Comment: Speaking of cons

(See in situ)

Speaking of cons

"In 1913, the US 'Con'gress institutionalized crony capitalism, aka mercantilism, aka political Fascism."

I think you are conning me.

I checked into history and found a lot of evidence supporting the competitive (free market) viewpoint that mercantilism/monarchism/nationalism/false Federalism/consolidated "government" is "political Fascism" under another name (false front).

I think the con at the time (1787) was called a Con-vention.

1913 was a change of the name, it seems to me, another con-job.

"The First Bank of the US was created in 1791 as demanded by foreign creditors. (using Alexander Hamilton)."

Al is quoted in the reference offered.

"Andrew Jackson paid the foreign debt in 1835 and let the charter of the Second Bank of the US lapse."

I don't like to use fraudspeak, so I invent (free market) ways around it.


"Andrew Jackson paid the foreign debt in 1835 and let the charter of the Second Bank of the US lapse."

Old Hickory was a criminal, well renowned as one, and his ill gotten gains may have included transfers from him to other people.

I prefer to see honest productive people producing more valuable things during the day than the valuable things they had at the start of the day, then that POWER is stolen, by fraud and extortion (tools = "weapons of mass destruction" = but don't blame the weapon), and then those ill gotten gains are employed in the work required to keep stealing.

Old Hickory left a paper trail - follow the money.

What is money, if it is not powerful, and current?

Just before the Obamanation called The Civil War (false front) those times were interesting. It was Wild Cat Banking, or Free Banking Era, and the emerging inventions that became known as Socialism and Capitalism and in that mess was Equitable Commerce, here and there, so the topic of a Memory Hole my uncover some very interesting things thrown down it.

War is good for the economy, just don't call it crime?

"For 192 of 222 years (86%) since the Ratification of the Constitution the people have been afflicted by the plague of a Central banking authority."

I could be wrong but my understanding is such that The Whiskey Rebellion was the end of competition and the beginning of "our" current "central banking" era.

In order to write that last sentence I have to dive way down into the abyss of falsehood so I use quotes to make sure that I, an individual, do not sign onto the concept of crime made legal, as in The Constitution usurpation, and this Admiralty Law fraud in progress.

The people, or the targets, whichever actual members of the specific group are connected by the same connection, Money Monopoly Fraud, Nation State Extortion Racket, whatever, those people, those targets, have been effectively victimized since 1788, in so may accurately measurable ways - if anyone cares to look.

"For 30 years only has the possibility of banking without government competition existed."

How about some counter points to ponder in competition (free market) with that sentence above?

The Point being: To earn enough to pay the extortion fee (IRS) the victims are now required to pay with the the one fraud money (The FED), so the point is basically this:

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who hath favored us with a eulogium in favor of this system, must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently acquainted."

"I concede that fraud in banking has been rampant."

I don't know about such a concession, frauds are not in banking, they are in the process of perpetrating the crime of fraud.

Here is the score:

The frauds hire "debt collectors", who may soon be dressed up in "Chinese" uniforms.

Extortionists are not in government either, in my opinion, based upon actual evidence, they are in the business of extortion, which is crime, and if the crime is in progress, then it is extortion, not government.

"In a free market, where voluntary exchange and contracts were the rule rather than the exception, such frauds would have been minimized by the threat of bankruptcy and brand disgrace."

A means by which the criminals are accounted as criminals may include a means by which earnings are accounted to those who earn.

The time between 1776 and 1788 may serve to instruct.

"Have I missed anything?"

I don't know. I did not miss Equitable Commerce, and until I figured out an easier way to condense the concept of political economy that competitive viewpoint (Equitable Commerce) worked the best.

I think that political economy can be condensed down into one sentence as such:

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

"In later episodes we can discuss Free Banking: Full vs Fractional Reserve."

I think it may be productive to offer anyone a competitive answer to the following question:

What is ideal money?