The Socialist Interest Free Economy (Republicae)

-1 vote

The opposition to loan Interest rests in a misconception of what Interest really is and how it functions within an economy. Under the assumptions that wealth would increase under an interest-free economy, there are few examples of such prosperity under Interest Free economies. The reason behind the lack of prosperity is that Interest Free money is, for a lack of a better word: unemployed and barren. Barren or unemployed monies perform no productive function within a vibrant economy.

Within the Interest Free community, including those of the Marxist persuasion, there is the misconception that the borrower is being defrauded by paying interest; nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is that in an Interest Free society, the lender would be cheated and defrauded, for who would hand over the fruit of their own labor to another while taking the risk of no return on the money that represents the fruit of their labor.

Why does anyone consent to pay Interest for money? Why does a tenant agree to pay rent for the use of land or other property? The primary source for such consent is a private contract between two parties without the intervention of government, whether by prohibition or regulation. Now, for those who advocate an Interest Free society there must, by necessity, be both heavy government intervention and legal regulation to impede the principle of a private contract, as well as private property rights.

Those who advocate a prohibition of Interest in our economy ignore the most basic principle of not only a free market, but individual freedom. They deny the primary justification of Interest and that justification is the right of property which the creditor has in his money.

Does not a person, a business or a lending institution, by the virtue of an inviolable right to dispose and use his money as he will, lay conditions on that money if it is loaned out to another? Essentially, Interest is the price of time, but contrary to the current managed market, in a free market the price of time is set by market forces instead of manipulated by a central bank, which will always, without exception distort the market of capital.

The Interest Free advocates follow a very specific view of economic production, an egalitarian view that equalizes all goods and services by the exclusion of interest. It is a “value-based” economic system that has been propagated by Socialist under the name of the Exploitation Theory. Incidentally, socialist economists have always considered Interest as nothing but exploitation and not, as it really is, a private property right based on the fact that money is property that represents a portion of the owner’s life and energy in labor.

The Socialist Exploitation Theory goes something like this: “All goods that have value are the product of human labor, and indeed, economically considered, is exclusively the product of human labor. The Laborers, however, do not retain the whole product which they alone have produced; for the capitalist take advantage of their command over the indispensable means of production, as secured to them by the institution of private property, to secure to themselves part of the laborers’ product. The means of doing so are supplied by the wage contract, in which the laborers are compelled by hunger to sell their labor power to the capitalists for a part of what they, the laborer, produce, while the remainder of the product falls as profits into the hands of the capitalists, without any exertion on their part. Interest is thus a portion of the product of other people’s labor, obtained by exploited the necessitous condition of the laborer.”

"But one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time...equal right is an unequal for unequal labor... In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society can inscribe on its banners: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx

“Free, unimpeded barter allowed people to produce to natural capacities; and to obtain for our own production whatever we deemed to be equal, undiminished measures of the production of others… Because no one takes from the trade anything but the equal of what they contribute to it, each party receives the full, self-determined equivalent of their contribution to the overall pool of their wealth. We have in effect two conflicting philosophies. One wants earnings for its work equivalent to its work. The other wants unearned gain which can only be taken at the cost of earning equivalent to real work... We mature beyond the era of unearned gain… Like cannibalism, unearned monetary gain and all the manipulation which goes with it will one day disappear from history forever after.” Mike Montange’s People for Mathematically Perfect Economy.

“Usury centralizes money wealth, where the means of production are disjointed. It does not alter the mode of production but attaches itself to it as a parasite, and makes it miserable." Marx

Here is yet another utopian visionary who has come to the conclusion that if only interest was completely eliminated that everything would be wonderful.

“Envision a world without poverty or economic oppression, a place where humankind can attain its potential amidst the rest of the world, without hunger or homelessness, where educated societies enjoy all the fruits of their labors. In such a society it wouldn’t be necessary to hand over your hard-earned dollars to the government to pay ever-increasing taxes. Could you learn to live in a place where budgets were balanced, homes were affordable, and you kept all the money you earned?” Jacques Jaikaran.

Like Montagne, Jaikaran adheres to the doctrine of an Interest Free society. I remember reading similar promises from the lips of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and a long list of Socialists, who also advocated an interest free society where the “capitalist parasites” would be restricted from preying on the hapless proletariat.

The pedigree of this theory, this prohibition of Interest is almost purely Marxian in origin. As the free market economist George Reisman stated: “For more than a century, one of the most popular economic doctrines in the world has been the exploitation theory. According to this theory, capitalism is a system of virtual slavery, serving the narrow interests of a comparative handful of businessmen and capitalists, who, driven by insatiable greed and power lust, exist as parasites upon the labor of the masses.”

Interest, like money, arose from a need and it is vital to a free market economy, without it you not only would not have a free market you couldn’t have a free market. The workings of a free market are so dependent on the vital functions that interest accrual provides that it would be impossible for the economy to work.

This Interest Free concept also stems for a total lack of understanding of what money is and what it represents. People work, they labor and part of the fruit of their labor is the money they earn in compensation for the time and effort they put into their jobs. In the most essential meaning money represents a portion of a person’s life. Now, if you earn money by your time and that money represents the time you took out of your life to earn it, is your life worth nothing if you lend it out in the form of money as opposed to the time you lend out in the form of work?

