Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

The system also creates an invisible force over government and through government over the people, a force so powerful that it can keep the people ignorant of its existence, and even when informed of its existence, compel the people to rebel against acknowledgement.

The people have to be kept believing that they are still influencing their government through their elected officials and that all is as it was. The effort is being constantly made to keep them believing there are two political parties and that they are in opposition, when in reality both parties are controlled to a considerable extent by this "force" that is able to invisibly extract the wealth of the people by means of a law passed by government which makes government from that day forward a victim of its own act, the Federal Reserve Act.

In fact, then, a government cannot "rule" with wealth, a government elected by the people can function as a government guided by its citizens (the governed) if the citizens retain the right of ownership of property (the essence of freedom) and willingly and sincerely give of their wealth to support that government.

In fact, then, when any invisible means exists whereby the people can be relieved of the ownership of property, then the creator of that invisible means actually gains considerable control over the people's government and through government the people. The government no longer responsible to the people but is responsive to the creators of the medium whereby all bills are paid and all economic functions are financed. Once a false medium is accepted by the people in exchange for the wealth they produce, that false medium will be used to acquire their means of production, ownership of their sources of resources, their means of communication and commutation. The government of the people, by the people, for the people will perish from the face of the earth. The invisible force considerably controlling government from behind the scenes, protected by a cloak of invisibility will endeavor by all means at its disposal to keep the people believing that the government has not changed and that all benefit from the expropriation of wealth benefits the "State," when inflation (money credit) is referred to at all it is called a "hidden tax" of government.

Money credit inflation are all exactly the same thing, identically the same and the imaginary debt 'dollar" numerical quantities are created on the books of the federal reserve, a system of private corporations, for profit. The situation at present is such that all economic functions today depend on their created debt dollars being continually created to add to the accumulation already there. Any sudden stoppage of that system would cause instant chaos in the nation.

What must be done is that we the people must get back the right to own property (abolish legal tender law) and control the distribution of the wealth we create with our labor. Once we have reestablished our right of ownership and can again make valid contracts, all the injustices that have existed because of "money" will die on the vine. Who would use worthless, irredeemable paper for economic transactions if real wealth were available and lawful to use? With the return of our right to control our wealth and the demise of the false medium, we would find that the control of government and good government would return and the United States would again be the land of the free.

People create wealth and support and direct the policies of government with it!

Government cannot "rule" with wealth, it doesn't create it!

Government confiscating wealth suffers revolution and unrest!

Government sanctioning counterfeit loses its sovereignty, and the people's to the invisible force of "money" and its creators.

"Money" must be "outlawed" and wealth reinstated!

"Money" The Greatest Hoax On Earth .......162

Whenever an international monetary crisis occurs, there is always talk, a great deal of it. About speculators. Speculators, it seems, get an idea that some national currency is undervalued and is about to be revalued upward in relation to the international monetary standard, the "dollar." The speculators send their ''dollars" to be converted into that national currency, with the intention, the talk goes, that when it is revalued they will again convert back to "dollars" and have a "windfall profit." It is this "run on the dollar" that these speculators allegedly instigate that is blamed for the advent of the monetary crisis. We are constantly led to believe that these speculators are the cause of it all. Since the real cause is buried deep in the maze of confusion surrounding "monetary currencies that we have been wandering in for years, it 'is simpler to accept the "speculator story" than to seek the real cause.

The real cause of a monetary crisis is the friction generated by man-made conditions in the economy rubbing against the natural laws of economics. Man has tried for centuries to control human nature and the thought processes of mankind and has let himself become obsessed with the idea that man can outwit nature. The Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 allowed the member nations of the I.M.F. (International Monetary Fund) to set the parities of their national currencies in relation to the "dollar" and only the "dollar" would forever maintain a parity directly with gold. Gold was the commodity commonly accepted anywhere as a standard of value (it "is" wealth). It was their belief that by controlling gold, and setting national currency parities, they could control the value of "monetary units." Their national currency parities were to be allowed to fluctuate only on per cent up or down, in relation to the dollar, due to natural forces on the private sector's second level of the Foreign Exchange Market transactions (interbank exchanges). In the event they made excursions beyond that tolerance, there was to be a "revaluation" of the "undervalued currency" or a ''devaluation" of the overvalued currency," to bring that national currency back within the allowable "parity range" with the "dollar" at which they could again exchange on the first and second levels of the foreign exchange market. In the event a central bank of a nation with an undervalued national currency did not want to revalue immediately, it could step into the foreign exchange market on the third level and "buy" dollars. For example, if banks on the second level of the foreign exchange market found that "dollars" seeking D. Marks were overvalued and the "price" of D. Marks too high to effect an exchange without the exchange rate pushing the D. Marks beyond their ceiling, the central bank of Germany could step into the third level of the foreign exchange market and buy "dollars" at the official exchange rate until the volume of D. Marks created cause their parity to fall by competitive bidding to where an exchange rate for them on the first and second levels 'would be within the allowable parity range.

The logic here is that the "dollar" is the standard of the system; it "is" tied to gold directly and it can only be devalued by changing its parity with gold. The German central bank "allowing" its D. Mark to become "worth more" in "purchasing power" than the "dollar" was obliged to revalue its unit of currency to a higher "parity worth" with the ''dollar" (the amount of D. Marks per "dollar" was to become less). The significant thing is that if the Germans revalued their D. Mark upward in parity to the dollar, it would then require "more" gold backing per unit and "raise" the amount of "gold on hand" required to maintain the "official" D. Mark to gold parity relationship that its "new" D. Mark to "dollar" parity would demand. Germany would "suddenly" need the -difference in gold'' added to their "gold on hand" to maintain the same degree of gold "backing" for their currency in circulation as they "had" before the revaluation. Since inflation is in reality the unredeemable portion of the currency in circulation, their inflation would increase proportionately to the "revaluation." To repeat: in the United States when the "dollar" is devalued, we suddenly have a windfall increase in the "dollar" value of gold, and the Treasury has to issue new gold certificates to the Fed for this new found gold to show the Fed's ownership of it.

Parity unrealities or speculators? ........163

Also, when the Germans revalue the - D. Mark upward, their gold in value in D. Marks shrinks and they suffer a windfall "loss' of gold, and are inflated in equivalent to that loss of gold.

The German central bank "buying" "dollars" on the third level of the foreign exchange market, by creating more D. Marks, in effect results in inflation (more units of currency created In relation to the gold on hand to "back" them)- Why, then, does the central bank of a nation with an undervalued currency always lean toward supporting the "dollar" and away from a revaluation of their currency?

The answer lies in the "parity influenced" purchasing power of their currency in relation to all "other" national currencies, not only the "dollar." If the "dollar" is devalued in relation to gold, then automatically all the currencies that are tied to gold, through their parities to the "dollar," are revalued upward in exactly the same relationship to "each other" as they were before. The real concern of all nations is the purchasing power of their currencies in foreign markets. If the "dollar" devalues in relation to gold and thereby automatically to all other I.M.F. member nations' currencies, they will each be able to get more dollars in return for less of their currencies. It holds, then, that goods in this country would lessen in value, in terms of their currency, and they would be able to buy our goods at "less cost" in their currency, and therefore they "should" buy more, thereby increasing our exports. If Germany revalued the D. Mark upward unilaterally, then German goods would become more expensive in all the other currencies and she would likely lose some degree of export business, and also less currency ".seeking" exchange into D. Marks.

