Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Benjamin Franklin Defends Paper Money

Benjamin Franklin wrote about the value of paper money in the 1740s and defended paper money in Parliament against a Hostile Parliament during is mission to Parliament.

Benjamin Franklin vigorously defended the right of the colonies to issue their own script. He may never told Parliament the following in a letter, but this probably represents what he said during hearings. Maybe away from the halls.

"In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it to pay the government's approved expenses and charities" [Possibly Apocryphal but true]

The quote is apocryphal according to Gary North, but it is a summary of things that Benjamin Franklin had actually said in Book form during his youthful days with the Philadelphia Junto. Gary North Alleges he didn't say it to Parliament and claims it can't be verified but what can be verified is that Benjamin Franklin literally, wrote a book on the subject that explained exactly how script money can be used to promote and regulate commerce.

See:
Franklin As Modern Money Advocate
Benjamin Franklin and Paper money

A Collaborative Money System

Benjamin Franklin setup printing presses in Post Offices, setup paper money systems for an number of colonies and printed paper money. So what he did say was that the reasons for rebellion owed:

"To a concurrence of causes: the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions." [bartleby]

Franklin did his greatest work before the revolution. By the time that the constitution was being written, he was old, tired and worn out. I believe both Hamilton and Franklin sought a collaborative system where the Feds should possess the money power and share it with the states. Had they followed Franklin's ideas they would have succeeded. Franklin's ideas were amazingly similar to those of Irving Fisher, and his Postal Banking could easily have been integrated into the Federal system Franklin had built. Paper money, according to the Fisher/Franklin system is a kind of script issued against coin and taxation obligations. Fisher's schema would have required it has to be circulated or lose value and it would get retired when paid for "public debts." Franklin had already noted that such script money, when issued locally, was quite effective.

Nationalizing/Socializing Private Debt

The Authors of the Constitution started with Franklin's schema but dumped it based on their admiration for the power of the British Central Bank. Hamilton openly admired and wanted to imitate this bank. His allies: Robert Morris, Gouvernier Morris and "monied men" of the country also admired the British System. They rejected Franklin's work, Overtly based on the successful counterfeiting of it by the British, and the resulting inflation. But covertly they admired the British System and wanted banking privatized, so they could make money from banking. Robert Morris was a privateer. A Privatized money system allows the laundering of money. He would speculate with investors on land, and lose his shirt when his system collapsed.

The Risks of Privateered Money

Franklin feared making his paper money a national currency due to issues with pushing private debt onto the general public. This fear has been realized with the federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has regularly nationalized (socialized) the private debt of irresponsible and even criminal bankers, transferring that risk to inflation or risk of economic collapse. The founders and early politicians fought between having a centralized single national bank monopoly or State banks holding State Debts. But both schemas were based on the risk of banking nominally backed by reserves of gold or silver. Both ignored Franklin's ideas. These schemes meant nationalizing private debt and the general economy assuming the risk, sometimes. Or grifting private banks where insiders would abscond as loot, with the reserves and the local bank would shut it's doors unable to pay back depositors. The result of ignoring Franklin (and moderns ignoring Fisher) was a cycle of private debt creation and economic collapse.

Franklin's original scheme was analogous to the scheme Irving Fisher would advance nearly 200 years later, see:

Irving Fisher and Stamp Script
Postal Banking Stamp Scripts and Fixing our Economic System

Even so but that early battle was used by privateers to erase that prospect and substitute land based notes with zero interest for private money and money lent into existence. The result was that the money power was privatized and put in the hands of privateers; i.e. bankers.

Then they used these early fights to strip the money power from the Federal Government. The result was so egregious that banks

Irving Fisher was a pioneer in modern money theorizing with his Stamp Script Ideas (See: Irving Fisher Post). He seems to have been the first to thoroughly do the math. Hamilton saw "bank paper" (paper money) as a necessary adjunct to coins and said:

"...it may be observed, that the inconvenience of transporting ... is sufficiently great to induce a preference of bank paper..." [Hamilton/Money]

However, if you want to find a classical writer who understood accounting money (debt based paper money) it was Benjamin Franklin. This post is a follow on to: Franklin As a Modern Money Advocate:

Hamilton and his compatriots, especially Governeur and Robert Morris, were enamored about the value of Central Banking British Style. Hamilton admired the Bank of England. Ostensibly because of the way it protected the British Economy and provided investment to the country. He valued Paper money as an expedient. He would monetize the State Debts in order to inflate the economy. This produced both a period of prosperity where the Country could balance its' books and a recession which sent Robert Morris to Debtor Prison and probably contributed to his death.

