopp, who used to be the bagman for Cardinal Spellman.

The Swiss bankers are not likely to cough up any portion of that stash of gold just to oblige conservative American "gold-bugs" who want the Gold Standard back. That's just the way it is... Nevertheless, I would favor the re-opening of the United States Treasury Mints to the free coinage of Silver and Gold.

I like the Quote - of Buckminster Fuller, that CSummer offered us at the beginning of this thread:

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something,
build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - Buckminster Fuller

If you would like to see a Plan, a Model, for a new institution – a “Common-Wealth Central Bank” to replace the privately-owned, devious corporation known as the "Fed," you may check out the thread I initiated, also in this same "Occupy Everywhere" category, "Amendment XVIII." All of the angles and Questions that are being raised here have already been asked, and the Solutions formulated.

Gentle folks, I would like to offer and submit this Amendment XXVIII, into this forum as an document to be examined, and subjected to the most minute, and critical scrutiny... You have my permission to kick it around, and find whatever faults and flaws there are in it. Who knows? Perhaps, in the Forum of Public opinion, we can collectively perfect a document that is already pretty close to perfect.

Blessings,
Mark

["Mad" Miles]

Tried to post this link two days ago, but site problems prevented me. I found this several weeks ago, and in all the back and forth about the Fed here on waccobb in recent years and what should be done about it, this made the most cogent sense to me:

https://lbo-news.com/2011/10/13/on-ows-and-the-fed/

[Iolchan]

"Mad" Miles wrote:

Tried to post this link two days ago, but site problems prevented me. I found this several weeks ago, and in all the back and forth about the Fed here on waccobb in recent years and what should be done about it, this made the most cogent sense to me:

https://lbo-news.com/2011/10/13/on-ows-and-the-fed/

This is what Doug Henwood, at Left Business Observer wrote, in the link posted, by Miles, directly above. I am posting it here, in full, because, as an analysis, it deserves some comment.



On the Federal Reserve

I have noticed some strange, Ron Paul-ish stuff about the Federal Reserve around Occupy Wall Street. I do want to file a complaint about that.


The Federal Reserve is admittedly manna for conspiracists. It’s a fairly opaque institution that does work for the big guys. But it’s not their puppet exactly. A friend who spent many years at the New York branch of the Fed once told me that within the institution, the thinking is that bankers are short-sighted critters who come and go but the Fed has to do the long-term thinking for the ruling class. So it has more autonomy than the popular tales allow.


The founding of the Fed is also a great subject of mythmaking—like secret meetings involving more than a few Jews. (The conspiratorial mindset often overlaps with anti-Semitic stories about rootless cosmopolitans, their greed and scheming.) There were some secret meetings, but the creation of a central bank was a major project of the U.S. elite for decades around the turn of the 19th century into the 20th. There’s a great book on that topic by James Livingston that I urge anyone interested in the topic to read. It was a long, complex campaign, and not the task of a secret train ride to a remote island.


Although the Fed does put U.S. interests first, it is internationally minded, and consults constantly with its foreign counterparts. This is also rich soil for conspiratorial thinking—that, plus, of course the Jews. (Greenspan. Bernanke. You’d almost forget that 1980s Fed chair Paul Volcker’s middle name is Adolph.) You know the story—dastardly plots involving foreign financiers (with names like Rothschild) whose victims are good patriotic Americans. As anyone who watches the Fed closely, like me, could tell you, that’s just not the case.


And it’s tempting to see this body as controlling everything—it’s complicated and messy to think about how financial markets work, and the Fed’s relationship to those markets. Much easier to think of the Fed controlling everything. But in fact the Fed sometimes reacts to the markets, sometimes leads them, and on occasion fights with them.


In the 1980s, the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker ran a very tight ship. It deliberately provoked a deep recession in 1981-82 by driving up interest rates toward 20% to scare the pants of the working class. It was a very successful class war from above that led to a massive upward redistribution of income. More recently, the Fed handed out massive amounts of money—I’m not citing actual figures since they’re vague and mind-boggling, but they’re very big—with no strings attached to major banks. Something like this was necessary to keep everything from going down the drain, but it didn’t have to be done so secretly and with no accountability. Banks were basically given blank checks to restore the status quo ante bustum. That’s terrible. You could say the same for the TARP bailout—massive giveaways with no accountability or restrictions. This is all odious.


But more recently, Fed chair Ben Bernanke has been about the only major policymaker in the world pushing for more stimulus for the U.S. economy. He’s not a partisan of austerity, like the Republicans or much of the pundit class. For this he’s earned some criticisms on the right. The right would be happy to let things go down to prove a point. They think we need a “purgation.” I was recently on a panel with a Fed-hating libertarian who invoked the concept of “purgatory,” as if we’ve all sinned. But that would create far more misery than we know now.


There’s a video (#OWS Protester Nails It! Federal Reserve) of an Occupy Wall Street protester calling for an end to the Fed and urging a vote for Ron Paul. It, and the comments, are straight out of the right-wing critique of the Fed. I’ve seen signs calling for that around the occupation. This is bad news. Ron Paul has a coherent political philosophy. He’s a libertarian. He may hate imperial war, but he also hates Social Security and Medicare. The reason he wants to end the Fed is that he wants to get the state out of the money business and return to a 19th century gold standard. A gold standard is painfully austere. The gold supply increases by less than 2% a year. That means tremendous pressure on average incomes. It’s great if you’re a big bondholder, but hell if you’re a regular person. When we were on a gold standard in the 19th century we had frequent panics, crises, and depressions. Almost half of the last three decades of the 19th century was spent in recession or depression. It put both rural farmers and urban workers through the wringer.


We need to democratize the Fed, open it up, and subject money to more humane and less upper-class-friendly regulation. But let’s not sign on with Ron Paul, please. And let’s not join with the simple-minded right-wing critique that blames all of capitalism’s systemic problems on government institutions.

[Iolchan]

Quite apart from the red-herring issue of the libertarian Republican, Ron Paul,

As I wrote in The House of Morgan,

Historically, it was axiomatic amongst the non-communist, Old Left in the 1920s and '30s to regard the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, in 1914, as a kind of bloodless financial coup d'etat by Wall Street over Constitutional government. The Progressive Party Platform of 1924, the Platform upon which Robert LaFollette ran; the Farmer-Labor Platforms from 1920 through 1934; as well as the Socialist Party Platform of 1932; all contained planks calling for the nationalization of the Federal Reserve Bank. (See, National Party Platforms, Vol. 1, 1840-1956, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois).

And, if you study the Congressional Record in the years from 1908 through 1913, you will find that the chief opposition to the "Aldrich Plan" and the subsequent Federal Reserve Act of 1913, came from the group known as the "Western Progressives" - amongst whom Robert LaFollette, Sr., George Norris, and Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., were prominent. Charles Lindbergh, Sr., the radical congressman from the Sixth District of Minnesota, presented the most articulate and principled opposition to the Money Trust, and the train of banker-sponsored legislation that led to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Lindbergh's books, Banking and Currency, and the Money Trust, 1913, Why is Your Country at War?, 1917, and The Economic Pinch, 1922, were suppressed and quietly removed from practically every library in the country. One book by Lindbergh, The House of Morgan, has disappeared without a trace, even out of the Library of Congress. It has gone into the Orwellian memory-hole, and become a non-book, as if it never existed.