The economic well being of a nation depends on the "real" purchasing power of its currency in the market place, and its "real" purchasing power is dependent upon the amount Of wealth the wealth producers will surrender to obtain the currency. The people seek to satisfy their desires with the least amount of effort and they will sell their goods to the highest bidder, and buy their supplies from the supplier who will give them the most for their currency. If the parities are set between two currencies, and are unrealistic in the market place, then the natural law prevailing in the private sector of the economy will bring mighty forces into play to make those parities real. If a French franc and a German D. Mark were set by edict at 1 French franc = 1 D. Mark, but in the market place 1 D. Mark will buy two bottles of beer, and a French franc will buy only one bottle of beer, there will. be a very distinct reaction. Everyone becoming aware of this very obvious unrealistic parity would seek to buy D. Marks with his French francs. It is that simple! It is not speculation that causes a run on a currency, and makes it rise in value. It is the natural awareness that generates in the market place, that a currency "is" higher in value that causes other currencies to seek exchange into the "undervalued" (stronger) currency.

The "dollar" went through its transition from being a world renowned reserve currency to a total fiat currency. The inflation caused its purchasing power to drop all over the world, and its parity became so strained it was necessary for other countries to support the 'dollar" by creating more of their currencies to do so (inflating- so their currencies would buy" less also) causing a falling parity for their currency (in relation to all commodities), to keep their relative purchasing power comparably proportionate to the "dollar's." This was to prevent the unrealisticness of their official parities becoming too obvious, thereby causing a change in the people's awareness and cause a "run" into their currencies and/or a monetary crisis. With the regulation that was exercised and all the unrealistic parities that were maintained over the years, an awareness and a "run" did develop. The United States * dollar" deficit in the balance of payments today amounts to $ 100 billion, which is a $ 100 billion unpaid bill to the nations of Europe and Asia. This 100 billion Eurodollar accumulation is the massive real unsolvable problem. There isn't any way to ease the situation, it must be repudiated.

We have closed the "gold window" and utterly refused to redeem those "dollars" for gold The nations of the world want to retain their currencies' parities in relation to goods.

"Money" The Greatest Hoax On Earth .................164

If they were to agree to restrictions that would limit trade to an even balance, how could a $100 billion unpaid bill ever be redeemed, even in goods, if all effort is directed toward maintaining trade -balance-~ The United States would have to "export" a great deal more than it "Imports" for a mighty long time to redeem $100 billion, and that, if it were possible, would wreck their economies. Meanwhile, there isn't any solution short of deflation, and until that is declared there will be one monetary crisis after another as the parity unrealities expose themselves in the market place. The one hundred billion, surplus trade, homeless "dollars" will "hunt down" the stronger (undervalued) currencies. There will also be other "dollar" devaluations until the official "dollar" ''price" of gold is equal to the ''free market" price and some of the nations can settle their unpaid accounts in the yellow metal. As it Is now, what country will settle its debt with its neighbor in gold at the official, bookkeeping "price" of $42.22 an ounce, when it can get $90.00 an ounce in the "free market. Meanwhile, all central banks that support the dollar, weaken their own currencies in the process. They issue their own, still partially redeemable currency to purchase "dollars" when the "dollar" is no longer redeemable. The U.S. monetary authorities have neither the obligation nor intention of redeeming "dollars" except for purchase of U.S. exports, and that is our producers exchanging their wealth for those "dollars" not the government redeeming them. The "dollars" the world is accumulating are "their" problem not ours" is the feeling of our monetary authorities. The U.S. monetary authority thinks the world will go on supporting the "dollar", but one by one the doors are being slammed shut in its face.

The world over, no one knows exactly what to do. The gold the "dollar" was redeemable for "represents" the ma)or portion of the "gold backing" for their currencies, and as they support the "dollar," while knowing it is unredeemable, they are allowing the gap" between our "worthless currency" and their "still worth something" currency to become shorter and shorter; they wish to go back to redeemability and reason in monetary negotiations. But the United States wants to sink further into the nonredeemable and illusionary monetary negotiations. The situation is deteriorating daily, and can only end in world-wide deflation and depression.

Unreal parities cause speculators to speculate!

Monetary authorities set the unreal parities not the speculators.

It is true that if it were not for fiat currency, government could' not manage the tremendous welfare and subsidy plans in effect today. It is important not to attribute this truth to wrong reasoning. If we were on an exclusive wealth medium of exchange basis, subsidy could not be afforded by government, because the people would not tolerate the excessive tax rate that would be required. It is too readily assumed that the reason fiat is required is because "there isn't enough gold" to pay for all the fantastic government expenditures. It is the assumption that all production must be exchanged for gold directly, not taking into account the fact that a wealth. medium of exchange is just as negotiable and versatile as fiat currency.

Anything that can be produced by using fiat currency can be produced by using a wealth media, if it is the desire of the wealth producer. The very fact that it can be produced by using the fiat currency proves that it was possible all along for the wealth producers to produce it. If the medium of exchange is limited to wealth, but not to any specific commodity, then there isn't any limit to the amount possible to be produced. It must be remembered that there isn't any limit to human desire for goods and were humans free to exchange whatever they produced, there isn't any limit to the amount of transactions that could take place.

Is money necessary? .............165

One hundred per cent of all producers' production over consumption could be exchanged with all other producer's excess of production over that used during production and all would have not been limited, in any way, by a shortage of medium of exchange, if all things could be used as a medium of exchange. Why should barter be outlawed by legal tender laws which limit production to the volume of imaginary demand allowed to be created by a political force? It is a fact, easily determined by objective observation, that "tightening" credit (money) leads to illiquidity in the economy which lowers the number -of producers employed and the "loosening" credit (money) leads to excess liquidity which raises the number of producers employed; the so-called boom and bust cycles.

Elimination of legal tender laws would free the productive capacity of the productive force to find its own level, which would only be limited by t4e desire of the producers to produce and exchange, which is again unlimited. There is a need for an unlimited amount of medium of exchange to facilitate the unlimited exchanges of a free market.

It would not matter what commodity or commodities developed as accepted mediums of exchange, as long as they were all free to fluctuate in response to the free market forces. Gold fashioned into coins with the weight and fineness clearly marked would fluctuate in value. Were the supply of gold to run out, the gold in circulation would rise in value in relation to all other commodities until another commodity came to be competitive with it, and a bi-metal medium of exchange would be the result. Should the second commonly accepted commodity also run out, then both in use would rise in value in relation to all other commodities until a third commodity became competitive and a tri-metal medium of exchange would be, the result.

It is important to understand that until a commonly accepted medium of exchange commodity became scarce, its value relative to all other commodities would remain relatively stable" because of the natural freemarket balancing forces. Man can no more duplicate these forces than he can duplicate a tree. It is easy to understand that if bi-metalism is said to be impractical, in reality it will require objectivity to realize that it has never been tried by man. Production of commodities requires human exertion to come into being. In reality the only time we ever see one commodity suddenly rise In relation to all others is during, or shortly after, a frost, a flood, or when some other natural force has wiped out a crop and caused a temporary imbalance of supply of that commodity in relation to all others.

If the condition were to exist for any length of time, the increased value of that commodity in relation to all others would find human exertion seeking to concentrate on the production of that product instead of the others, to get the greater income return from its production. Very shortly, with all that effort to produce that high income item, its quantity would increase and the quantity of all others would decrease in respect to it and their value relative to it would rise and the system would tend to cause an increased effort to produce them to get an increased income return. The market, free to balance itself by natural forces, Cannot re Main imbalanced for any appreciable length of time.

It is easy to understand the possibility for bi-metalism or tri-metalism or for any number of mediums of exchange to exist in perfect harmony. But this can only occur in a free market. When man plays nature and causes artificial shortages, he affects relative commodity values and the very intervention of the artificial shortages is the force upsetting the natural balance.