Even so, Hamilton had liked Franklin's idea at one time. Just Franklin and Hamilton were vetoed by the rest of the founders. But in 1781, Hamilton had said:

"By admitting landed security as a part of the bank stock, while we establish solid funds for the money emitted, we at the same time supply the defect of specie, and we give a strong inducement to moneyed men to advance their money" [Hamilton1781]

If they'd followed Hamilton's 1781 plan successfully (perhaps caught the British counterfeiters), things would have been very different, as one of the reasons for the crash of 1799 and the big war between State versus Federal Banking interests was him not applying Franklin's ideas in the 1790s when they actually implemented a National Bank. Like Irving Fisher the money would have been local, receivable for debts public and private, and harder to counterfeit if locally controlled.

A Stable Economy is a Matter of National Security

Franklin had warned that Parliament, by denying local sovereignty (the principle of subsidiarity) to the Colonists, were defeating their own interest in raising revenues. As Franklin said:

"The Stamp Act says we shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such and such sums; and thus it is intended to extort our money from us or ruin us by the consequence of refusing to pay it." [bartleby]

Vacuuming Wealth

We are in an analogous situation between the States and the Federal Government in this day. Because we created the Federal Reserve and separated the public debt of the Several States united from them individually, the States have to borrow money at interest for infrastructure and other purposes. This means that much of the country is starved of wealth and forced to borrow at interest. The objection of the colonies to "taxation without representation" was also an opposition to one way flow of wealth and resources. While Quid Pro Quo relationships are rightly illegal when for Private Separate Advantage, they are necessary to exercise the principles of "commonwealth" and comity. A federation lives on mutual relationships. The fact that the Federal Reserve serves private banking is one reason behind this.

The current system vacuums wealth to central powers.

Federal principles of good government require that money not be vacuumed to a central power. The Tea Acts and Stamp acts were designed to vacuum wealth from the British Colonies. The Tea Act was designed to keep the East India Company solvent by giving it a monopoly on trade with East India (the source of Tea). The Stamp Act was designed to suck up any money the Colonies had, and was coupled with prohibitions on Paper money. If our country had not gotten sovereign power over its money supply we would look like India did after the East India Company was thru with Bengal; destroyed. Our current system isn't fair to anyone. The fact that that sovereign power is privatized to the Federal Reserve means that we are no longer sovereign over our credit money. We need to reassert control over it.

More on Franklin:
Franklin As Modern Money Advocate
http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/09/benjamin-franklin-and-paper-money.html
[bartleby]
Related Posts:
https://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2017/12/an-ideology-of-piratical-banking.html
https://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2017/07/greshams-law-as-tool-of-regulation.html

This continues a discussion I started a long time ago.

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Kali Marching

Refrain:
Burning Burning Churning Churning
Fires rise into the night
Smoke and Flame, Dust and soot spreading
Rising into the sky!
 
I saw a vision of Kali Marching!
Marching crowds, possessed by Kali!
You see people marching.
They grow Six Arms!
You may see wild people
I see emanations of Kali!
 

He's Back! – Bernie Sanders and the Subversion of the Progressive Movement

Bernie Sanders and the subversion of the Democratic Party

Really I'd like to believe that Bernie has reformed. After all, he did sign the indivisible pledge to support the winner of the primaries. Indeed, I've signed the indivisible general pledge. But then he made the same pledge in 2015. He also appears to me to have broken it already. That time orally. This time in writing. I want to keep this post within the boundaries of Indivisible's pledge to:

“We'll make the primary election about our hopes for the future, and a robust debate of values, vision and the contest of ideas. We’ll remain grounded in our shared values, even if we support different candidates.” [Indivisible]

At this point I have to remind people that Bernie is not a Democrat, and that his idea of keeping the Indivisible pledge is to complain about his targets breaking it. Back in 2015:

Counterpunch, no friend to Democrats described Bernie's early performance:

“Bernie has no plans to humiliate Hillary. So far he has been an accidental agent of her anxiety and he intends to keep it that way. Bernie refuses to go negative and pledges to support the eventual nominee of the party, that is Hillary. This restraint has earned the senator the patronizing plaudits of Rachel Maddow and the Hipster Chorus at MS-DNC.”[Counterpunch]

Indeed in July 2015 I was still impressed by what Bernie did. He made a big deal about not making a big deal about Hillary's emails. But he didn't sustain it. Once things got rolling, Bernie and his army Russian and American Trolls went very negative, did everything they could to humiliate Hillary, lied about her, and the entire Democratic Party. So I have trouble believing the scorpion won't sting again. Indeed he's already at it. His followers are already sharing copies of videos and lies produced about her in 2015-2016, and making similar claims about most of his rivals this time around. By July 2016 I was despising him. By July 2017 I had seen all the evidence I needed to see to not want him in Congress, much less running for President.

