This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Iceland Stuns Banks: Plans To Take Back The Power To Create Money
Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,
Who knew that the revolution would start with those radical Icelanders? It does, though. One Frosti Sigurjonsson, a lawmaker from the ruling Progress Party, issued a report today that suggests taking the power to create money away from commercial banks, and hand it to the central bank and, ultimately, Parliament.
Can’t see commercial banks in the western world be too happy with this. They must be contemplating wiping the island nation off the map. If accepted in the Iceland parliament , the plan would change the game in a very radical way. It would be successful too, because there is no bigger scourge on our economies than commercial banks creating money and then securitizing and selling off the loans they just created the money (credit) with.
Everyone, with the possible exception of Paul Krugman, understands why this is a very sound idea. Agence France Presse reports:
Iceland Looks At Ending Boom And Bust With Radical Money Plan
Iceland’s government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal – removing the power of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank. The proposal, which would be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled “A better monetary system for Iceland”.
“The findings will be an important contribution to the upcoming discussion, here and elsewhere, on money creation and monetary policy,” Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson said. The report, commissioned by the premier, is aimed at putting an end to a monetary system in place through a slew of financial crises, including the latest one in 2008.
According to a study by four central bankers, the country has had “over 20 instances of financial crises of different types” since 1875, with “six serious multiple financial crisis episodes occurring every 15 years on average”. Mr Sigurjonsson said the problem each time arose from ballooning credit during a strong economic cycle.
He argued the central bank was unable to contain the credit boom, allowing inflation to rise and sparking exaggerated risk-taking and speculation, the threat of bank collapse and costly state interventions. In Iceland, as in other modern market economies, the central bank controls the creation of banknotes and coins but not the creation of all money, which occurs as soon as a commercial bank offers a line of credit. The central bank can only try to influence the money supply with its monetary policy tools.
Under the so-called Sovereign Money proposal, the country’s central bank would become the only creator of money. “Crucially, the power to create money is kept separate from the power to decide how that new money is used,” Mr Sigurjonsson wrote in the proposal. “As with the state budget, the parliament will debate the government’s proposal for allocation of new money,” he wrote.
Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments, and would serve as intermediaries between savers and lenders. Mr Sigurjonsson, a businessman and economist, was one of the masterminds behind Iceland’s household debt relief programme launched in May 2014 and aimed at helping the many Icelanders whose finances were strangled by inflation-indexed mortgages signed before the 2008 financial crisis.
* * *
»
- 68514 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Note that even if you LIKE some "government" program or "service", if you are required to pay for that "service", you are a slave, the providers are predators, and they should be exterminated for their attempt to enslave you.
Well, I think I'm starting to see how precisely you're slicing this pie.
Just to confirm:
You "are not" saying I should view my grocer as a predator because I am "required" to pay for my groceries.
You "are not" saying I should view my government as a predator because I am "required" to pay for the government services I use and want.
You "are" saying I should view my grocer as a predator if I am "required" to buy goods from him that I don't want.
You "are" saying I should view my grocer as a predator if I am not allowed to use another grocer.
You "are" saying I should view my government as a predator if I am "required" to pay for services I don't want.
You "are" saying I should view my government as a predator because I am not allowed to use another government.
If we are in agreement in those 6 specific examples, now what?
Yes, though it is very debatable whether "government" is an appropriate term for [groups of] humans who provide FULLY VOLUNTARY services.
The interesting fact is (from a practical point of view), something that looks remarkably like existing "government" could exist in a free society... as long as nobody was required to subscribe to any given "government" service, and nobody was restricted from basic freedoms (like travel) as part of any "government" service.
In a manner of speaking, that "government" is a private entity that competes with all other private entities that provide similar services. You can call one (or many) of them "government" if you wish, but... the term "government" ceases to be distinguished from a "private business" that perhaps you (or your family) own and operate.
Franky, since "government" and "corporation" and similar terms are all fictions, and in fact just names that people say to refer to specific individuals, those terms should be totally abandoned in your thinking processes.
All that exists in that scenario are individual humans offering goods, goodies and services, and other individual humans considering whether to trade something of value for those goods, goodies and services.
If you open a bakery, your customers deal with you [and family, and collaborators]. If you name your bakery "SugarHigh Bakery", nothing new pops into existence. Your customers are still dealing with you [and family, and collaborators]. Adding a name does not change what exists, it only adds a new way to REFER-TO what exists.
honestann: All that exists in that scenario are individual humans offering goods, goodies and services, and other individual humans considering whether to trade something of value for those goods, goodies and services.
How does your model view public utilities? They exist in our societal framework for at least two reasons. One, "eminent domain" is often necessitated for them to gain efficient right-of-way. It's an efficiency (frequently abused). Another: without them you would have multiple pipelines and electrical lines and cable lines traversing rights of way and leading into your property ... oh that's right ... you can't have property.