Interest, under a Gold Monetary system is a vital function of monetary economics, not only domestically but also concerning the balance of trade. It provides so many signals, so many influences within the economy that it is almost impossible to explain given the space we have here. In fact, volumes have been written on the subject of how a free market economy is completely dependent for its health and for prosperity on interest value assessed by the time preference of money.

So, how would an Interest Free economy work and how would you transition toward such an economy? Well, Das Capital gives a great deal of information on that subject in its Ideology of Dialectic Materialism. You want to read about an Interest Free economy, read Das Capital. You want to see Interest Free societies, look at some of the Socialistic societies which have impeded market forces by forbidding interest from their economic systems. In fact, it would take a massive STATE to both enforce it and to prop up the economy since the economy would have no gauge, no ability to self-regulate.

There would be absolutely no incentive to lend money under such a system. Indeed, you would have to allow the massive STATE bureaucracy to expand to an extraordinary scope just to make the economy function to any degree at all and like Montagne advocates you would have to have the Government continue to maintain power over a Fiat Currency.

“I suggest that money should be endowed with value based on the wealth that it represents. In my example, I assume the service life of the home is 40 years. The value is consumed (depreciation) in balance with the payments. In this system, every cent of the circulation is used to pay for the value of the original assets as they are consumed; thus the elimination of inflation or deflation which results when there is too little or not enough circulation.” Montagne

Once again, that concept is taken, almost directly from Marx and his Monetary Expression of Value. Marx rejected the Credit theories of Money, in other words Interest and sought to bring about a Value Based Monetary system, which sounds eerily like that which Montagne supports.

Montagne proposes an Interest Free society where “promise certificates” are provided throughout the economy for what amounts to IOUs. I find it very interesting, as well as completely unworkable since the supply chain would be filled with these promises to pay. Since there would be no incentive to lend, at any level, the producer of the most basic product would be forced to wait on payment from another up the line who would also be forced to wait on payment and so on. How would homes be built under an Interest Free economy, who would lend money for free? How would the suppliers be paid down the production ladder, would they, could they only accept a certificate of promise? How would any suppliers get operational capital?

Under an Interest Free utopian economic model how do you suppose that anyone, whether it is an institutional lender, a small business extending credit, or anyone extending credit would be willing to voluntarily give up consumption [based on the money they have on hand] today in anticipation of consuming [the money they receive for lending their money] in the future without a corresponding compensation for the value [price] of time?

What would be the incentive for anyone to lend under such circumstances?

Now, in a free market, Interest rates are not only determined like other prices through the interaction of supply and demand, but it also is a determinate factor in providing both present and future supply and demand along with a stimulus for productivity, a vital timing signal and risk evaluator. Without Interest how will all those factors come into play in the “economy”? The answer is that there would be no mechanism to perform such functions in an Interest free economy.

It all boils down to what money is and how money acts within a given economy, questions that you don’t address because you can’t address such questions in your economic modeling. Money, particularly asset money, provides a store of both present and future economic energy therefore there is a definite time value and time preference to money. Now, based on the assumptions of an Interest Free economy, it would take away elements of time value and time preference by the rejection of interest in such an economic model. There is therefore, no way to account for the lack of such vital elements and the effects such a lack will have on economic flows, both in active states of the market and in rest states of the market.

Think about savers, what incentive to they have in an Interest Free economy and if there is no interest what about investments which pay, in the form of dividends, a type of interest on the investor’s money based on corporate earnings. Apparently such dividends must also be banned in a “mathematically perfect, interest free utopian economy”.

Concerning savings, when a person places money in savings what he is doing is transferring real current resources or at least the means to purchase current resources to a bank or other entity with the anticipation that his money will have just as much or more, due to the Interest accrued on the savings account, more future purchasing power than when he deposited his money. How would an Interest Free economy provide incentives for savings? It could not.

Savings, by the way, especially in a sound monetary economy, are the backbone for capital production, without it how would the economy function? How would the balances between savings, investment and capital production be achieved under an Interest Free economy? What mechanisms would you put into place to replace the vital role that interest plays between those balances?

The same is true of someone lending money, when someone is willing to transfer his funds in the form of a loan, the basis of that loan if the promise of the borrower of those current resources to return those resources to the lender at a future time; in an Interest Free economy, the lender would not be compensated from the time value of his money and therefore there would be absolutely no incentive for anyone to lend present resources that could be readily placed into economic service today for those same resources at a future date without an expression of time value on those funds. In this case you are saying that there is no need in an economy for either time value or time preferences that would be a major and massive hindrance for any economic movement or productivity.

Those who advocate such an Interest Free economy miss the entire premise of lending, of time value, time preference and the productivity associated with lending using interest as a measure of future value and timed usage. The borrower assesses risk based on the rate of Interest and a certain degree of faith in his ability to repay the loan. The borrower is using current resources of the lender in the belief that he will be able to produce future goods and or services to the extent that he will not only have enough to pay back the lender both principle and Interest, but that he will, through the process and his business acumen also have a profit at the end of the process. How therefore, do you deal with the transfer of qualified demand in such cases? The answer is you can't.

