5 votes

"The Economy Is Going To Implode" (Ann Barnhardt's 8 part presentation as to why)

To those who don't know who Ann Barnhardt is, I think she was a commodities trader but she quit her business after the Jon Corzine scandal. She felt she could no longer protect her customers' money so in good conscience she shut down her business. In addition she decided to stop paying her taxes as a protest to how our government spends the money.

She is controversial however, with strong anti-Muslim statements. However, while I haven't yet watched her economic presentation, I'm confident it will be worth watching.

Part 1 below.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I made it all the way to part

I made it all the way to part 8. This is where she lost me. She has pictures of Republican politicians (including Ron Paul) and says none of them are honest at all or have no idea of what is happening. When she gets to Paul, she asks if he has talked about anything in her presentation and he has....such as the fact that Ryan's plan only had cuts to the increase of spending and other things. She'd mention things in the presentation and I'd think Ron Paul has said things about that. The one thing that was different was the fact that gold can be "fiat" to because fiat means "let it be so" but that gold can also be debased like with the tungsten gold. She said because Paul talks about going back to a gold standard, he has no clue what is going on. She said he was an islamist apologist and called him a bat, shi# old man. Personally, I think she's right on what is going on with the big banks, credit swaps, etc but she obviously hasn't really listened to years worth of Dr. Paul. Otherwise, I don't think she'd put him in a list with Romney/Ryan, Allen West, etc. But it was very interesting and answers a lot of questions. She explains why Goldman-Sachs and the United States government are essentially the same fiscal entity. This would explain why the government likes the TSA and wants to make passport applications nearly impossible to fill out. They don't want people to leave. And if the entire 50 states did pull away from the federal govt., it would actually pad themselves from the coming crisis (in my opinion). At the time she did this, the secession movement had not really taken hold (recorded last week). She talked about how countries in Europe are trying to secede and that she thought states here would attempt it too when they realized what was going on. She lists entities that are taking part in these massive repos and swaps and it's not just banks.....state and local govts, insurance companies, etc. She said before the interest rates went to zero, many of these companies made money on customer interest but now that it's at zero, they are attempting to make profits elsewhere (hence buying foreign debt to make money on entire nations' economies). This is huge if she's completely right which we already knew it was. But when she dissed Dr. Paul, I realized she doesn't know as much about him as she makes out. She makes a good point about speaking up for people such as the "Obama phone" lady because these are the same types of people that Mao and Stalin let die. She says because they are ignorant doesn't make it right that she doesn't stand up for even them which I feel is a good point. She says they simply don't know what's coming to them eventually. She explains how the government is simply using these people to get re-elected when they will be left to die when everything falls apart.But I really think she needs to take another close look at Dr. Paul and what he stands for rather than making uneducated judgment, laying him out with a line of corrupt politicians.

I wanted to put a comment

I wanted to put a comment under her presentation on youtube but she disabled comments (guess she doesn't like free speech or constructive criticism). So I went to Facebook to see if I could leave her a comment there. I noticed her "likes" on FB and she had listed Mark Levin and Newt Gingrich. Ok, now that says a lot why she didn't like Dr. Paul. She's partial neocon. I'm not saying everything she mentioned is wrong but calling Dr. Paul an Islamist apologist? Come on. That's neocon to the core.

This lady is a bigoted witch,

This lady is a bigoted witch, parroting the Fed. I wouldn't be surprised if she was a paid Troll working for Helicopter Ben.

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

She lost me at fractional reserve banking

I agree that interest can be a good thing. But fractional reserve in my opinion is the root of the problem in the current system. That means that the banks themselves are responsible and are the ones in control of the money supply. It means they get first dibs on money and it means that they will resurge as another elite banker class.

On the other hand if you remove fractional reserve lending and actually only lent what you had and paid depositors interest on their deposits you would not be creating new money and you would actually be a facilitator of economic growth. Borrowers would pay interest on money that they needed for investments. Banks would be more prudent and wouldn't give home loans or stupid unpayble loans on risky investments or gambles because they would actually have to fund the liabilities of deposits if their clients didn't pay back their loans. Finally, the depositor would make some interest on his money instead of lending it to his uncle jimbo for his great new maple syrup conglomerate that might not make a profit or even produce a pint of maple syrup.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    Check out my blog:

    How is interest any different from fractional reserve banking?

