Comment: Stand in, write in, competition

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Some questions I'd ask (see in situ)

Stand in, write in, competition

Look please at my viewpoint.

If anyone, an honest person of reasonable capacity to produce something worth more than that which they started with, creates money, and it is much better than the Monopoly Money, because it isn't fraudulent, then, reasonably, one might look at how easy it would be to offer voters a higher quality and lower cost Statesmen.

In other words the FED produces worth-less, and then worth even less, paper garbage, fraud money, so it must be easy to produce something of higher value and lower cost, if allowed to do so, legally, and that clues in the perceptive person as to the current standards of "excellence" concerning the current supply of so called "statesmen" who turn out to be no more, but no less, than high paid frauds.

We don't have to be the caliber of Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, in order to be Friends of Liberty BECAUSE the competition has sunk so low as to be no more, and no less than well paid liars working a Pyramid Scheme.

Your questions (and my offerings of answers):

1. Does the minimum wage cause unemployment? If so, do you favor the minimum wage even though it benefits some workers at the price of unemployment for other workers?

Price or cost?

Federal Level Enforcements, Punishments, and Bureaucratic Solutions to State Level Economic Problems, all in Capital Letters, is UN-Constitutional and NOT in the Spirit of Liberty: when I am Constructively Interpreting The Constitution.

The States, in a Democratic Federated Republican form of Government are Sovereign Legal Entities that can choose to Pay Union Dues so as to form a Confederation, so as to combine Defensive Military Forces, so as to present any Combined Foreign Criminal Power of any kind a Deterrent and therefore an Avoidance of Aggressive War for Profit against us, that may be contemplated by our enemies, against us, and against Liberty.

If The People want a Minimum Wage, they can petition their State Governments to create one, or their City government, or their County government, and those People can finance that boondoggle, and they can learn from their own mistakes, and people who don't want to be had, taken to the cleaners, in that way, can vote with their feet, or cars, with their money, to another State less despotic, when all that nonsense goes bad.

The way to increase the number of opportunities for work and therefore decrease the relative number of workers willing and capable of working, which increases the LEVERAGE of the workers, who can then demand a higher price for what they offer in a Free Market, is to STOP, STOP, STOP, enforcing an UN-FREE Market, by creating subsidized monopolies which are nothing short of crimes made legal.

When those who earn credit earn credit instead of those who are evil being rewarded for being evil then Liberty will be a condition of life, not before, so no, no, no, minimum wage at The Federal Level if I have anything, any power at all, to allow Liberty to exist from east cost to west cost, and from the Canadian Boarder to the Mexican Boarder, and all around Alaska, and the Island of Hawaii, and any other place that will volunteer to exist in Liberty according to The People and The People hired to run their Voluntary Governments, if I have anything do to with it, there will be no enforced "minimum wage", which is a false front for subsidizing monopoly, which is a false front for making victims out of competitors.

Do you understand the supply and demand angle of employment opportunity and worker availability?

2. Since the 1930's, the federal government has bought crops from farmers at above-market prices and then physically destroyed those crops, in an effort to raise food prices. Do you favor these policies which raise the cost of living for every American for the benefit of a few farmers?

Do I ever have news for you? My Product 1 and Product 2 proposal includes a 1% interest bearing loan on anything, including farms, that prove to be capable of using a smaller amount of physical power to create a larger amount of physical power and this may sound like GREEK to you, but this is, in fact, English.

Do you know about Vertical Farming in Modular Green House Units?

Do you know about Solarium which is a Sea Weed that can be grown abundantly from Sea Water and then processed to feed anyone who is starving, willing to pay any price, just to survive another day, or to feed his or her loved ones one more day, and do so very cheaply, at a discount?

Product 2, in my Product 1 and Product 2 proposal, is meant to finance anyone, doing anything, whereby the POWER consumed by the Borrower is increased once the Borrower has wisely invested that borrowed power into things, or processes, that prove to be viable at the time of the loan, which is loaned out at at competitive 1% straight interest rate.

That means (specifically relevant to your question) that you, or anyone, can start competing in farming, without high MONOPOLY INTEREST costs taking your earnings from you, and no one, on a Federal Level, can force you to do anything you don't want to do in the farming industry, far from it, as far as you can get from ordering farmers to destroy crops, this idea promotes invention, production, and maintenance of competitive farming enterprises, with minimal costs to the entrepreneurs.

Does that make any sense to you, and if not, I can work on whatever may be needed to clear that up to your satisfaction, so long as my time remains LIBERATED for this specific task.

Your second question is vital, and there must be a most competitive answer somewhere, yes or no?

3. In the last 100 years, Americans have paid about 5x the world price for sugar, because of extremely high tariffs on imported sugar. Do you favor these tariffs, which benefit a few Southern sugar growers at the expense of higher costs of living for all Americans?

