The points you make should be warrant much more public discussion Bryan. Those who seek money and power do so directly or indirectly by exploiting the natural resources of the planet, from using fuel and causing carbon pollution to direct extraction of minerals.

The notion in the 60's and 70's that those who 'did well' did so by hard work is long dead. The question now is how to bring the "shysters who continue their wanton destruction of the planet" into line?

I think the carbon price was a good start. Then abolish fossil fuel subsidies, negative gearing on residential properties, upper middle class welfare (e.g tax breaks on superannuation for the rich). Then bring in some form of wealth taxes and limit the remuneration of directors/ executives of corporations. But that would be socialism - horror of horrors!

Bryan,

I'm a retired accountant (and halfway through Gleeson-White's book) I already know the great contribution the profession has made to civilization. Of course we will continue to be 'future eaters, until economists and accountants include eco-systems and external costs in national and corporate accounts.

The book should be compulsory reading at High School.

Bryan, mac, Roses1
Perhaps you could start by telling us what's the "real value" of a tree?

Roses idea that putting things in common ownership, makes society richer or is better for the environment only shows invincible ignorance. Underlying it is the nutty idea that capital makes society poorer. Presumably we'd all be better off living hand-to-mouth? As all the measures he advocates have the effect of consuming capital, all of them have the effect of moving society back to that stage of primitivism. Oh that's right, human beings are a plague aren't, they? "The environment" [translation: anything but human life] has higher value.

Of course while ever natural resources are in common ownership and therefore have no market price, the failure to include their value in economic calculation is a failure of socialism, not capitalism.

And while ever socialists indulge in their *single-entry* methodology - of counting the benefits of forced redistributions, but never the cost, we will continue to see the persistence of this essentially irrational, destructive, and infantile belief system.

All profits are a direct result of the behaviour of the masses in voluntary preferring the service which the entrepreneur has provided, over all possible alternative uses of them. Profits are the means by which the great mass of society direct the means of production to be used to satisfy their most urgent and important wants, as decided *voluntarily* by them. Those who criticise this means of decision-making, in favour of decision-making by the most violent party - the state - have no ground to criticise the either the power-lust or the environmental wastefulness of others. Abolish profit, and the destruction of human life and the environment would reduce us to the level of beasts in a wasteland. Partial abolition merely moves us part way down the path of destructionism.

Peter Hume,

Altough you appear to be 'Off Topic' by discussing the relative virtues of socialism and capitalism, I'll answer the question.

The appropriate question is not 'the value of a tree' but the value of the eco-system of which the tree is a component. Some examples--

(1) mangroves are a nursery for many economically valuable fish species, compare the value of timber in the mangroves(negligible) to the economic benefit of a functioning mangrove eco-system.

(2) What are the cost/benefits of converting rainforest into farmland.

Ownership of the means of production is totally irrelevant to both double entry bookkeeping and the valuation of natural assets.

"All profits are a direct result of the behaviour of the masses in voluntary preferring the service which the entrepreneur has provided, over all possible alternative uses of them."

That is pure ideology(like much of economic theory) and has no basis in fact, as it relies on consumers possessing perfect knowledge of goods and services which of course, is complete nonsense. In fact industry attempts, through advertising, to restrict the information available to consumers. Recently, psychologists, not economists, have provided experimental data on how the average consumer really makes his/her choices.

I don't intend to get into an OT argument as to the relative merits of economic systems

mac
“Ownership of the means of production is totally irrelevant to both double entry bookkeeping and the valuation of natural assets.”

No it’s not. Double entry book-keeping is a system of accounting for capital. It’s basic data are money prices, which in turn are market phenomena. The fundamental purpose of capital accounting is the determination of profit and loss. It has no application to values which are not exchanged against money.