    I understand the mechanics very well and as I see it, in the end, they both boil down to whomever controls the money, controls society.

    Interest charges always go to whomever has the most money. As that person gains more money, he/she lends more and expands the game. Eventually, they could own the entire community/group/town/country/globe just from sheer expansion. There's absolutely no mechanism in place that stops this from happening but there certainly is one in place that accelerates it. And that, is your major concern of FR banking. That allows them to use both leverage and inflation to speed up the aforementioned process of taking over. Without this, it will still happen, just not on as fast of a scale.

    How to ensure the economy still functions with the greatly reduced number of loans that would occur if we stopped using interest? If everyone was much wealthier, it would stop on its own. People would borrow for 3 reasons and there would be 3 types of 'lending' to support them.

    Personal small-large loans would be handled predominantly by family, friends and good acquaintances. If this didn't work for someone, they could try the next method.

    Small business and startup loans would be handled by wealthy family and friends with the balance made up by crowd-funding, donations or good old barn-raising type activities. This actually becomes a form of market research and future marketing for the business. It also provides a much needed feedback by informing the owner that the community wants these products and doesn't want those.

    Large project funding would be raised by community and group funding, either through the crowd-funding / donations path or similar. The pool to call upon, however, would now include interested citizens as well as allied supply chain vendors. If a project was so large as to not be viable this way, it probably shouldn't be done the way it's being proposed.

    On to your implication that people just have a right to profit from the time-use of their money since they are deprived of it for that time. I refuse to believe that this is in any way a type of right. If banks didn't exist (because we got smart and banished them), then people would return to paying someone to store their excess wealth securely so how is this any different? The only thing is the risk of not getting it back on time. That risk becomes a strong incentive signal as to if the loan/business/project should be done; a strong incentive toward credit worthiness (accountability) of the people; and an incentive to save the money up front so a loan isn't even required. Those are all incentives that support a stronger, moral society with strong community ties and neighborly actions. Just think of the good that would come from just those results.

    You're idea that only

    The wealthy will expand the system of loaning at interest is flawed. It is debt based money creation that benefits the wealthy (bankers mostly) and necessitates the need for expansion of credit and economic growth. Eventually the weight of such system will make collapse onto itself inevitable because in this case yes the ones that are supplying the loans will absorb all the value out of the economy essentially for nothing just by creating money out of thin air.

    Please read the rest.

    However in a 100% fully funded loan nothing is being created the system works in a full circle and doesn't need the exponential growth we see with the current system in order to keep it going since all the money will be in the economy in other words no new money is created that has to be paid back plus interest that doesn't yet exist. In a system that is 100% funded with no artificial money creation there would be almost no default or bankruptcy those things will only happen in very bad investments or bets (I mean really really bad investments). In a fractional reserve and debt based money creation system (the two go hand in hand you can't have one with out the other, its impossible) bankruptcy is a necessity for the functioning of the system. When those people bankrupt the loan issuer will absorb all the real the value such as equipment, land and any assets that were used to "secure" the loan.

    Again the real problem is fractional reserve banking and debt based money creation. If you say that interest is bad you are inherently arguing that investment is also bad since in a sense an investment is you loaning money by buying stock certificates or bonds from an entity and expecting some sort of return.

    Investment is what brings new products to the market. Unfortunately what we have had for the past few decades has been bets not investments. What that means is lets say I have a profitable widget making business. We have been growing steady but through advertisements and word of mouth we have had more demand for our product than we can supply. Should we loose that business or should we allow a partner or investor in so that we can raise the capital to build a new plant or machine that will allow us to meet the demand and make even more money? Ofcourse we would allow that. The partner would then take a part of that profit and you can call it a payment or partnership or dividend or whatever but in the end it is still interest. Money return at a certain rate for a certain amount of time that you where not able to use it.

    If you had liabilities that were in the form of deposits and had to pay those deposits back because you don't have that fractional "buffer" there to protect you, you better believe that you would not make stupid loans. In a non fractional reserve and debt based system there would be no money masters the money would serve the people and not an elite banker class.

