Dylan Lawrence Moore

Getting into the realm of splitting hairs about confusing terms, but I think money is a form of currency. Time, knowledge, and relationships are currencies as well that can be exchanged. I can exchange my time for money. I can use my knowledge to start a business. I can use my relationships to find an investor. Etc. Nope, it definitely was because Constantinople had the monopoly to mint gold coins. Until the Ottoman's took it out, this was one of the biggest powers to hold within Europe. After Constantinople fell, there was never a central force powerful enough to enforce that monopoly. The Lost Science of Money It IS magical thinking and that's exactly how it works. The government, state, king, priest class, or whoever else is ruling an area as a "sovereign" demands a certain token in taxes. This token can be gold, silver, de-tempered iron, paper, credits, digital currency, or whatever else--it doesn't matter what the material is. Remember, the symbol printed on the money is what makes it money, not the material it's printed on. When gold was used as money it may have been valuable to use another country's gold, because the act of melting it down and putting your own stamp on it was worth it (gold is rare enough). However, after demanding this token, the state is then able to "spend" the tokens it creates within its borders to get it's citizens to do what it wants. It's a violent method of moving resources and is nothing more than speaking spells. The money becomes valuable because it, and only it, can be used to pay the taxes demanded upon you. Paying your taxes comes at a threat of life, liberty, and property, thus the value of paying your taxes is the value of maintaining a certain level of security. Once the monetary unit has value due to the security it provides from the state, it can now be exchanged as money or a currency within the society.

What I'm saying, and part of the purpose of the video, is that money is not a commodity. It is an idea, and to date has always been a legal construct enforced by the state. Fur and spices and the other things you listed are and were not money. Just because I exchange something doesn't make it money. If I give you fish for a car, neither the fish or the car are money. That's just barter. Just because salt was so valuable in Roman times that people would accept it for payment doesn't make it money, either. Money is intrinsically worthless, even if the material that is used for it isn't (i.e. gold or silver), and for all of human history has required the force of the state to hold value. "Use it or else." The state just claims paper as money in the same way it used to claim gold as money. Saying gold IS money because it has been used to denote money is like saying an inch IS wood because rulers are made of wood. Further, even during times when was "was" money, it was actually just a reserve. There was far more specie in circulation than there was gold ever to back it up. While all money has been a tool for enslaving citizens, as it has always been a decree by the state, it is not debt by nature because it doesn't have to be paid back, which was the point of the video. The aspects of money in a free society weren't discussed in the video or anywhere else up until now, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up. However, to re-emphasize, money is not a commodity. It's an idea that for human civilization has been a legal/state-enforced construct.

The USD is not backed by taxes. It is backed by nothing. The act of taxation gives otherwise meaningless paper and digital tokens value.

That education allows one to create a tangible good or useful service. "Pay me or I'll hit you" doesn't create the same thing. No free market money has ever been allowed in history because it is a direct assault to the sovereign's sovereignty. A government crushes it ASAP. Cryptocurrencies are the first to stick around because there is no one to shoot to get rid of it. I also think that these currencies are going to be the prototype for free market "money" in the future.

I think there is a big misunderstanding in this conversation. I'm not talking about shoulds, I'm talking about what is. Specifically, I'm saying for the history of money, money has been, by definition, a legal construct. It was created by governments, it didn't evolve from barter. Whether this is scary to the people you're having conversations with is irrelevant. Whether or not the government should be taking care of money is another conversation entirely. Particularly in the FDR forums, the subject should be moot, because the philosophy here centers around anarchy. Fur and spicery aren't/weren't money. They may have achieved advanced barter status, but they weren't money. Because money is an idea, specifically a legal construct, if all human beings were to disappear from the universe, money would no longer exist. Furs and spicery, however, would. The fact that governments have demanded real things for taxes in order to make them money (gold or silver) is arbitrary. The impact of this is that if the free market is to take over money, you can't find free market money examples in history. We only have the state as the example. We will need to figure out what function the state performs in order to create money, then do so without violence. Considering the value of money by the state IS violence (you must pay your taxes with it--or else), this makes for a very interesting conversation indeed.