The main thesis of Lindbergh's books posets the existence of a Super Trust, developing out of an agglomeration of capital accumulated by a group of American industrial and finance capitalists who are commonly known as the Robber Barons. According to the elder Lindbergh, this group - which included the Stillman-Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Kuhn-Loeb interests - had unified their common interests into a powerful Trust by the early 1870s. They then promoted the Sherman anti-Trust Act, in order to prevent any other, late comers from climbing up to enjoy the Olympian privileges that they had acquired on their plateau of Wealth.

The elder Lindbergh termed this Super Trust the Money Trust. I have given a name to his thesis - the Lindbergh Analysis.

The House of J.P. Morgan, and the Morgan banks, Guaranty Trust, and Bankers' Trust, were vitally interested in the foundation of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and were among the "big six" money market Prime Banks, which purchased the "Class A" stock of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1914.

Ferdinand Lundberg, familiar to 'Sixties radicals as the author of The Rich and the Super-Rich, wrote, in his far more radical, and specific work, America's Sixty Families, in 1937:

"The Federal Reserve Act was the offshoot of a bill originally presented in the Senate by the dubious Aldrich, whose measure incorporated the collective wisdom of a monetary commission under his chairmanship. The ideas of the commission in turn emanated from the fertile brains of the Wall Street clique, whose deputies worked out the details in 1908 [sic, actually, it was in 1910] at the remote Jekyll Island Club, Jekyll Island, off the Georgia Coast, during an ostensible duck hunting expedition. Among those present Were Paul M. Warburg, partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Company; Henry P. Davison, partner of J.P. Morgan and Company; Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank; Dr. Piatt Andrew, special assistant to the Senate Monetary Commission; and Benjamin Strong, vice-president of the Bankers Trust Company ( J.P. Morgan).

"The protracted Jekyll island conference took place in the atmosphere of an elaborate conspiracy. The trip to Georgia was made in a private car chartered by Aldrich, and the travelers all used assumed names so that the train crew would not establish their identities. For a long time there was no public knowledge that such a conclave had been held.

"The financiers wanted a central bank on the European model to facilitate the large- scale manipulation of the national economy... But when Aldrich introduced the scenario produced by the Jekyll Island duck hunters it was immediately hooted down as a nefarious Wall Street enterprise and, for the time being, came to naught.

"The task of the liberal Wilson Administration was to place essentially the Jekyll Island measure on the statute books, but in an eccentric guise. The job of drawing up such a bill was given to Paul M. Warburg, one of the Jekyll Island plotters. Warburg collaborated with all the big financiers, as his own memoirs reveal.

"The Warburg-Wall Street draft, superficially revised by Wilson and Senator Carter Glass of Virginia, was simply the Jekyll Island duck hunters' scheme for a central bank, dressed up in fancy toggery. There was some opposition to it from uninformed Wall Street quarters, but it was, significantly, endorsed by the American Bankers Association.

"In practice the Federal Reserve Bank of New York became the fountainhead of the system of twelve regional banks, for New York was the money market of the nation. The other eleven banks were so many expensive mausoleums erected to salve the local pride and quell the Jacksonian fears of the hinterland. Benjamin Strong, one of the original duck hunters... president of the Bankers' Trust Company, was selected as the first Governor of the New York Reserve Bank.

"An adept in high finance, Strong for many years manipulated the country's monetary system at the discretion of directors representing the leading New York banks. Under Strong, the Reserve System, unsuspected by the nation, was brought into interlocking relations with the Bank of England and the Bank of France, greatly strengthening the financial fabric of the political status quo in the western hemisphere. While Wall Street, during and after the World War, moved on to ever enlarging profits, the farmer, whom the Reserve System was ostensibly created to assist, moved from bad to worse."

Ferdinand Lundberg, the historian, and professor of political science at N.Y.U., who wrote those lines, was Jewish, and a Leftist, as well.

Sincerely,
Mark Walter Evans,
mischelling of the second degree.

[Iolchan]

Happy New Year !
2012, We Salute You !

Over the holidays, I happened to find a remaindered copy of Ron Paul's book, "END THE FED" for sale on a discount table. So I bought it, read it, and carefully highlighted all of the important passages. Perhaps I will write a serious critique of the book; someday, soon.

Meanwhile, I'd like to share a few reflections I gleaned about it.

In the first place, I absolutely agree with Congressman Ron Paul of Tehas about the critical significance of the Institution known as the Federal Reserve Bank - and that it is the main problem in the North American economy. Together with the Bank for International Settlements in Basel Switzerland {the First "World Bank," established in 1930} and the World Bank / I.M.F. complex {a Beast with two horns} the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the special franchise it has on Money-creation, is one of the major problems in the entire World.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with Ron Paul that we should "End the Fed." However, upon reading Ron Paul's book, and analyzing what he is proposing, in the place of the Federal Reserve System - a return to the Gold Standard, I can hardly agree with his proposed solution. In point of fact, it would be far better to liquidate the National & International Debt; indeed, All Debt, Public and Private, than to merely "end the Fed."

It seems to me, that one of the chief goals of the Occupy Movement should be to make 2012, Our Year of Jubilee - for the cancellation of all Debt; public and private. For, to merely "End the Fed" and yet consider the trillions of dollars of Debt paper {in the form of U.S. Treasury Securities} as somehow legitimate - and worthy of payment; to be paid in Gold no less; would be to fix upon the Masses and the tax-paying citizens - the 99% - a burden greater than the burden borne by the peasants under Feudalism.

You think things are bad Now? It can scarcely be imagined how we could function under the present debt burden; when the only money of account to pay off the "Debt" would be Gold...

It is not clear, from reading his book - that Ron Paul understands the difference between the various kinds of paper money. Indeed, he seems to confuse and conflate "fiat money" - which he holds to be invariably bad, with Debt-paper, (i.e. interest-bearing U.S. Treasury bonds.)

The National Debt of the United States of America stood at only one billion dollars in 1913. The rest of it has been generated because the Federal Reserve System requires the U.S. Treasury Department to "under-write" (with interest-bearing T-Bills) all of the Cash Money that the Federal Reserve Bank is allowed to create for free. And that, in a nutshell is the crux of the problem.

Ron Paul possesses a religious devotion to the teachings of the Austrian, or Vienna School of Economics (Ludvig Von Mises, Frederick Von Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, etc.) They are known, colloquially, as the "Gold-bugs," or the "hard-money school." The Austrian School are ideologically opposed to the notion of the Central Bank. That, after all, was one of the planks in the Communist Manifesto. Furthermore, Ron Paul's economic adviser, Lew Rockwell, is adamantly opposed to the very Idea that any State >read, government< should have the power to create "fiat money."

Thus, Ron Paul does not think that the Lincoln Greenback Dollar is the solution to our financial woes. That is too bad; because obviously, it is. Perhaps, if Ron were able to bend on this point, more informed Radicals would be able to support - or bloc with him.

Of Such Substance Dreams Are Made... Don't hold your breath.