    So as you can see interest is very different from fractional reserve lending. If I have 100 dollars I can loan it to you and I can expect for you to pay me back 110 dollars but I can't loan you 900 dollars. That is the difference between interest and fractional reserve lending. I didn't create any new money and those ten dollars are actually out there in the economy somewhere I don't have to wait for someone to make a new loan for that money to exist for me to get those 10 dollars in interest.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    Check out my blog:

    As I said, I'm fully aware of how it all works now

    My comment was that "in the end", they are the same. I understand all your examples are exactly how it works today but you have to look outside the box and eliminate those long indoctrinated beliefs that we deserve an income for the simple act of lending money. Here's a little more explanation of how I arrive at that.

    Assume we have eliminated the fractional banking (and derivatives) problems. The mathematical result of that would be higher wages and lower prices. (Sure, prices would rise in the short term but then they would settle down again after quality replaced disposable quantity.) So, we now have a world where people make multiple times the current purchasing power for a given hour's work at a given task. This translates to higher standards of living, lower to no debt and eventually, higher savings. There are many more effects but I'm being brief.

    So, with this excess savings, we now have greater opportunity for the needy to borrow money. This is also combined with much less need to borrow in the first place. The net result is that borrowing and lending would be a much more rare occurrence. Just as it's now done internally between parents and children, that zero-interest lending circle would expand to include close family and friends. With this in place, borrowing at interest (outside the family) would become a social no-no except for times of dire need. As this scenario progresses, family wealth would continue to increase which would further reduce the practice as the circle grew to include the community or even small towns.

    With there becoming a social stigma against borrowing at interest, the next level of borrowing for a business would similarly become relegated to obsolescence. Same, eventually for the large projects as well, although how fast would be determined by both the wealth available (without people depending on it - i.e. disposable) and by the social realization that helping a neighbor start a restaurant helps put your own kids to work. Those external benefits of helping someone get started now become a large factor in whether to lend or donate or do nothing.

    Obviously, all of this is completely dependent on the people actually retaining all the fruits of their labor that are now being stolen by the banks. My calculations suggest that by removing the thievery of the banks and their derived minions like insurance, stocks and propaganda based oligopolies, we would likely be 5 times as wealthy with prices falling to half what they are now. That's how much we're being robbed currently.

    So, in conclusion, a short story might help. If you were alone on an island with 11 others and your skill set meant the least to the group, you would never want a bank and banker to be set up there. You would easily see how everyone but you would be able to game all transactions so that you were kept broke and working to simply pay off your interest debt to whomever you needed something from. This is always the ultimate end of any closed society where interest is charged. The difference is that we have the flawed belief that our planet somehow isn't operating on a closed system like the island.

    This is how interest is different.....

    Interest is a real phenomenon of human action. It can't be eliminated in any way. It will always be a real factor in the economy, whether or not people are allowed to by law to pay interest.

    Interest is simply the ratio of the price payed for a product recieved today versus the price of a product recieved at a latter date. This is time preference, and can't be eliminated without redesigning the physical world. Interest is how economics deals with time, plain and simple.

    As an example, an I-phone recieved today is worth more than the same I-phone next week, which is worth more than the same I-pod next year.

    This is obviously true, and accepted by everyone, but we tend to ignore the economic consequences. We shouldn't ignore them, though, because the boom/bust cycle is caused solely by the FED pushing the "market" interest rate LOWER than our time preferences.

    **Notice that I'm saying that deppressions are only caused by LOWERING the interest rate below our time preferences.***

    This makes economic calculation inaccurate in a way that makes unprofitable business ventures, appear profitable. Capitol goods, in particular, are effected by this mis-calculation more-so than consumer goods.

    The boom is nothing more than people persuing these new ventures that appeared unprofitable before the interest rate was lowered, but, all of a sudden, appear profitable when the lower rate of interest is used for economic calculation. People get hired to produce these unprofitable capitol goods, and they think things are improving.....

    ....Until noone wants to purchase these goods at a profitable price. Then the companies involved close the doors or downsize, everyone loses their jobs, and the depression is here.

    As can be seen, depressions have nothing to do with "rich,greedy businessmen", but are caused by economic ignorance concerning the concept of interest.

    Compare the "defintion" of interest on the main wikpedia site...

    ....to the one on on the Mises wike site.....