If man were free to create all he desires in the nature of production, and were free to exchange that production for any commodities he is willing to accept as mediums of exchange, there can never be any limit to the amount of production. Man's desire for an ever higher standard of living never ceases and he will attempt to acquire that higher standard of living with the least amount of effort. Effort is human exertion and he will use his exertion wherever it provides the highest return. Left alone to operate in a free and competitive market, man will never be unemployed; his standard of living will continually improve and the amount of exertion expended per unit of production will decrease due to the technical advancement in the art of production, brought about by the free market competition. We had an example of this in the United States between 1874 and 1894, as a review of history would reveal. Were it not for the conjuring of money, man would today have all the things he now has and not have debt, crime, and injustice in our land.

"Money" The Greatest Hoax On Earth......166

The producers are also the consumers and were they free to exchange with each other without the requirement of a specified wealth expropriating, fixed medium of exchange, they would not owe the banker an interest charge for every unit of that medium of exchange on record. If the producers used their own production (the wealth itself) to effect their exchanges, every transaction would be complete and final and not involve credit (dollars) created psychologically, to limit and attempt to control their production by influencing the volume of exchanges of production. As it stands, whoever produces goods must receive money in exchange when the goods are sold. Money is the exclusive creation of the monetary authority; therefore the exchange of goods cannot take place until the monetary authority provides the "dollars." Whenever the authority provides the money, it does so at an interest charge, plus a pledge from the receiver (borrower) to repay the authority with its exchange value at a later date. Therefore, the receiver, who received no wealth, must pledge wealth to guarantee the repayment of the "dollars" borrowed plus interest. The most significant thing here is that "dollars," created of record and borrowed, can be completely returned at a later date, but the interest cannot; it has not been created, so the pledge of wealth assur6s the banker that he will get wealth back for no wealth given. The borrower, unknowingly, agrees to return wealth later for no wealth received. So, in addition to being a means of expropriation of wealth, money is also a means by which the monetary authority attempts to control the market. .

If the volume of money created by the authority is restricted, it curtails the volume of exchanges that can take place, and inventories become exhausted and an artificial shortage occurs which causes the market to speed up production. Where the use of money is imposed on an economy, that economy cannot function as a free market, and all who produce will be robbed without their knowledge by the monetary authority. For every piece of goods produced that is exchanged, money must be provided for that exchange. These "dollars" of record accumulate in relation to the volume of exchanges as we see it; but in reality, it is the volume of exchanges that increases as the "dollars" of record accumulate in the hands of the producers.

Perhaps we can see this better if we refer to all producers as just two entities, and a third as the banking system. Producer "A" produces food, clothing, and art objects. Producer "B" produces utilities, appliances, and construction. Although both use each other's production, they cannot effect exchanges directly with their respective production for that would be barter. So producer "A" borrows some dollars from the banker for which he must make a pledge to return them with interest. "A" now has the dollars with which to purchase utilities, appliances, and. construction from "B". After the transaction, "B" now has the money with which to purchase food, clothing, and art from "A." When "A" receives the money from "B" after the sale of his production, "A" can repay the banker the dollars he originally borrowed, but there aren't any dollars with which to pay the interest.

The interest accumulates as the permanent debt payable to the banker for the creation of dollars. If "B" had desired more production of "A" than he had money on hand with which to purchase it, he would have had to borrow the additional money from the banker, and in turn make a pledge to repay the full amount plus interest. As long as money is mandatory to facilitate the exchange of production, the creator of money, the banker, will accumulate a volume of pledges that producers owe him money. And since the producers cannot pay back more than is created and loaned in the first place, the debt will accumulate as a banker's claim on the producer's production for which the banker gave up nothing. The banker cannot be caught in his own web, for he is not a producer of any production, and does not give up any wealth or exertion to satisfy his desires.

Is money necessary? ..........167

The fact is the wealth producers owe wealth to the banker for the dollars they used, but would not have needed if it were not for legal tender laws the bankers engineered. At the present time, the amount of dollars created and on record on the banking system books are in amount of $5,550,000,000,000-00. This represents the bankers' claim on the borrowers to repay plus interest and since the yearly production amounts to only $1,000,000,000,000.00 there isn't any way the debt can be paid. The entire debt is imaginary since the bankers created the dollars out of nothing. The dollars, recorded on the banking system's books as the deposits of individuals and considered by those depositors as their stored value and purchasing power, are all balanced by entries on the bankers' books listing other individuals as owing the banker for those dollars and are covered by pledges to repay, plus interest. For every dollar "owned" by depositors, there is a dollar "owed" to the banker by some borrower.

The present potential then is that since there isn't any wealth stored for the redemption of dollars, if every owner of dollars tried to exchange them for the current production of others, the operation would be impossible. If all transactions that could be made, were made, there would still be all the dollars "owned" by people who could not get others to give them anything for them. If the banks called in all the loans outstanding, $5,550,000,. 000,000.00, that demand equal to five and one half years of production, if the producers did not consume even one ounce of production during the production, and that is impossible. It takes food and energy (production) to facilitate production both from people and machines. At the present time, bankers, by fact of the $5,550,000,000,000.00 on the books as dollar loans outstanding, own the United States twice over. The United States and all its possessions, lock stock and barrel totals out around $3,000,000,000,000.00.

It should be evident now that if it were not for this foolishness on the part of producers to put up with this utter nonsense, all we have, we would have, and not owe anyone for it! We do have it! We did produce it! It is here! Money is imagination. Money debt is imaginary debt. If we wake up, go back to only wealth as a medium of exchange, we can help to rebuild our nation and the shattered lives of all those poor, unfortunate people who placed their faith in nonredeemable paper as a medium of exchange. Insist that Congress return the right of private ownership of property.

There is no law of supply and demand! It may be referred to by economists and finance experts from the United States to Zanzibar, but it still does not exist.

Specifically it is referred to as being; When supply and demand are in balance the price is right.

When demand exceeds supply prices rise.

When supply exceeds demand prices fall.

All that is just so much snow for the people to put their belief in; it is a hoax. Supply can never exceed demand, because demand is supply. It was the introduction of imaginary demand that caused the imbalance of imaginary demand over real demand that required the invention of a law" to support the hoax.

Webster: demand 5 econ. A desire to purchase a commodity, accompanied by means of payment.

Any demand for a commodity that is not accompanied by means of payment is imaginary demand. (all other types of "demand" not accompanied by means of payment would be burglary, robbery or fraud etc., all of which are unacceptable and unlawful). In reality the means of payment" is the "real demand" that constitutes demand and must be something tangible, produced by human exertion, or the human exertion itself accepted as a service performed.

"Money," The Greatest Hoax On Earth...........168

Anyone could spend many hours desiring something and not initiate one ounce of demand. To create the demand for some commodity someone has to offer something in exchange because of the division of labor, each party to an exchange is free to decide how much of his human exertion "result" he will offer in seeking exchange for the quantity of human exertion "result" offered by the other exchanging party. The final resulting agreement to exchange is the result of the competitive bidding by the producers of the commodities exchanged for it. Only production or a service offered in exchange for something creates a "demand" for that commodity. By using two separate words to represent ''human exertion" it makes it difficult to see the real demand clearly. Real demand, the thing that makes exchanges valid and realistic, is "human exertion." In reality all exchanges basically are exchanges of human exertion "result" for human exertion ''result." Human exertion is used either to perform a service or to produce a tangible product.

If an auto mechanic offered to repair a surgeon's car in return for an operation on himself by the surgeon and they agreed to the exchange of services, they bartered. The services bartered were a direct exchange of human exertion for human exertion at an agreed upon parity of labor and/or professional skills. If a shoemaker traded a pair of shoes he made for a cabinet made by the cabinet maker the trade involved tangible goods produced by each, but in reality basically they were exchanging the result of human exertion expended by each in their particular labor skill. It was a trade of human exertion for human exertion at an agreed upon parity of labor skills.

Webster: supply 4 econ. The quantity of any article offered at a given price. Cf. demand.