Mark Walter Evans

[Magick]

I would like to bring up a different side to the Ron Paul story.
Some people, (I am not referring to Iolchan) seemed enamored with Ron Paul around the issues of economics and military policy, but are people aware that he considers abortion a violent, criminal act that denies the so-called rights of the unborn? That he advocates the repeal of Roe vs. Wade?
Yours in truth, Magick

Happy New Year !
2012, We Salute You !

Over the holidays, I happened to find a remaindered copy of Ron Paul's book, "END THE FED" for sale on a discount table. So I bought it, read it, and carefully highlighted all of the important passages. Perhaps I will write a serious critique of the book; someday, soon.....

Mark Walter Evans

[someguy]

I would like to bring up a different side to the Ron Paul story.
Some people, (I am not referring to Iolchan) seemed enamored with Ron Paul around the issues of economics and military policy, but are people aware that he considers abortion a violent, criminal act that denies the so-called rights of the unborn? That he advocates the repeal of Roe vs. Wade?
Yours in truth, Magick

I think most people who support Paul realize this and admire him for defending everyone's right to life, just as our Constitution guarantees.

[CSummer]

I won't pretend to understand all this, and I think that's part of the problem. They (the "one percent") have built an economic system over centuries that only they and their advisers - and perhaps a few astute economist-types - really understand. It also seems that only they can change it, and if it's working for them, why would they? So to me, it seems that thinking, talking or writing about it is sort of like commenting on professional sports or on a construction project as a "sidewalk superintendent." We can yell, "Hey, you guys are doing that all wrong! Don't you see?" And they'll say, "Oh, thanks for telling us!" and have a good laugh.

Perhaps that's why the "new paradigm" economic system I envision makes vastly less use of money (or other means of exchange accounting) than the current system. Indeed, we dispense with it entirely for the meeting of basic human needs, reserving its use for non-essentials or optional transactions. And the currency we use is based on something everyone can understand: the value of human effort (e.g., a person-hour).

So, my preference is to think, talk and write about those things that are within our power to change or create, and I would request that anyone who writes about major reforms to the existing systems of economics or governance include something about how they imagine those changes could be brought about - realistically, given the existing "corporatocracy."

I will confess, though, to being somewhat of a spectator myself, so I have been curious about Ron Paul - even to the extent of spending some time on his campaign web site. I appreciate hearing what other people have to say about him/his candidacy, as I wonder why some people seem to really like him. I do definitely appreciate his anti-war/ anti-imperialism stance but am quite turned off by his views on domestic programs. My sense is that before you dismantle something that's providing a valuable function (e.g., Social Security) - even if it's less than ideal - you need to come up with something to replace it. If he has proposed anything, I'd appreciate someone telling me about it. I would also be very interested to know his position - as an Ob/Gyn - on routine infant circumcision.

CSummer

Happy New Year !
2012, We Salute You !

Over the holidays, I happened to find a remaindered copy of Ron Paul's book, "END THE FED" for sale on a discount table. So I bought it, read it, and carefully highlighted all of the important passages. Perhaps I will write a serious critique of the book; someday, soon.
. . .------- . . .

Of Such Substance Dreams Are Made... Don't hold your breath.

Mark Walter Evans

[Hotspring 44]

CSummer, I posted about that so-called "new paradigm" on another thread in the Category: Occupy Everywhere titled: “What’s the economy for anyway??!”. If you haven't seen it yet and you have the time and internet bandwidth for a 20.55 mp3 MB audio Download that the link in it goes to; It is worth the time to listen and ponder the ideas that are presented.

Perhaps that's why the "new paradigm" economic system I envision makes vastly less use of money (or other means of exchange accounting) than the current system. Indeed, we dispense with it entirely for the meeting of basic human needs, reserving its use for non-essentials or optional transactions. And the currency we use is based on something everyone can understand: the value of human effort (e.g., a person-hour).

So, my preference is to think, talk and write about those things that are within our power to change or create, and I would request that anyone who writes about major reforms to the existing systems of economics or governance include something about how they imagine those changes could be brought about - realistically, given the existing "corporatocracy."


CSummer

[Glia]

during the past summer Intact Sonoma had an information table at the Santa Rosa farmer's market. The table was across the street from the Ron Paul/libertarian table and contingent. The table and setup they had was impressive.

One evening crossed the street and asked a young, energetic disciple almost exactly that same question. He did not know and had never heard of Dr. Paul stating a position or opinion on it. His first *guess* was that Paul's position would be that it was the choice/right of the parents. When I asked him about the son's right to make his own choice as an adult and his right to autonomy over his own body and all of its parts, he pondered for a moment and then said Dr. Paul would probably support the right of the individual to make his own choice about his own body. "Right of individual choice" seemed to be the unifying theme of his response.

It was interesting that he had never been asked about this issue and had not given it consideration before. When presented with the idea that a child's body belongs to the child and is not the property of the parents, he agreed after a moment of thought. Just about everybody does as it really is a no-brainer.

... I would also be very interested to know his position - as an Ob/Gyn - on routine infant circumcision.

[ubaru]

I will confess, though, to being somewhat of a spectator myself, so I have been curious about Ron Paul - even to the extent of spending some time on his campaign web site. I appreciate hearing what other people have to say about him/his candidacy, as I wonder why some people seem to really like him. I do definitely appreciate his anti-war/ anti-imperialism stance but am quite turned off by his views on domestic programs. My sense is that before you dismantle something that's providing a valuable function (e.g., Social Security) - even if it's less than ideal - you need to come up with something to replace it. If he has proposed anything, I'd appreciate someone telling me about it. I would also be very interested to know his position - as an Ob/Gyn - on routine infant circumcision.

CSummer

I just listened to Peter Schiff speak about Austrian economics from a lecture series sponsored by Ron Paul's office which speaks to a lot of what Hotspring44 and others in this thread have mentioned such as our economy's relation to China and other countries. He speaks to the social value of eliminating some social programs. ie. If you don't have the hugely inefficient government running the Department of Education, the cost of education goes way down which means families won't be so put out to save for their kids' education and young people won't be graduating up to their eyeballs in toxic student loan debt.

He points out the obvious that I could not see, that now we are in a government bubble that is bigger than any previous bubble economy, including the housing bubble, and in order to recover, we're going to either have to take the medicine preemptively or have it forced on us in crisis when other countries refuse to buy our debt. And then we need to stop operating any more debt-based bubbles in our economy which may be accomplished by ending the federal reserve.

Bottom line: Austrian economics makes for a prosperous society based on capital, not debt, and eliminates laws that stop the people from prospering as they will when they are unencumbered with them.

I've written more about it here, including on social security, and I've posted the video. It's worth listening to just to view all these issues through this lens which, in my opinion, is full of common sense. It also carries an assumption that life operates out of a higher intelligence and leads to a natural order and balance in all sectors of life when allowed to do so.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...884#post145884

So, my preference is to think, talk and write about those things that are within our power to change or create, and I would request that anyone who writes about major reforms to the existing systems of economics or governance include something about how they imagine those changes could be brought about - realistically, given the existing "corporatocracy."

I like that request, Clint, and Peter Schiff's reform discussion qualifies as practical and doable IF we can organize enough people to audit the vote counting in the Republican primary where Paul would most certainly be winning if the vote weren't being tampered. And we can.