    ...and you will know how Ron Paul was able to predict the crash, when others weren't.

    Here is a link to a history and critique of various theories concerning interest....

    "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    That's a good explanation

    of how things are now. That discount rate (the time value that you described) is only of value to people who have sacrificed something (the use of money they planned to use otherwise) by lending out. If they had kept it in their cookie jar instead, they wouldn't have seen any difference unless the loan defaults.

    I agree that if you're planning on using that money, you did suffer some loss but not otherwise. An in a world where we had eliminated the fractional reserve system, the total wealth of the now banks, insurance companies and stock institutions would be essentially distributed on a weighted scale to the general populace.

    Regarding your iPhone being worth more today and next year, that is really only true in a limited scenario. IPhones are a new and emerging technology. Bicycles, on the other hand, are not. My bike has been worth the same for many years, with only a small premium while it was in the store a decade ago. In fact, with inflation in the mix, it has probably gained in value as many other assets have. So, if we extrapolate that back to your iPhone, I would contend that delaying your phone purchase for a year (assuming you were only making one, non-upgrading purchase) would yield a much better phone than if bought a year earlier.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that we ban interest in today's environment. That's not possible and would be a recipe for disaster. However, I am saying that by giving people the real purchasing power that results from their labors (10x current rates at least), that the acts of borrowing at interest and selling off large portions of your company publicly would slowly go away. After all, if you personally had 7 figures in the bank and your spouse wanted to start a bread store (which you supported), would you lend it free or invest for a return?

    Last topic. downsizing doesn't have to mean depression. That's hype talk given us by the perpetual growth Keynesyans. If a business is paying a high wage (due to the factors above) and its employees retire earlier, is that a good or bad thing? What if they worked 20 years instead of 40? That would actually mean that 2 workers' careers would be supported in the normal 40 year career of today. It would also mean that all those, what I call 'fluff jobs', would eventually go away. As a position can be automated or becomes otherwise unnecessary, attrition would leave them open. This is what happens when it becomes an employee's market, not an employer's. So how does THAT happen? It happens on it's own when the wage market is such that people can easily cover that 'emergency' or long term expense by just working a few more months.

    I just wanted to add that

    I just wanted to add that economic laws are valid at all times and in all places. They are just as real as the laws of physics.

    My explaination of the interest phenomenon applies now, in the future, in the past, and in any form of society, whether people are legally allowed to charge interest or not.

    We, as individuals, have to learn to view money as just another product, who's market value is determined by simple supply and demand. Too many individuals view currency as a standard for the measurement of value. There is no standard that can be used to measure value, because value exists in the mind, and is always, and without exception, subjective to the individual at a certain, specific time.

    "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    No, no, no. You're mincing

    No, no, no. You're mincing words and throwing in additional concepts. I'm just explaining the way the phenomenon of interest(time preference) effects economic calculation.

    I'm not talking about "other factors considered", such as inflation, I'm not talking about any objective market price.

    All value is subjective, and differs with the same individual at different times, and with different individuals at the same time. Value is, in no way based on our labor. It is based on the subjective valuation of our customers.(Our labor is simply another product, and our boss is our customer)

    Our time has value. The "price" for waiting is termed "interest".

    What I'm talking about is the ONE SOLE CONCEPT that enabled Ron Paul to predict the crash. It's just one phenomenon of human action that allows accurate economic calculation. There are certainly others.

    "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    As I've said, what 3 times now?

    You gave a good explanation of how things ARE DONE NOW.

    I'm not mincing words at all by bringing in other terms. I began this confrontation by comparing interest to fractional banking and tried to show how the whole system would be different.

    There's simply no arguing that the banks collect money mob style on every economic activity that takes place globally. There's no arguing that this money totals a high percentage of the overall economy (4/5ths of it in my calcs). There's no arguing that things would be different if this weren't taking place. In other words, the people would be 5 times (according to my numbers) or somewhere around that multiple, wealthier from the efforts of their labor.

    With those givens, I set out to show that it is simply by allowing the activities of FRB and INT take place that has enslaved us. Your comment below is correct however, when you said that the free market should take out those bad banks and that we should not outlaw them. I fully agree that it is us that must fight this via the market, not our politicians via laws.