We cannot accept supply as including a service performed because of the word "article" used in the definition of supply. In reality an "article" would have to be a "thing" (tangible) and that would exclude the human exertion in direct exchanges as services and limit supply to being only products resulting from human exertion, it then becomes clear that supply and demand are one and the same, they are production itself or wealth.

Jenkins; econ. Wealth is either supply or demand by use or viewpoint.

Since nothing can exceed itself then supply being demand, supply cannot exceed demand and demand being supply, demand cannot exceed supply. There is no "law" of supply and demand it is a hoax.

The referred to condition of supply exceeding demand appears logical when we are led to believe that the price has fallen because there is a greater supply than is demanded. If we analyze the condition we find that we would have to substitute a specific commodity for the word supply to see what is actually happening. If we use the word steel and say that steel abundance was so great it exceeded demand. then we would have to substitute a specific commodity for the word demand to see what is actually happening. If we use the word gold we find that when reducing the equation we get; Steel exceeded gold which doesn't seem to make much sense. It would make sense if we were to accept it as a parity and say that the quantity of gold offered in exchange for steel will be less as the amount of steel increases in relation to the amount of gold. We used the word steel to be the supply sought and the word gold to be the demand offered and it makes more sense to say as the supply of steel increased in relation to the supply of gold, the amount of gold offered in exchange for steel, would be reduced. This is an accurate description of a parity change and parities are established by exchanges, which are arrived at by competitive bidding. As the quantity bid of any commodity would exceed its normal relationship with the quantity bid of all other commodities its parity would fall in relation to all those other commodities. As the quantity bid of any commodity would fall below its normal relationship with the quantity bid of all commodities its parity would rise 'in relation to all those other commodities. It is using one common commodity as a purchasing medium and calling the parities established between all commodities and that one common one "prices" that causes the confusion. If we substitute the words human exertion in place of the words steel and gold, and study the realistic definitions of basic economic terms, and apply them wisely, the whole system will become simplified and more easily understood.

Cost: The amount of human exertion expended to obtain the wealth desired.

Price: The amount of human exertion expended to obtain the wealth to be surrendered to obtain the wealth desired.

Parity: The value of one material thing expressed in terms of another material thing.

Wealth: All material things produced by human exertion having exchange value.

When people produce wealth by expending human exertion and exchange products.

If the producers of one particular product find the amount of human exertion required to produce that product decreasing they will bid larger quantities of that commodity to obtain the commodities they desire in exchange. These greater amounts of this commodity being offered will naturally lower its parity in relation to all others when the exchanges are finally agreed upon. The simple law this suggests is a law of competitive bidding.

If the producers of one particular product find the amount of human exertion required to produce that product increasing they will bid lower quantities of that commodity to obtain the commodities they desire in exchange. These lower amounts of this commodity being offered will naturally raise its parity in relation to all others when the exchanges are finally agreed upon. The simple law this suggests is the law of competitive bidding.

Commodity parities are established by the exchanges resulting from the competitive bidding of their respective producers with respect to the return on labor, variations in time, location and circumstances.

In a more condensed form:

As the human exertion required to produce a product increases the quantity of that product offered in exchange for other products decreases during competitive bidding for exchange.

As the human exertion required to produce a product increases the quantity of that product offered in exchange for other products decreases during competitive bidding for exchange.

Parities are established by exchanges resulting from competitive bidding of production by producers with respect to the return on human exertion expended.

Still further condensed:

As the total cost to produce a thing decreases its quantity bid increases.

As the total cost to produce a thing increases its quantity bid decreases.

Parities result from competitively bid exchanges.

Humans labor to obtain the human satisfaction desired from the use or consumption of the results of their efforts.

Humans seek to satisfy their desires with the least amount of effort.

By means of specialization of effort (called the division of labor) the amount of human exertion required by any one producer to obtain many various things can be reduced, by using a commonly accepted commodity as a medium of exchange in indirect exchanges. The amount of human exertion expended to produce the product exchanged for the common commodity is the amount of human exertion expended to obtain the final item, the common commodity is exchanged for.

It is imperative that the common commodity be the most stable commodity available to reduce the possibility of a parity change of that common commodity during the indirect exchange, which always involves a time interval. Any change in the parity of the common commodity after the initial exchange and before the final exchange would effect the return on the original amount of effort the original producer had expended to obtain the finally desired thing.

If we use the "parity" of the common commodity which is the interim thing (medium of exchange) between the initial and final exchanges it can explain "pricing." Using its parity in relation to all other commodities to refer to as a "price" we can then understand its correct relationship to the human exertion we call cost. The "price" of something is the cost of the wealth to be surrendered to obtain the wealth desired. The "price" is the parity of the commonly accepted commodity in relation to all other commodities.

If one commodity's cost of production increased we can see its quantity bid would decrease and -its', parity only would change in relation to the common commodity and we could say it had increased in ''price."

"Money" The Greatest Hoax On Earthnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn170

If one commodity's cost of production decreased we can see Its quantity bid would increase and "its" parity only would change in relation to the common commodity and we could say it had decreased in "price."

In a more condensed form:

As the cost to produce a thing increases its ''price" increases.

As the cost to produce a thing decreases its "price" decreases.

"Prices" result from competitively bid exchanges.

All commodities are related to all other commodities by their freely established parities and are related to the common commodity (the medium of exchange) by their respective parities to "it" which we call "prices." Should any commodity's parity ''rise" in relation to all other commodities it will also '.'rise" in "price."

Should any commodity's parity "fall" in relation to all other commodities it will also ''fall" in "price."

Should commodities change in "price" but not in parity relationship with each other, it is the common commodity (the-medium of exchange) that changed in parity, not an increase in the cost of production of commodities. When a general ''rise in prices " occurs it is because the commodity used as a commonly accepted commodity has fallen in parity and not that the cost of production of the commodities had risen.

As the common commodity falls ' parity the "prices" of all commodities rise without a rise in the cost of production.

When "dollars" which are in no way commodities or bearer certificates for commodities

are used as mediums of exchange, it is the relative amount of human exertion it takes to acquire them that determines their parity with commodities. The creator has only to guide a pen across paper to create "dollars" and because his "cost'' is nonexistent, he will bid them in great quantity to obtain the wealth he desires. The first producers in line receiving larger quantities of "dollars" per unit of human exertion expended will bid them in higher quantities also to obtain the wealth they desire and the "dollar's" parity falls.

In the beginning it is a slow increase in 11 prices" which is hard to see, but as time passes and more "dollars" are introduced the system the "prices rising" becomes noticeable. When the nature of "dollars" is finally realized and all holders try to rid themselves of them for things of value the "prices" run a-way and a collapse of the monetary unit follows.

It is not the "law" of supply and demand that sets "prices." It is the law of competitive bidding that sets "prices."

It is the falling "dollar parity" that causes the inevitable deflation.

Falling dollar parity:

An increasing amount of "dollars" required to obtain the wealth desired in competitive bidding, because of a decreasing amount of human effort required to obtain the ''dollars" to be surrendered to obtain the wealth desired.

CHAPTER LIll

OVEREMPHASIS ON DEFINITION?

I suppose I should apologize to all those who read this book, for my being too scientific. I have been informed that I have this serious fault. I will try to explain my attitude to all those that may have felt, at times, that I am too scientific.

It seems that today most people feel that it is not so important to stress the exact meaning of words, when communicating, as long as you follow every utterance with: ''Your know I It is an assumption on our part that the other person or persons know what we mean, especially when we use some words incorrectly. Personally I become extremely embarrassed when I catch myself using a word incorrectly. The fact is I really feel that I am being taken up wrong (misunderstood) more than I prefer because others do not attach the same meaning, as I, to the words I use.

It is about time we all began to realize how much this 'bad habit' (not defining our terminology correctly) has cost us and begin to correct it to the best of our ability.

