Vengey_Abel

Funny how 'development cycles' work along so advantageously with financial cycles.

"Relatively" speaking, comparing any government numbers with "ours" -is a no-starter. It's control of money that gets the thing done. Otherwise, corporations would be selling out to governments. Rothschild quoted it best... Arguing over the function of what we currently use as "money" can't get anywhere in an impending fiat storm. It's a daily crap shoot then what a bottle of water is actually WORTH.

It has also made our enslavement more complete. We may purchase health with it in the morning, but at the end of the day we still host the disease.

If the money is not in proper circulation, it is a control... Money power wipes the board when stuff gets dicey; like losing control of government, or holding paper no one 'needs'. When honesty is mathematically introduced into the inherently crony-stuffed infrastructure, hmm...

Control of money dictates who controls science. ...speaking of "A".

May I say, these comments and ideas are fundamental more to money's causality than its essence... no?

"The role of money is in the definition of money." Okay, but according to THE NOW, (and the above), it's definition is irrelevant where it doesn't exist...(if it has no currency, it ain't money). "My argument was that government contribution was a drop in the bucket compared to the body of work that culminates in the development of a nuke, and thus, the nuke is not a valid example of government invention. In other words, I'm making a relative claim. So to disprove this, you'd have to compare government numbers with private sector numbers. All you've done is cited government results, which begs the question: compared to what?" -Well, "compared" to output based in immutable contracts, which -in the extreme case of monetary "love"- probably has them that much more likely to continue business as usual, or remain 'simply agreeable' whilst simultaneously helping setting fire to it with the money.

In this Time-Stamped statement, Stephan points out that the value that should evoke concern in us is more directly related to the DECISION we make with it than that value of it, for it's "good" can only be quantified in real time, by its relative velocity toward good or toward evil. Hence the very value and definition of 'currency' will be either to the negative or positive, yes according to intention, but also according to circumstance. (ie:// Having a mountain of money isn't a sin. Spending it into circulation to foment violence, IS...and conversely, one having little to give -yet still giving- is known as virtue.) The "love" of it then may be initially inspired by greed, yet greed is just one symptom of the greater virtue(love) lost in the pursuit of it. Love is opted AWAY FROM, solely due to scarcity and co-opted supply lines. Love is a less and less profitable decision; until from a thousand cuts we've created in ourselves something unholy. If this is the cost of begetting the right of seigniorage to whatever group of co-opted crones occupy Power, then any price is worth undermining that bastion of INFLUENCE, really by whatever means necessary...yet neither while increasing(benefitting) the negative.

Make each student an individual IPO and vote across blockchain on mass-performance. Bam.

...but a Pirate Ship is not an "illusion" of power, nor is it any more of a weapon than systematic privation used to manifest it. The pistol is neither good nor evil, but its power exists only in the decision at the time of input energy.

Considering from whom and whence Fiat is created, there can be little question as to what its intent will be. You don't provide profound enough, or accurate enough a comparison though... I envision, Einstein eating the pen out of necessity while holding the nuke button and wondering how in hell he missed his calling as a trader of sticks...or patent holder of compound interest. The Human Decision is seldom human by that point...and the stick could not have become the nuke if not for THAT same monopoly which caused the initial lack of choices from the outset. If, through history, costs and returns most dear to our soul had been considered 'first'(outside the scarcity of 'money'), those ones that HAD a choice would -more often than not- have made the right choice. Until yeah...space weapons. But hey...let's keep trying here.

Firstly, if you require a reasoned argument for creation of another 'official' currency, I can't do that. There are, of course many alternatives to having "a" currency... seems plain enough... Yet the result of not having ANY of it happens to be the pawning of everything we're worth just to feed ourselves because any currency at hand is sufficient to "charge" the immediate human need, when the chips are down...no matter what you're worth. Therefore, that's what need be the only required value in it. (ie:// 'Money' can, and always will take care of itself...we just need the bread.) ...so, Yes. We need another means of exchange. All through time, somewhere in the overall supply we are always bled perfectly dry by the unending lack of it. So currency has a value unto itself, in that it captures our essence. It is devoid of value without our need, and our faith, so hardly any wonder its natural degradation to our willingness to decide on the side of love(being so deeply embedded in the money illusion) ...and hence that historically high value criminal relationship between banks, churches and gov's known as seigniorage. You pose the question plainly enough, "What's this other means?"... Well, as the answer evolves, please don't let this dead horse roll over on you... In fact, I'd be interested to hear what you think -even hypothetically- COULD be more current, or more important a question to answer?

Three kinds of investment then, actually...

My post replies show as Hidden. Just testing... I do not deny its convenience. To the contrary really...I express its importance as a conductor of energy. But in fact, government monopoly is no better or worse than corporate monopoly as they run the same game every time. Henry Ford said there were "two kinds of capital" ...Human Capital, which must be competed for, and financial capital which -to one degree or another- monopolizes and inevitably debases that same "money". For instance, Bitcoin...the 'splits' represent peoples' need for not just a store of value, but also something instantly fungible which hopefully remains long enough for wheelbarrow loads of it to buy bread. Once said "conductor" is no longer the staple energy source for beurocracy, we have trouble, for which everyone pays.