How does your model view radio spectrum? Before licensing, radiation was broadband (by sparks) and there was no way to keep broadcasters from stepping on each other. Now "bands of spectrum" are strictly supervised.
Some see ultra-wide-band in the future. This is "sparks under controlled timing and protocols through an open standards process" and has the potential to resolve the stepping on each other issue by using collision detection/avoidance protocols and spread spectrum concepts.
And I ask again: Are you familiar with Larken Rose's thoughts on this subject? They coincide with yours and appear to be no better fleshed out where the rubber meets the road.
The term "public utilities" is fiction. That's how I see that topic. And I never heard of Larken Rose and don't have the time to read.
I know you are at a disadvantage reading my ideas in bits and pieces scattered all over the place, but I also don't have time to write the 10 or 20 books I should write (or would like to write, if I had time).
I'm sure if I did have these ideas in a carefully ordered and organized form, they would easier to comprehend (and see how the all fit together with 100% coherency).
Note that I admit to the existence of "marginal cases" that are "not pleasing" even to me. That's the breaks. Catching a disease is also not pleasing, as is being caught in a forest fire, as is being attacked by a wild animal or insect (I hate scorpions and centipedes). But life is not some beautiful childhood fantasy story (which should not exist, BTW). Overall, I enjoy (and definitely accept) reality, but it does have its downsides and inconveniences, and that's just the way it is.
Nobody has ever provided any good or valid or legitimate reason human beings cannot, or should not, interact voluntarily. To be sure, disingenuous intellectual perverts attempt to object to these kinds of ideas by making absurd claims. For example, one might say, "withglee and I do not have purely voluntary interactions, because she breathes without my agreement". These kinds of silly claims and distractions may confuse some people, but hopefully not someone like you.
So ... back to my instance where "A" and "C" want to build a road between themselves and "B" is blocking them, doesn't want to use the road and so they must go around him. They use "D" who does think he could use such a road too. And we end up with a sub-optimal road "A"->"D"->"C" and presumably "B" can't use it because all the other parties spite him. Life goes on.
But what if it is a really genuinely popular project where 99.9% of the people who need to agree actually do voluntarily agree. But "B" doesn't and so "B" has the power over those other 99.9% to block their plan. They lay out another plan and it's blocked by "X". They lay out another plan and it's blocked by "Y". Finally they lay out a plan which "Z" blocks but they buy him off for $100M because that's peanuts compared to the whole project and the opportunity costs that are skyrocketing with the delay.
Now, who is the pedator?
You need to remember, nobody owns land. So the only way to "block them" is to fill the whole area with goods, goodies, equipment and so forth, so A and C have no place to put the road through the area where B is living or working.
If the area is so packed with "owned stuff" already, then likely you'll find a great many other obstructions in the area near A, B, C. If not, then the inconvenience you encounter will be minimal, because you have lots of wide open space nearby A, B, C, leaving many alternatives.
I don't care whether 99.999999999% of mankind wants to destroy the equipment B has set up (for whatever reason)... they are wrong to destroy his setup just because they want to, or vote to, or decide to. In such a case, if 99.999% or 99.9999999% of mankind really thinks it is so important to run the road through B, the cost for each individual to pay B to reconfigure his setup (or even totally move away) is trivial.
The predator is ALWAYS the individuals who harm or destroy other producers or their property. I don't care how many contortions you go through trying to make predatory behavior sounds reasonable. You cannot appeal to my sense of "society", because no such entity exists, only individual humans.
To achieve what A and C want without putting a road through B is always somewhere between "a minor inconvenience" and "enormously important".
If the fact in some specific case is close to "a minor inconvenience", then put the road somewhere else (leave B alone).
If the fact in some specific case is close to "enormously important", then you should be prepared to pay B up to some quite large sum to convince him to leave the area or reconfigure his property (his stuff, not land) so A and C can run their road through.
Virtually nobody will refuse a big honking pouch of gold in exchange for relocating or reconfiguring their setup, so if putting that road through is so important, A and C [and the other millions of people who want that road through B] can definitely afford to pay.
Just because two (or a million) people want someone else to do something, doesn't mean they can, they should, or any mechanism can make it legit.
Seems like you want to ALWAYS be able to prevail over ANYONE... if you want something badly enough. That comes from being a spoiled brat as a kid, or having absurd delusions of self-importance, or from being authoritiarian (very common). You can't always get what you want, and you shouldn't expect to.
-----
PS: I'd rather live in a world where few roads exist. Personally, I don't need roads, because I fly everywhere I want, and land on various kinds of open areas. If roads were not so common and pervasive today, cheap private trasportation by air would be commonplace (and much cheaper, easier, safer, etc). Too many people would rather FORCE their neighbors than even attempt to think creatively and look for alternatives.
