January 29, 2010 at 8:42 am #33100
The only honest politician in Washington?January 29, 2010 at 10:12 am #33101
I would say that the disease finally settled here in America around 1812. I hope that we do not fall into the trap that we need to some how pay back our debt. It is just a game. Right now bankers are in service to us, basically neutered. It is like a loan shark with no thugs to back it up. Certainly we are drained by this societal structure, but that is what we unconsciously made it to do. It is a certain level of suppression or boundary that we are slowly evolving out of. I also hope we donot fall for the gold silver trap. It is a silly authority. It is just a game, either make algorithms that produce the proper amount of money based on population, like allot of online muti player economies. Or just go back to trade and barter. Peace and blessing to you all on this beautiful full moon day and night. Be careful what games you play kids.January 29, 2010 at 11:12 am #33103
An option would be to remove or integrate any corporation back to states, towns, ect. This includes incorporated banks. Then instead of personal, town and state loans, start venture capitalism. Even the ancient Upanishads where against usury.January 29, 2010 at 10:58 pm #33105
Some of his ideas certainly have merit–such as not spending outside our means–but
I’m not sure trying to be an isolationist country is such a good idea though.
Ideas such as that helped fuel WWI and WWII. Those wars wouldn’t have
gotten so bad if we had gotten involved sooner. And now that we are
becoming connected on a global scale via communication, internet, etc.,
I think being isolationist is not only a bad idea, but is backward thinking.
But his comments about spurious behavior of the Federal Reserve and
the Banking Industry seems pretty accurate. I find it interesting that
of our three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, Judicial;
that we don’t have a “banking” branch. The banking industry seems to
run autonomously with no oversight, and yet half of the economy is
driven by them. Seems pretty suspicious to me.
SJanuary 29, 2010 at 11:19 pm #33107
I think money and interest on money arises naturally:
If I do “Service A” for you, and you can’t reciprocate with
“Service B” for some reason, then as a natural consequence
you give me an IOU.
A natural consequence of this, is that you “value” the IOU
depending on what that service is valued, so that a fair
and equitable trade can occur in the future.
Thus money is created as an IOU for service.
The higher my original service is valued, the more money you give me.
Money, as a promise of service, becomes viewed as having the same
value as the service itself. Giving the service or giving the money
corresponding to the service become identified as one in the same.
Thus we have money.
Now suppose you need money, but do not have an adequate supply.
I, on the other hand, do have an adequate supply.
As the idea to help you out, I give you some of my money, under the
understanding that you are likely to be able to provide services
later on that will give you money–maybe even money–and then you
can pay me back later.
This becomes basically another IOU, but now an IOU for money.
By loaning you money, I am providing you a service . . .
A service for which, to be fair and equitable, you should pay
back for. Thus you should owe me the original amount I gave you
PLUS MORE corresponding to the value of this service I’m providing,
namely giving you money but getting nothing in return.
This “Plus More” is interest on money, and is a natural consequence
of lending money, which is a natural consequence of having money
to begin with, which is a natural consequence of trading services
when one party can’t fulfill a quid pro quo arrangement.
Since it is human nature to want fairness while simultaneously
wishing to help others in times of need, human nature will
always generate a demand for money, and the cycle begins anew.
If you only count outrageously high rates of interest as usury,
then that I think could possibly be mandated by making it
unlawful to charge a rate higher than some rate tied to an
inflation index, but even so there will be people that operate
outside the law.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, is that I think that their
are natural forces at work that always push things toward a
SJanuary 30, 2010 at 7:41 pm #33109
It is natural to play games. But usery is stripped of the joy of service and charity. certainly we get back 10 fold from the universe when we give charity but this is different then imposing debt and a lean on some one. In your heart do you honestly find the process of leans and debt to be in line with your heart. peaceJanuary 31, 2010 at 6:27 pm #33111
I agree there are more heart-centered approaches when
operating on an individual basis. However, if we
talk about society as a whole, then we have to recognize
the mutual force of “fairness” that is promoted in
order to have a stable society.
Thus, to me, in any society setup, due to this
notion of fairness and due to human nature,
there will be a natural pressure and tendency
to move toward a mode where money and interest on money
becomes part of society.
I.E. If you remake society without these things, then
unless you create an exceptionally ingenious system, then
natural pressures will bring these back into existence, i.e.
they arise naturally from barter and trade. My post was
meant to illustrate how they arise naturally from any
barter and trade system over a period of time.
How would you stop these natural pressures?
SJanuary 31, 2010 at 10:47 pm #33113
The process of usury certainly did arise naturally, as naturally as other diseases that arise from greed and excess. I do not see it as a symptom of fairness, or trade and barter. Fairness arises from being grounded and heart centered. Usury certainly has had its place in your evolution. I think people are having enough of debt and the system it created. I see no practical reason for it to continue. Unless you want to keep the whole 1st world 2nd world 3rd world assembly line going. The only reason America was convinced to keep the European mess going was out of fear, and statues quo. Hamilton sold it as the only way to unite the country and to protect its self was to make our selves credit worthy to foreign banking interests. He even openly admitted that debt was crippling Europe especial Britain which was old 1st world thug. He said it did not matter because you need to go into debt to protect your self and squash rebellion. He considered war and rebellion diseases that could only be solved through debt and violence. Of course a room full of men agreed that that was the thing to do, well except guys like Jefferson. You see the whole trick for some was to have the American people take the lean, while you the war time profiteers get the money. Of course for those actually lending, they could care less about pay back in the form of silly money, they want control, to be middle men. It is a game to get consent, to get the most powerful thing, the agreement to play along. I get you to play my game then I got your power. They are masters of gaining agreement and building empires on authority. You will see this pattern over and over. Banks got the authority of gold and turned it into what we see to day. Western medicine turned the authority of penicillin into a gold mine. It is an old art, of theater and game play. We must ground and return to our hearts. People are playing online and going to see movies of the simple magical life. Unplug and have the courage to live it. We are artisans, beautiful special servers of the Tao and humanity. Peace and blessings to you all. Sing with me my loves!February 1, 2010 at 10:30 pm #33115
>>>Usury certainly has had its place in your evolution.
That’s a pretty rude comment.
Don’t apply global society behavior to me personally.
I was simply reporting on what has happened in societies
through history, and what is likely to happen again.
On an individual basis, I’ve always taken the attitude
that you should never loan money to other individuals.
If you can’t give it freely, then you shouldn’t give it.
Loaning it means that you are worried about getting it back
+ the other person having pressure to return it.
However, being part of the system means you have to
play the stupid game. Do I like having a TON of student
loan debt on my back so that I can get my advanced degree?
No. But I can’t complain too much, because without
accepting that student loan debt or without having it
offered to me, I would NOT be able to work toward getting
On that note, what type of society without a loan/debt
structure would allow me to spend my time studying academics
FOR YEARS without me “contributing” anything back to society?
Could I do what I’m doing now in a money-less society? Hard to say.
Long-term visions would be hard to accomplish without being
In this system, who’s taking advantage of who?
Am I taking advantage of society by “not contributing” and
taking the offered loan money so that I can spend my time
studying academics, OR is it society taking advantage of me
by putting me in a position where I’m saddled with monstrous
loads of debt that will take forever to repay?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.