Goldenages

Since, as I said before, there are real debtess expecting real money its real debt. There is no way out. If your sentence were true, than magic would work. States could never go bankrupt. And hey, why do you get up in the early morning? The FED shall print its taxes, Trump can double taxes, thats all fine. Its the mistake that countries like Venezuela made Its the mistake that everybody makes who does not know what money is: A commodity that holds universal value, is thus universally demanded and can therefore be universally exchanged in any other commodity. The demand for state money is forced by the government. But it can not hold the promise to keep value, when printing too much in order to follow magic rules instead of reality. regards Andi

Yes, thats the way the corrupted state money is intended to work. But, all the magical thinking can not an will not replace reality. In the video it is stated that the FED does not need the money back, because it actually would not be debt. As already posted earlier, it is not possible to pay all the money back. But the conclusion, that the money the state borrowed from the FED therefore is not debt, is wrong, cause the FED resells this debt, e.g. in form of government bonds. So there are real debtees expecting real Dollars. Now the FED cannot print any amount of Dollars, because the more Dollars it prints the more debtees are created, and the more the Dollar looses value due to inflation. So the advice that President Trump can not or shall not aim for a balanced budget or surplus is wrong. To give such advice means to rely on magical thinking. regards Andi

One more word to currency: The fact that the US government wants to have taxes paid in Dollars does not add any value to the Dollar. This is magical thinking, how on earth should this occur? If its so easy, why not speak spells and double the value of the Dollar? The only reason why the government insists on Dollar (or Euro or whatever) is, that they want to canalise all productive work into a means they can control. The value of money, the value of any currency, is based on those who get up in the early morning and go to work. regards Andi

All money of a certain currency represents the same value. You never can exchange one Dollar for more or less than one Dollar. But you can exchange one Dollar for 1.2 Euro today, and maybe 0.8 Euro tomorrow. regards Andi

Ok, so money is not a commodity. Fur and spices are not money, even gold is not money. Printed paper is not money, and the money the state borrow from the FED is not debt. So money is an idea, a legal construction. Now to find out, what money is, could you explain this idea and this legal construction? regards Andi

Hm. I think I said what is. Money is a commodity. Normally all commodities are produced to fulfill their purpose as good as possible. Cars drive, planes fly, radios make noise, money stores value and is a handy means for exchange. Fur and spicery are of course money, as well as kakao, shells, salt, minerals, metals, etc.etc. There was a time when roman legionaires in the region of todays Austria were paid in salt. All of these and much more have been used as money, especially as non - state or free market money. The state just claims his paper is money. That would not cause too much troubles as long as there is enough gold in Fort Knox. Unfortunately, since the Vietnam War (as every war financed with the printing press) it is not enough, causing President Nixon to cut any connection of the Dollar to gold. And as we figured out, any fiat money is debt per its nature, and a tool for enslaving citizens. So in a free society, nobody would be allowed to have a monopoly on money. Since money is a commodity and nothing else, everybody is allowed to produce money, exactly as he is allowed to produce anything else. And as any other commodity, the best product, i.e. the best money, will make its way. regards Andi

Yes, certainly I agree a 100% with this I emphasized that "money is a commodity and nothing more" - to be precise, I should have written "real money" or "free market money"- cause in the discussions I have, the idea that no government should take care of money is very, very scary to most of the people. "But if nobody takes care, it will be a mess!" "No, it is a mess, because they take care." Whatever the governmet "takes care" of, mess and corruption is the logical result. But lets go back to your example with the settler in Montana. There are examples for free market money, such as fur or spicery. So some smart people should easily be able to invent money with all the necessary properties, such as durableness, easy to divide, easy to store, with inherent value, meaning that it takes effort to create it. And: everybody is allowed to produce his kind of money, which can be transferred into other kinds of money in a free market. Very fast the best money will make its way, and even if, like any other commodities, there are many kinds of money on the market - why not? We also prefer to choose from different brands of food, cars, etc. Economics in your example, without any government, would be the old fashioned way: First produce value, i.e. make money. Thereafter, when there is enough wealth stored, it can be invested in a dam or whatever. No debt. No taxes. And for shure much wiser investments will take place, because everbody knows, that many years of hard work are at stake. regards Andi

