If everybody were aware of intrinsic assets, then:
the velocity of money circulation would rise rapidly because of its rejection;
a run on property and tangibles would initiate;
a dramatically rising inflation would start;
the stock markets would crash;
entire sectors within the banking system, financial services, and investment-related sectors would implode;
so that a monetary reform will be inevitable.
The ‘Elite’ behind Wall Street and the Fed have been buying property, industries, commodities, and tangibles with the decreasing dollar.
From intrinsic assets to monopolies
The sectors of diamonds, gold, copper, zinc, uranium, telecommunication, media, food, and arms are controlled by the Wall Street cartel.
The banks are not really after the money, as we can see, because they can just produce or print the money themselves. For the bank, it is a means of power in order to acquire goods and services. Socialism and our version of capitalism are like two sides of the same coin.
From intrinsic assets to monetary reform
If we interpret everything in “From intrinsic assets to monetary reform” correctly, then the plan consists of increasing the monetary base as long as possible and, while doing so, creating as many monopolies as they can.
From monetary reform to global currency:
The governments use inflation as an indirect tax to systematically devalue the currency and, by doing so, get rid of the national debt.
Paying off the national debt is impossible. The growth of taxes and debts is due to the system. Money is exclusively created out of thin air and put into existence because banks give credit. If all debt would be paid off, then there would be no more money around any more. Although monetary base and debt are growing at the same pace, the debt is a heavier burden because of compounded interest charged on top of it.
Normally economic growth generates wealth. This wealth only flows where it belongs, such as to the ones who worked for it. If growth is higher than the interest rate because primarily the creditors are paid first, the surplus then becomes available funds.
Apart from the inherent unfairness involved, there is also a mathematical systematic error:
The economy may grow for a while, but to grow consistently is absolutely impossible. On the other hand, compound interest for the interest payments builds up. Maybe that is why the bank(st)ers have chosen a long-term interest rate of 5% so that a crash reoccurs only every 70 to 80 years – too long for a lifetime to remember the lessons from the past.
The Kondratieff Cycle states that the economy cannot grow faster than exponentially growing interest payments.
But the main objective of the elite establishment is to create a global currency mostly controlled by the Fed. And why not create 9/11 in our monetary system in order to have the justification to do so? Nothing in the world can grow infinitely. Even a cancer can only survive until the body dies. Economic growth is like the body trying to grow faster than the cancer in order to keep it small percentage-wise versus the body.
Even John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) as one of the most important protagonists of our financial system had to admit exactly that. He did not want to cope with it. His answer was, “In the long run we are all dead.”
The consequence of this is the regular destruction of all wealth every 70 years. Another war – whether economic, financial, or military – will be inevitable in order to conserve the financial economic system we live in today.
To prepare yourself get some silver and gold bullion as your intrinsic assets. With it you can go shopping, when there is blood in the streets and make bargains. Tap into the biggest transfer of wealth, mankind has ever seen and get your intrinsic assets.
Hi Damon (and Ranallo): Since you seem more active in the blogs I will in the frutue try to interact with you and the others here rather than by direct e-mail (although I did respond today by mail to your latest part 3 video). Since I consider myself Austrian in my outlooks I will try to at times try to more fully fill in the Austrian perspective but people should understand I am more a free market in government sort of Austrian along the lines of Murry Rothbard and Hans Hermann-Hoppe. (This is what some might call anarcho-capitalist ).I don’t think an Austrian would consider debt money as it is used today to be at all a satisfactory condition. They prefer some kind of exchange that cannot be easily gamed by fraud or counterfeiting. They would prefer that people be allowed to freely choose for themselves what they wish to choose in their value exchanges. And historically this tends to be precious metals when people are free to choose without compulsive interference from an outside force. People tend to choose what is easily mobile, difficult to fake, durable, and of recognized intrinsic value (or very highly trusted to be exchangeable by truly enforceable contracts- for something of intrinsic value). These features highlight the problem with state issued paper money (as exampled by Lincoln’s civil war greenbacks ). If the state decides that today it will not honor redemption of the note, good luck trying to enforce the contract on them or gain timely restitution, the flaw being the that state had a monopoly on adjudication and enforcement. After much time and expense those who challenged the state for adjudication in the Supreme Court lost as the Courts will usually side with the state even when the issue is obvious breach of contract which is what their legal tender rulings after the civil war amounted to (or to put it plainly as the court might see it, since we are the state and we are more important than you, we can steal from you when it is really really important to us since we are the sovereign and we have the ultimate power to tax you anyway so this is just another way to tax you, and in order to be able to serve you we must survive so our survival trumps everything else, and shut up and like it cause you aren’t sovereign we are- we got more guns and we will use them cause we are the law and you aren’t). And for those who are interested there is quite a body of anti-FED work that has been done, especially by Rothbard, as can be seen by net searches and checking mises.org. And almost every Austrian i respect is fiercely anti-FED. And if one applies the principles of a true free market an Austrian might argue that the current phenomenon of of multinational corporations is dependent on the continuing granting of special favors from organized crime syndicates called states . And one of those many favors is favorable collusion with the central banking money powers if you are the right kind of multi-national. Other favors being barriers to entry and carefully crafted regulations that favor established firms, and the selective privileged granting of licenses and on and on. In a free market anyone would be free to compete against any corporation. In general, although there are economy of scale factors that promote bigness, there are many factors that in a free market would strongly inhibit the possibility of large multi-nationals continuing to evade bankruptcy. Things like bureaucratic inefficiencies of size and slower reaction times, lack of awareness of local market conditions (and all markets have local factors based on culture/custom, and even that are unique to each individual customer and their unique set of preferences at a particular place), using older less efficient technology more obsolete than newer start up firms, the anti-social tendencies of largeness tend to alienate a certain segment of the market (I hate going to Wallmart I hate the environment and I hate the lines and the low morale of the work force etc.), and we have not even talked about the whole idea of limited liability (a perk granted by the criminal state) that directly works against the principle of just restitution as adjudicated in a genuine free-market (un-owned/ non-monop0ly) system of justice or arbitration. The short answer is that businesses in general, tends to have a shorter life span in a genuinely free market and thus the tendency for bigness is mostly self-limiting. The ingredients for success in the free market are difficult to meet on a long term basis, organizations tend to eventually make mistakes. They tend to try to crib the system though government privileges in order to counteract these negative tenancies with insider advantages. If you truly understand these dynamics then you will also understand why it is almost impossible to see anything like a stable monopoly in goods or services that are non-unique (an exception maybe being unique artistic works of artisans) without the assistance of the criminal state. And the reason I keep referring to the state as criminal is that a true free market advocate such as myself only views legitimate transactions as those based on voluntary exchange of what is justly possessed ( just is quite exact in its meaning here), without the initiation of force or fraud, thus the state (when a an entity forcing exchange against the will of a just party) fails that test of legitimacy.
Leave a comment