Since the whole purpose of common ownership and control of a particular natural asset, is so that its value will *not* be accounted for on the basis of profit and loss, therefore the value of a “natural asset” held in common cannot be accounted for in terms of money prices and cannot meaningfully enter into double-entry book-keeping. To the extent that natural assets are exchanged against money, the externalities involved in their use can and do enter into account. It is only to the extent that they are not exchanged against money that they are “externalities” i.e. their value is external to economic calculation, and this applies to all goods held in common.

Therefore ownership of the means of production is quintessentially relevant to both double entry bookkeeping and the valuation of natural assets.

“I don't intend to get into an OT argument as to the relative merits of economic systems”

It is you who have opened such an argument by your claim that “we will continue to be future eaters, until economists and accountants include eco-systems and external costs in national and corporate accounts”.

You have not understood that that project can only be realized through the private ownership of the means of production.

Your implication is that we value present satisfactions too highly compared to future satisfactions. But
a) what makes you think your valuations are more valid than other people’s?, and
b) such a view is in any event only possible on the basis of greater capital accumulation.

I saw a documentary a while ago about a woman in Vietnam, poor with no relatives, who makes a living as a day-labourer for other farmers….
(cont.)

She is getting too old to do the work, but worries that she has no other way to support herself.

So you can imagine how worried she is about her carbon footprint, can’t you?

The only thing that makes us capable of worrying about a longer period of production, is accumulated capital to keep us alive over that period. Yet common ownership is not a superior method of *accumulating* capital, but only of *consuming* it. Throwing humans back to *less* productive methods is worse both for human beings and the environment.

“The appropriate question is not 'the value of a tree' but the value of the eco-system ….”

Okay. So tell us. What is the “real value” of it?

Please show how you have taken into account the present versus the future valuations of all prospective users and non-users of it.

“That is pure ideology …”

That is pure name-calling. The question is whether it’s true or false, not “ideology”.

“…and has no basis in fact, as it relies on consumers possessing perfect knowledge of goods and services which of course, is complete nonsense.”

No it doesn’t rely on perfect knowledge. Its basis in fact is only that it relies on each consumer preferring one good to another.

It’s true that one’s knowledge is imperfect, but that is no argument for substituting a much much more imperfect knowledge set. Common ownership has all the same knowledge limitations *and* lacks the ability to rationally calculate how best to use resources so as to avoid waste and maximize satisfaction. It is your theory that has no basis in fact or logic.

“In fact industry attempts, through advertising, to restrict the information available to consumers.”

Politicians are not liable for misleading and deceptive conduct in their official capacities, so you still can’t justify your assumption that politics provides any better solution to the original problem.

“Recently, psychologists, not economists, have provided experimental data on how the average consumer really makes his/her choices.”

Contingent experiments do not beat logic.

Please see “Depletion of Natural Resources” at p.499 starting “One of the…”
http://mises.org/books/mespm.pdf

Peter Hume:

...You are really “up against it” here Pete. Taxation is a social addiction. Society has long been brainwashed into believing taxation is inevitable, and actually beneficial, in the sense that taxation represents a “Pool of Goodies” available for the plunder, by those with the influence to achieve the plunder ( here the unfortunate and economic illiterate majority, believe they have a “stake” in the pool). Unfortunately for the vast majority, the brainwashing is so successful, and the truth is so successfully hidden, they fail to realise that it is their future resources (through taxation) that is used by the Political manipulators, masquerading under the “Tartan” of Democracy, that allows the ruse to continue.

...Of course the next attack under the “Tartan” will be against Social services. My prediction, Abbott will lead the charge against any downward trends of redistribution in “Vassal Australia”, by a well-aimed campaign against redistribution of taxation through social services, (A taxation contribution, which costs this country around one third of taxation receipts). A marker for the prediction is the an increased demand from the USA, for an increased Australian participation in the “war games” demanded as a contribution, through increased expenditure towards defence budgets. Simple arithmetic plays the truth towards an increase in taxation directed towards the top-end recipients of taxation largesse. In short, economic plunder of the Vassal states has become a priority, since the collapse of the economic empire of the rich, from the time of the GFC 2008, (and continuing towards its inevitable total collapse under the weight of debt (self-created)).