Earlier it was brought out that e may have accepted the exchange of the words 'unpaid bills' for 'deficit in the balance of payments' and the words 'bad' checks' ('not redeemable in gold' "dollars") for the word 'surplus'.

"Problems on specific language face international monetary fund negotiators, and rules requiring nations to correct serious payments imbalances are seen by the U.S. as the key obstacle to monetary overhaul." Editor W.Sj. F/P 8-30-73

We are getting a little advance reference to some of that 'new specific language' and we are getting it from every angle, even from sources that should 'know better', as follows:

...... Although most currencies are floating at the moment, the ministers of the 20 are already committed to a fixed though adjustable exchange rate regime"

Paul Lewis U.S. Editor, Financial Times 7-30-73

Exchange rates will be fixed but flexible, i.e. adjustable parities, to be changed in theory automatically but in practice little will be automatic"

Harry D. Schultz H.S.L. 303 end August.

Fixed: Securely placed or fastened. Finance: In general a charge that cannot be escaped

or shifted, or altered. Webster.

Flexible: 1. Capable of being flexed; Pliable; Not rigid. 2. Ready to yield to influence;

Tractable. 3. Capable of being adapted, modified or molded; Plastic; Pliant readily adjustable Webster.

Fixed = Unalterable . . . . . . .

Flexible=Readily alterable these are contradictory!

Excuses can be made for Mr. Lewis he is an editor of a newspaper and is not expected to be as knowledgeable as Dr. Harry D. Schultz on these matters. Somehow Harry should have pointed out that perhaps the 'fixed' as used, is meant to convey to us that we may return to "fixed parities" as was practiced before 'floating'. That the word 'flexible' may have been used to convey to us that there may be more frequent adjustments in the temporarily fixed parities and if that is what Harry meant, by what he said, then where is the . . . "Whole new system" . . . quoted earlier by Dr. Harry D. Schultz This process of feeding us a rhetoric "pabulum" of adjustable fixed exchange rates is an ugly attempt at trying to suppress the truth, which is, that there isn't any new decisions as yet; that at the moment the monetary authorities are committed to more of what we have had all along, with vague and misleading announcements suggesting some sort of 'two tierism'.

Vague references to penalties to be suffered by "surplus" nations are very difficult to understand unless we convert back to more exact and scientific definitions for the terms we use, or at least add some explaining details, if possible, without becoming too confusing. The penalties are to be "Imposed on countries with surplus reserve assets above a specific level- W.Sj. 8-30-73

Surplus: That which remains when use or need is satisfied; -excess. Reserve: To keep in store for future or special use.

Asset: Any item of value owned.

"Money" The Greatest Hoax On Earth" nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn172

In reality, in our history, the 'reserve' was the gold, the nation held in it's safest vaults, with which to redeem the paper bearer certificates that were issued to the people that originally deposited their gold in the banking system for safe keeping. The bearer certificate was a "claim check" for the gold as well as the holder's 'proof of ownership'. Paper "claim checks" and coins of gold circulated together in the market place, each easily exchanged for the other directly in all transactions. The paper readily redeemable for the gold coins at any bank, any time, as continuing proof that holding the paper bearer certificate, was proof of ownership. The process of 'testing' that by getting gold coins for paper was called 'specie redemption'.

In reality the use of 'redeemable for gold' paper bearer certificates was an equitable pay as you go system that did not depend on credit, imagination or ''money". People exchanged the things they produced for the gold, the certificates represented, then traded their certificates for the production of others. Any certificates not expanded immediately for the production of others were held as "stores of value" for future use, with government's guarantee that the banks would be forced to redeem them for gold at any time 'specie redemption' was demanded. The notes were plainly marked: "Payable to the bearer on demand."

Since the taxes collected by government were collected first and then dispensed, in those days, it was always possible for government to have gold on hand that had not been expended as yet, along with some that had not been allocated as yet for any purchase so that this gold was really: 1. An 'asset' (any item of value owned) 2. 'reserve' (kept in store for future of special use) 3. 'surplus' (some excess over that already committed, and expected to be expanded).

If we were completely objective on this we could say that 'surplus reserve assets' would be a fine definition for 'savings'. Savings; Sums saved from time to time, and kept unexpended.

But then it would seem as though that would be a poor excuse for imposing penalties. If we were very realistic about it; we would be more firm and say it is a poor excuse for imposing penalties.

We have to examine what we have been led to believe is the situation by the twisted meanings that have been applied to the words that make up the phrase 'surplus reserve assets'.

Today 'surplus' is used to describe the unexpended 'unredeemable in gold' foreign currencies held in a nation's 'reserves'.

Today 'reserves' is used to describe the foreign "currency" credits held on the books of a nation's central bank along with the units of it's own "currency 11 created on it's books and remaining unexpended.

Today 'assets' is used to represent Gold, S.D.R.s (imaginary gold) foreign and domestic 'imaginary demand' units ("currencies") in other words: things of value, and/or imagination per se are "Lumped" together and considered to be of value equivalent to each other.

From the usage of the words, as we have been led to accept them, 'surplus reserve assets' then means that the surplus nations are, in a sense, 'hoarding' the gold, S.D.R.s, foreign and domestic "currencies" instead of being 'fair' and buying other nation's goods with them and because of this they are "bad guys" and should be punished. How should they be punished? "Well!!":

. . . . . 'Under new rules surplus nations with lots of dollars to exchange won't be allowed to convert very many into gold" . . Schultz .

Overemphasis on definition? nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn173

Which means, in reality, since the United States cannot redeem dollars for gold except perhaps in token amounts, we will convince the world that all they 'deserve' is to have I small amounts' redeemed for gold. (it is not our fault they accepted our "green stamps" ("dollars") and now refuse to use our 'redemption center'!) If they insist on the gold we promised, and don't wish to 'make another selection' they deserve to lose the production they forfeited. The feeling of our finance officials is: It Is not our fault if they contributed to our delinquency by accepting dollars they knew we would never be able to redeem for gold.

During the decade of the 1960's American dollars overseas increased by a ratio of six to one over our gold reserve. it was pure fiction that the dollar was convertible into gold. We had simply expended our surplus and extended our credits until both were exhausted . . . ."

John Connally former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury But we never-the-less raise the question of whether the degree of imported inflation that countries have tolerated was entirely out of their control .. . . . .Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review August 1971 page 22

If these "ideas" can be 'imposed' and are believed, or if not believed then accepted, by everyone, a 'formal deflation' by the U.S. may not be necessary at this time. We might influence the "bad guys" to riot submit their "dollars" for redemption except when "dollars" are more than, say 90%, of their 'surplus reserve assets'. We do not know at this time what exact figure they have in mind, they say:

……….This would enable creditor countries to convert dollars they acquired until their reserves reached a prescribed level, after which the dollar would become unconvertible again .. . .London Times

If they hold "dollars" and keep them out of active competition for goods it may create as good a 'dollar deflationary effect' as if it were a formal U.S. deflationary exchange, where 90% of the "dollars" would be repudiated. Meanwhile they give us confusing items like this:

. . . . .. U.S. officials privately are enthusiastic about a new French proposal that a penalty be imposed on countries with surplus reserve assets above a specific level, thinking the French stand reflects growing European acceptance of the U.S. proposal. ... .... U.S. officials say it's unlikely that the Nairobi I.M.F. meeting will resolve such issues as the role of gold in the new monetary system, conditions under which the U.S. would restore the convertibility of the dollar into other reserve assets, the valuation of and the interest rate on I.M.F. special drawing rights, or "paper gold", and consolidation of U.S. dollar and British Pound holdings into special drawing rights or long term bonds whose value wouldn't decline. W.Sj. 8-30-73

All these reports are designed to convey to us the 'idea' that the monetary authorities may decide that the S.D.R. is the 'key currency reserve' unit and that instead of retaining it's link to gold, for which it also is riot redeemable, they may link it to a group of "currencies", it would be the 'reserve unit for, and make it interest bearing. By that time everyone would be so confused they would not realize that "dollars" had been exchanged for S.D.R.s and that they still did not have anything that is redeemable for anything else except itself. (the old dollar 'trick' where the 'legal tender' was redeemable in 'lawful money' only 'lawful money' was never defined,) All of this rhetoric is designed by the authentic "bad guys 1. to confuse and confound everyone with false conceptions until they cannot tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys", and may 'go along with' and accept any amount of long winded, confusingly worded useless, misleading, self negating, and totally worthless 'first class trash' (I can do it too!) that may be forthcoming and called a 'new monetary system'. However, nothing along that line is going to do any good. In the' end the officials will be. forced to accept the inevitable and we will return to a free enterprise, free coinage system. But until that day finally arrives we will be subjected to one delaying action after another.