If there is no incentive for such practices, and apparently under the Interest Free “style” of economy such incentives would be banned by law. In such Usury Free economies, a person or lender would naturally keep their resources to themselves for present productive activities from which they could profit instead of lending those resources for a future return with no profit whatsoever. I mean if I were a lender who could make a profit today within my money, why would I lend it for 1 year, 5 years, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years with no return at all on it? Sorry, but few people would take such a risk with not hope of a return on the time value of their hard-earned money.

I would assume that since there would be no Interest [which is nothing more than rent on money] allowed in an Interest Free economy that the practice of charging rent would also need be banned, since it is also interest on property. Rent is a form of Interest after all, you are lending out land, or merchandise or real estate in the estimation that you will get a return on those properties plus an excess if the property complete with clear title or not. The rental of money is no different than the rental of other properties that you own.

Also, on a practical matter, how would you enforce an Interest Free economy, there would have to be a massive government machine to enforce this law, what will it be? It would be much more intrussive than anything we currently have today and it would have powers that would, by shear necessity, involve itself into every financial trasaction that took place in an Interest Free economy.

Also, what role would the government have to take in terms of economic intervention since you are removing some of the most basic functions with an economy, primarily the role that interest plays in a vital economy? The government would replace the role of Interest in an economy otherwise such an economy would not function since all incentive is taken out of the system, time preference and time value will be no more. What mechanism would be used: government.

Well, I can tell you that if you propose an Interest Free economy and a fiat monetary system along with it then you will definitely not have a prosperous future. The only way that can happen is if the government is completely restored to Constitutional Order, limited and severely restricted to its delegated powers as enumerated in the Constitution. A sound monetary system restored which will automatically limit the expansion and power of the government, restraining the politicians and eliminating special interest powers, monopoly favors and regulatory license. A free-market without any intrusion of government is just as important as the restoration of Constitutional Order, without economic freedom, the Right of Private Property and the Right of Private Contract then we will not have prosperity.

In a free market, sound monetary system, the most wonderful thing happens to banks; they suddenly become responsible to their clients. Their fiduciary responsibility makes them compete and therefore keep their policies and practices above board. In a free market banks are allowed to fail just like any other business would be allowed to fail it they made bad business decisions.

The key to understanding any economic proposal is what effect it actually has on the Rights of the Individual, the Right of Private Contract and the Right of Property. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance,
Republicae

Comment viewing options

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

ROTHSCHILD - RED SHIELD, Ludwig von Mises RED SHILD....

ROTHSCHILD - RED SHIELD, Ludwig von Mises RED SHILD.... both love USURY
Pepublicae what color is your shield...red...????
http://www.savethemales.ca/000275.html .....looks like usury lovers like you created ...the socialism
Interest Free banks will be .....hated by your banksters who want to create
Big Brother Banksters Socialism......... Shylocks Dream

Do you practice being a twit

Do you practice being a twit or does it come naturally? Once again, you make your appearance here on this thread alone. What is your real agenda here? It is certainly not to actually contribute valid or even rational information that can be used by those of us on the DP who value the opinions of Dr. Paul and those who he admires such as Ludwig von Mises. To call Mises a socialist is to call Dr. Paul a socialist since Dr. Paul has stated on more than one occasion that he was greatly influenced by the writings of Mises. So, what is your real agenda and who is paying you to spill your useless tripe on these pages and in front of these people who have, for the most part, dedicated themselves to restoring this Republic?

You have yet to provide us any coherent information about your proposals, the proposals of your cult leader Montagne or the pseudo-economic interest free system. I have, as I have said, no problem with anyone who wishes to start an interest free bank or those who wish to contract with such banks. What I do have a problem with are those, like yourself, who have demonstrated their willingness to impose, through government edict or coercion, some ban on the ability of any free individual to contract with others in any manner that they see fit. We call those who do wish to make such coercive government interventions Statists.

You avoid all actual discussion of the feasibility of either the practicality of an interest free economy or the technical questions that naturally arise from the virtual impossibility of economic calculation under such an interest free economy. The truth is that the attributes of an interest free economy follow the ideology of the Marxist Exploitation Theory and the Value Theory of Labor. So, before you call others socialist, perhaps you should look to your own ideology surrounding the subject, for it is very, very close to a socialistic construct that would require massive government central planning.

An interest free economy will have massive value problems and the calculation of such values will be virtually impossible since there are no mechanisms to provide adequate information about economic movement within the economy subject to a total ban on interest.

The facts are that there can be no economic calculation without it being expressed in terms of monetary value, both present and future value based on time preferences. The price of goods and services are not only expressed through these mechanisms, but also the price of money. An interest free economy must therefore, be a highly planned economy and the only way to do that is through massive government, socialistic intervention into the markets and even then there will be very little actual capital production. As such, both the conservation and actual employment of capital can only be rationally secured in a society, which is based on the free exchange and property rights of money, whether an individual or a business owns that money.