PS: In your example, B and everyone else can "use roads". Why? Because so-called "roads" are just [fairly] linear swaths open space. Since land cannot be owned, and a road is just "empty land", and since prohibition on travel is predatory, anyone who builds roads should expect others to travel on them. This may seem counterintuitive at first, but also rememeber, if you find a wide-enough and linear-enough swath through B, you and A and C and D can travel through there too.
honestann: You need to remember, nobody owns land.
Says you. I have given enumerable instances where that not only is not so ... it shouldn't be so. It is a grossly inefficient and unfair concept.
If not, then the inconvenience you encounter will be minimal, because you have lots of wide open space nearby A, B, C, leaving many alternatives.
Pretty much the concept we have today sans eminent domain. A distinction without a difference. Squatters rights.
In such a case, if 99.999% or 99.9999999% of mankind really thinks it is so important to run the road through B, the cost for each individual to pay B to reconfigure his setup (or even totally move away) is trivial.
How can that be when on the flip side, the leverage B now has over the 99.9999999% is infinite?
The predator is ALWAYS the individuals who harm or destroy other producers or their property. I don't care how many contortions you go through trying to make predatory behavior sounds reasonable. You cannot appeal to my sense of "society", because no such entity exists, only individual humans.
How does your "open encroachment" model feel when your greenhouse becomes surrounded by skyscrapers?
If the fact in some specific case is close to "a minor inconvenience", then put the road somewhere else (leave B alone).
Ever been to Boston or any other old city? Their roads (rights of way) are the original dog trails. Right now in my county they are proposing a new toll road through largely unoccupied (except for cows) land ... trying to do it efficiently before guaranteed population encroachment makes it much more inefficient and expensive. The natives are very restless over this ... but there are few of them so they probably won't prevail. Property rights? ... defended claims?
Virtually nobody will refuse a big honking pouch of gold in exchange for relocating or reconfiguring their setup, so if putting that road through is so important, A and C [and the other millions of people who want that road through B] can definitely afford to pay.
Maybe you should spend a year with someone who actually acquires property for right-of-way. Maybe you should spend some time with someone who is trying to acquire contiguous small parcels to enable a large parcel project. Watch those "virtual nobodys" reach for "fog-horn blasting truckloads of gold". It's human nature. They're both productive and predatory. It's all about who's ox is being gored. You'll find it no different in short time on that planet you and your friends want to go to live according to your ideal.
Seems like you want to ALWAYS be able to prevail over ANYONE... if you want something badly enough. That comes from being a spoiled brat as a kid, or having absurd delusions of self-importance, or from being authoritiarian (very common). You can't always get what you want, and you shouldn't expect to.
Are you addressing me specifically? Or are you addressing those with views and support of them which differ from yours collectively?
PS: I'd rather live in a world where few roads exist.
I would too ... and technology brings us closer to that realty each day. With it, people won't have to leave where they live to do what they do for income. Thus, they can live anywhere. That means they can spread out and be less annoying to each other. The more you bunch people up, the less well they seem to get along.
cheap private trasportation by air would be commonplace (and much cheaper, easier, safer, etc).
Agree. And there's a lot more air than land to keep them apart. Googles driverless cars are an on the ground first step. In reality, people are moving around more than necessary ... and more than they personally desire. When I was a kid they were predicting that by now we would all have some kind of airship in our garage. The reverse has happened. Fewer of us have airships now than then. Go figure.
Too many people would rather FORCE their neighbors than even attempt to think creatively and look for alternatives.
hmmm. How creative is this "gold is money" idea? With its obvious drawbacks, where is the creative search for alternatives by protagonists like yourself?
PS: In your example, B and everyone else can "use roads". Why? Because so-called "roads" are just [fairly] linear swaths open space. Since land cannot be owned, and a road is just "empty land", and since prohibition on travel is predatory, anyone who builds roads should expect others to travel on them. This may seem counterintuitive at first, but also rememeber, if you find a wide-enough and linear-enough swath through B, you and A and C and D can travel through there too.
I and two neighbors share a road which is a dedicated easement literally owned by no-one. It's a cleared right-of-way with marginal drainage and problematic maintenance in wet conditions. I use the road seldom and I'm the first short stretch. They use it frequently and over a longer stretch. They always use my part and they tear it up. I never use their part. The day will come when they will hit me up for improvements. It's supposedly a private road but none of us has power to keep others off of it ... they ... my neighbors have the will and call out the sheriff frequently. All of us are "legally landlocked" as none of us has direct access to a public road. By your model there are no public roads ... and presumably no publicly improved and maintained roads.
Getting along isn't easy. NIMBY concepts and selfishness prevail ... they are the most natural of animal instincts. Looks like you could use a good dose of real world behavior.
I once took a sales class that showed the importance of understanding your prospect. It began with the categorizing by principle traits: The categories were. (1) Affiliator; (2) Achiever; (3) Avoider; (4) Manipulator; and (5) Power Boss. It emphasized you must first identify the domininent trait before attempting to influence the sale.