Inflation ends in deflation! Jenkins economic truth #33

Deflation can be honorable only by redemption. #36

The deflationary effect is possible without a deflationary exchange of tokens . . . #37

No one can discover and disclose truth based on a false premise . . . #51

Economic Rhetoric: Skillful use of the artificial elegance of language in speech to psychologically create "dollars" of "money.

The very phrase "buy now-pay later" proves the existence of imaginary demand. Webster says demand is the human desire for goods accompanied by the means of payment. If the means of payment is deferred and the ability to create demand is now then the means of creating that demand must be imaginary. It is the use of physical things (tokens) that represent the imaginary unit of demand ("dollars") that make it possible, and it is the fact that the tokens only have to exist in very small number to represent a large volume of "dollars" of "money" that is the amazing part of this scheme. The volume of "dollars" of 1. money" created and recorded on the books only require a small percentage of tokens to represent them because the great majority of borrowers will be satisfied to use the "dollars'' of "money" as just, numbers on their checks.

It is allowing "dollars" of "money" to be "backed" by government bonds, when government creates "dollars" of "money" and has them sanctioned by the monetary authority, that is a contributing factor to the tremendously increasing volume of the "dollars" of money.

It is allowing corporate stocks and bonds to be the 'Justification and "backing" for allowing corporate entities to create "dollars" of "money" that is the device that allows the tremendous expansion and contraction of the "dollars'' of ''money" volume. Something real, tangible and requiring human labor to produce would also take time to be fabricated, but "dollars" of "money" being only numbers written on paper with ink, can be created in the billions of units with the stroke of a pen, or just the push of a button on a computer programmer.

It is in this area that we find the easiest explanation of how economic rhetoric functions. I f a borrower offers stock certificates as collateral for a - loan, '' (the amount of "dollars " of . I money" created that can be sanctioned by the bank) will depend on the market "price'' of those stock certificates on that day. If it Is a day of low liquidity and there is a bit of gloom, on the part of the people where the economy is concerned, the market will be "down" and the amount of "loan" available for those certificates will be proportionate to the lower price" of the stock that day. To increase liquidity the economic advisors make public speeches, on the "fantastic boom" developing in the economy. Several government and market officials will give glowing accounts of the wonderful outlook for the economy, new defense orders and other contracts will be let and announced. All in all, the skillful application of speech will raise the hopes of the public, and through them the stock market will rise next day. With the stock "prices" higher in general, more ''dollars'' of "money" can be created and sanctioned by the banks on the same stock this day, than on the day before, therefore making the increase in the volume of "dollars" of ''money" official and thereby increasing the liquidity.

Where did all the new additional liquidity come from?

It came from the speech that raised the hopes of the public for a boom in the economy that caused increased investment in stocks, that raised their ''market value" that allowed them to "back" more "dollars" of "money" created. The increased ''liquidity'' came as a result of the economic rhetoric. "Dollars" are only the unit of measure of the imagination, the "thing" imagined Is the "value" called "money,' it is not real, it only exists in the mind. "Money," only exists as a reference to value in the mind, left over, from when the word "Money" referred to wealth used as a medium of exchange. "Money" as a value reference, only exists in the human mind, it is created there, and it is destroyed there.

Economic rhetoric nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn175

Economic rhetoric, is the means by which the "dollars" of "money" are induced to be created by the public. When the Individual is motivated to buy now pay later he has to assume that his will to purchase is the value extended in exchange for the item desired. His desire to own is not accompanied by means of payment (comparable wealth), he uses credit" by signing a contract which is a promise to pay, and the "dollars" of "money" which exist in his mind only, are accepted by the clerk as "value" in exchange for the wealth being sold. When the contract arrives at the bank, the bank honors the "dollars" of 11 money" created in the mind of the purchaser and records those "dollars" of "money" in the bank's ledger.

It is extremely important to see that it is the bank's willingness to accept these ''dollars'' of "money" created by the individual, in his mind, that makes the system function. The bank's acceptance of these "dollars'' of "money" is expressed as the individual having used the bank's "credit" in making the purchase.

The individual does not have the government sanction to create "dollars" of "money" but the bank does. The Monetary Authority and the commercial banks of the United States have the exclusive right to create "dollars" of "money."

The "dollars" of "money" created by the individual become the officially increased money" volume, when they are recorded on the ledgers of the banks'. People create the "dollars" of "money" in their minds when they apply for a "loan" at a bank also, The public is aware that the paper and metal tokens, of today, are not redeemable in gold and silver coin (wealth), which was the "money" we measured "dollars," in the past. When the public today accepts a series of numbers as "dollars" of "money" instead of, ounces of gold, they are perpetuating an exercise in futility; no matter how hard they may believe-those numbers are only numbers and are not wealth. The belief in those numbers is the means by which the imaginary "dollars" of ''money" become "ounces of gold" in their minds.

Of course, today, the people know that "dollars" of "money" are not redeemable for ounces of gold, but they go right on picturing in their minds that the numbers they borrow are ounces of beef or dozens eggs etc. All the other members of the public believe also, and will exchange those numbers ("dollars" of "money") for the eggs, beef and other commodities. But, the eggs, beef and other commodities cannot be produced as fast as the people can borrow numbers and so the numbers increase in volume and the borrowers out-bid the producers for the wealth produced.

The public remains unaware of the fact that "dollars" of "money are not commodities for exchange and that they are not borrowing the deposits of wealth of others, but are borrowing newly created numbers-of imaginary "value" which are born in their own minds as "dollars" of "money," they "spend," instead of exchanging their production for the production of others. The fact that the individual labors to acquire some tokens representing "dollars" of "money" supports the belief that they must have value and is also the justification for them to give up their wealth to get the tokens.

The banks continually produce the economic rhetoric to increase the conception of "dollars" of "money" in the minds of the people. The more the people create, the more the banker "earns" in "charges" for sanctioning the creation, (loaning their credit) and the more the public believes in the conceived "dollars" of "money" the easier it is for the banker to "buy" the wealth of the world from the producers with his imaginary earnings called interest.

"Money" The Greatest Hoax On Earth" nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn176

0.02857 oz gold was called one dollar which exchanged for 1 jar coffee.

0.02857 oz gold was called one dollar which exchanged for 10 apples.

0.02857 oz gold was called one dollar which exchanged for 1 jar honey.

Dollar was a name for a quantity of gold (wealth).

That gold was the wealth exchanging for coffee, apples and honey.

Dollar was just a name (an abstract term) and is not a tangible thing.

It is true that:

I jar coffee exchanges for one dollar which exchanges for 10 apples.

10 apples exchanges for one dollar which exchanges for I jar honey.

I jar honey exchanges for one dollar which exchanges for I jar coffee.

And from that:

We are told that the G.N.P. (gross national product) backs the dollar. But under those circumstances the dollar is used as a medium of exchange that is used to purchase the thing that backs it! It is at one time BOTH the "backing" for the "dollar" and the thing purchased with that "backing " which is impossible!