Related Posts:
Post Mortem
Turning "our Revolution" into Piqueteros
Bernie Sanders and Russian Compromat
When Lefties Betray the Middle and Elect Righties
Russian Agents, Gaslighting, Spun News and Ongoing Active Measures
Campaign related Posts
Lakoff and Building a Party that Can Be All it Can Be!
Winning Doesn't Always mean Getting Elected
In Order for All Lives to Matter Black Lives Must Matter
What Really Happened With Hillary Care
Why Social Programs are Investment and not a Burden
What Bernie is Doing Right
The Stop Hilary Movement March 2016
The Trouble with Bernie Sanders II
The Trouble with Bernie Sanders Final 2016/06
The Difference between a Prophet or a Leader and a Critic
How I'd like to See Bernie's Campaign End
Greg Palast and the Busters kick the Facts in the Face
Transformation or Half Loaves
Outside Agitators and the Black Lives Movement

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Eros vs Agape

Eros is the kind of love that propagates the species. It is also a dangerous kind of love. The greeks had a list of types of love:

  1. Agape — Unconditional Love. First, we have agape love. ...
  2. Eros — Romanic Love. Eros is named after the Greek god of love and fertility. ...
  3. Philia — Affectionate Love. ...
  4. Philautia — Self-love. ...
  5. Storge — Familiar Love. ...
  6. Pragma — Enduring Love. ...
  7. Ludus — Playful Love. ...
  8. Mania — Obsessive Love.
  9. https://lonerwolf.com/different-types-of-love/

When Biden gives a hug, that is Philia not eros. When Trump grabs someone by the kitty cat that is eros at work.

The Empire always strikes back

The trouble with reform is that reform only endures only if the people who want reform are:

  • unanimous;
  • adamant;
  • Remain happy enough with the change that the new policies are a new norm.

Then and only then, while those attributes remain, the reforms can endure.

Unfortunately, "The Empire Always Strikes back" which is a way to say that there are always people with a criminal spirit, who see anything that benefits people as a target for grifting. And they have a panoply of ways of trying to usurp or convert resources to their own benefit.

These methods range from profiteering as subcontractors or suppliers, to privatizing the management/ownership of services and resources, to using legislation/regulation to break them so they can privatize them. If a system doesn't benefit everybody, those who want the resources it uses will demonize it. Making those who don't benefit feel jealous, while making those who benefit from the resource feel its not delivering for them.

These are tried and true tactics. And they are the reason that every progress in human history has been followed by massive effort to corrupt or even reverse that progress. Those who succumb to the darkside of human nature predate or parasitize on any services or resources they can get hold of.

Some people get their power, fame and influence from breaking things. Politicians make their careers either promising better goods and services for their constituents or by claiming their constituents are poorly served. Virtuous politicians ensure that the system delivers needed goods and services. Criminal (vicious) politicians ensure that their patrons get served at the expense of everyone else.

One thing that is certain. If something works someone will try to break it. If we as humans advance, other humans will jealously try to roll those advances back. It is an axiom, not literal, that "The Empire always strikes back." Star Wars is a modern myths. But the reality of the (figurative darkside is real.

We assume that when we work with people that they share our values and goals. Sometimes that assumption is false. It makes it hard to negotiate life and politics.

Monday, April 1, 2019

What happened with the Mueller Investigation

Barr Doing a Coverup

I've been following the Russia Investigation. It is really complicated. It is not just about Russia. It is also about Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, the countries of the former Soviet Union, Israel, China, and other countries. It involves possible espionage by high officials, kompromat (blackmail/bribes), election hacking and interference by other countries, "emoluments" and corruption.

And a massive Cover Up Conspiracy. Apparently led by William Barr! Mueller's Prosecutors kept mum and didn't leak. But Barr's outrageous summary has them protesting:

“Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-mueller-report.html

Sunday, March 24, 2019

Barr Versus Mueller

Model Post

For those of you with Twitter. Seth Abramson notes about the report:

“The already-infamous "Barr Letter" is a deeply dishonest and misleading document that richly deserves methodical public evisceration by committed journalists. So I hope you'll read on and retweet this "live" dismantling of the Trump-Russia probe's worst political hitjob.”

Note, since I published this in March 2019, we've gotten so much more information on just how misleading and dishonest Barr's Summary was.