As to Paul's position on infant circumcision, I can't speak for him, however Libertarian philosophy would say that it's up to the parents whom you can educate and persuade, but you can't ethically force by law to do anything. But then again, it may get into the "liberty and pursuit of happiness" part of the Constitution. ;-) I'm against it myself, but I'd hate to have the government make a law for or against it. We're currently at such an extreme end of the pendulum of control by government for it's own ends--total government, total control--that voting for Ron Paul feels essential. He certainly is a mouth piece of this long overdue revolution we are in.

Liz

[CSummer]

Dear Liz,

Allow me to share a response to your statement: "I'm against it [infant circumcision] myself,
but I'd hate to have the government make a law for or against it."

I would agree that authoritarian government is less than an ideal institution - indeed, I see it
as a symptom of our social immaturity. It is our way of giving up our responsibility and power
to others to manage our affairs for us. But if there's any justifiable function for a government,
it is protecting the rights and safety of those who are vulnerable and unable to protect themselves.

And this - routine infant circumcision (RIC) - is one way government fails to perform this most
basic function - and even supports those who appear oblivious to the harm infant circumcision causes.
This is not a surprise to me, however, as I strongly believe the 1%, who want a supply of "pre-
traumatized" males to fight their wars, are behind the misguided professional advocacy of RIC.
They want men who are loyal, controllable and more willing to face danger: men who were robbed
of any sense of personal safety or autonomy at a very young age.

If the question were about laws to protect women against rape, I wonder if you'd feel the same way.
For those of us who have known the effects of trauma our whole lives, infant circumcision is no less
a violation of rights, no less an abuse of power and no less harmful psychically than any other form of
sexual assault.

May we some day soon grow to care and empathize enough with the newest members of our society
(and understand the principle of violence in; violence out) that we wouldn't dream of allowing anyone
to inflict such a wound on them. To me, it's not even a question of morals or ethics; it's asking:
what kind of world do we want to live in?

For Peace,
CSummer

As to Paul's position on infant circumcision, I can't speak for him, however Libertarian philosophy would say that it's up to the parents whom you can educate and persuade, but you can't ethically force by law to do anything. But then again, it may get into the "liberty and pursuit of happiness" part of the Constitution. ;-) I'm against it myself, but I'd hate to have the government make a law for or against it. We're currently at such an extreme end of the pendulum of control by government for it's own ends--total government, total control--that voting for Ron Paul feels essential. He certainly is a mouth piece of this long overdue revolution we are in.Liz

[phredo]

The guy who made the 3 hr film, "The Money Masters", Bill Still, later made a 116 min film, "The Secret of Oz," which, in my opinion, is much more watchable. (4 min trailer here .) The title is based on the idea that Frank Baum, the author of "The Wizard of Oz", was a backer of the greenback/populist movement of the late 19th century, and that his work was partially an allegory about money. You may think from the age of the ideas that they are outdated, but it all makes sense to me. Although the film doesn't have an exact "action plan", Still's ideas for monetary reform sound very similar to Paul Zarlenga's, below.

Paul Zarlenga wrote a bill that Dennis Kucinich introduced. You can read about it at https://www.monetary.org/ . They really want you to read the "short" 32 page synopsis, but at the section of the page, "Action Materials for Demonstrations", you can find shorter explanations. The basic idea is that banks will no longer be allowed to create money by issuing loans for more money than they actually have (ending the practice of "fractional reserves"), that all new money will be issued by the government rather than loaned to the government by the Federal Reserve, as is now the case, thereby eliminating the National Debt and it's interest payments which represent a transfer of money from taxpayers to private bondholders. In other words, a return to "greenbacks".

These ideas sound pretty esoteric when you first hear about them, but watch "The Secret of Oz" and you'll find that the struggle between those who want bankers to control the money supply and those who want the government to control it has been going on since the start of the United States. For those who say, "what difference does it make?", consider that it is not only that private financial institutions get to collect a large amount of money each year from us taxpayers, about $450 billion, but also that these institutions are given a large say-so in how money is spent because of their role. If the government was in charge of how money is put into the economy, (theoretically) it could decide to build day care centers instead of the money being created when someone wants to finance a new auto mall.

[Glia]

Liz, with respect to government making laws for/against genital cutting on children, that's already in place. Any form of cutting, "mutilating" or alteration of girls' genitals (outside of medical necessity) is prohibited by federal law passed in 1995. However, boys' genitals remain fair game, for any reason or no particular reason, in violation of all of the progressive values, several of the conservative values, and the equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.

And now the California state legislature has passed a law declaring that "male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits", is nothing like female circumcision/genital cutting, and is not a type of amputation like cutting off fingers or toes -- all of which is total nonsense.

The embarrassing sham of a hearing on this bill is available on YouTube. You may recognize some of the players. Be sure to read the comments.

Dear Liz,

Allow me to share a response to your statement: "I'm against it [infant circumcision] myself,
but I'd hate to have the government make a law for or against it."

I would agree that authoritarian government is less than an ideal institution - indeed, I see it
as a symptom of our social immaturity. It is our way of giving up our responsibility and power
to others to manage our affairs for us. But if there's any justifiable function for a government,
it is protecting the rights and safety of those who are vulnerable and unable to protect themselves.

And this - routine infant circumcision (RIC) - is one way government fails to perform this most
basic function - and even supports those who appear oblivious to the harm infant circumcision causes.
This is not a surprise to me, however, as I strongly believe the 1%, who want a supply of "pre-
traumatized" males to fight their wars, are behind the misguided professional advocacy of RIC.
They want men who are loyal, controllable and more willing to face danger: men who were robbed
of any sense of personal safety or autonomy at a very young age.

If the question were about laws to protect women against rape, I wonder if you'd feel the same way.
For those of us who have known the effects of trauma our whole lives, infant circumcision is no less
a violation of rights, no less an abuse of power and no less harmful psychically than any other form of
sexual assault.

May we some day soon grow to care and empathize enough with the newest members of our society
(and understand the principle of violence in; violence out) that we wouldn't dream of allowing anyone
to inflict such a wound on them. To me, it's not even a question of morals or ethics; it's asking:
what kind of world do we want to live in?

For Peace,
CSummer

[rossmen]

i listened to this. he lost me (one more time), when he said all the unemployed could go fishing because the us imports 90% of our seafood, so there is plenty of opportunity to be professional fisher people. i can cite many more examples of his ridiculous reasoning, history misinformation, and 3rd grade economic simplification if you wish. please keep educating yourself.

for a single person or family what he presents is good advice. like going fishing if you don't have a job.

I just listened to Peter Schiff speak about Austrian economics from a lecture series sponsored by Ron Paul's office which speaks to a lot of what Hotspring44 and others in this thread have mentioned such as our economy's relation to China and other countries. He speaks to the social value of eliminating some social programs. ie. If you don't have the hugely inefficient government running the Department of Education, the cost of education goes way down which means families won't be so put out to save for their kids' education and young people won't be graduating up to their eyeballs in toxic student loan debt.

He points out the obvious that I could not see, that now we are in a government bubble that is bigger than any previous bubble economy, including the housing bubble, and in order to recover, we're going to either have to take the medicine preemptively or have it forced on us in crisis when other countries refuse to buy our debt. And then we need to stop operating any more debt-based bubbles in our economy which may be accomplished by ending the federal reserve.