When 'dollar' was a name for 0.02857 oz gold .909 fine and the "dollar" (as a gold claim check) was used as a medium of exchange it was acting by proxy for the gold which is wealth and it was the gold that was exchanging for the thing purchased. In one case an abstract term is used as a medium of exchange. In the other case wealth is used as a medium of exchange.

Wealth has the ability to be both barter and a medium of exchange. Wealth can be barter and then that same wealth can be a medium of exchange. It involves the understanding of the part time plays in transactions. Barter is the direct exchange of wealth where the wealth received by each party in the wealth 'form' desired (the exact thing they wanted). If one party receives a wealth 'form' that is not the exact thing he wanted but which he can use in another exchange, later, to obtain the exact thing he wants, then the wealth form so received and subsequently exchanged is called a m 'u m of exchange.

If "A" exchanges with "B" giving an apple to receive an orange and "B'' desired the apple and "A" desired the orange-they bartered-and the apple and orange were items of barter.

If subsequent to that exchange -13" met "C" who had a banana and offered an exchange for the apple and "B" at that point, in time, desired the banana more than the apple the exchange could be transacted.

"B" exchanging the apple for "C" 's banana with both parties desiring the exact wealth received was barter and the apple and the banana were items of barter.

But, if one considers both transactions in each case the apple was bartered-but with respect to both exchanges it was used by "B'' as a medium of exchange.

No material thing is a medium of exchange as such-it may or may not be used as a medium of exchange. As a material thing it can at any time be used as and become an item of barter or a medium of exchange.

If we very carefully replace the word apple in the above exercise with the words gold coin we could see that "B" desired the gold coin from "A" exchange for the orange. The gold coin would be an excellent way to retain the exchange value of the orange for an indefinite period, impervious to the riggers of corrosion through time. The gold coin is wealth and its ownership satisfies a human desire. The specification of barter has not been violated, both the orange and the gold coin were the form of wealth desired and therefore were items of barter. If at any time subsequent to the first exchange "B'' arranges to exchange with ''C'' for the banana; this second exchange would involve "B" desiring the banana and ''C', desiring the gold coin. Both things exchanged being wealth 'forms' desired the exchange will be barter and the banana and gold coin were items of barter.

Barter vs. medium of exchange nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn177

But, if one considers both transactions-in each case the gold coin was bartered-but with respect to both exchanges it was used by "B" as a medium of exchange.

If we very carefully replace the words 'gold coin' in the above exercise with the words gold certificate' (claim check on gold coin to be paid to the bearer on demand) we could then see that "B" desired the gold certificate from "A" in exchange for the orange. Gold coin would be an excellent way to retain the exchange value of the orange for an indefinite period, impervious to the riggers of corrosion through time. The gold coin is barter. However, in this case "B" accepted a gold certificate (a promise of gold coin on demand) not the gold coin itself therefore it is not barter in full measure. It is true that the gold certificate could be used to neatly dispose of a wad of chewing gum. It is true that it could be folded and used to take the wobble out of a table. It is true that it could be rolled tightly, ignited and used as a tapir to light a pilot light on a gas appliance, which allows it to be barter, in some measure; but those values are very minute. However, as a promise to reimburse the holder with gold coin upon demand the gold coin would be full measure for the exchange but to get it one would have to make the second exchange and that allows the gold certificate to be a medium of exchange, by usage, but it can never be barter 'in full measure'. The gold certificate acts as proxy for the gold coin during exchanges and as such it is acceptable. If the promise to pay the bearer on demand is not broken there is no unfairness. If the promise to redeem is broken then the holder of the certificate has suffered a loss of the wealth differential between the paper certificate itself and the gold coin it represented.

Anything that is not the wealth in full measure can be used as a medium of exchange, but it cannot be barter because to get the full measure would always require a subsequent additional or 'second' exchange.

When exchanges are made with items of wealth of full measure any exchange can be the 'final' exchange and no one will suffer a loss of wealth differential. When items of wealth in 'minute' measure are used as mediums of exchange only the last or 'final' holder will suffer the loss of the wealth differential-and what is extremely important to observe is that; as long as it remains acceptable the loss potential will be deferred into the future. The wealth differential where it refers to coins such as our former gold and silver coins is the difference between the "face value" and the material value of the coin and is called seigniorage. Seigniorage is infinitely variable it has been as little as 10% and currently our copper-nickel coinage is at a legal 97% level (coinage act of 1965). In the case of our largest $100.00 "Fed" note the wealth differential (seigniorage) is 1,250,000% this makes it possible for us to see what the loss potential is-when we consider that our currency today is 'fiat' (there is no promise of redemption in gold or silver coin). When the present currency is no longer accepted the holder of a one dollar "Fed" note will have suffered a loss of more than 12,50096 and the holder of a one hundred dollar "Fed" note will have lost more than 1,250,000% (each note is only worth $0.008 as paper and ink.)

The only way that paper currency can be used is if it is 100% redeemable in specified weight and fineness of some commodity by its issuer and is exchanged at the exchange value of that commodity at the time of the exchange. Extremely strict laws against counterfeiting must be enforced by government and local forces. Currency must be marked to identify its composition example coins as 113.0 grains .999 gold or 37 1 .0 grains .999 silver etc. Paper currency as claim checks drawn on the issuer for a specified number of gold coins 113.0 grains .999 or silver coins'371.0 grains .999. The weights and dimensions to be fixed by government as specified in the constitution.

All prices would also be specified in the same manner. All goods would be specified in grains of gold and or grains of silver with the seller setting his exchange value relationship and the choice of what coins to use up to the purchaser. Fictitious words such as "dollar" must not be used as abstract terms for specified amounts of wealth in pricing.

IN A FREE MARKET ALL COMMODITIES MUST BE FREE TO SEEK THEIR OWN PARITIES IN RELATION TO ALL OTHER COMMODITIES-WITHOUT EXCEPTION. OR THE MARKET IS NOT FREE.

"Money" is spoken of in monetary unit terms. The monetary unit of the United States is the dollar. When we speak of dollars we are referring to "Money." When we speak of "money" we are referring to dollars. We have a silver coin that contains 371.25 grains .999 silver that sold for I dollar. The same coin now sells for 3 to 8 dollars.

Silver cannot be the same as dollars anymore! Silver cannot be "money!"

We had a coin that contained 113 grains of gold .999 fine that once sold for 5 dollars. That same coin now sells for 50 dollars.

Gold cannot be the same as dollars anymore! Gold cannot be "money!"

They say tobacco was once used as - Money. " A pack of cigarettes once sold for 1/10th of a dollar. Now a pack of cigarettes sells for 1/2 of a dollar. Tobacco cannot be the same as dollars! Tobacco cannot be "Money!"

Tobacco never was "money!" Silver never was "money!" Gold never was "money!" 'Tobacco, silver and gold are and always were Wealth!

What is "money?" What is wealth?

Anything produced by human exertion having exchange value is wealth.

113 grains of gold is wealth-being called "money" or five dollars doesn't change its' nature-it is still 113 grains of gold (wealth).

371.25 grains of silver is wealth-being called a "dollar" ("money") doesn't change its nature-it is still 371.25 grains of silver (wealth).

Tobacco is wealth-being called "money" did not change its nature-it was still tobacco and was wealth.

When apples are exchanged for oranges and the apple grower wants the oranges to consume directly he bartered and the oranges were barter.

When apples are exchanged for oranges and the apple grower wants the oranges to exchange for bananas the oranges are a medium of exchange.

"All wealth may be accepted in exchange as barter or as mediums of exchange.

"Whatever is accepted in exchange in lieu of wealth is "money," and can only be accepted as a medium of exchange-it can never be wealth-by the very nature of its specification."