What do you think your first and second traits are? I would personaly set mine at (2) and (4) in that order.
I'll try to go in order so you can connect the following back to your message.
-----
I demonstrated over and over and over again what is the basis for ownership, and why that cannot apply to land (or the sky, or the ocean, etc). You may not like it, but that is not a justification to be a spoiled brat type and assert "I should be able to own land".
-----
Not "squatters rights" (I think), because "squatters rights" is apparently a way to acquire "ownership", and "ownership" of land is impossible (ethically). However, I would have thought you would find the term (and old-time convention) of "land stewardship" to be acceptable and perhaps even pleasing.
-----
B does not have infinite leverage, even though the math might imply so. Why? Because the math does not include the costs (and benefits) of all other possible approaches, including "doing nothing". Long before A, C and a million others trade the entire universe to B to acquire a path through his farm, that A, C and a million others will find dozens if not millions of other approaches that are vastly better from a "cost-benefit" point of view.
-----
LONG before my greenhouse become "surrounded by skyscrapers" I will have become bummed out at the increased population density, and will have moved elsewhere. To be sure, I might be bummed out for a while as the situation gradually gets worse over time. But then again, I don't get pissed at human beings just trying to enjoy their lives too, so I'd just chalk the inconvenience to me up to "the way things are", and move somewhere else.
I may have "spoiled myself" in a manner of speaking by creating such a nice place out here in the boonies, but I am NOT a "spoiled brat" who expects everything to "go my way". Others are just as free to search for whatever makes them enjoy life, and I encourage them to do so... even when once in a while that is inconvenient to me.
-----
As for the Boston situation, the other side of the coin (that prevents farmers from asking insane amounts for their land, or for rights to put a [raised] freeway through their land) is that "other options exist" and they need to offer a lower price than the alternatives (all costs and inconveniences considered), or those who want the road will go elsewhere.
The assumption that "those who want the road have a RIGHT to have the road" is FALSE. It is they who wish to make a change, and therefore it is they who must bear the expense... however much that expense is. Frankly, I think the time to build [most] new roads has passed. The fact the expenses are so high should be a hint that the time has arrived for other options to be considered.
For example, mass-produced versions of my little airplane, which would be VASTLY cheaper in multi-million quantities (versus a few dozen per year). Given they only need 80 meters of runway (dirt, grass, whatever), and could easily be automated (fully automated navigation, takeoff, flight and landing), they would only required scattered clearings of 80~100 meters by 3~5 meters on the ground to support several nearby homes.
If people want something, they need to be able to pay for it WITHOUT resorting to forcing others to subsidize them with money or other concessions (rights of way).
-----
I am certain it must be frustrating (more like impossible) to find long, fairly linear swaths of open space for new freeways (near or through cities). So what? If you want something, then you MUST be willing to pay for it. Otherwise GIVE UP, not force.
I can't tell you how many things I would like to see, and I'm even convinced virtually all mankind would be doing back-flips in joy once they were completed (and when they see how much better their lives are). However, even knowing that does NOT assign their property or lives or money to me so I can implement my dreams.
That's the way it is. LIVE WITH IT.
-----
Am I talking about you or others? Well, I get the impression the answer is "you and others". Maybe not "you" in the sense of action, but we're discussing ideas here, and yes it does appear you support (even demand) that I and others agree or at least accept and comply with a great many authoritarian fictions... whether you will avail yourself of all of them or not.
-----
Yes indeed. Bunched up humans behave worse. Which is another reason people trying to expand cities (and those highway networks that encourage them to grow even more) cause harm, not good, and should GIVE UP rather than spend egregious quantities of money making places even more crowded and annoying.
-----
We have fewer airships precisely because the predators-that-be have stolen so much individual wealth, and even more because they make life so much less efficient that fewer people can achieve sufficient wealth. Plus, the predators are for "unification" and "uniformity", and thus try to "make everyone the same". Which means, whatever is currently popular they try to lock in as standard practice for everyone.
-----
I think "gold" is good "money". However, I have no problem with general barter in which anything real is exchanged for anything real. So "go for it". However, I recognize that transactions are much easier when there is an informal "standard" for pricing against one specific good. And "grams of gold" is the best option I can find.
IMPORTANT: Just because it becomes standard (conventional, not mandated) practice for everyone to "price" their goods and goodies in terms of "grams of gold" DOES NOT mean they must exchange "gold for goods" or "goods for gold".
NOT AT ALL. Once you have this ONE LIST (virtually all items for sale priced in grams of gold), you can compute the exchange rate for ANY OTHER GOODS. You simply divide the price (in grams of gold) of any good A by any other good B, and you now have the price of "good A in terms of good B" and you can trade directly (without gold).