Bottom line: Austrian economics makes for a prosperous society based on capital, not debt, and eliminates laws that stop the people from prospering as they will when they are unencumbered with them.

I've written more about it here, including on social security, and I've posted the video. It's worth listening to just to view all these issues through this lens which, in my opinion, is full of common sense. It also carries an assumption that life operates out of a higher intelligence and leads to a natural order and balance in all sectors of life when allowed to do so.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...884#post145884



I like that request, Clint, and Peter Schiff's reform discussion qualifies as practical and doable IF we can organize enough people to audit the vote counting in the Republican primary where Paul would most certainly be winning if the vote weren't being tampered. And we can.

As to Paul's position on infant circumcision, I can't speak for him, however Libertarian philosophy would say that it's up to the parents whom you can educate and persuade, but you can't ethically force by law to do anything. But then again, it may get into the "liberty and pursuit of happiness" part of the Constitution. ;-) I'm against it myself, but I'd hate to have the government make a law for or against it. We're currently at such an extreme end of the pendulum of control by government for it's own ends--total government, total control--that voting for Ron Paul feels essential. He certainly is a mouth piece of this long overdue revolution we are in.

Liz

[Iolchan]

While I think it is perfectly legitimate for feminists to criticize Ron Paul for his position on Abortion - or fans of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal to criticize him for his position on Social Security - which completes the job Ronald Reagan began, of dismantling the New Deal - or for associating with Austrian School economists whose solution for the poor and unemployed is to "go fishing;" I'd like to see this thread stay on track on the Issue of Money - and what to do with the damned Central Bank we have Now.

After all, this thread began with Clint Summer quoting Bucky Fuller, and his - justifiably famous - axiom :

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
- Buckminster Fuller

So, I'd like us to put our heads together and see if we can co-create {or co-envision} a Just and Equitable Money System that works for the People -the 99%- and not exclusively to grow, exponentially, the Wealth of the bond-holding Class - the 1%...

Is that alright, folks? There are plenty of reasons for plenty of folks on the Left to have qualms about Ron Paul. Perhaps someone can start another thread and have it out with Ron Paul on all of the other issues. Barry - you might want to start such a Thread yourself.

I must confess, that, even though I am among those who hold a variety of sound Reasons for being wary of Ron Paul, I still consider him to be the best of the Republican candidates in the field. And I am also glad that he is among the front-runners - if only because his candidacy presents an opening for a Serious thrashing, & debate about Ending the Federal Reserve Bank - since he has made that such an important plank in his candidacy.

Here is what Doug Henwood of Left Business Observer wrote about the presence of Ron Paul supporters at Occupy Wall Street [Posted a few frames back.] :

Doug Henwood wrote:

There’s a video (#OWS Protester Nails It! Federal Reserve) of an Occupy Wall Street protester calling for an end to the Fed and urging a vote for Ron Paul. It, and the comments, are straight out of the right-wing critique of the Fed. I’ve seen signs calling for that around the occupation. This is bad news. Ron Paul has a coherent political philosophy. He’s a libertarian. He may hate imperial war, but he also hates Social Security and Medicare. The reason he wants to end the Fed is that he wants to get the state out of the money business and return to a 19th century gold standard. A gold standard is painfully austere. The gold supply increases by less than 2% a year. That means tremendous pressure on average incomes. It’s great if you’re a big bondholder, but hell if you’re a regular person. When we were on a gold standard in the 19th century we had frequent panics, crises, and depressions. Almost half of the last three decades of the 19th century was spent in recession or depression. It put both rural farmers and urban workers through the wringer.


We need to democratize the Fed, open it up, and subject money to more humane and less upper-class-friendly regulation. But let’s not sign on with Ron Paul, please. And let’s not join with the simple-minded right-wing critique that blames all of capitalism’s systemic problems on government institutions.

Here is the video Mr. Henwood cites in the paragraph above:

Doug Henwood wrote: " It, and the comments, are straight out of the right-wing critique of the Fed..." This is completely true. But I disagree that it is "bad news" that such soap-box agitators are speaking up at Occupy Wall Street. The "problem" lies in the conceptual misunderstanding that the young speaker holds, in his mind, about the two kinds of paper that are printed on the presses of the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing {a subsidiary of the U.S. Treasury Department } on the Banks of the Potomac.

The truth of the matter, is that the Fed is allowed to print the Cash Money - while the U.S. Treasury Dept. prints an equal dollar amount of interest-bearing T-Bills. The U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve Bank then SWAP that which each has created, for that which the other has created. I wrote the Cliff Notes to this subject here; and here, {on WaccoBB.} - the original Systemic Analysis of the Federal Reserve Bank - by a layman - for lay-People.

I prefer the Systemic Analysis, in the case of the Fed, to all of the conspiratorial baggage of history, or blame about Whodunit, that delves into the so-called "Jewish Banker's conspiracy - which field, in all of its various minutia, pro & con, is a real steeple-chase, red herring, and a total waste of Time - a digression.

What we need - if I may be so bold as to state it - is for the old-school Progressive (Left) Analysis of the Federal Reserve Bank to take root, and spread, in the same manner that the original political prairie fire in the Dakotas did, in the 'teens of the last Century, and supplant the confusion that the masses in general - including this young zealot - have, concerning the manner in which the Federal Reserve Bank loots the economy (& the 99%) in the interest of the oligarchy/plutocracy/power elite/1%.

We could also use a little of this young man's Zeal; for, even though he is confused about what is actually going on, and he is promoting Ron Paul as some kind of Deliverer on a White Horse, his zeal is impressive. And OCCUPY could utilize a few thousand soap-box orators with that sort of zeal, stumping on the Subject - provided, only, that they educate themselves and fully understand the complex shell game that the Fed is operating...

Seriously,

Mark Walter Evans

[Magick]

Had you decided to end your reference to Ron Paul by saying that is another discussion for another thread then i would have let it drop, but you chose to "confess" that you are glad he is a candidate.
Stating this is marginalizing the reality that when women are characterized as criminals who are being accused of acts of violence this is a core problem of our society. It is central to the world's awakening to real freedom that women have autonomy and that no one can force them to have children or to shame them, punish them, beat, kill or jail them for self-determination.
This kind of thinking allows people to accept that abortion is some minor side issue to the all important topic of economics.
As a part of OccupySF I testified at the Federal reserve board hearing concerning the merger of Capital One and ING and stated that the word "economics" has its origin in the Greek "oikonomikós" (relating to household management) and if in fact economics was based on the concerns of the household budget then healthcare, childcare, real food, care for the elderly and shelter would all be central to our concerns as they have been to women for thousands of years.
IF women who love and care for their families were honored and respected as autonomous we would be in a different world today.
By the way, the more freedom women have the less children are born, because women are not forced to get pregnant, and there is less rape, incest and child pregnancies.
Maybe you think this is some minor side issue, but in fact throughout most of modern history women's work of caring has not even been figured into the statistics of economics. Read Riane Eisler on the Economics of Care and how Scandinaivian countries have been valuing care as a top priority which has brought more men into this work and made for a much more egalitarian state.
For one moment I would like all the men to consider the possibility of something growing in their body that they will be responsible for and will change their life forever and imagine the state saying you have no right to choose.
There are so many children starving and dying in the world now, that cannot be cared for, many that would not have been brought into a life of suffering and poverty had their mother's had the right to choose.
So I am sitting down right in the middle of this discussion on economics and protesting your idea that feminism is some side issue that is irrelevant to the current mess we are in.
Peace out, Magick

While I think it is perfectly legitimate for feminists to criticize Ron Paul for his position on Abortion - or fans of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal to criticize him for his position on Social Security - which completes the job Ronald Reagan began, of dismantling the New Deal - or for associating with Austrian School economists whose solution for the poor and unemployed is to "go fishing;" I'd like to see this thread stay on track on the Issue of Money - and what to do with the damned Central Bank we have Now.