Yes thats what is claimed in the video, but its not necessarily true Every fiat money is debt per its nature, regardless if I borrow 100 bucks from the bank or if the USA borrows 1000 billions from the FED. When I borrow 100 bucks from the bank, this 100 bucks are created by the bank, they simply program a +100 into my account. When I pay back this 100 bucks, this 100 bucks cease to exist again. So yes the national debt can never be paid back a 100%, otherwise there simply would be no more money in the circuit. I think thats what is meant in the video. As for the value of money: Lets assume we visit a hunters and gatheres society, a tribe with 50 members. Lets assume they do not know that a world outside the jungle exists. Now we have a bag of money and donate 1000 Dollars to every member of the tribe. Is anybody getting richer? Certainly not, because there is nothing to buy. And as a matter of fact, there is no need for money, cause they exchange spears against baskets and it worked perfectly for ages. Money is value not because the state commands so. Thats what they tried in the central planning systems and it failed again and again. Money is value becaues it represents commodities. To find out the value of commodities, you have to have a free market where prices are formed with the supply and demand system. And only thereafter, after the free market figured out a price, one can exchange commodities into money cause its more handy. Money is a commodity, and nothing more. Money can be produced, it can be traded, there is also a price for money, we call it interest. As with any other commodity, in a really free market the value and the price for money would be figured out by supply and demand. In a mixed economy, as are all economies today, the price for money, and the amount of money produced, ist regulated by the state, according to an idea of Karl Marx. The only reason why the state commands a certain currency to be the only correct one is, that the state wants to have power. In societies without money its the chiefs who keep their fingers upon certain things of value, be it water or property. In both cases those who hold power use this commodities to for their advantage. Here we find the reason why the financial system can be, and is (ab)used by a few. Shure, more money can be printed. But as said before, the value of money can not be printed, it depends on the commodities behind. So whenever the debtee has reason to assume that the value of a currency is not backed up by any commodities any longer, he will rise interest for borrow. Lets assume all US citizens go on strike for 4 weeks. Lets assume that the FED tries to compensate this strike with a 10000 trillions of fresh dollars - hey, world, look, no need to worry, we have money like sand grains. What will happen? Its the same situation as the tribe in the above example. Taxes can be seen as payment for infrastructure, police etc.etc. As we all know, taxes are the source of livelihood for a steadily increasing group of people who want to have a good life without being productive, i.e. robbing money from those who are. regards Andi

Some statements I do not agree with: In the video its said, that the government does not need our taxes, cause they can print money as much as they want. While its true that the government can (and does) print money as much as it wants, this money adds to the debt of the state. This debt is paid back with taxes, and also through inflation. Central banks want to keep inflation around 2%. While this seems to be a pretty low value, it adds over the years - the German D-Mark lost about 90% of its value from the 50´is til the launch of the Euro. Inflation makes it easier to pay back dept and expropriate the savers. A reason why the enormous increase of the volume of money does not result in hyperinflation is due to the invention of new markets such as CO2 bonds. Those bonds are traded in Dollars and are a fortune for the alleged savoirs of the world. (Thats why the invented all that). Its also said that, whenever the government achieves a balanced budget, a depression occurs. Now thats certainly not true for the crises of 2008, it was Bill Clinton who ordered a state intervention to give loans to everybody to buy a house. For the other examples mentioned I would say that the depression was caused by deficit spending in the years before, also before central banks were installed it was usual for governments to print money and cause inflation, trashing the savings of people. Thus nobody can make investments, and economy goes down. And the very same state that robbed all the money before appears again as the savior. If the national debt is not tamed, sooner or later the interest will kill you. There is an example for the sustainability of a currency, it was the goldstandard currency of the Byzantine Empire. Assuming that emperors back then had less knowledge of money that we have today, also assuming that they were even more corrupt, the empire lastet for more than 1000 years. Gold made it possible. regards Andi