...Governments of the Democracies are collapsing under the huge demands on taxpayers, to prop-up a criminal system of debt creation, and the pot is fast running out of money to pay social services. Anyone relying on a social service payment better start running to a cave, “John” has long-gone, “Tony” is on his way, welcome Neo-Feudalism and further plunder of the “Serfs”!

Peter Hume,

“invincible ignorance”?

My ignorance is indeed vast.

I don’t even know what ‘Capital’ is.

Peter Hume is spot on, this is just more ideological clap trap. Another great example (as if we needed more) of the socialization of the sciences.

“The socialization of science requires the assumption that science is just part of life that has to be criticized by humanities academia as part of the object that the educated mind may inspect (from a great distance) and not part of the mind itself or crucial to its education. From Copernicus onwards, the findings and speculation of scientists have been a continuous threat to collective, unreflective beliefs about the nature and purpose of human life, the position of man in the order of things and the destination of the universe. In short true science is a criticism of life in the best and deepest sense. This of course is seen by humanities as “their” domain. “

“Humanities academia is naturally unhappy to recognize the centrality of mathematicisation of nature to our culture, to be reminded of the importance of the unattainably different level of rigor and sophistication prevailing in subjects they don’t understand.”

“The process of marginalizing science adopts a strategy of “narrative theory” which treats science, philosophy, literature etc., as simply a different mode of story telling and therefore opened science up by rhetoric to “interpretation” or the creation of objective truth.”
(Quotes from the Eunuch at the Orgy, Raymond Tallis)

Put another way, Double Entry Bookkeeping does indeed apply the “two plus two equals four” principle however, what you ignorant low life just don’t understand is that this must be viewed through the prism of global citizenship, social equity and justice, as perceived by academia and progressive politics in you best interests.

“The bulldusters and the liars may hold centre stage for a while but in the end they are found out and their contributions forgotten”.

sadly i feel the article..has been edited
not enough detail..!..then this

""Maybe..the problem..is not the limitations..of GDP..
as a measuring stick-i.e...that it..underestimates the true costs..involved..in the making of a Big/Mac,or..the real value of trees""

this..could have been expanded on
this..relates to double entry?...[fraud]..much like
the numbers media parrots into our minds daily[..via uncertain math/graphic...taken..from either bi-book]

true values...""but by so obviously failing,.,to break incomes down into..earned incomes..and..(unearned)..natural resource/rents,..we don't expose those shysters..who continue..their wanton destruction of the planet?""

here i would mention..the gift of resources
new guenie [papua]..has gifted to some chinese entripineur
[to mine..*the deep sea vents..[and kill-off their unique biology]

before we even get a chance..to study them..!

or even discover them...turning whole biologies..into waste
[lol..THEN to have them..pumped back into the sea...[with the rest of the mining waste]..TREASON*

thats insane
tripple/book-entry

""As it's little known..that..'super profits'""
BASED ON..taxing exploiters..?

""(land and natural resource rents)
makeup..closeto 50%..of GDP..""'

see its all so confounding
needing to be cleared up

what..""super proffits..taxes/natural resource rents"?-

but you further rush on to
your next word limited thought

""""and these..are mainly captured by the 1%"""

the eliteist multinationalists..[corperate intrests?]
or those holding..the trusts...they hide in?

how many trusts..can one..[1%]..trustee control
via double-book keeping it..into another trust!

""what a great..follow-up that might make,""?

yeah that..would really be something
actually saying something...

WHAT can do now to stop it?

expose it..!
reveal the 1%..hiding behind the coorperate trust veil
not just the corperations that own it..

but which trusts..control it
and who gets the advantages..ill-begotten under it

no limited liability!
trusts must pay more tax..than the trustee's..[people who own it]

not paid in silver..or gold coin
much higher..real value..in it curerent gold/silver value
than its current face value

those..who get it..in coin
5000 silver dollars
is more than the 5000 dollar FACE-value

its in the..silver/real value
that true income..must be taxed

note its income tax
not wage tax..[wages isnt income]!