Those who advocate such interest free economies, in some cases, are unaware that what they are really proposing is a collectivist system of economic planning centered in and on government intervention into the markets. Even Karl Marx realized that the distribution of resources in such an economy would be a major problem, yet he still proposed the Exploitation Theory concerning rents, labor and interest.

An interest free economy subdues competition and therefore production. Those who advocate an interest fee economy avoid any discussion of the questions of just how an interest free economy would function in every day practice, the reason for that is that they don’t seem to have a clue how it would work. Such economies would have to be heavily institutionalistic, both in philosophy and implementation; as such there will be the added danger of massive governmental abuses and corruption.

Those who advocate such an economic system appear to base their entire premise on little more than philosophical assumptions, not actual economics or monetary mechanics. It should be of note that the majority of those who seem to advocate such a system rarely involve themselves in actual economic or monetary discourse, but rather they seek to slur any opposition they encounter as some sort of bourgeois economics, but without ever actually providing anything that could be considered competent information on the subject. Plato is a perfect example of someone with a single-issue categorical prejudice, which obviously keeps valid economic information hidden from his mental capabilities.

The ability of markets to have economic calculation depends upon time preferences and therefore, interest, which determines the value of those time preferences. Economic calculation therefore allows for the rational allocation of resources without government intervention into the markets. Since economic calculation is essential for any free market and interest free market would not allow the operations of an actual free market. No matter what type of economy implemented, whether it is capitalistic, socialistic or interest free, they all must obey the principle that all economic results must correspond to the costs expended upon them. Without the mechanism of interest, the interest free economy, similar to a socialist or Marxist economy, would not have a natural mechanism to provide information on the resulting corresponding costs associated with the production of goods and services along with the labor costs associated with them. An interest free economy would not provide comparable expenditure relationships between time preferences, therefore the resulting information would be incomplete and any relationship between the preferences of the market completely irrational therefore, ultimately unusable to the markets. Such an economy therefore is impossible in the long run; it will become bankrupt because the economy eventually sinks into a state of absolute unsurveyable and unresponsive. Markets require calculation mechanisms, such as interest. Interest arises partly out of competition, but it also arises out of demand and the necessity for information about the various preferences within the market, without such information there can be no successful market forces.

Of course, here again, those who advocate interest free economies, at least everyone that I have encountered, cannot adequately address such technical issues regarding economic calculation and they tend therefore, to resort to feeble and usually abusive insults and accusations that have no value or connection to the subject. Plato is yet another perfect example of such interest free advocates.

So Plato, do you have anything of actual rational value to contribute? We are all waiting with bated breath, I assure you!

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Also always remember that it

Also always remember that it is the issue of usury that binds or divides mankind. The people who perpetuate this evil use political affiliations, race or religion to divide and conquer. Why do the Bible, Quran and Torah ALL Denounce usury, it is slavery. Yet the masses let themselves be divided so they can stay being slaves. What is wrong with this picture? I see a world with peace if we just denounce USURY. This is why the Iranians overall support Ahmadinejad. He is abiding by religious law. The majority of his opposition are wealthy people. We also know where they got some of that money $400 million from the CIA from the Fed. What more do they want? Just like here in America who is getting anything in the way of stimulus checks? Seriously people wake up; could this be a jumping start to world wide peace against usury. No more divisions the only people who make the divisions are the ones who want to enslave us.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......"right".

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......"right".

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

I didn't want to supersede Republicaes post

So, instead I posted my usury reply below to your post. What I'm about to say is definitely not self-severing or selfish. I am the small-potato's beneficiary of the usury state, it has enabled me not to work since I was 53 y/o, now 66.

"Indirectly", the price this has cost my family is the quality of their standard of living and retirement. Unlike me my family are borrowers not savers. Try as I might to turn these people into savers I can't do it, debt is too easy. It would be far better these people work for something before they can buy it avoiding debt [slavery].

My 76 y/o brother who is $40 K debt in charge cards, gave me his credit card (one of my savings banks) to buy a Rx for him. I told him his bank sends me a check for X amount of dollars every year. He then asked me, "How did you do that?" My bother and my whole family are spendthrifts, and from what I hear most of the country is too. Debt is to easy - easy pickings for Shylock's.

Republicae

As America is the dominant military power that goes unchallenged could it be that "Helicopter Ben's" 12 Trillion dollar give away was poured into the global economy to inflate it, and not the US economy to ward off competing currencies ?

Since the late 60s there has

Since the late 60s there has been a concerted effort to uniformly inflate the global economy. The privilege of Special Drawing Rights was given to the IMF around 69, prior to Nixon cutting ties between gold and the dollar. That change in policy created a global impetus to inflate.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

So, does this mean

status quo after the dust settles, a continuum of adding zeros destroying accumulated wealth piecemeal ?

The purpose of these Special

The purpose of these Special Drawing Rights was to conceal, at least to a degree, any government which wished to debase its currency without "standing out" of the crowd. As such, governments were pretty much able to debase their currencies through monetary inflation without the fear of sanctions from other countries, such as trade balances or the withdrawal of reserve support of this or some other country. Eventually, of course, the entire system pretty much comes down around the heads of governments since massive fiat inflation can neither be sustained or continued without massive economic distortion catching up to the effects of the debasement of the currency. Not only will accumulated wealth be dried up, but the ability to create and accumulate capital wealth will suffer drastically.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Boy, am I getting an education

Republicae, thank you for taking the time explaining. Hopefully our Dorothy doesn't wake up for some time to come, and find out, "The Wonderful Wizard of the Fed" is only an illusion !