The alleged global warming is a perfect example for an instrument that strengthens the state. In Germany the costs for the "Energiewende" til now are ~ 150 billion Euro. Total costs are estimated up to 500 billion. Prices for electricity are among the highest in Europe. Wasted for a medieval technology, everybody with basic physical knowledge knows that it is not possible to supply a industrial country with wind and solarpower. I have discussed hours about this topic, pretty much in vain. Its argued that electric cars will be used as energy storage. Calculated roughly, if there are 40 million cars in Germany (i.e. all cars in Germany electric) and all of them are charged and connected to the power grid, they can support for 72 hours. Thats not only way too short, during that time no car can drive, and nobody can go to work. Right now in January there was snow on the solar panels, and nearly no wind, for 2 weeks. Members of the green party in Germany stated, that the customers will have to adapt their demand to the available electricity. Well, thats not a new idea, in Romania under the dictator Nicolea Ceausescu they had such a situation not only for electricity, but also for gas and all other goods. After the fall of the sowjetregime Ceausescu and his wife were executed by a firing squad. Joachim Schellnhuber, a physicist and adviser of Angela Merkel, wrote "The Great Transformation" (or "World in Transition"), a vision of a CO2 less industrie. To achieve this, a world CO2 bank should be implemented, giving certificates (for money) to every country in the world, and all industrie must only produce within this CO2 certificate. If you want to have some fun: http://www.wbgu.de/en/flagship-reports/fr-2011-a-social-contrac So there are more than hints that all this CO2 nonsense is another approach of the lefts to establish slavery, even if the worst case scenario of global warming was correct (which for sure is not) it would be Disneyland against such plans. Donald Trump has the right attitude, disempower the Church of Global Warming. Thank God. regards Andi

I would say that the distinction between science and free market is somewhat artificial. Economics is the art of overcoming scarcity. To be succesfull in economics you need ideas, thinking, logic, effort, and a realistic theorie of the world. The scale to prove wether the result is true or not is reality - either it works or not. And what else should science be? regards Andi

The central bank and thus the state controlled money is implemented in every western country, also in the US. For the causes described, on the long run more and more power is held by the state, merging in socialism/communism/collectivism. Some of the "problems" the state is eager to solve: Alleged racism in school and university, controlling what can be said and how, creating of "safe zones" in university where only uniform opinions are allowed ( more or less a communists training camp), gender - neutral language. Over here its claimed that there are dozens of different sexes, still searching for an example of each. Global warming, a "problem" that mainly exists in some secret computer algorithms, but there are voices who want to subordinate worlds economy to a CO2 bank, and thats commanded economy. Joachim Schellnhuber, adviser of Angela Merkel, wrote "The Great Transformation" to transform worlds economy into a central planned economy.https://www.die-gdi.de/en/transformation-towards-sustainability/ The "Great Transformation" is a term created by Karl Marx, now, of course only for the sake of environment, the lefts try a new attempt. Then we have the problem with refugees. In Germany a politician of the Green Party came up with the idea to confiscate private property for housing of refugees. If you want proof how influence and size of government are related to prosperity have a look here: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2016-annual-report Recent example how government creates poverty is Venezuela. regards Andi

Thats true, and I did not claim that I wrote, "This is how wars are financed". The EU, for example, is a peace project, they say. We make all this dept-and-pay-til-you- are- dead without any war. In fact, there is not much left of an army over here, cause of all the welfare. regards Andi

I would say, everyone can capitalize as much as he want or can - in the free market. And yes, the free market needs rules, the same rules that apply everywhere else - no initiation of force, voluntarily trade. The duty of the state should be to protect these rules. Thats what the state is paid for. When the state prints money for its own purpose, and wants it paid back by the citizens, its not voluntarily any more. Since it is, of course, very tempting for the state to abuse money, its best not to give him the opportunity. Money need not be controlled by anyone, money is a good and nothing else. Lets replace "money" with "car". Both are goods that can be traded, there is no difference. Everybody can capitalize cars as much as he can or want. (Yes money is more handy. But thats all). Shure everybody would be surprised if the state claimed the monopoly to produce cars. But magically (in fact, due to left agitprop) everybody believes that the state should control money. Since money is a good as every other good, Hayek had the idea to treat it that way, i.e., a free market for money. Everyone is allowed to produce money, and the best and most valuable money will make its way. E. g. Bitcoin is such money. regards Andi

Capitalism basically means free market. Goods are exchanged voluntarily, you do not even need money for this. What you need is a value that can be traded. Money represents value, real money has an intrinsic value such as gold, or is at least exchangeable into gold. Now what any government does is corrupting this system and perverting it. Central banks can print money, its litterally made of thin air, adds to national debt, and the tax payer repays it. This is how wars are financed. This is the reason why governments continously invent "problems" which can only be "solved" with more money. Thats the fuel that drives this lunatic financial world. This is why govermnents have a steady incentive to grow. And this is why all states with central banks end up in socialism. And all this is not capitalism, its the very opposite. Have a look at the books from Friedrich August v. Hayek, eg. The Road to Serfdom, or the work from Ludwig v. Mises. regards Andi

"It should have belonged to us. We left it to fools". Hank Rearden from Atlas Shrugged