See? Do you see? You, in a Liberated Federal Government, could find the State where no such crime made legal is enforced, and you could invest in making sugar at competitive prices to force out the Monopolies, because Monopolies are no longer enforced, and more than that, competition is now raised up to the level it earns by its on self evident competitive earnings.

So the answer is a resounding no, to the very good question, there will be nothing done by the Federal Government, with me as President, to enforce UN-FREE TRADE, unless there are Foreign Powers Dumping on us, which may require a more detailed answer.

Do you understand the practice of economic dumping on a Legal Crime National Level?

If you do not, I can offer words that may be to your advantage.

4. The member banks of the Federal Reserve System borrow from the Federal Reserve at .25% interest, and then loan this money to the federal government at substantially higher rates of interest. Why should those select banks enjoy this special privilege, for which all American suffer in the form of higher inflation?

Product 1 and Product 2 can be explained to you in detail but those theoretical Legal Financial Products are merely illustrative, they intend to Stand in Place of what could be available to anyone if Legal Crime was no longer forced upon victims by legal criminals such as those Frauds who continue to "kick the can down the road" with their Legal Money Fraud Monopoly known as The FED.

Competition renders The FED POWER power-less in direct proportion to the higher quality and lower cost of the competitive supply of Legal Money.

This may be all GREEK to some people, but my judgement of your questions suggest to me that you have a handle on The Problem, and therefore competitive solutions are entertain-able by some measure in your view.

I've been very wrong often.

5. Is there any aspect of daily life in which the federal government does not have the power to intervene on the basis of the commerce clause or general welfare clause of the Constitution? If so, name one.

The Constitution was WILLFULLY constructed so as to be "Constructively Interpreted" by those who planned on planning to create a Legal Money Monopoly, and that is all NOT NEWS, we are merely ignorant of History, because we have dropped the ball of Liberty.

So the answer to 5 is that there is nothing that IS can't mean in the hands of a Dictator, and IS can mean anything one minute, and IS can mean any opposite thing the next minute, because the Dictator has an army of DUPES to force you to obey without question.

I can show you exactly where that is written in that "Constructively Interpreted" Constitution, if you don't already know that fact.

6. Does the promise of the Federal Reserve to make emergency loans to failing banks create a moral hazard which encourages banks to take on more risk, because they know the Fed will save them if things turn out badly? If so, then doesn't the Feds role as lender of last resort help cause banking crises?

Your words PARROT the same LIE told by Alexander Hamilton, who was a prodigy of Robbert Morris,

...

Please consider a possible future study in:

http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_alh3421&pers...

I found that when making sure that I had the name right in Robert Morris.

Back to the question:

6. Does the promise of the Federal Reserve to make emergency loans to failing banks create a moral hazard which encourages banks to take on more risk, because they know the Fed will save them if things turn out badly? If so, then doesn't the Feds role as lender of last resort help cause banking crises?

You may want to know, if you do not already know, that Alexander Hamilton was one of the most powerful individuals responsible, and accountable, for creating The National Debt, which is based upon a very serious falsehood.

How?

They create a LIE that pretends to justify the creation of National Debt so as to supposedly create National Credit, and Alexander Hamilton says so in his campaign speeches during the Closed Door, Gag Ordered, Secret, Proceedings designed to create a Legal Money Monopoly also known as The Constitutional Convention, or Con-Con, as in Continental Confidence scheme.

I can link sources and offer quotes if needed.

They say, falsely, that in order to create National Credit, there must be a history of National Debt, and then, like magic, The People have this Credit, which they already had because they are productive honest people, and then the Legal Criminals claim to be The Lenders of Last Resort as they Criminally, but Legally, borrow from The People, and charge the lenders (The People) interest on the wealth they (the Legal Criminals) borrow from The People.

The cart is placed before the horse, and that which is right side up is made up side down.

Do you see exactly how twisted that is in accurately measurable fact?

The Legal Criminals claim to be Lending when they are Borrowing, and they have the unmitigated gall to charge interest on the POWER they borrow from the lenders.

They even order the lenders (The People) to pay Interest in Gold, while the borrowers (Legal Criminals) produce worth-less, and less, fraud money when they, the Legal Criminals, keep the books that are exclusively "for public consumption", while they, the Legal Criminals, keep the second set of books, for their own records, on a Gold, or Oil, or Food, Standard, so as to keep score accurately for their own records.

For "the public" they have a ruler without increments, so that their measure can mean one thing today, and a different thing tomorrow, while their own books are Standardized according to accurate measures of well established value, such as gold, silver, oil, food, water, etc.

The Good Faith and Credit of The American People is the source of Wealth, and the source of National Debt, as POWER flows from Those who produce that wealth to those who STEAL IT LEGALLY, is Fraud made Legal.

You may think I am Joe King, but these are knowable facts.

"....there are as many questions to ask as there are failures of government, and that list is very very very long."

But you only made it to 6.

Bear managed 11?

Quality over quantity?

Joe