[income is money derived..WITH NO VALUE ADDING]
[rent/intrest/windfall company proffit..[corperate proffit]..

the dead can't work
thus..*added no value...tax their income

dead corperate trusts..must remain fully liable..
for their..past debts..or debts..made.."in their name"..[damages/recource rent/whatever]..

no more free lunches
no more taking /despoiling destroying it all

the more you take..the more you must pay
the more to break..the more you must repair

the more you use[ab-use]..the more you must pay
we all get a little bit for free..[as we together
we ALL..hold the claim to it all]

equal share to you
equal share to me

anymore..please explain
and pay the tax on it

no corperation [trust]..may outlive part of two lives
the time betweeb earning..it and growing up the trust it was formed SPECIFICLY for]

so you who have a lot
time to pay the rent

to the 99% relax
let the 1%..repay their looting despoiling plunder
via their death taxes[the firast thing to die is old trusts

kill the oldest ones first
then work up..to today..and tomorrow
BUT NOT THE DAY AFTER

no patent held by any trust..can outlive
one full life term..

[let the dead tend the living
not..keep the poor living living ever more poorly

or we eat the rich]..either their wealth..or their flesh
they cant keep both..[by what right should armelda marco's have trillions?]..stolen by the greedy raping the needy

expose enrons perversions
the enron contaigen trial evidence
was destroyed when building 7 fell down

conveniant wernt it
look into it

time to pay the piper
before society is sold for cents on the dollar

stop bailing out capitalists..for full values
tax em..for past crimes..colluding to bailout their mates
putting ever more burden on the people[living]..being raped by dead corperatised greed

Double line account keeping; allows us to privatise profits and socialise losses! At some point complexity always becomes fraud! Quote unquote.
One can't create a debt in nature, i.e., a grove of trees can't be harvested before they mature! Nor can we mortgage the future! It belongs to somebody else.
Those that claim that only private capital can create projects; need to study the Snowy Mountain's scheme; clearly one of the engineering marvels of the last century; and, I'd bet my house; there are at least a dozen other; even more cogent, income generating examples?
Sure we need entrepreneurs and the profit motive! The idea that the collective can work as well or better, is only ever pertinent or established, when they are partners sharing earned profits.
To that end, we would do well to return energy and capital to public ownership; and or, where they belong?
Thereby, allowing us to finance as many cooperates as we can carry; or, if you will, our own people and their better ideas!
And indeed, create a largely publicly owned clean energy sector, where the social outcomes far outweigh; any perceived private profits?
Incidentally, co-ops rarely founder; and, was the one business model that survived the Great depression largely intact; meaning, we ought to be looking for more cooperative models; or, cooperative capitalism comrade?
Not even more Ideological blinkers; or the lowest common denominator!
The economic miracle; that allowed a bankrupt and war-torn Japan to recover to become, for a while; that is, [until they apparently discovered Peter Hume's economic model and or mantras;] to become the world's second largest economy; was largely based on cooperation and social credit!

Spindoc!

#...however, what you ignorant low life just don’t understand is that this must be viewed through the prism of global citizenship, social equity and justice, as perceived by academia and progressive politics in you best interests…#

…Do I understand from this quote , you agree that Globalism and the free market will be “The Prism” through which we will view (Global) social equity, where all mountains and valleys will be levelled in time, to produce social equity and justice for all. Where all citizens of the world will live under cardboard boxes and exercise the Globalist right to private entrepreneurial enterprise and personal freedom; to free themselves of poverty by displays of intelligence and ability and plain hard work, as the hallmark to success, to be displayed in the village for others to aspire to: Sounds like “Soweto, SA-now” to me.

