smackmacdougle:  As long as voters want welfare for themselves or because they believe it’s the right thing to do, law givers want legal tender bank credits rather than money enabling themselves magically to make that welfare appear without any visible pain and visible trade-offs.

To keep the welfare-driven system going, bankers must be bailed out when things go sour as bankers are the source of that legal tender bank credits.

If you don’t like this scheme, convince your do-gooding, meddling neighbors who scream at every claim of affront there ought to be a law to stop supporting welfare schemes. If you want to rid the orchard of rot, you must strike at the root.

Me:  Most ungracious and macro-economically faulty thinking and non-observing. By the way, have you bothered to look at the cost accounting statistics of even one business for total individual incomes and total costs/prices yet? Considered that this is the case with every enterprise still a going concern, and then do the calculus for their relationship? …..didn’t think so.

smackmacdougle:  Take your big-tent, mental illness roadshow elsewhere, seriously.

Go ask your mom, dad, or siblings, if you have any, if it is prudent to pester others by begging for their attention with freak show comments.

You should realize that you’re suffering from something with your incessant babbling over C.H. Douglas and cost accounting.

For months, I’ve been quite tolerant of you. Now, I am telling you to move along.

I will never have any interest in anything that you write. For you to press would reveal your craziness.

Me:  Ad hominem!!!! From your posts you are the one who has a self control problem, and not just with me …and that is very plain to see.

smackmacdougle:  It’s not ad hominem. It’s clear that you have something wrong, whether it is bipolar, schizophrenia or OCD.

I’ve asked you already awhile ago to refrain from directing comment toward me.

Please, stop. For yourself, stop. It’s in your better interest.

Me:  If there is one thing less accurate than current macro-economic theory…it is long distance internet psycho-analysis.

smackmacdougle:   Well, if I am wrong, man up and move along.

If you have control of your faculties you ought to have the strength to ignore me and whatever I write.

Either way, move along.

Me:  I like freedom…so I think I’ll be free to post to whomever I so choose. However, for now I think Ill give you an opportunity to relax.

crysangle responding to smackmacdougle:  Partly right. Money as legal tender was also abused widely by fixing inter metal exchange rates. That only ‘worked’ under the enforcing jurisdiction, internationally gold and silver content alone were traded. The ‘bank credits’ ( low base metal redenominated currency) in that case were created via the government legislative power, and they certainly did not have welfare as priority. Their purpose was to maintain empire and rulers first – theft by those that control the process, though surely the efforts would have been washed with some high ideals and concessions.

What I am telling you is that those who control the process hold responsibility. Today it is government and banking.

Do people go along with it? Sure, for welfare of all kinds ( corporate, social, military) , because they fear other, because it is all they have known.

To blame social welfare alone is incorrect. In the past the theft was much more open, all happened by force and legislature. The modern sleight of hand is enabled by banking in combination with legislature.

If you want to solve this a return to sound currency will show every bad decision as it happens, in real time. There is space for bankers and their credit, there always has been, it would be a sideline of activity that fails or succeeds as it does. When it fails people will have to watch the legislature doesn’t chase after their real money to support the pyramid they are tempted to rely on.

So it is up to people to educate themselves first, they may then decide what system they find true, they may invest in banking, be charitable in welfare, or simply stand their own ground. It is what they do in a costly roundabout and confused way nowadays, getting ripped off as they go.

Transparency, returning decision and responsibility to its source, is primordial. If we do not have that as a base, then we live an improvisation that is misguided, where generosity becomes no more than a profit token.

When current good morality has been bankrupted by its pseudo-owners, it will return to overthrow them, and those that backed them.

 Me:  

A much more nuanced and hence correct analysis. And it would be completely correct if it were not for the fact that the macro-economy tends toward disequilibrium not JUST because of government, but even more deeply and systemically because the rate of flow of total costs always tends to exceed the rate of flow of individual incomes simultaneously created and actually available to liquidate those costs/prices. This necessitates continuous borrowing in order to keep the system’s nose above water….until it collapses from the inability to service the debt. Keynesian stimulus actually has the effect of disguising this process via continuous “extending and pretending”. The crisis occurred in 2008 after greed and the ideology of equilibrium resulted in an unsustainable frequency uptick of disequilibrium via a paroxysm of speculation, derivative delirium and re-hypothecation in the repo markets that broke the spell of that ideology.

Theories fall on what they fail to see or ignore due to previous orthodoxy. In this case it was the Social Credit insight regarding the disequilibrium of total costs/prices and total individual income.