Actually, this is the bizarre nature of the financial system: IT ALL comes from the Fed. "Private" banks are basically money-lending extensions of the Fed. When a private bank creates money, they do it with permission from the Fed. So no, this is the entire point of the conversation, that the nature of federal spending does not require that it be paid back. They give themselves permission to write money into their own accounts, they don't need it back. Banks need it back because it creates a liability on their books. And reason that for banks it's a liability and for the government it isn't, is because gov't said so and they have more guns. If we demanded that they pay taxes in those dollars, then yes, those dollars would instantly valuable. If taxes weren't demanded, it would be useless paper. Kinda. It's actually something a little less. A commodity implies a natural limit. There's only so many trees to cut down right now or oil to pull out of the earth. With money, fingers can be snapped and make it appear out of nowhere. This is the crazy nature of what we're trying to discuss here, and what blew my mind, too. What we're saying is that money implies state. There has never been free market money. I'm not saying it can't happen in the future, and Nima made an excellent argument how BTC fits the requirements for money, even though no force is involved. However, to this point in history, the evidence points that money never existed until a sovereign (king) created it out of nothing and demanded it in taxes. The fact that these taxes were often demanded in gold is arbitrary. I 100% agree. I'm not confusing imaginary counters (money) for real wealth (goods and services). What I'm saying is that money allows a higher form of organization to help us better produce and determine what to do with goods and services, and that there is a natural demand for it in a modern economy. This is the net private sector savings which I mentioned. Until you hit a certain level of net private sector savings, increases in the money supply, provided of course there's enough freedom in society and that it's not too fast, actually spur innovation and create more goods and services. Imagine making a new settlement out in the middle of Montana with 10000 people. Give them some natural resources to harvest and some (trees and quarries and oil or something) and some production capacity to refine them (mills and refineries or whatnot). Give them all something to do in our new city, but don't introduce any currency whatsoever. The entire system wouldn't work and they would barely be able to create anything, because they would have to figure out some form of barter to survive. Now, have the federal government come in and make a dam nearby with federal spending they created out of nothing (as opposed to moving people in from somewhere else who had money, or borrowing it from banks, which would have to be paid back plus interest). Even if the dam only employs 1000 of the 10000 people, those 1000 people are able to spend their newly created money into the rest of the settlement, allowing everyone else to get to work and produce real things (raw and refined resources). The money created out of thin air actually spurred the creation of real goods and services. I'm not talking about what taxes are seen as. I'm talking about what they are. What they are is a method to remove private net savings from a monetary system, and they give value to the money to begin with. If there was no one forcefully demanding the currency, it would be worthless paper/digital numbers. In addition, I'm saying that what they're seen as is so inaccurate it's causing us problems for coming up with solutions to the problems we already have. The tax system and money printing system is an absolute scam. I'm not saying that's it's not. I'm saying we've inaccurately identified the scam as "debt".

Ding!

Incorrect. This was a large point of the video. Federal "debt" isn't actually debt, and doesn't need to be paid back. The fact that it is called debt is a misnomer and, if we want to get conspiratorial, probably on purpose to obfuscate its real nature. Taxes don't "pay this debt", because the "debt" isn't a debt and doesn't need to be paid. The two real functions of taxes are: 1. To give the money any value at all. The fact that the government demands the money in taxes is what makes it valuable to begin with. 2. To reduce the money supply, specifically the private net savings of a country. "Spending" introduces money into the system, "taxes" remove it. I know this is absolutely bizarre and contradictory to everything we've ever learned about economics, but the point of the video is to help point this stuff out via Modern Monetary Theory. That may be a reason why, but the main reason why is that the currency isn't backed by anything (it's "floating"), and the needs currency needs of the private sector have not been met, yet. We didn't get into this in the video, but there is a BIG difference between money created via the banking system and money created via federal government spending. Loans generated by the banking system create MONEY and DEBT that eventually gets canceled out. Federal spending creates money that just circulates until it's taxed back, which creates a net private sector savings. This is the amount of money in circulation that the private sector has access to without borrowing it. Balanced budgets reduce net private sector savings, and MMT argues that THIS is the main cause of crashes. Like I said, deficit spending creates money, and the "debt" doesn't need to be paid back. Printing money to cause inflation is mainly caused when the money is backed to something. When money is backed by gold, increasing the amount of money devalues it in comparison with gold. The interest doesn't really matter, either, because more money can be printed to pay it back. Again, the taxes aren't paying for anything. They just remove money out of the system and give it value to begin with. The Byzantine Empire also held the monopoly to mint those gold coins until the Ottomans took them out. I would venture that their monopoly on violence is what gave the coins their value and the empire their sustainability, not the gold itself.

Foreign exchange market and central banks. Let's start with Carroll Quigley from Tragedy & Hope page 63: A foreign exchange market exists where there is generally enough currency available for any given nation's money that it's readily exchangeable. Back in the day of the gold standard, as Quigley points out here, any time there wasn't enough specific currency available, actual gold needed to be shipped between countries to settle accounts. The modern day is a little different, as there is no gold-standard; currencies aren't backed by anything. The foreign exchange market still exists. So if US Company pays CAN Company in USD, CAN Company can simply go to the foreign exchange and turn their USD into CAD. In the event that there isn't enough currency available on the foreign exchange, CAN Company can go to the Canadian Central Bank and exchange the money there. In this case, the Canadian Central Bank prints/creates new money to do the exchange, then holds USD on reserve, because they aren't able to print/create their own. Now you asked specifically about the US government: "how was and is the USA supposed to settle balance of payment issues with other countries being a debtor nation?" The US has the option to use commodities, of which oil certainly could be one of them, but the US can pay same way that international companies pay each other: by making stuff up at the printing press and trading on the foreign exchange. I really don't understand what's being misunderstood here. The fact that I can use US dollars to pay taxes, and thereby prevent the violence of the state from seizing my property or throwing me in prison, makes US dollars VERY valuable to me. My preferences don't really matter.