Toto....this doesn't look like Kansas any more!

Republicae is the banksters voice

Now we give loans to banksters (bailout)......are we now the bank..........?? and if we are the BANK then we do not need the banking parasites...and if we are the bank why charge interest on OUR loans..??? that will be masochism
WE the owners of OUR Bank charging interest on OUR own loans..
sorry buy MAKES NO SENSE .....and where is the "socialism",,,???????????
we will sill be the ownersof our properties.....and OUR bank that help us with the money we need.....?????

yes banksters will not reposes OUR houses no more ...is that bad..........???
You will not buy 2 houses for banksters (interest) and one for us....

I see big savings on a interest free bank owned by WE THE PEOPLE.........

Right Plato….I find it

Right Plato….I find it very interesting, as all of those on the DP should, that you have only commented on this thread since you “joined” the DP. So, what is it, are you a paid hack by Montagne or simply a Montagne cultist?

Once again, you cannot provide anything in the way of competent rebuttal and hide your lack of knowledge beneath the rug of nasty innuendo, without, I might add, a smidgeon of fact backing up such innuendo.

All you, or anyone else, need do is read all of my articles on the parasitic corporatist banking system to see exactly where I stand on the subject, you however retreat, time and time again, behind the most shallow commentary possible with your bilious tripe. Can’t you give us any intelligent rebuttal; are you simply incapable of such engagement? It certainly appears that is the extent of your capabilities on the subject at hand?

Perhaps the saddest point of the entire discourse, me providing the discourse and you providing the spittle, is that you seem to be completely unaware that you are making yourself look like a complete and absolute idiot. Is that your intent, or is that simply the nature of your character?

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Republicae.

I want to thank you for shareing with us your area of expertise. I , like many others have learned a great deal from you.
I have tried to emulate you, by posting on threads that touch on my field of expertise. I understand your frustration.

" the important thing is to never stop questioning, curiousity, has it's own reason for existing..
Albert Einstien

Knowledge is power, action is love.

AGENDA 21

Unsustainability of course, is the course ..All the calculations are done using socialist society calculations ..There is no other result of socialism..
you-no

Private banks should not be allowed to create money

All private banks should borrow their money from the US Treasury. The treasury could offer a competitive rate and we could use the income to eliminate ALL federal income tax. You may remember that federal income tax was implemented in 1914, right after the fed act.

Fractional banking could be eliminated as loans would be fully funded. If a bank wanted to lend their money, fine, as long as they have full reserves.

States should also be allowed to charter banks to issue interest and debt free money for large projects like mass transit. This would go a long ways towards "de-centralization" of money control.

Eliminating the fed will accomplish little if we continue to give private banks a monopoly to create our money.

And please let's be honest - we have no where near enough gold to back our currency. With what little gold we have left, we'd end up with less than a penny's worth of gold to support a dollar.

Larry

END the FED before it ENDS US

END the FED before it ENDS US

Once again DrKrbyLuv, you

Once again DrKrbyLuv, you show your lack of understanding of both money and gold used as money. As I have suggested to you numerous times, please read the works of David Hume, along with DeSoto, Mises, Rothbard and of course, Dr. Ron Paul. There is more than enough gold to back the economic system, it is not the fiat currency, at its vastly debased quality that needs backing. This economy is inflated to the extreme, the real value of it without such inflationary and I might add, illusionary numbers is substantially less than it appears. Please look beyond the current system and don't think that there is some sort of resemblance to a sound monetary system, there is not. The fact that both have the commonality of something called currency does not mean they operate in the same manner, they do not. The fact is that money, particularly sound money, operates simply as a medium of economic exchange. The fungibility of that medium is not, nor can it be static and therefore it performs its function within the economy not based upon quantity, but quality.

See my numerous comments below and please, for god's sake, try to absorb some of the information on the subject! Please learn about the mechanics of money, particularly gold money in a free market...I think you will be surprised at what you actually find. I'm not trying to be mean, but your comments are growing tiresome and tedious in the extreme.

We are all in agreement that the Fractional Reserve System is fraudulent and criminal.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Insults are bad form...

How do we back our money with gold if we don't own near enough? Please answer that yourself instead of referring me to a economic philosophy.

Are you saying the money should be "fractionally" backed?

Should we borrow the money to buy more gold?

Would a penny worth of gold be enough to back a dollar?

Speaking of books, please read Ellen Brown's the Web of Debt. It will be an eye opener for you.

END the FED before it ENDS US

END the FED before it ENDS US

If insults are bad form

If insults are bad form DrKrbyLuv, then why have you been so generous with insults in the past? All one need do is look at all your comments on this thread to see that you freely used them on numerous occasions.