    While your most basic point in this comment seems to be that interest is the great balancer of the free market and that low interest rates caused the economic crashes, that is only part of the picture. It is simply an effect that is in play in a society where money is scarce, some can create it from thin air and that wealth concentrated at the top, imparts constant inflation on all fiat value. The effect of this inflation is to rob people of the earnings their labor produces. It's easy to see this when you compare price rises to wage rises. It's harder to see when you think in terms of all the mechanizations of modern finance.

    Without that fractional reserve banking (the point of this line of comments), that wealth balance is much more equal and as such, the market will devalue stored wealth. This is key. As the populace gains their own wealth, they will less and less use those services which charge interest. Taking this concept to its extreme, it includes the stock market and even insurance.

    Only when all 4 systems (FR banking, interest, stocks & insurance) are gone, will we ever have a genuinely free market because that faulty concept that the time aspect of money increases its relative value. And only then will people prosper at a rate that exactly equals their productivity in society.

    To which I shall

    To which I shall reply:


    ...gotta love caps lock. ;)

    ...and your "five times as wealthy" idea is easy to rebut, as follows:

    I work at wendy's.
    John works at Mc Donalds.

    I could purchase 5 McDoubles with the earnings from a single order of chicken nuggets(99 cent on the value menu).

    OR.... John could purchase 5 orders of chicken nuggets with the earnings from a single McDouble( also 99 cents on the value menu).

    ...It's rather obvious that both situations can't exist at the same time.

    ... We could both charge $5, but neither of us would get more of the other's labor for less of our own.

    Yes, we would have more currency, but no extra products.

    Remeber, economic progress allows us to buy more STUFF with less labor. More dollars, but the same amount of stuff is not economic improvement. More dollars means they are worth less. Simple supply and demand.

    The ill effects of inflation exist simply because the extra money is spent BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE FINDS OUT THAT THERE IS MORE CURRENCY. If we all knew that more money existed, we would immediately raise our prices, and inflating the money supply would have absolutely ZERO effect. However, it takes time for this knowledge to spread(there's that time element again).

    Bseides there is no stock pile of 4 times the houses, 4 times the sweatshirts, 4 times the gasoline, 4 times the advil, 4 times the cheeseburgers, 4 times the televisions that are in the market or our homes.

    Even if there is a stock pile of 4 times the currency, releasing that into the market would make YOUR paycheck worth 1/4 of what it is worth today, not more.

    What you present is a basic example of the "grocer's fallacy":

    "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    I really wish you could read what I write

    not what you think I'm saying.

    Wendy's and McDonald's are not closed systems. In a closed system, you'd be correct, but both those companies (and virtually every other we all know today) are involved with banks. Every stage of the process from the corn to the beef to the transport and slaughter, to the construction to the tax preparations (think of the "I Pencil" video just posted)... every one of those stages gives a small chunk of their profits to a bank either directly or indirectly. ALL OF THEM. (Yeah, I agree. Caps is fun.)

    What I'm suggesting is that we can (and will) remove that chunk from the costs of all those supply chain steps. THAT number is roughly 4/5ths of the total cost of any product. Removing that will on average, leave 4 times the profit on the table for both your companies and the result will be that each worker will earn more (or they will go elsewhere) while prices drop.

    So, your next question is why would prices drop if wages soared? To answer that, you have to look at the cost breakdown of a company. If your business costs just dropped to 20%, you would likely keep some for yourself, you'd pay better wages (formerly 11%, now 55%), you'd charge less for your product (halve prices due to competition), and you'd rely less on scamming ads because your workers would be spreading the word of their great job and great product (10% instead of 30%) and finally, you'd increase quality because all the newly wealthier customers (since that wealth propagated across the community) would be more demanding of quality. You have to remember that those business owners would no longer be tied to the perpetual growth machine and so they could easily live on a flat but higher salary.

    You propose a fallacy that there would be 4 times the currency in the market. There wouldn't be. The currency that exists now in the hands of the banks would just be better distributed across all economic levels. In other words, the lower classes would see pay raises while the top .01% would virtually go away because there would no longer be any economic activity that they could perform to earn any money. Given their current leverage (the majority of them anyway), many would go bankrupt asap.