...No Taxation = no life! The problem with taxation is NOT taxation, the problem lies in its redistribution in the hands of the Political “CLASS”. Democracy has a need to eliminate the Political class from the scene with “Anarchist Revolution” as in the Middle East at present

Criticising double-entry book-keeping for not being able to express non-money values that it does not, cannot, and was never intended to express, is like criticizing an Excel spreadsheet because it can’t run a David Attenborough documentary.

But there is a more profound confusion operating here: in the demonstrably false idea that natural resources can be better conserved, or services better provided, by public than by private ownership.

Of course it is legitimate for the humanities to make a radical critique of the sciences, or of any form of social organization. But the fatal flaw that infests the contemporary humanities, is simply to ignore the fact that the principles of logic still exist and still apply. Not every claim to truth has equal validity. If your argument contains self-contradictions or infringes logic, crying “ideology” or criticizing economics will not defend it from being merely wrong. Contrary to popular academic neo-Marxoid beliefs, economics is not just a collection of arbitrary value judgments put forward to conceal the interests of a class of rugged exploiters. Even if it were, there is still a need to refute the arguments based on the logical implications that necessarily flow from the fact of human action when faced with scarce resources. It is not enough to personalize the argument to me, and repeat the catechism in favour of the state. There is a need to actually deal with the actual arguments – not mere misrepresentations of them.

If depletable natural resources belong to future people, then obviously those future people could never consume them either, but they in turn must hold them on trust for still future people. Such a theory amounts to asserting that no-one may consume depletable natural resources, ever.

Once we accept that they may be consumed, the question is how to balance the interests of present, as against the interests of future people in consuming the same resource. In market terms, the interest of *present* consumers is expressed to the owner through calculation of *profit*. The higher the profit, the more they value it.

(cont.)

The interest of *future* consumers is expressed through the calculation of *capital value*, for what is the capital value but the sum of expected future values, discounted for futurity [i.e. a present satisfaction is universally valued more highly than the same satisfaction in the future].

It is true that the market assessment of value has limitations and imperfections. The expected future value still falls to be calculated by the current generation. But this same problem inheres just as much in any other way the same question is to be answered; else we are back to the “no-one may use it, ever” problem. And there is no guarantee that the next generation will respect current fashions! Furthermore by participating in the discussion, one appropriates resources from nature, and therefore affirms the ethical principle of the priority of earlier users over later.

On the other hand, a scarce resource that is valuable to use now, may be of no value to future generations because they have invented or discovered better alternatives, as we did for caves and whale oil. In that case the present should get a *credit* as against future generations. As a matter of inter-generational equity, they should be entitled to use more not less.

How is public ownership to answer this question better? Obviously it can’t. It is faced with the same knowledge limitations as private ownership, but instead of being able to harness the knowledge of 6 billion people with an interest in to the next generation, it will harness the knowledge of committees of 300 or so – mostly sociopaths! – territorially limited, with time horizon to the next election, blind to economic calculation, and with no negative consequence for making the wrong decision!

Rhostry
People are free to form workers' co-operatives if they want. The reason they have never prospered in the market place is because workers don’t want to have to go without income during the period of production. The workers get paid now, regardless whether the finished product may not be sold for years; or may eventually be sold at a loss.

(cont.) The social function of the entrepreneur is to undertake that risk and that charge.

Government gets all its revenue by confiscating property from its private owners, so I don’t know how you got the idea that all capital is originally public.

“Those that claim that only private capital can create projects; need to study the Snowy Mountain's scheme; “
I’m not saying only private capital can “create projects”. I’m saying the government is unable to calculate whether it is providing too much or too little of a service; and whether those enormous funds would have been better spent providing other services. Private providers can figure it would by consulting profit or loss. Governments can’t. So you get the tragedy of the commons – the wastage of resources held in common.

For example, how do you know society would not have benefited more if, instead of the state confiscating the funds to pay for the Snowy, private capitalists had instead devoted them to developing renewable energy, or the cure for cancer, or any of the *thousands* of things the money would otherwise have been invested in?