Just because I'm creative doesn't mean NOBODY has found ANY good answer yet. Well, pricing items in grams of gold is a good idea, and I haven't figured out a better one. I also haven't figured out a better item to carry around in my pocket to buy goods with than gold coins.
Silver works fine too. Platinum works fine too. I'm sure other goods might work fine too, but probably less conveniently (at some price levels). Like iron or aluminum or copper for instance. Like eggs for instance (because they go bad). Like lumber for instance (splinters and size). And so forth.
-----
The main reason "getting along isn't easy" is... people have had their heads filled up with so many completely insane (and largely fictional) notions... that they can't figure out anything rationally. And so, whenever they want something, they search their memories for the scam-argument that puts them in the best situation for that specific issue, and then proceed to assert to their neighbors or trading partners that "this is how we should do this". After which arguments ensue about endless nonsense and fiction, rather than just find ways to "come to agreement" or NOT (and go separate ways).
The notion that "everything should be easy and painless" is simply impractical.
-----
Obviously I'm #2 and #3. How could someone 125km from the nearest human being, who doesn't even see another human for 2~3 months at a time, claim they are not "an avoider"? Hahaha.
OTOH, while I certainly "avoid humans", I do not "avoid reality" or "avoid honesty" (just the opposite).
honestann: it's now too much work to map your reply to my points and questions ... plus, this conversation is clearly overdue for a reset ... and begs to be taken off line which I would welcome if you're agreeable. This mechanism is burdensome.
So I'll get back to what it's all about in the first place ... money. I'll choose to put the whole government issue aside since money doesn't require government anyway.
I think "gold" is good "money". However, I have no problem with general barter in which anything real is exchanged for anything real. So "go for it". However, I recognize that transactions are much easier when there is an informal "standard" for pricing against one specific good. And "grams of gold" is the best option I can find.
A gram of gold can vary in value all by itself. It is a function of supply and demand for the gold itself. The value of gold in and of itself would never change if supply was guaranteed to equal demand (for the gold itself), all the time everywhere. Can you agree with that?
My refusal to use gold as a unit of measure in trade is founded in the "fact" that it does not have constant value per unit (e.g. gram) ... fictional, or in relation to any other "real" unit of any other object. This is because the supply and demand for the gold itself can vary all over the map and are never (except accidentally) equal to each other. Name any other measurement used in science that is allowed to vary from its once established inital value as a standard (today's meter is exactly equal to a meter 100 years ago. A gram of anything today is exactly equal to a gram of that thing 100 years ago).
Can you agree that the supply and demand for gold are never (except accidentally) equal to each other?
Can you agree that if some metal (or other "real" thing) magically maintained supply and demand for itself in perfect balance, it would be superior to gold as an object of simple barter trade ... and thus a better "option for you to find"?
In "going for it", I submit that a piece of paper with a number on it is real. Do you dispute that? (carefully note, I didn't say anything about its value ... only its reality).
I would also submit that a piece of paper with a different number on it is also "real" and "distinctive" from the former ... again saying nothing about its value.
I would submit that conditions can exist where traders view the two pieces of paper (having identical "real" value) to have distinctive symbolic value. Can you agree with that?
I would submit that conditions can exist over time and space where traders view the relative symbolic value of the two pieces of paper to "never" change (and of course their "relative real" value also never changes ... from one ... yet the "absolute real" value can change dramatically). Can you agree with that?
Can you dispute any of those hypotheses?
PS: If you're agreeable to taking this offline, please offer your proposed method.
Instead, I've decided to stop spending time replying to messges in this article. I've got an intensive bit of inorganic consciousness software to write, so I will probably vanish entirely from ZH for a few days.
Adios. Hopefully we'll both remember the futility of this next time.
As any insightful human being can see given time to reflect and understand, any time a producer and predator attempt to "reason with each other" or "negotiate", it is ALWAYS the predator who wins.
Irish diplomacy: Telling a man to go to hell and leaving him looking forward to the trip.
I agree with almost everything you said and I hope more people read it.
Well, you mentioned exaggerated numbers like that a few times but I wouldn't put it that high. It varies greatly by groups of people and demographics, and in any case a measure like that (percentage of population) doesn't convey much useful information in this case.
It is also perhaps worth saying something here about the virtue called patience, lest someone accuses you of cruelty or something like that. A human who has this virtue may decide that a predator disarmed and arrested may have some potential value after all. There is always the chance that a predator genuinely changes its behavior and ceases being a predator, which if it happens, would be of great value, wouldn't you agree? The thing with patience is that you definitely don't want to test its limits.
Some people may even leave a predator (who has already done damage) in the wild if they know that they have the upper hand now and will be able to manage the situation in the future and have made the predator aware of it too. However, if you fail to make everyone aware of your strength then it is still somewhat irresponsible, cowardly, etc. If you leave the predator unaware too then it's worse still (predator thinks he/she can get away with it and gets more aggressive, etc.). Or some may view the excessive aggressiveness as the predators' main weakness which is to be encouraged and then exploited.