How do we back our money with gold if we don't own near enough?>

How much is enough DrKrbyLuv? I have, on numerous occasions explained the mechanics of sound money, that it is not the quantity of the money in circulation that is critical, but the quality of that money and the freedom of circulation within a market economy that is the critical factor. How many times must you be told?

I have, on several occasions, pointed you to sources which are more than adequate to give you an explanation of such monetary mechanics. I suppose it is true that you can lead a horse to water but you really can’t make him drink! Your apparent aversion of self-education appears to be the tantamount cause of your expressed inability to comprehend the subject at hand.

Your comments also prove that you don’t even read my explanations on this thread. The functional utility of gold money is extremely powerful in a free market economy, in fact, if it were allowed to be used in this fiat economy we would soon find the fiat system abandoned and defunct. It is painfully apparent that you cannot form a conceptual understanding of just what sound money does, how it operates and the benefits of it in an economy. You are comparing a fiat dollar, and the face value of that dollar with gold when, in fact, the fiat dollar face value is a complete and absolute illusion when the actual purchase value of that dollar is, even with government CPI figures, only worth around three cents, if that.

Would a penny worth of gold be enough to back a dollar?

Well, do the math DrKrbyLuv….a fiat dollar today is worth approximately 1/932nd of an ounce of gold at today’s price. So, what would a penny’s worth of gold be valued at? Think about it in relationship to the actual purchase value of a fiat dollar. The U.S. Dollar is basically worthless in terms of purchase value, so would a penny’s worth of gold be enough to back a U.S. Fiat Dollar?

You seem to have a completely fiat mentality, one that associates what you see and understand about the fiat economy with a hard money free market system, that is your problem and it is obviously causing you a great deal of confusion.

Now, have you ever read any reference from me that I support a fractional reserve system? NO

Why should we borrow to buy gold? You don’t understand that once gold money is released into the market economy that it flows freely, the reserve of gold, not only in this country but other countries will flow throughout the economy. Once again, you are bound by a seemingly intractable fiat mentality that limits the scope of your understanding of the fungibility of money within a healthy free market economy.

I have read Hellen’s book and although she is much more on target with several issues than Montagne, she is basically calling for a similar government backed fiat currency issued through the U.S. Treasury. By the way, it is my understanding that she is not a fan of your hero Montagne. The problem is that while there would be no central bank under her proposals, the problems associated with any fiat currency under government control would remain. Additionally, since fiat currency is a double liability there would, on international markets, be the necessity to trade Treasury bonds, at interest to make up for the lack of real asset value of the currency. It will also be necessary to continue backing such a fiat currency with a tax and legal tender system to enforce its general use in the country. Sorry, that is something that we are all fighting against. A free market with free banking and sound money is the only way to ensure that the government will remain non-intrusive and limited. Anytime you place the power to issue a fiat money there must be an accompanying power to control the value of that money, such mechanisms are anathema to the whole idea of free markets and thus individual liberty.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Just to clarify a point...

Are you saying that dollars should be fully backed by gold, or do you suggest less than 100% - if so, how much less?

You get upset because I don't subscribe to your monetary dogma, I have a totally different view.

I think that the creation and control of our monetary system is our most important creative power. Why not use it?

For example, why don't we, through the treasury loan the banks money?

Why not charge them interest to get rid of fed income tax?

The people provide collateral for all the money that the banks and Fed loan. Why shouldn't the people benefit?

Here's a scenario I'd like you to respond to that goes to my point.

1) We owe the Fed somewhere around $4 trillion dollars. If we wanted to, we could call them tomorrow morning and alert them to watch their computer monitor - let them know that $4 trillion is coming their way.

2) As soon as the money arrives, poof, it disappears, extinguishing the debt. Not bad, we just shed 1/3 of our national debt.

Any comment?

Larry

END the FED before it ENDS US

END the FED before it ENDS US

As I have, on several

As I have, on several occasions, stated I favor the only true and honest system and that is a 100% reserve system of free banking without government controls or intrusion.

I am not upset at all DrKrbyLuv, you mistake the frustration I show over your apparent lack of understanding of both monetary and economic mechanics as an emotional response when it definitely not. The fact that you have a totally different view is fine as long as you can explain that view within the parameters of economic principles; thus far you have been unable to provide such explanation to a reasonable degree.

The fact of the matter is that under a free market sound monetary system there is no need for “money creation” or “control”, for once gold money is released in the market place the market will meet the demand for money with supply and controls are regulated by market forces which are completely outside the purview of man-made controls. You apparently wish to place such controls in the hands of men, but to whom will you place your trust in such matters. No thanks, I prefer the power of the free market over the arbitrary decision-making powers of men.

Once again, you show a complete lack of understanding of free market principles when you state that we should let the treasury “loan” money to the banks. Under a free market system of economic there is simply no need for the Treasury to act as yet another “lender” with government control over the money supply and the value of that money supply. You would simply exchange the policy making decisions of the Federal Reserve for those of the Treasury.

Again, you apparently are at a loss to understand that the entire purpose of taxation under a fiat monetary system is not, nor has it ever been for revenue generation. The purpose has been to enforce the use of the fiat monetary system and for social controls. Under a free market/sound monetary system the need for such taxation is not nearly as crucial and, as the original Constitution correctly states , all taxes should be apportioned among the States as an indirect tax with the control of taxation being far more localized so that the People could control the degree of taxation.