The very fact that the money had to be confiscated for the state to get it, irrefutably proves that the owners valued their own use of it more than the state’s. And to the extent that their judgment was based on money calculation, it was because everyone else in the world valued it more highly in private hands than in the state’s.

All the case for public ownership keeps coming down to is “might is right” – arbitrary power – smash and grab – the philosophy that people and everything they own are nothing but chattels owned by the elite who direct the most aggressive party – the state.

Its advocates never logically answer – because they can’t – how they a) know or b) can prove that the state’s usage of scarce resources yields a higher value return to society than if they had simply not been taken and diverted in the first place.

No diver dan, that is NOT in quotes, it's a summation. Try reading the post instead if feeling the emotion.

spindoc...

...Then it appears to be a “Yes-But”. What you argue is a position of fracture between humanities and science; that Humanities assumes the right to guide “humanity” into the future, and not science; and that point is your “beef”. (I assume you are including economics into a role of science in the argument, otherwise there is no argument).

...I think yours is a superfluous argument, even though correct it may be. To the 65% of Australians holding no asset stake in their country outside of a “few bob” In a bank account, and a “dog biscuit” in the cupboard if they are lucky, then it’s all "academic" to the majority of Australians.

Continued...

spindoc...continued...

...What the majority of the 65% dispossessed Australians need, is a double entry book keeping on a social scale: A type of book keeping which identifies the culprits of the contagion of poverty, and increasing dispossession in this country, and balances the social damage inflicted on the jobless by the actions of a “Capital Strike” as industry moves freely across boarders in search of tax breaks, slave wage rates and Government welfare, under the umbrella of “Free Trade” and Globalism: leaving behind them a bewildered populace, gazing into the empty spaces, where once industry dwelt, and feeling the pain of guilt inflicted by academic lies that “wage rates” are the problem alone, and if not for the greed of the workers, this would not have happened.

...A guilt extended by the implication that their unemployment is now a burden on the welfare budget (a budget which under PH’s logic, should be abandoned as a further incentive towards self-sufficiency and entrepreneurial economic opportunity for the individual, to come-aboard the great ”Capitalist flying machine”: A social bookkeeping system which “columns” liars and Political cheats, those which turn a blind eye to corporate crime that robs and dispossesses taxpayers of billions in “salvation” funding, handed out gleefully by a compliant “Political class” as payment for a “Ransom” to Goldman Sachs and a multitude of official “Capitalist thieves” aligned as banking corporations, directly at the epicentre of cause and effect of the most calamitous financial meltdown since the great depression. The Political Class now sneeringly proffering their Capitalist hero, Malcolm Turnbull, an ex-member of the inner circle of “Goldman Sachs”, the institution of financial manipulation and the leading edge of private enterprise American plunder, sitting side by side with the American military machine, to fine tune the financial robbery of sovereign states and their resources, with “Macro-Economic” precision.( Do not elect this “Traitor”).

...Over to you “spindoctor”, I could carry on with the truth forever, of the “Capitalist Lie” and the farce of “Democracy” but will rest my case!

diver dan, your spirited and somewhat vexatious attack capitalism and democracy seems to have come staight from section seven of the socialist handbook,as no balanced mind could have produced such a tirade off the cuff. If you live in Australia we would have to ask the question WHY?

Anyway, as you say, you "will rest your case" to which I would say, that would be really nice.

Profit and loss accounting is usually undertaken to minimise tax; and reportedly costs the bottom line around 7% in compliance costs?
If I had my druthers; all that convoluted complexity, would be entirely jettisoned in favour of a simple expenditure tax?
Say 4.8% unavoidable and marginally variable to take into account a three speed economy?
Some book keeping and stock takes would still be needed; after all, we still need to understand where the profit is coming from; and, that's not beyond the ken of the average business person?
Someone may make a case for continuing complexity; and or, entirely unproductive parasitical behaviour; neither of which we need!