Things like the above (excesses of virtues like patience; non-fatal weaknesses) make it much harder to assess how many of those you call producers are actually unwilling to defend themselves under any circumstances. Edit: On reading your sentence again I think I've misinterpreted it the first time. I would agree with "producers are almost always unwilling to treat predators with the same lack of caution and patience that predators exhibit".
That said, I don't know exactly what share of the great many unquestionable injustices in the world happen due to unwillingness to defend, lack of means, lack of social connection to those who can provide proper defence, or other factors.
When I say roughly 99.999% of humans are pro-authoritarian, I include everyone who claims to be a libertarian or constitutionalist. Why? Because, even though they prefer "government" not abuse people in so many ways, they accept that "authority" CAN exist, and SHOULD exist in at least a few ways.
Which unfortunately but unavoidably leaves them saying, "I believe in authoritarianism, but not as much as we have today". That is still authoritarianism. And as always, the decision on when and how the authoritarianism is expanded does not require your agreement or my agreement. It MAY supposedly require majority agreement, or even super-majority agreement, but that still harms, abuses and enslaves everyone who does not agree. And THAT is authoritarianism.
A significant portion of those who consider themselves "libertarians" or "constitutionalists" might change their position IF they invested the very substantial quantity of time, effort and reflection required to realize they too support authoritarianism, and change their position accordingly. However, given the endless birth-to-death brainwashing everyone receives, very few will ever be able to comprehend everything that needs to be comprehended to fully understand what constitutes "authoritarianism".
So my 99.999% estimate might be too high (or too low), but given the fact that AUTHORITARIANISM ALWAYS GROWS, it is crucial to understand that ZERO TOLERANCE IS NECESSARY.
-----
How an honest, ethical, productive, benevolent individual deals with a predator trying to harm them is entirely up to that individual. They may voluntarily give them every penny of savings they have with the hope the human predator will never need to act in a predatory way again. Or they may offer them free room and board for a year. Or they may fund a stay at a mental-hospital or reform-hospital. Or pay $50,000 to keep them in jail. Or kill them. Or anything in between. That's up to them... entirely up to them.
In theory and practice, I believe zero tolerance is appropriate. Why? Because predators will not change unless they are convinced they are almost certainly SCREWED if they remain a predator. And the most effective way to make them aware they are screwed is to see that other human predators are dying like flies (as human producers they harm or attempt to harm often or usually exterminate other human predators). There is no better teacher than reality in their face.
Furthermore, how do you feel about NOT eliminating human predators... who then harm or destroy dozens, hundreds, thousands of other productive humans and/or their property? By NOT exterminating them, the result is harm or destruction to MANY honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings. Which means, whether or not you intended to, you gave preference to those human predators over the honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings they harmed after your encounter.
I leave to you to decide what to do. But I observe this fact that human predators, like predators of ALL species, tend to continue their prior behavior. Of course we ALL wish they would "wake up and change their behavior", but honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings... well... should they not be honest with themselves and make their decision based upon "all things considered"? I think so.
Unfortunately, "being kind or forgiving of predators" usually means you've indirectly enabled harm to good folks. That's sad, but that's the way it is.
Incidentally, if there is a way to dump human predators some place on earth reserved for predators only, that may be an excellent solution. Let them live the life of a predator with other predators. Makes perfect sense to me.
Incidentally, the way I look at this issue is probably not obvious. I have nothing against animal predators! They are part of the natural world and universe. Most species of animals have no choice... they don't know how to be productive creatures.
So my attitude is this. I am happy to leave all those animal predators in the wild free to roam around and take their predator actions from birth to death.
BUT... the moment ANY of those predators come after me, or my friends, or my property? Well, at that point I owe them no more than any of their fellow predators owe them, namely NOTHING. And so, I will defend myself, defend my producer friends, defend my property. How? In general, it is very unwise to leave any kind of predator likely to harm you wandering around your home and property. If you do that, sooner or later you will almost certainly be victimized by that predator. If you want to invest the time, effort, expense and risk involved to capture the predator and transport it deep into some predator boonies somewhere, well, that's your choice and your business. With other animals, that might not be such a bad idea.
With human predators, however, that is a very, very, extremely risky proposition. Why? Because, unlike other animal predators, human predators are likely to develop a "personal grudge" against you, and invest substantial time, effort and risk to come after you again (and this time take steps to assure YOU LOSE). And so, I tend to sound harsh when it comes to human predators, because I value honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings infinitely more than a predator of any species. If there is a truly secure way to get rid of them, with virtually no chance of "blowback", then I have no problem with "kinder, gentler solutions". Maybe if we lived in the kind of world I discuss mechanisms would be created to make such "kinder, gentler solutions" inexpensive, reliable, and easy to access. If so, that's fine with me.