When any type of imagined promise of "payment to follow" is received in exchange for wealth" money" has been accepted in lieu of wealth-because it cannot be used or consumed as barter (it has no substance or real value).

"Money" is known by many names, Dollars, Francs, Yen, Marks, seigniorage, credit, and imaginary demand.

When apples are exchanged for "money" and the apple grower wanted "money" he has extended credit and subjected himself to possible embezzlement if the "money" becomes worthless before he can pass it on. ("Money" acquired for the purpose of saving).

When apples are exchanged for "money" and the apple grower wanted the "money" to exchange for bananas the "money" is a medium of exchange.

"Whatever is accepted-during an exchange-as a medium of exchange-in lieu of wealth-is imaginary demand."

Imaginary demand requires token substances to represent it-for it to be accepted.

A piece of paper is wealth-marking it "one dollar" (money) doesn't change what it is-it is still a piece of paper (wealth). Stamping a silver disk one dollar" does not turn silver into "money" it is still silver and it is still wealth. Calling 113 grains of gold five dollars does not turn gold into money" it is still gold and it is still wealth.

Wealth is not money, therefore money is not wealth!

All real things produced by human exertion and exchangeable are wealth what is left? Only resources and imagination.

All resources are potential wealth what does that leave? Only imagination therefore "money" must be imagined to be an entity at all therefore "money" is a psychological entity. Proof of this can be easily demonstrated with three coins, a 1964 half dollar, a 1965 half dollar and a 1971 half dollar.

The 1964 "half' is 90% silver wealth and 10% copper wealth.

The 1965 "half' is 40% silver wealth and 60% copper wealth.

The 1971 "half' is 95% copper wealth and 5% nickel wealth.

There is no "money" involved-yet they are called "money" because they are used to represent "dollars" in real substance-'token' form.

As wealth-each individually-is of different value than the others by virtue of the commodity it is.

As "money" (dollars) each individually is exactly the same as the others-one half dollar. How can three physical things of known different values be considered to be of equal value without that valuation 'system' having its' base in fantasy?

Which system of valuation is more acceptable?-The wealth system which says 113 grains of gold is 113 grains of gold that can be seen, touched and used in the fabrication of useful or decorative objects,-or a system which uses as a unit of reference, something that has to be imagined (dollar) because it does not exist as an element in nature, or by synthesis in the laboratory.

If we say 371.25 grains of silver is equal to one "dollar" what then is a dollar? We know what the silver is, we can describe it, fabricate it, melt it, smelt it, see it, and feel it; it is tangible; it is wealth. We cannot see a "dollar" or feel it! If we could it would be a substance and then we could describe it, it would be wealth.

We are faced with an irrefutable fact; "money" does not exist, we just think it does-like Leprechauns-you either believe in them or you do not-but there aren't any on exhibit anywhere, dead or alive.

To call a gold coin "money" is more unrealistic than calling a streetcar an airplane. To call a silver coin -money" or a "dollar" is more unrealistic than calling a telephone pole a toothpick.

"Money" is the greatest HOAX on earth!

Everyone knows what a Sphinx is-it is a monster having typically a Lion's body, wings, and the head and bust of a woman-yet it is a myth.

Everyone knows what "money 11 is-it has the exchange value of gold (without being gold), the exchange value of silver (without being silver) and the substance of a vacuum; it is a myth.

Perhaps a more precise example of "the use of the word 'money' " can be found by saying that we might refer to an excellent swimmer as being a 'Mermaid.' Everyone would know that you mean the young lady is an excellent swimmer by the reference to her being a Mermaid. Yet all would also know that there are no Mermaids.

Well, there is no such thing as "money" or its' unit of measure "dollars" either. They are merely words that were applied to excellent mediums of exchange (wealth) like calling a woman swimmer a Mermaid-a mythical being.

All wealth can be mediums of exchange but no wealth can ever be "money."

"Money" can be accepted as a medium of exchange but it can never be wealth.

"Money" was an abstract term applied to all things of wealth used as mediums of exchange but there had to be wealth present to be called "money"

Today we are trying to use the abstract term itself as the thing it used to refer to without the wealth itself being present.

"We are trying to use the 'abstract term' (" money") as a term for wealth and as that wealth, at the same time."

The 'abstract term' ("money") cannot take the place of, and function as the thing it was only used to refer to; yet all wealth has been removed from use as mediums of exchange and we are using only the 'abstract term' for wealth in its' place. However, to have that function requires that the public remain fooled indefinitely-and that is impossible.

The collapse of the "money" HOAX is imminent. "Money" is as real as the Easter bunny, Cyclops, flying carpets, flying horses, genies, Leprechauns, the medusa, mermaids, the sphinx, the tooth fairy and unicorns.

How do you go about proving there are no flying carpets? How do you convince a 'believer' Leprechauns are a myth? Does anyone have the ability to prove the non existence of the tooth fairy? Can anyone really prove there aren't any Mermaids is there or is there not an Easter bunny?

The above are all items we all 'know about' and also know-do not exist-except in fantasy (as figments of the imagination).

What about something we all 'know about' exactly the same way, but have not learned as yet-is a myth? How do you prove that something everyone believes in is a myth.

When I say "money" is the greatest HOAX on earth" everyone automatically assumes-that I do not mean that! They believe that there is such a thing as 'good' Money. " All will agree gold and silver coins were good - money, " (when we had them).

I will agree gold and silver coins were good and still are good, but they were not and are not "money." "Money" is a myth and does not exist 'nothing' is "money and money" is nothing. There is none of anything that is "money!"

The gold coin that was called a "dollar"-was a gold coin.

The silver coin that was called a "dollar"-was a silver coin.

The piece of paper that is called a dollar is a piece of paper. The "money" ("dollars") that we "buy" with every day is just a figment of our imagination-there is no thing that is a "dollar."

I will make a statement as follows: "It is five inches." What, is five inches-there are five of them but what do they look like? Try to describe the appearance of an inch!

Inch is a unit of measure-without a reference to what is being measured it is absolutely worthless; without a device somewhere that is a dimensional standard for reference, the 'inch' would be impossible to describe.

When gold was "money" --dollars" were the unit of measure, and it was necessary to say that 1/35th of an ounce was a "dollar's" worth.

When silver was "money" --dollars" were the unit of measure, and it was necessary to say that 371.25 grains was a "dollar's" worth.

Property is exchanged for X number. of "dollars" worth of gold, or property is exchanged for X number of "dollars" worth of silver.

Now silver and gold are no longer used but "dollars" remain.

Property is exchanged for X number of "dollars" and the "dollars" are exchanged for the property of others. Any kind of property, oil, apples, oranges, furniture, etc, etc. Any kind of property is exchanged for "dollars" which are exchanged for any kind of property; the "dollar" is not connected as a unit of measure to any one commodity, such as: ten apples equals one "dollars" worth, or ten oranges equals one "dollars" worth,-there isn't any standard.

We cannot say the "dollar" equals anything because it hasn't any value of its' own to be equal to anything. The "dollar" is a unit of measurement and as such must have a standard of reference. The "dollar" cannot be said to be 1/35th of an ounce of gold and at the same time be ten oranges or be ten apples. A "dollar" cannot be all things at once, or any one thing for that matter because it is only a -term used to describe the standard it represents, (when it represents one).

If a "dollar's" worth of anything is the amount of that thing that normally exchanges for 1/35th of an ounce of gold, then the gold is the deciding value, not the "dollar the "dollar" is only a term, a word that refers to the standard.

Any token used to represent a "dollar" during exchange, that is not 100% redeemable for 1/35th of an ounce of gold, held in reserve for its' redemption, is a Fraudulent unit of exchange, and embezzles the property of the people who accept it in exchange.(continue)