Once more, you fail to grasp the entire concept of free market economics. It appears that you are still so locked into the fiat mentality that you cannot escape it.

1) We owe the Fed somewhere around $4 trillion dollars. If we wanted to, we could call them tomorrow morning and alert them to watch their computer monitor - let them know that $4 trillion is coming their way.
2) As soon as the money arrives, poof, it disappears, extinguishing the debt. Not bad, we just shed 1/3 of our national debt.

The above comment is yet another example of your inability to grasp just what is going on in the fiat economy. I am sorry for being so blunt but you leave me little choice in the matter. We owe nothing to the FED! The FED, through the act of monetary creation under the guidance of the power-brokers in our government who benefit from such monetary powers , does not have money to lend, it simply creates that money for use by the government and its political beneficiaries. The entire system is little more than a political construct used to consolidate power and expand the role of the government in the lives of the People.

The FED, upon the request of the Treasury, issues a fiat “check” from an account that has absolutely no money in it. The illusion is complete when that “check” is deposited in commercial banks and filters through the system of fractional reserve banking. There is no money, only legal notifications of a debt obligation which are double liabilities which can never actually be redeemed, only traded or swapped for other debt obligations, both domestically and abroad. The fact is that this fiat debt is as illusionary as the debt instruments that support it and it can, through inflationary pressures, be repudiated at anytime. As I have stated before, the “national” debt was repudiated during the administration of FDR and then again during the administration of Nixon. What do you think actually happened to the debt when Nixon cut all ties between the dollar and gold? The entire debt was shifted from an asset based debt to a real liability based debt which no ability to actually collect on the debt itself. That is one reason we have the bond markets, they provide the ability to constantly shift debt without actually paying off debt. The “national” debt could easily be eliminated and there is really nothing our creditors could do about it. It could easily be inflated away by debasement of the U.S. Dollar to a degree that it was paid off in other fiat currencies holding more value. It would not be the first time that a “national” debt has been virtually inflated away.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

gees..... another 2 week 6

gees..... another 2 week 6 day membership here..... I think this guy is soveirgn mearsk...

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain

“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)

Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐

Repubicae Chihuahua little brains

there is a great mind in America
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/
how such an interest free economy would function....?? is in that web ...read it again.....ignorant

Republicae you are so.....pathetic...lol

if gold is so good why is Republicae web selling it....looking for
suckers...??? well Republicae gets his percentage

grow up plato.... again

grow up plato.... again explain it.. back up your rant.

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain

“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)

Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐

Perhaps the most interesting

Perhaps the most interesting and telling fact about Plato is that he has, for the entire period of his DP membership, only commented on this one thread.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

I have read Montagne's

I have thoroughly read Montagne's little "trade-marked" website Plato, and even Montagne cannot answer the questions concerning the workings of an interest free economy, no more so than you can. There is a reason for that, the reason is that you don't know how it would work because, like Montagne, you too have shown an abject ignorance of both economics, interest, money and the functions of those elements in a free market economy.

You have had ample opportunity to rebut all the comments on this thread, yet once again you MUST RESORT to attacks. Montagne is exactly the same, actually everyone that I have ever had contact with associated with Montagne always, without exception, resort to the same attack tactics and they never, ever actually provide any real, substantive arguments regarding the position of an interest free economy.

Just look at your comments Plato, with a screen name of such notable history I would think that you could at least come up with something more creative than the vile dribble that seems to slowly exude from that mind of yours. Yet you give us nothing and that is typical of people like you, I find nothing surprising about your attacks. It is and always has been common for those, such as yourself, who have no substantial argument to resort to such tactics.

The fact that you made such a comment about the trading of gold only proves that you not only know nothing about economics, but you know nothing about commodity markets or market forces. That one statements proves my point, that you possess absolutely no substantial or even pertinent information or knowledge of economics, markets, interest, commodities or anything else pertaining to the subject at hand.

It weakens any argument that you might have to support your claims or opinion.

Just look at your childish prattle, no content, no rebuttal...just childish tantrums. The above comment is a perfect example and everyone is aware of it Plato, why aren't you?

Please go play with those your own age Plato, you are way out of your skill-set here and it shows!

So, once again, I will ask you Plato to give us some meager degree of argument, some tid-bit of intelligent rebuttal or even the most sparing morsel of information that could be regarded as a substantial basis for your opinion.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Forget Montagne

Forget Montagne for a moment ....why Plato the great mind was telling us:
"There must be no lending at interest because it will be quite in order for the borrower to refuse absolutely to return both interest and principal."

Republicae agains Plato..............lol

Plato is right, it is

Plato is right, it is absolutely in order for the borrower to refuse the return of both interest and principle however, that is a personal decision, that is the actual context to which Plato was referring. Liberty Plato, Liberty is the key, something that you and Montagne seem to forget. The vital principle and ability to contract, along with the principle of private property seem to escape you and Montagne.