Just thought I would add my wife's quotable quote of the day:
"You can fool everyone including yourself, but not your book-keeper."

spindoc:


The connection between word and deed! Viz.,

Quote from OUG (above):

#...stop bailing out capitalists..for full values
tax em..for past crimes..colluding to bailout their mates
putting ever more burden on the people[living]..being raped by dead corperatised greed...#

#addendum#... and belligerent Corporations which in the normal order of (bookkeeping) events, would be declared "Bankrupt" - but for their Political connections!

I think the fight to restore "Democracy" to Australians is past overdue. Of course I am not alone in drawing that conclusion

the rock...[peter]hume has hewn into word/quote..""If depletable natural resources..belong to future people,""

no they belong to all
by way of them being held in perpituity on trust of the 'unborn'..out of respect for those who died[the spirits of our ancestors...and the unborn...are the trust...we the trustees[living]..must serve..to the benifit of our trust

elders/the unborn...""then obviously those future people
could never consume them either,.."""

as those before us didnt

""but they..in turn must hold them..on trust
for still future people.""'

as well from respect to us then dead

""Such a theory amounts to asserting..that no-one may consume depletable natural resources,..ever.""

see the joke oh wise peter
nuthing leaves here...[ever]
not even our bodies

consumed is a deciete in envisioning the truth
nuthing is lost...in refining..making it better

we do the hard work
DUN*..the hardwork of building and finding it
now its a matter of passing it on...to those as yet unborn

untained...[cleanesd of the vile
that saw it value added]...wars weponry
allowed even stronger metals..their refining..when the guns became plough shares or high tensile spirings..taller buildings...higher bridges...deeper tunnels..

we dun it all
but by deciets..that now see the 1%...about to steal it all

their trusts
in which they hide...
must die

""Once we accept..that they may be consumed,
the question is how to balance..the interests of present,
as against the interests of future people..in consuming the same resource.""

clay is not consumed..in making a pot
LOOK AT EVERYTHING WE NOW HAVE GOT
but are fast costing ever more FIAT debt...to keep

FIAT OWNED BY A FEW....
for them alone..to print..as much of it..*as THEY chose!

EVERY-thing ..to gain
nuthin really..left to lose
want more paper...here

inflation is theft..of true value
they stole our gold coin..then our silver
then our copper...and now its nickle silver or gold color[only]

but that gold is gone
their fiat promises live on..[but worse the fiat deb...
keeps growing...

and we can only get more money..from them*
[and a oath signed promise..to pay back ever more]
while they keep devaluing it deflating its value with inflation of the ammount

think of how much leverage
banks leveraged..from their govt gifts[bailouts] INTO...!

""In market terms,
the interest..of *present* consumers..is expressed
to the owner through calculation..of *profit*.""

bassed on debit book entry
of a debt owed

no
there in is the lie
[if you climb a mountain..is it worth going back-down the mountain
just to find a 'safe'..foothold..?

[no
were near there..unless we let bankers shut it down...
for want of a govt bond..[peoples debt promise..
to underwrite ever more...lol of their paper]

they own money!
they own credit....!

[they steal by inflation monetory values..
while holding fixed intrest debt]..anything lowerr than inflation means nuthin..when your debt only buys a postage stamp[inflation is theft]

the only cure they got..to clear the debt...
if it was really debt..[not crime]
but its crime

ursury is a crime
adulterating value..is the adultery of which the laws speak
[plus the adulteration of the laws]

""The higher the profit,
the more..they value it.""

the more they devalue our values
they value less than super proffiteering values

the less they worked..to get it
the more they ever got...[trusts]

hence they conned the worker..what built it
out of his values..his work created..
that they now nearly have subverted

via a lie
of a corperate

a..*[trust]
dead paper fiction..[authority/licence]
to steal without thinking about it..cause
your as dead as the dead trust you served

pre-served
[no signature..can outlive
*the signer's living licence]