    The last point is that you also assumed I meant this means more products. Not necessarily. That may be in the beginning but once that quality over disposable quantity theme took over, product obsolescence would be exposed and would diminish. This would make products either last longer or be designed with maintenance/repair/upgrades in mind. That's what customers want and with enough money to buy that, that's what they will get.

    Ok. grocer's fallacy combined

    Ok. grocer's fallacy combined with the advertisement fallacy(our neighbors enfluence us more than the comercials we watch ;)) the desire to enslave rich people. Why would the "top .000001%" or whatever work for free? Surely you aren't suggesting that they serve no purpose. They are only rich because they satisfy our needs better than the rest. Why else would we VOLUNTARILY give them our earnings.

    I have no desire to eliminate the top (insert percetage here). All economic progress starts with them, and spreads by the rest of us adopting their superior ideas.... at least until Badges-N-Guns, Inc. starts handing out favors.

    Economic progress can exist in three forms: more, better, and cheaper

    Economic progress is a result of the accumulation of REAL capital(more, better, cheaper stuff)

    Rich people(who aren't gov't beneficiaries) are WAYYYYY better at accumulating capitol than the average person.

    The accumulated capital is used to maintain and update technological equipment and methods.(superior tools and methods)

    It is the superior tools and methods that we employ that makes us wealthier than the richest kings and pharoahs of the past.

    None of us desire to OBTAIN more money, we desire to SPEND more money, in exchange for more, better, cheaper stuff.

    I'lL say it again: THERE IS NO STOCK PILE OF GENERIC "WEALTH" WAITING TO BE PLUNDERED BY THE MASSES. One must produce more to obtain more. This is true whether the person lives in complete autarky, or if he hires his neighbor to help.

    "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    ...and you're having a

    ...and you're having a discussion with more than one person. Calm down. Getting others to critique your ideas is a healthy way of refining them. I'm only trying to help, just like you.

    My original comment was to explain why interest MUST be included in accurate economic calculation. Nothing more. Now, I'm just participating in the general discussion of the ideas presented.

    "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."


    I'm not getting upset or anything. I'm just tired of writing the same thing repeatedly and having different words attributed.

    I do this exactly for the reason you state... i.e. to gain critique and refine them so I'm certainly not trying to go off on a rant. I'm just trying to suggest a concept that is not taught in econ 101 not because it breaks those rules but because there are other factor involved than simple supply and demand.

    Those basic econ principles do always apply in historical context of what we've all known to date. However, under a system that is based on abundant wealth that's equally distributed (via the free market, not marxism!), quality and other factors come into play more than just "how can I get the most stuff for the least money"?

    The other concept that comes into play is a new social paradigm where money is viewed in the manner more similar to those pennies you leave in the gas station cup. You do that action based more on social good than personal good. That means only one thing in relation to interest. Less and less of it until it virtually disappears.

    These are concepts that only sprout from an abundant economy. With that in mind, try re-reading what I've said and you may come away with a different slant.

    You keep saying "the way

    You keep saying "the way things are now" and other words along this line.

    I'm flatly calling the concept bunk on it's face.

    I am submitting that "now" is in no way different from the past or the future. Economic law applies in all situations, and at all times, without exception.I am saying your idea is flawed because it ignores this.

    If your ideas are built under the assummption that economic laws change according to the situtation, then we are simply talking past one another. This is why we keep repeating ourselves.

    If you simply disagree that economic law applies in all places, and at all times, then so be it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

    I stand firm in my assertion that economic laws are constant.

    "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    That's why I quit

    A few posts up. This solves nothing. Anyway we all have our own ideas. As long as we can all agree that the current system is broken and that we need to let a real free market rise out of the system by removing legal tender laws and the income tax to allow for competing currencies and competing banking systems then we are all in agreement.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    Check out my blog:

    You're obviously not understanding

    because as I've said before, it's exactly the free market principles that DO apply and that can be used to end the flood of our money which now goes to the banks. Nothing is going to break those laws in their essence.

    The difference is that the scenario can change so those rules get applied with different weightings. Follow along and then feel free to call bunk on whatever step you think it fails at.

    A collective group of 'we' starts some businesses without any debt load or overbearing executive salary expense on them. Due to the nature of those industries, their competitors have significant debt load. This leaves nearly 50% of the sales price on the table.