-----
I'm not sure how many producers are utterly and completely unable to defend themselves. But a large percentage are at a huge disadvantage, because they don't prepare themselves mentally or physically or materially to defend themselves against human predators (or other animal predators for that matter). Most just "call the cops" after they've been harmed (unless they're dead, in which case "game over" for them).
The problem is, most producers believe it is important if not necessary to treat human predators the same way as human producers. Call the cops, have them arrested, take them to trial, attempt to get the fictional "government" to declare judgement against the predators (all predators tend to be allies of other predators, including "government").
But the bottom line is this. How many humans do you know... IF ANY... who are not regularly harmed by human predators? Remember, you are harmed every time you pay income tax, property tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, and so forth. You are harmed every time a cop pulls you over, and even more so if they give you a ticket or fine. You are harmed every time you are molested at the airport. You are harmed every time the schools brainwash you or your kids. You are harmed at least 100 times every day JUST by those human predators who call themselves "government" or some "authority".
That is my evidence that honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings are GROSSLY and ENDLESSLY and FUNDAMENTALLY harmed, abused and enslaved by human predators. And this occurs regularly virtually from birth until death. So I think you're not being aware of how utterly pervasive the abuse is.
And what is the net? No honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human adult purposely causes ANY harm to other honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human being. Not once per second, not once per hour, not once per day, not once per month, not once per year, not once per decade, NEVER.
Consider that difference. The ratio is infinity, because the denominator is zero.
Because you (like almost everyone) cannot even imagine in their wildest dreams how much better your life would be without harm, abuse and enslavement by human predators, you have a very skewed notion of what is appropriate. I am confident that if you were clearly aware how different human life would be, that you'd be a lot more comfortable not putting up with human predators.
honestann: Can I assume you're familiar with Larken Rose's thoughts on this subject of authority?
No. So-called "authority" is pure fiction (doesn't exist). Why "study" nothing?
honestann: No. So-called "authority" is pure fiction (doesn't exist). Why "study" nothing?
Brings my grand kids to mind. They put their hands over their eyes and they think the world has gone away.
Hahaha. I know the type (human). I never evade reality, which is what they attempt to do, it seems. There are other very good reasons to ignore things. Most important, the universe contains an astronomically huge number of things to pay attention to, and our lives are very finite. Thus, a wise individual makes decisions about what to invest time in, and what not to. That's just rational, not evasion.
To purposely ignore things because they are important (but possibly unpleasant)... now that is stupid.
honestann: no further comment
Ghordius: you drank too much of the anarcho-liberal/libertarian kool-aid and you have lost contact to how humans behave in groups. in part also because you have that "pioneering" instinct/ideology in you.
There were lots of amature pioneers on the Oregon Trail. You could pretty well tell how long it took them to get real. It was after about 100 miles and you stopped seeing discarded heirlooms along the trail ... at least that's what the diaries tell us.
Jump in Yanis, the water's fine!
http://millennialmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Icelandic-Hot-S...
How anti Semitic of them
Any talk or publicity that awakens the zombies up about how money is created and by whom is an eye opening experience.
Now Mr Nobel Prize can drone some folks on a fresh new continent
now we are talkin!! now bring in some silver coinage too!
I would FIGHT for Iceland! Goodluck and God Speed!
This is exactly what our United States Constitution requires, we just don't follow it, and that is the problem in America today. Restore our Constitution and the Ship of State will right.
Dear Iceland: Couldnt you have just invaded Greenland? Think of it! But nooooo...you have to go and upset the paradigm.
So, how is the BIS going to go about fomenting a war of conquest against Iceland?
They will have to import Al Qaeda or ISIS as they have done in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and the rest.
Economies can thrive by creating national public banks that create currency and lend through thousands on national public bank branches. There is zero reason for any privately owned banks, NONE. All private banks suck the life out of communities and do nothing for the common good. Again, there is no earthly reason for private banks of any kind.
It's better to nationalize the money than to nationalize the banks. When you have national banks, you still have credit creation, and the banker is still an intermediary between you and your fellow citizen. This inserts the state between two sovereign individuals. The state holds debt instruments on its citizens...not the best scenario.
Sovereign "'nationalized" money is issued and from then on it floats in the money supply. It could circulate for 100's of years as it is taken up in taxes and then spun back out. This actually frees the citizens and they get to use the state money, and of course the state has no control over it after it is released. This type money is not draining away into the ledger like credit, so it has much lower transaction costs than national credit banking. Think about it, credit has to be constantly be created to offset its destruction. Any economy has some base level of activity, and it needs non draining money to match that level.
With national sovereign money, the banker is a private citizen who is an agent for the people. He makes his fees matching up prospective creditors with prospective debtors. This is done outside of government purview. Creditors and debtors are fellow citizens... the creditor is not a private banker. The Creditor is NOT the government.