After all, this thread began with Clint Summer quoting Bucky Fuller, and his - justifiably famous - axiom :
"
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - Buckminster Fuller

So, I'd like us to scratch our heads and see if we can co-create {or co-envision} a Just and Equitable Money System that works for the People -the 99%- and not exclusively to grow, exponentially, the Wealth of the bond-holding Class - the 1%...

Is that alright, folks? There are plenty of reasons for plenty of folks on the Left to have qualms about Ron Paul. Perhaps someone can start another thread and have it out with Ron Paul on all of the other issues. Barry - you might want to start such a Thread yourself.

I must confess, that, even though I am among those who hold a variety of sound Reasons for being wary of Ron Paul, I still consider him to be the best of the Republican candidates in the field. And I am also glad that he is among the front-runners - if only because his candidacy presents an opening for a Serious thrashing, & debate about Ending the Federal Reserve Bank - since he has made that such an important plank in his candidacy.

Here is what Doug Henwood of Left Business Observer wrote about the presence of Ron Paul supporters at Occupy Wall Street [Posted a few frames back.] :

Here is the video Mr. Henwood cites in the paragraph above:

Doug Henwood wrote: " It, and the comments, are straight out of the right-wing critique of the Fed..." This is completely true. But I disagree that it is "bad news" that such soap-box agitators are speaking up at Occupy Wall Street. The "problem" lies in the conceptual misunderstanding that the young speaker holds, in his mind, about the two kinds of paper that are printed on the presses of the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing {a subsidiary of the U.S. Treasury Department } on the Banks of the Potomac.

The truth of the matter, is that the Fed is allowed to print the Cash Money - while the U.S. Treasury Dept. prints an equal dollar amount of interest-bearing T-Bills. The U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve Bank then SWAP that which each has created, for that which the other has created. I wrote the Cliff Notes to this subject here; and here, {on WaccoBB.} - the original Systemic Analysis of the Federal Reserve Bank - by a layman - for lay-People.

I prefer the Systemic Analysis, in the case of the Fed, to all of the conspiratorial baggage of history, or blame about Whodunit, that delves into the so-called "Jewish Banker's conspiracy - which field, in all of its various minutia, pro & con, is a real steeple-chase, red herring, and a total waste of Time - a digression.

What we need - if I may be so bold as to state it - is for the old-school Progressive (Left) Analysis of the Federal Reserve Bank to take root, and spread, in the same manner that the original political prairie fire in the Dakotas did, in the 'teens of the last Century, and supplant the confusion that the masses in general - including this young zealot - have, concerning the manner in which the Federal Reserve Bank loots the economy (& the 99%) in the interest of the oligarchy/plutocracy/power elite/1%.

We could also use a little of this young man's Zeal; for, even though he is confused about what is actually going on, and he is promoting Ron Paul as some kind of Deliverer on a White Horse, his zeal is impressive. And OCCUPY could utilize a few thousand soap-box orators with that sort of zeal, stumping on the Subject - provided, only, that they educate themselves and fully understand the complex shell game that the Fed is operating...

Seriously,

Mark Walter Evans

[Iolchan]

Magick wrote:

Had you decided to end your reference to Ron Paul by saying that is another discussion for another thread then i would have let it drop, but you chose to "confess" that you are glad he is a candidate.

Stating this is marginalizing the reality that when women are characterized as criminals who are being accused of acts of violence this is a core problem of our society. It is central to the world's awakening to real freedom that women have autonomy and that no one can force them to have children or to shame them, punish them, beat, kill or jail them for self-determination.

This kind of thinking allows people to accept that abortion is some minor side issue to the all important topic of economics.

As a part of OccupySF I testified at the Federal reserve board hearing concerning the merger of Capital One and ING and stated that the word "economics" has its origin in the Greek "oikonomikós" (relating to household management) and if in fact economics was based on the concerns of the household budget then healthcare, childcare, real food, care for the elderly and shelter would all be central to our concerns as they have been to women for thousands of years.

IF women who love and care for their families were honored and respected as autonomous we would be in a different world today.

By the way, the more freedom women have the less children are born, because women are not forced to get pregnant, and there is less rape, incest and child pregnancies.


Maybe you think this is some minor side issue, but in fact throughout most of modern history women's work of caring has not even been figured into the statistics of economics. Read Riane Eisler on the Economics of Care and how Scandinaivian countries have been valuing care as a top priority which has brought more men into this work and made for a much more egalitarian state.

For one moment I would like all the men to consider the possibility of something growing in their body that they will be responsible for and will change their life forever and imagine the state saying you have no right to choose.

There are so many children starving and dying in the world now, that cannot be cared for, many that would not have been brought into a life of suffering and poverty had their mother's had the right to choose.

So I am sitting down right in the middle of this discussion on economics and protesting your idea that feminism is some side issue that is irrelevant to the current mess we are in.
Peace out, Magick

Many good and valid points, Magick . And thank you for sharing the etiology of the word "economics" :"oikonomikós." That is a true gift. Thank you. Nor do I disagree with the importance of your critique, concerning the very vital role of Women in society. But here is what I wrote:

Iolchan wrote:

I must confess, that, even though I am among those who hold a variety of sound Reasons for being wary of Ron Paul, I still consider him to be the best of the Republican candidates in the field. And I am also glad that he is among the front-runners - if only because his candidacy presents an opening for a Serious thrashing, & debate about Ending the Federal Reserve Bank - since he has made that such an important plank in his candidacy.

Please Note:

A) I stated that :"...I am among those who hold a variety of sound Reasons for being wary of Ron Paul..."

B) I also stated that : " ...I am also glad that he is among the front-runners - if only because his candidacy presents an opening for a Serious thrashing, & debate about Ending the Federal Reserve Bank - since he has made that such an important plank in his candidacy.

I would re-iterate: "...if only because his candidacy presents an opening for a Serious thrashing, & debate about Ending the Federal Reserve Bank - since he has made that such an important plank in his candidacy."

And that is the Reason. Let's also remember, Magick, the fact, that whatever Ron Paul's flaws may be - and they are many - he is the only front-runner among the Republicans who counts Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader among his personal friends. - And that Ralph Nader said of him that he is in complete agreement with Ron Paul on the issue of Foreign Policy. You can Google that, if you wish.