Yes, Plato was a great mind however, the economic system during Plato's time, not to mention the political system, were substantially different. Have you even read about the economy of ancient Greece? Do you know anything about it or the type of economic structure that was used? Also, and perhaps most important, the economic structure of ancient Greece was not based on free-holders, it was a very different society. We are talking about a free market economy where individual liberty is intricately tied to economic freedom.

By the way, Plato, the Philosopher, is rather despised by most who hold to the ideals of Liberty since he was pretty much the champion of totalitarian political and economic schemes. Eventually, his works served as the "mentor" for about 9 tyrants in history. About the only thing that Plato, the Philosopher handed down to us is the elemental theory of the division of labor however, even at that, his theory came to the wrong conclusions about such divisions of labor...but you should know that if you are quoting Plato........Plato!

If you, like Montagne, wishes to IMPOSE yet another government-centered agency on the People of this Land and load it down with even more legal barriers to Liberty, then by all means try, but the Spirit of Liberty is growing in this country once again and you will find yourselves on the loosing side of the fight against such Liberty. Montagne would defy the concept of Private Property and Private Contracts, placing more power in the hands of the government to ban interest from the market and then he would have the government manage personal bank accounts for both retirement and spending.

NO, ABSOLUTELY NO...TAKE YOUR 1984 BIG BROTHER MANIPULATION CRAP ELSEWHERE.

You remain in a fog don't you Plato, you can't give answer to the numerous questions regarding the actual mechanics and function of the interest free economy that Montagne proposes. You have been given ample opportunity to provide this forum with a proper and intelligent rebuttal of the arguments at hand, yet you avoid such rebuttals...WHY? The answer is simple, you don't know, nor does Montagne. Montagne proved that to me on more than one occasion when he to had to resort to slurs and attacks instead of providing a valid argument for his case. He didn't even have a clue about the subject of the economic calculation problems associated with an interest free economic system. How can you propose an interest free economy without addressing the subject of the economic calculation problem? You can't, because so far I have yet to see anyone provide a solution to that problem and believe me in the last 60 or so years I have read a great deal on the subject.

I will stick with those who are actually fighting for Freedom and Liberty, like Dr. Paul! Of course, since you believe that the position I take is wrong, you must also consider the position that Dr. Paul takes to also be wrong. My position is no different that Dr. Paul.

Have you noticed the name of this forum Plato....its called The Daily Paul!

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Republicae

You are good ! I'm sure glad I'm not tangling with you.

In your opinion, what kind of chance does President Obama have of getting us out of this recession (this time) ? The President is really talented and, "saying things similar" to what Ron Paul said he would do, e.g. Israel, Iraq, Guantanamo, health care, deficits, etc.

The entire premise of the

The entire premise of the Obama solution to the economic "recession" is based upon the very same economic methods that created the problem. You cannot solve a problem with the problem that created it, it is impossible.

Now, aside from the fact that the Obama administration has virtually turned the ability to maintain contractual agreements into unenforceable documents, destroying any confidence in the ability to secure such contracts legally, it has artificially and, to the best of my knowledge approached the entire economic dislocation with rather arbitrary calculations. The likelihood that the Obama administration will be able to accomplish anything that will remotely resemble long-term or sustainable economic stability using the current methods is akin to "wishing on a star", to say the least.

It should be of considerable interest to everyone that the Obama administration evidently believes that the cure for a bubble economic is a larger bubble economy and it is doing everything possible to inflate that bubble. As we know, bubble economies tend to bust, the newly expanded version being created by the Obama administration will be no different and while it may make people have a "feel-good" feeling temporarily, it cannot nor will it provide sufficient economic stability or security to actually create the needed capital wealth generation necessary for long-term sustainability and growth. The fact is that the Obama administration is destroying the very things required for such sustainability.

I am utterly amazed at the disconnect between the policy structure of the Obama administration and the actual foundational reality of the economic environment, it is as though they cannot or will not open their "collectivist" eyes to the reality standing in front of them. Of course, Obama, like most in Washington, firmly believe that the government is the fountainhead of all solutions; that mentality has been instrumental in bring this country to the place it finds itself today.

Capital consumption is occurring on a vast scale, thanks primarily to the government itself. It is impossible for an economy to continue with a degree of viability when the largest consumer and conversely non-producer of capital in the market is government. The Federal Reserve has relented to the political pressure, as such it has fostered some of the largest non-borrowed reserves in our history, the FED's balance sheet is completely whacked. These, along with numerous other policy actions, will ensure that not only will there not be a recovery from this "recession", but that the prognosis is worse than it would be if nothing had been done at all by the government.

http://www.1776solution.blogspot.com

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes

Republicae thank you for your insight

Sincerely, with all due respect -
Undoubtedly what you say and how you say it makes very good common sense, but common sense to whom ? Surely not to the vast American population who have a vested interest contrary. FDR could not of said it better than President Obama, "Change you can believe in".

Believing makes itself -
The only thing you have to fear - is fear itself - "wishing on a star" works if you want it too !

Not being facetious or disrespectful, but instead an intellectual badge of honor - kudos to you: I now know why your blogs are banned on government web-sites, you are way too dangerous (chuckle) !