By having some force that smashes windows or breaking and entering in existence, this gives a value to door locks and window bars to prevent it. Not too sure what's being misunderstood here. Right, and as I mentioned, backed by was defined by law. Whether it was gold or silver or lead or tinfoil doesn't matter. When the government says "an ounce of gold is worth 36 dollars, because we said so", now a dollar is defined as 1/36 oz. of gold, because that's what it's "backed by". The definition is legal in nature. Obviously, money is valuable insofar as you can buy something with it. If dollars can fetch you oil, where euros or yuan cannot, then that is a value the dollar has that the others don't. It doesn't mean that dollars are backed by oil. Dollars can also make my mortgage payment and buy me dinner, but that doesn't mean they're backed by mortgages and food. At least that's what they said. I'm sure most of us around here know that there were WAY MORE notes in circulation than there was gold. I used to collect coins and I have some gold and silver certificates. You'll still catch one of these in circulation every once in awhile. The Treasury Sigil stamp on notes today is green (the stamp to the right of the president on the note), but silver certs were blue and the gold certs were red. Interestingly enough, this is what's written on mine: On a 1 Dollar Silver Cert (blue stamp): "ONE DOLLAR IN SILVER PAYABLE TO BEARER ON DEMAND" On a 5 Dollar Gold Cert (red stamp): "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND FIVE DOLLARS" The first one is pretty clear. That second is, what would you say... recursive? Of course you can't exchange these for the metals anymore, but tied to gold/silver was definitely what they were going for. It's all obfuscation and euphemisms, right? We have to invent a whole new language for violence to obscure the fact that it is, indeed, violence. Your irritation with the language used for this is understandable. "Red-pilled" may have been watered down to mean conservative, but if that's what we have to do to save civilization, then I'm more than happy to start there.

In the same way intruders "create" value for locks on doors. Where is the law that says the dollar is defined by a certain amount of oil? The law used to state that a dollar was defined by a certain amount of gold. This is what "gold-backed" meant.

I didn't elaborate because I figured everyone here knew exactly what is meant by the word "taxes". That's exactly the sort of "value" I'm referring to, here: safety from violence. However, it would be hard to argue against, that once a currency becomes uniform and accepted, there is a MAJOR value knowing that you can take it anywhere in a country and have it recognized and accepted. Just like roads built by the government are done so at the threat of violence, once they're built we can use them to run our businesses. I 100% agree. That's exactly what I'm saying. "The government forcing us to use it" and "the government says we have to pay taxes in it" are the same thing. Like I said, I figured I didn't have to elaborate on what "pay taxes" actually means on these boards.

The US dollar, like every other currency not pinned to a resource or other currency, is backed by nothing. The value is generated by the government by demanding it in taxes, which gives it value to the taxpayer, and thus causes it to be a medium of exchange.

Ahhhhh. That's not clear from your post. I was scratching my head wondering what you were getting at. You should work on introducing your theme before arguing it.

I'm not sure you understood the essence of our conversation. What do you mean about ending "debt-money economics"? A part of the conversation was dedicated to noting that even though federal debt is called "debt", it actually isn't because it doesn't have to be paid back. What does "force private credit creation up" mean?

I'm not really sure what you're arguing against, because I didn't suggest anything to be done with the money system. I simply pointed out the nature of money.

Welcome aboard!

Technically a statement and not an argument, but even more importantly, it's untrue. Fiat currency is used as money because we have to pay our taxes with it. The actual value of the money is protection from the violence of the state. This is what "legal tender" means. Use it--or else.

I had a discussion today with Nima Mahdjour, editor at beinglibertarian.com and blogger at economicsjunkie.com, about Modern Money Theory and how it applies to the current situation within the US legislative and executive branches. Did you know that every economic crash in US was preceded by conservative politicians balancing the budget and creating a government surplus? How does that make any sense? Governments don't operate like households and the words we use to describe budgets, like deficit, debt, and surplus, don't work the same way with governments. Understanding how money works will be vital for the US moving forward into the future. Come learn for yourself.