This thread was moribund for a while. I personally resurrected it - in order that it might continue as a venue for discussing - among other monetary issues - the flaws in the economic doctrines of Ron Paul - and as a venue for the Occupy cadre to forum on the issue of Money and collectively work out what a just and equitable Monetary System might look like. There are other current threads on Waccobb.net - in the National Politics Section, where your comments are entirely germaine to the theme of the thread and your comments, posted above, are entirely appropriate.

If you wish to out me on other issues - e.g., your perceptions, real or imagined, concerning some perceived insensitivity on my part regarding the importance of Women in Society ; or if some other body wishes to put me on the spot, as Liz Yuen, aka, "ubaru" was recently called on the carpet to answer for perceived political sins, real or imagined, you may do so. But please, do it decently, and in order, and start another thread. I will bravely stand my trial, and answer all questions and accusations that any might wish to pose; e.g., "Is it true that you are you a male chauvinist pig, Mark?" =OR= "Do you get money from the [gone] "Farm Holiday Association," or the [moribund] Farmer-Labor Association, for posting Populist Socialist propaganda on WaccoBb.net?'

If anyone wishes to call me on the carpet on this thread, on the issue of why I advocate the economic Platform and Theory of the elder Lindbergh (1859-1924,) (son of Swedish Social-Democrat member of the Swedish Rikstat; Progressive Republican; Minnesota Congressman from little Falls, Minnesota; & the father of the famous aviator;) I will be glad to answer all comers on that issue, on this thread.

=AND, Further= If anyone would like to call me on the carpet as to the possibility that the elder Lindbergh might have been a closet "anti-Semite"; based on the evidence of his son's dubious and infamous faux pas to the press, on September 11, 1941, I will be glad to answer all comers on that issue, on this thread.

iolchan wrote:

After all, this thread began with Clint Summer quoting Bucky Fuller, and his - justifiably famous - axiom :

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
- Buckminster Fuller

So, I'd like us to put our heads together and see if we can co-create {or co-envision} a Just and Equitable Money System that works for the People -the 99%- and not exclusively to grow, exponentially, the Wealth of the bond-holding Class - the 1%...

And,

iolchan wrote:

What we need - if I may be so bold as to state it - is for the old-school Progressive (Left) Analysis of the Federal Reserve Bank to take root, and spread, in the same manner that the original political prairie fire in the Dakotas did, in the 'teens of the last Century, and supplant the confusion that the masses in general... have, concerning the manner in which the Federal Reserve Bank loots the economy (& the 99%) in the interest of the oligarchy/plutocracy/power elite/1%.

Very truly yours,

Mark Walter Evans,
son of three generations of feminists

[CSummer]

Mark wrote: "I'd like to see this thread stay on track on the Issue of Money - and what to do with the damned Central Bank we have Now."

Since I don't think there's anything I or anyone I know can do about the Central Bank, I'd rather explore how we can make money more of a non-issue. To me, this seems like moving more into the realm of real possibilities for outside-the-box co-creation.

Mark: "So, I'd like us to put our heads together and see if we can co-create {or co-envision} a Just and Equitable Money System that works for the People -the 99%- and not exclusively to grow, exponentially, the Wealth of the bond-holding Class - the 1%... "

Clint: Sounds like an interesting exercise, Mark! Let's see where I can go with it . . .

I would like to begin by pointing out that money, in and of itself, doesn't meet any real human needs. Imagining that it does just leads to obsession with accumulating more and rarely to a healthier or happier life.
A movie I just watched, "The Economics of Happiness" does a great job of showing this.

One thing I seem to have learned about systems (defined as ways of doing something, i.e, of performing some function) is that the less you need them to do, the better. Then the system becomes less obtrusive, energy consuming and problematic.

So in my ideal world, we minimize the need for money - or for a means of accounting for exchanges of goods and services, as well as for an easily portable medium of said exchanges (assuming this is the function of a monetary system). We can meet all basic human needs without the use of money - or with only minimal use. If/when we live in cooperative communities, we can all work together to build dwellings and to construct, maintain and operate systems for food/fiber growing and processing as well as for energy production. Everyone participating in this work to some minimum amount is eligible to have all their necessities provided. (If we're worried about "slackers," we can keep track of each member's contribution and limit access to what is produced accordingly.) Money is then only needed when some critical resource is not available within the community holdings or when some non-essential product or service is desired.

So do we need a monetary system? In terms of meeting real human needs, probably not. One might come in handy though in order to facilitate the exchanging of goods and services when a means of accounting for (recording the value of) such exchanges is deemed desirable.

Here are some values for such a system:

To be trustworthy, it must be fair and simple to understand for all users.
It should be transparent and verifiable, with transaction values traceable to both the provider and receiver of any exchanges.
It should be based on real value, e.g., on human energy and time.
It should be flexible, with exchange values negotiable.
It must be free of any potential for abuse.
It should facilitate economic activity and never unnecessarily restrict it.
It must be easy to use, i.e., user friendly.
Using the system should generally leave people with positive feelings (e.g., gratitude for its existence).

As it turns out, such systems already exist. Some even solve the problem of "money supply" by enabling users to create money or credit as needed. One form is called a mutual credit system, such as a Local Exchange Trading System (LETS) or a Community Exchange System. Imagine an on-line service that keeps track of all members accounts. You start with a zero balance, and negative balances are quite acceptable. When you "sell" a product or service to another member, your balance goes up (positive) by the amount of the agreed-upon exchange value and the buyer's balance goes down by the same amount. The value would be negotiable; based on a person-hour (p-h) but flexible in terms of how many p-h's equate to an actual hour, since the hours put in performing surgery (for example) might be considered worth more than those spent helping someone move.

Both buyers and sellers can see each other's accounts, and a seller may want to see a buyer's balance before deciding to provide a service or product. A balance that is a high negative value indicates the member has done a lot more receiving than giving, and a seller may choose not to "extend credit" to the member. On the other hand, a member seeking a service or product may avoid someone with a high positive balance in favor of helping a member with a low balance build credit. In this way, the system encourages a balance between providing and receiving.

How might we create such a system locally? (It doesn't take an act of Congress!) It could be - and has been - done by a nonprofit organization. Ideally, it would be created by a group of people who have come together to form a community of mutual support for the meeting of members' needs. The primary focus of the community would be to explore ways of meeting the basic needs we all share in common - and doing so using local resources, with a minimum of dependence on violent, unjust or eco-destructive institutions. The more successful we are at this, the less we need money. An alternative monetary system would enable economic activity to happen that might otherwise be restricted by a scarcity of money. The larger the user base, the more viable the system.

A money-focused economy is a dysfunctional economy. It creates the illusion that people need money in order to live, so they need jobs in order to earn money. It makes sense if the purpose of a socio-economic system is to keep power and wealth concentrated in the hands of an owner class. But if the purpose is to support all of us in meeting our needs, then money and jobs become much less important. Access to natural resources, tools, knowledge and other people is what enables real people to meet their real needs in healthy, sustainable ways.

We don't need to reform the banking system; we need to build communities of mutual support as the basic elements of a cooperative society. We need to de-commodify the meeting of human needs. And this is a good thing, because it's one thing we may actually have the power to do!