With regards to people freaking out about Government creating money, some of their fears are warranted if it is not done right. It has to be done with constitutional law, and plenty of safeguards in place. The money power is then put in a box and watched. The law watches the money. We have to trust some institution, and this one will be run by civil servants with no profit motive.
The flip side of monetary policy is fiscal policy. That also needs to be addressed. Income taxes are regressive. Why would you tax away the abiliity of people to produce and keep the rewards of their labor.
Taxing away free lunch and predatory rent schemes is where taxes should land. Government is the most efficient economic actor in inelastic markets, so it should charge fees for its services in those sectors.
bomb dem backs to der ice ages
What?? - Real money?! - How could they possibly trade with any other nation? Silly idea.
Or, just go onto a gold standard with currency denominated in ounces or fractions therof. Problem solved.
Ohhhh excellent! A scientific controlled experiment in Zio-Rothschild-Elite central banker power retention. Iceland proposes to take away the power of money creation from the Elite bankers. So, either the international banking cartel will do anything to prevent this, or they don't actually care after all.
I think the first case is more likely.
Prediction: Frosti Sigurjonsson suddenly becomes 'very depressed' and suicides. If there's anything more heard about the idea of governments creating money themselves, Iceland will suddenly have a spontaneous colour revolution. A sudden influx of CIA & US State Dept operatives being entirely unrelated.
She'd better stay frosti.
Next up, USA declares Iceland's secret nuclear weapons program must be stopped. Bombing commences in 15 minutes.
Prediction: The Rothschils' will first shit in their pants and then sink Iceland into the ocean and claim it was global warming.
I wonder if the Iceland politicians and any extra balls to spare. Seems ours are all out.
Government in charge of spending - that will end well.
If you study history the closest humanity has come to sound money was the Tally system that operated in England for 500 years and took a bankster funded invasion to finish. The key to its success was not that was backed by a commodity but that it waas not debt and did not have interest attached - from Luckylongshot
Sovereign Money system is very similar to Talleys.
If a individual issues a Talley, it is evidence of debt and the debtor has to pay back the goods or services borrowed. The talley can be a mark of what was borrowed, where the mark can be specified. You borrowed a two shoes and you owe me back two shoes at some point in future.
When the King issues a Talley and makes it good for paying taxes, then the Talley circulates in the economy as money. Everybody uses the King's talley and at the end of the year pays taxes with it.
In practice, people would go to May-fair, or some big fair where they would settle their mutual credits and debts. At the fairs, they would create script or also have some gold and silver coins. At the end of the fair, all of the debts and credits were allowed to get together to cancel. Some smaller talleys were used, but government talleys were often too big of a denomination to use for small transactions.
Talleys were excellent tangible money, much superior to Gold. They could not be counterfeited due to the grain structure being like a fingerprint. It had to match its "split" other half, which was held as a reference. I forgot the name of the other half. But, you get the idea.
I believe it William the Conqueror's son who first issued Talley sticks as a form of money into the economy. He had to do this because the Jews had been using Usury and putting land next to land. He kicked out the Jews and let them take their metal money with them, but they had to leave the land behind.
Losing the metal money caused English economy to collapse, and hence King could not assess taxes on a population that had no money to pay with.
With a modern Sovereign system, most money will be electronic digits, so the counterfeiting part can be managed with good accounting. Physical tangible money can be made to match the ledger, so no funny games there can be had.
Going back to the Levant, Jew's used clay ledgers to harvest the Greeks and surrounding Mediterranean populations. Clay ledgers (intangible numbers) would grow with usury, but physical silver was limited in supply. Ledger numbers would grow and try to recall silver, but silver volume would be limited - sometimes on purpose. This action then allowed a harvesting of humanity as they would trade their lives to settle the debt. Silver was dear, meaning not enough in money supply to match the debts. Note this is not debt money, but still a mismatch magick mechanism which bankers use.
This harvesting action, or "asset stripping" happens all the time with debt/credit money, and actually this is how the debts are wiped out - keeping the system alive to make more debt and credit as money.
With Sovereign money, since it is legal, then proceedings can go forth to decide if usury means are being applied.
Money is Law. Sorry you gold bugs cannot get that through your head. Commodities are not money.
Money does not exist by nature. It exists as a human construct, mostly of advanced law abiding civilizations. Credits and Debts preceed money by millenia, but credits and debts are not money. Note that sovereign money lets us go back to our evolutionary history of settling credit and debts man to man, rather than having a banker inserted between us.
By the way, sovereign money still allows criminal elements to trade, as the government has no control over the money once it is floating. And, if you want to be a criminal, there is still Bitcoin or Gold or Whatever. In other words, there is still an escape valve.
But, law abiding people sure as hell don't need criminals making private credit for their in-group profit, especially when money is of the commons.
Thats not so Kosherr
Nuke Israel and all the world's financial problems will be solved.