    Their current labor slice is 11% so they up that to 44%. The employees are very happy and work much more conscientiously. They spread word of mouth in their community, which builds to local/regional sales.

    To keep customers happy too, the product price is lowered by 20%.

    Through the remainder of profits left on the table, in-house financing at zero interest is begun. Also, process efficiency / automation is introduced by worker programs, not high-dollar consultants.

    The last remnants (after a small hike in the owner's take) is then placed into a fund for lending to employees and their family, also at no interest. Remember, these last two are excess revenues after profits so they are considered written off with regard to the books.

    No interest principles among the members of the community are encouraged and the company begins to become associated with these principles.

    Local interdependency is promoted, supported and cross marketed, as opposed to being dependent on global mega-corporations or any company fueled by an interest derivative.

    The total wealth leaving the community goes into a perpetual, steady dive. As this wealth surfaces in the community, it further enhances the supported principles.

    Ok, hopefully I won't get the econ textbook, pavlovian responses anymore since I walked you through separated steps. Please tell me where this fails. In a nutshell, it is nothing more than a collective yet voluntary free market way to boycott anything that allows money to leave the community. By doing this, the people of the community return to the ways of a century ago before every household budget was intertwined with a bank.

    So you're saying

    There will be a free market out there. People will have money and the freedom to what they wish with it. You are telling that some of those people wont use theirs to make money at interest? Sounds unlikely if you believe in free markets. I don't believe in telling people what they should or shouldn't do but I do think the real problem again stems from fractional reserve banking and I am sure that is what you are referring to when you say that people will loose wealth because they have to pay interest to someone that didn't labor. No you loose wealth with a fractional reserve system that continually grows the debt stealing from the the lower levels and amassing it to the top.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    Check out my blog:

    Back to interest.

    The rate of interest is fairly simply by analyzing the extremes:

    an interest rate of ZERO means that the individual in question does not value his time at all. Supper tonight? or wait til next week? It doesn't matter. No regard for the short term.

    On the other end, An individual that won't wait til tomorrow at ANY price would have an infinite interest rate. No regard for the long term.

    There's no such thing as a negative interest rate, because noone would pay extra for the "opportunity" of waiting. Waiting is disutility, and must be accompanied by compensation.

    In reality, we all fall somewhere in the middle. A crackhead towards the upper end, a monk towards the lower end.

    "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    ..... and downsizing isn't

    ..... and downsizing isn't the cause of depressions. It is a result of persuing ventures that are only profitable BECAUSE of the lowered interest rate. Interest rates being lower than our time preferences causes depressions.

    ... Interest rates that are higher than our time preferences would obviously get a bank trounced by the competition in short order.

    "I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

    Part 1 was fine. She lost me

    Part 1 was fine. She lost me at part 2. wow!!!

    "and the truth shall make you free"
    John 8:32

    Little by little she lost me. Not because I didn't understand

    her - but because she has so many bizzare hangups,

    OMG, this woman does not mince words

    I think all of us on DP know what's going down. She just brings out the facts, lines up the figures and exposes the deep financial corruption that's been going on for decades. If anyone wanted to know why or what to do to prepare for a financial collapse, all they need do is watch this.

    Someone close to her physically should reach out to her

    In her last video it appears she is looking forward to run into trouble with the IRS. Someone close to her should tell her not to do anything stupid there and not take them head on. She displays a good understanding of economics and the issues at stake. Even though her treatment of Dr Paul is very superficial, i believe she does share the values of liberty and probably doesnt see how powerful Dr Paul's effort on changing the next generation is. To achieve her goal it is hearts and minds that matter and it would be sad if anything were to happen to her by confronting the IRS alone.

    Does she have the facts right?

    When she gets into the amount of leverage the investment banks have in foreign soverign debt, it just scary.

    I'd call Wayne Paul.

    The Tax Accountant in Texas.

    Free includes debt-free!

    I think the reason she hates

    I think the reason she hates Ron Paul and call him anti-Semitic is because he doesn't want to destroy Islam and kill Muslims. She appears to understand economics, but yes, she's blinded by her self-righteousness and vitriolic anger. She's the type of Christian who says "I'm miserable sinner" and yet sees no sin in herself.