Hola to sunny Spain Always love to be in Barcelona and Costa Blanca muchos saludos Andi

Economic collapse materialized in Venezuela. It materialized in Germany after WW I, hyperinflation and poverty were main reasons for the rise of fascism. Just to name two examples. Europe had a goldstandard til 1913, then central banks were founded to finance the dawning war. Without central banks and the possibility to keep citizens liable for unlimited debt WW I would have lasted only 2 weeks. So the slaughter could continue for 4 years. Even the winners like Great Britain had to pay back til the year 2003 (!). A central bank and fiat money is the ultimative government tool for power. The central bank is actually an idea of Karl Marx, one of his points in the communistic manifest, to withdraw power from the capitalists (i.e. everyone who is productive) and transferring it to the state. So all this crazy financial business where billions and billions circle around the globe, the financial crises from 1929 and litterally all major financial crises since then can be traced back to central bank action. Ironically, the lefts accuse capitalism for all this. But in fact its the output of an idea of Karl Marx and the very opposite of capitalism. Recommended: https://www.amazon.de/The-Creature-from-Jekyll-Island/dp/B00NTQBJ5C/ref=sr_1_2/255-0756903-4013444?ie=UTF8&qid=1486634238&sr=8-2&keywords=creature+jekyll+island regards Andi

Donnadogsoth: My interpretation is somewhat more pragmatic: God did not want Adam to gain knowledge. The less knowledge, the better slaves. Thats why all collectivistic systems grab schools and punish the thinkers. From Giordano Bruno to the free speech today. Yes I am proud to have some knowledge. Helps to avoid slavery. Yes I am proud to love my wife. Thats not sin. Its the very opposite: Its life. regards Andi

There is no need to die for anybody because of turmoil during a lecture or demonstration. The goal of the lefties is to discourage the average citizen to attend. Over here those so called antifa- groups are very well organized, to certain events they come with busses from abroad. So to hinder or even destroy the lefties goal, the more civilized people show up the better. But: Do not go alone. Organize in groups with friends, the more and the larger the better, and make a briefing: Be alert, in most cases trouble can be anticipated and avoided. Inform police whenever possible. If one of you gets attacked, your buddies must be ready to take appropriate action - the coward spraying the girl into her face should be attacked from both sides, one kicks off the spray can, an other drags down his mask. The chances that the attacker will flee instantly are very good as soon as he realizes that he is outnumbered and not anonymous any more. Take appropriate action.Your self esteem is not dependent on knocking down or injuring somebody without cause. Your opponent`s is. There are data that most antifa-warriors still live at home clinging to mom. Our self esteem is based on convictions, funded on the knowledge of facts. And finally: If paving stones are flying low, run. (Happend over here). Thats not craven, thats wise. Stay together and direct police. regards Andi

I think this is perfectly true if we consider all leaders of collectivism as hypocrits. (And I believe most are, but yes, I can not proof it). But I am also pretty convinced that some are no hypocrits. Think of a strong religious believer, who really believes with all his working brain cells that he is a tool of god, that supressing and beheading nonbelievers is, in fact, a good thing. A strong believer who actively seeks his own death in battle against nonbelievers, cause then he is instantly dispatched to god. In that case I would say that the collectivistic idea is more fundamental. regards Andi

The rational response is, prepare for self defense. regards Andi

Thank you, I have seen the video, but I guess that such a (at least claimed) statement should have caused more reaction in the media. regards Andi

Religion is a form of collectivism. As any form of collectivism religion places a few in power to use violence to collect the unearned. regards Andi

I think (or at least hope ) that I understood you, but still can not follow the argument. To love someone means to care. To care beyond nice words you need goods. Goods are a value, and here we are - money. The problem can be reduced to a problem of definition, you named it: If someone is addicted to something, he will be destroyed. Not if someone loves something. If someone is addicted to something he is not in charge, he is a passenger of his emotions, in his bright moments he will discover that such behaviour detracts from his happyness and joy of life. If you love something, the brighter the moments the more they will add to happiness and joy of life. Shure, we can see the word "love" in the context of the Bible. And then we see that that this "real" love the Bible means is reserved exclusively for god. All other kinds of love, so the Bible tells us, have this dangerous element, which is better, because more exact, definded as addiction. And I guess its also clear why the Bible does this: To keep people frightenend. To keep people dependent. Cling to god. Love god. Everthing else is a waste of time. regards Andi