CSummer

While I think it is perfectly legitimate for feminists to criticize Ron Paul for his position on Abortion - or fans of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal to criticize him for his position on Social Security - which completes the job Ronald Reagan began, of dismantling the New Deal - or for associating with Austrian School economists whose solution for the poor and unemployed is to "go fishing;" I'd like to see this thread stay on track on the Issue of Money - and what to do with the damned Central Bank we have Now.

After all, this thread began with Clint Summer quoting Bucky Fuller, and his - justifiably famous - axiom :

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
- Buckminster Fuller

So, I'd like us to put our heads together and see if we can co-create {or co-envision} a Just and Equitable Money System that works for the People -the 99%- and not exclusively to grow, exponentially, the Wealth of the bond-holding Class - the 1%...

Is that alright, folks? There are plenty of reasons for plenty of folks on the Left to have qualms about Ron Paul. Perhaps someone can start another thread and have it out with Ron Paul on all of the other issues. Barry - you might want to start such a Thread yourself.
----------------------------------------------
We could also use a little of this young man's Zeal; for, even though he is confused about what is actually going on, and he is promoting Ron Paul as some kind of Deliverer on a White Horse, his zeal is impressive. And OCCUPY could utilize a few thousand soap-box orators with that sort of zeal, stumping on the Subject - provided, only, that they educate themselves and fully understand the complex shell game that the Fed is operating...

Seriously,

Mark Walter Evans

[Magick]

CSummer, I wholeheartedly support what you have stated and appreciate your clarity and brilliance in articulating it. Values need to be reaccessed around life, sharing, caring and community.
Like Dylan said, "Money doesn't talk it swears"!

Mark wrote: "I'd like to see this thread stay on track on the Issue of Money - and what to do with the damned Central Bank we have Now."

Since I don't think there's anything I or anyone I know can do about the Central Bank, I'd rather explore how we can make money more of a non-issue. To me, this seems like moving more into the realm of real possibilities for outside-the-box co-creation.

Mark: "So, I'd like us to put our heads together and see if we can co-create {or co-envision} a Just and Equitable Money System that works for the People -the 99%- and not exclusively to grow, exponentially, the Wealth of the bond-holding Class - the 1%... "

Clint: Sounds like an interesting exercise, Mark! Let's see where I can go with it . . .

I would like to begin by pointing out that money, in and of itself, doesn't meet any real human needs. Imagining that it does just leads to obsession with accumulating more and rarely to a healthier or happier life.
A movie I just watched, "The Economics of Happiness" does a great job of showing this..........

CSummer
[/FONT][/SIZE]

[Iolchan]

Before too much time elapses, I'd like to comment on these words that Liz Yuan posted:

ubaru wrote:

I just listened to Peter Schiff speak about Austrian economics from a lecture series sponsored by Ron Paul's office which speaks to a lot of what Hotspring44 and others in this thread have mentioned such as our economy's relation to China and other countries. He speaks to the social value of eliminating some social programs. ie. If you don't have the hugely inefficient government running the Department of Education, the cost of education goes way down which means families won't be so put out to save for their kids' education and young people won't be graduating up to their eyeballs in toxic student loan debt.

He points out the obvious that I could not see, that now we are in a government bubble that is bigger than any previous bubble economy, including the housing bubble, and in order to recover, we're going to either have to take the medicine preemptively or have it forced on us in crisis when other countries refuse to buy our debt. And then we need to stop operating any more debt-based bubbles in our economy which may be accomplished by ending the federal reserve.

Bottom line: Austrian economics makes for a prosperous society based on capital, not debt, and eliminates laws that stop the people from prospering as they will when they are unencumbered with them.

I've written more about it here, including on social security, and I've posted the video. It's worth listening to just to view all these issues through this lens which, in my opinion, is full of common sense. It also carries an assumption that life operates out of a higher intelligence and leads to a natural order and balance in all sectors of life when allowed to do so.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showth...884#post145884

And these words, specifically :

ubaru wrote:


"... and in order to recover, we're going to either have to take the medicine preemptively or have it forced on us in crisis when other countries refuse to buy our debt. And then we need to stop operating any more debt-based bubbles in our economy which may be accomplished by ending the federal reserve.

Bottom line: Austrian economics makes for a prosperous society based on capital, not debt, and eliminates laws that stop the people from prospering as they will when they are unencumbered with them. "

To state: "...in order to recover, we're going to either have to take the medicine preemptively or have it forced on us in crisis" reminds me of the "austerity conditions" that are forced on Third World countries by the International Monetary Fund. The "austerity" being a function of making Debt-payment {to First World Prime Banks} the priority over social programs for the People. Which causes me to wonder about the role that Ron Paul might assume, should he become president - that of the doctor who forces his patient - the American body politic - to take the "hard medicine" of Austerity.

The real bottom line is, that the "Debt" itself, is un-payable & unsustainable - an illegitimate and a Fraudulent entity. That is why we need to make 2012 the Year of Jubilee, for the cancellation and rescinding of All Debt; National & International; Public and Private...

And, as far as your statement, Liz, that "...Austrian economics makes for a prosperous society based on capital, not debt, and eliminates laws that stop the people from prospering as they will when they are unencumbered with them;" I suggest that you do some really careful and deeper Research into what the "Austrian" - or "Vienna" school of Economics is about. There is a dark side to it; and all is not quite as rosy as you have been led to believe, by the boosters of Austrian economics.

Google Advanced Search: "Austrian School" ,"Mont Pelerin Society" , Gold , B.I.S. ,

Also, I'd like to commend phredo for his post; because it is spot on:

phredo wrote:

The guy who made the 3 hr film, "The Money Masters", Bill Still, later made a 116 min film, "The Secret of Oz," which, in my opinion, is much more watchable. (4 min trailer here .) The title is based on the idea that Frank Baum, the author of "The Wizard of Oz", was a backer of the greenback/populist movement of the late 19th century, and that his work was partially an allegory about money. You may think from the age of the ideas that they are outdated, but it all makes sense to me. Although the film doesn't have an exact "action plan", Still's ideas for monetary reform sound very similar to Paul Zarlenga's, below.

Paul Zarlenga wrote a bill that Dennis Kucinich introduced. You can read about it at https://www.monetary.org/ . They really want you to read the "short" 32 page synopsis, but at the section of the page, "Action Materials for Demonstrations", you can find shorter explanations. The basic idea is that banks will no longer be allowed to create money by issuing loans for more money than they actually have (ending the practice of "fractional reserves"), that all new money will be issued by the government rather than loaned to the government by the Federal Reserve, as is now the case, thereby eliminating the National Debt and it's interest payments which represent a transfer of money from taxpayers to private bondholders. In other words, a return to "greenbacks".

These ideas sound pretty esoteric when you first hear about them, but watch "The Secret of Oz" and you'll find that the struggle between those who want bankers to control the money supply and those who want the government to control it has been going on since the start of the United States. For those who say, "what difference does it make?", consider that it is not only that private financial institutions get to collect a large amount of money each year from us taxpayers, about $450 billion, but also that these institutions are given a large say-so in how money is spent because of their role. If the government was in charge of how money is put into the economy, (theoretically) it could decide to build day care centers instead of the money being created when someone wants to finance a new auto mall.

Here is the Documentary Movie, " THE SECRET OF OZ " :

And here is the four-minute trailer version:

- Mark