Absolutely yes on the welfare question. However, if you were previously a taxpayer, you can probably make a hell of a lot more money working than being on welfare. It's kind of the same with EI. It's really not enough money to live on, and the amount of hell they put you through to take it makes it really a pain in the ass. I would be less concerned with the moral question and more concerned about your productivity. If you have a plan to use EI until your next career move, great. If you just plan on getting on EI and floating, you're probably doing yourself more harm than good.

It's totally ethical. They made you pay it, so taking some of it back is just getting some of your own money back. The real problem I've found with collecting on EI is that they make you feel totally dirty for taking it. If Canada is anything like the US, you gotta report to them weekly, which they will constantly screw up and threaten you to pay back what they gave you, and get in your face about any small amount of money you might make somewhere else. Conclusion: Don't feel bad about taking it, but get ready to get out of it as soon as possible to not let them make you feel dirty about it.

Nima called into the show to discuss his experience with Stef about the UC Berkeley riots. I managed to grab him a couple hours before and do my own interview. I was at the UW Milo Riots and I wanted to be able to compare with what Nima experienced at UC Berkeley. The biggest difference that stood out to me was the lack of police presence at UC Berkeley, while UW literally had a baracade of police, as well as extra police on bikes able to move out from the baracade. My intention was also to move the discussion that is on everyone's lips: what to do about these Antifa morons? Both Nima and I agreed that the answer is probably going to have to come from the administration and law enforcement, because having "Pro-Trump" team physically fight back is probably what the puppeteers of the violent left are aiming for. I'm excited to hear Stef's interview with Nima, as well.

Power. Islamic fanatics conquered an area 3 times the size of the Roman Empire in roughly 100 years. They are bound together by a religious belief in God and a righteous Jihad to make the entire world ruled under Islam. They've got the balls and the drive to do it. It can be argued that leftists are the same, as the communist revolutions would prove. However, what I'm saying, after seeing these people on an individual level, that 50-80% of them would simply melt away once they realized that they personally are at risk for participating in this crap. They're pussies. They are literally a anti-gun group going up against a pro-gun group, and the only reason they haven't been mowed down is because of the patience and level-headedness of the pro-gun group. As you mentioned, the media is one of the key differences between now and Nazi Germany. There is also another key difference: most of the brown shirts of 1930s Nazi Germany were WWI vets. A.k.a. NOT pussies. Same with the communist uprisings: WWI or WWII vets. I think this rioting would be over fast if our public "authorities" simply turned their resources onto them. Arresting anyone gemäß des Vermummungsverbots, simply reading the damn social media to figure out what these people are doing and arresting their leaders, and authentically pushing back when things turn violent. I know people are talking about forming militia and anti-leftist groups to handle these guys. I'm not going to tell them not to do this, but I think the real victory is going to be seen through us destroying the mainstream narrative and allowing the police to take these guys down. I know Germany is falling down a blackhole of hell; everyone thinks their so progressive and tolerant, but in the US the majority has shown that they're ready for some common sense and reality. We just need to keep pumping out the media and keeping each other's backs.

I was at the UW Milo riots, which appear to have been low-key compared to what happened last night. Honestly, I don't think martial law will be required for what's going on here. If the Muslim hordes were attacking--yes, because they are committed and a real threat. I have this strange feeling that the instant these rioters feel a little push back, regardless of its source, 50-80% of them are going to realize that punch-a-nazi isn't just an arcade game. There are real consequences. From what I saw at UW, I think the core issue here, in terms of defense against rioters, is the police. I'm sure they're barred from doing this, but I am dying the hear the opinions of the police who are at these events, who are only able to stand in line and watch a bunch of people simply trying to get into an event get smashed and screamed at by a masked group wearing all black and setting things on fire. I think they can see what is going on, but they are hamstrung by the media. The instant a policeman farts the wrong way at one of these events, we all know the media is going to try and pull a Ferguson-effect. I can't believe I'm finding myself saying this, but I think what needs to happen for events like this, is simply a public announcement that if you show up covering your face, your intent to do harm will be assumed and you will be arrested. Further, let's fantasize about the police actually doing their job. Why aren't they investigating these groups and arresting their leaders before the events? They have facebook groups, websites, plans, post where they meet up, and anything else you could ever want to know about them before the event. I mentioned this in the video I did on the UW riots: I met a girl there in line who had been reached out to on Facebook to participate in the riots. She was given instructions on where to meet, what to wear, what to bring, and a phone number to write on her arm in case she was arrested--that was the one phone call you were supposed to make for legal help. I think, particularly for people like us, the core issue here is the grab reins of the media interpretation. We can do it through FB, YT, Twitter, and other social media. The more we're able to smash the mainstream narrative, the easier these fuckers will be to snuff out like a candle. Trump will be dealing with it at a different level:

Sci-fi authors have known for decades that if we're going to start exploring the solar system, we've gotta set up a moon base first. Mine the fuck outta that moon!!