Very few people seem to be aware of the fact that the US constitution
permits the government to literally coin money without having to borrow
it from their central bank. (I know this and I am not even an American.)
Such money would correspond to what I termed an I-Thank-You note.
Harry
----- Original Message -----
From: Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, October 27, 2008 9:05 pm Subject: RE: RE: [Vo]:IOUs and ITUs > Going to bed soon. I am just trying to find out about the science of> economics or whether it is one at all. Science matures and old
> stuff is not
> contested (unless something radical comes along), it has an across
> the board
> consensus. Things like economics and social science don't seem to
> "pass go",
> fundamental concepts seem always up for endless discussion. I
> guess that
> doesn't make it science. At the frontiers of science there is lots of
> discussion is CF real or bad experimentation, is climate change
> computermodel noise or something real? In time these resolve
> themselves.
> It seems every common-sense concept in economics is dismissed as old
> fashioned, naïve or unenlightened. In the struggle a beginner has to
> understand concepts, all the fundamental laws are still up for grabs.
>
> Thus concepts like money holding value by being exactly
> interchangeable with
> assets stored in a bank is eroded away into shouting matches on
> which side
> of the political fence one lies. Concepts that money alone should
> be able to
> communicate information about supply and demand of goods and that
> inflationbeing a global effect (across the whole economy) must
> somehow wipe out the
> meaning of that information means that is monetarism and that is
> nailingyour colours to the mast.
>
>
> It seems between the closed circulation of the heart pumping blood
> and the
> muscles receiving the life flowing energy that the fashion is to cause
> diversions in the arteries, take the blood out, then maybe give it
> back at
> some time in the future, bleed another body or dilute with water
> to keep the
> apparent volume up. Then they wonder why the organism(s) die; all
> becausethe fundamental concept of continuity of the blood is not
> seen as a concept
> people will agree upon. Furthermore, the organism manages its own
> bloodsupply quite organically - increasing, automatically, blood
> volume when it
> is energetic, lowering it when there is less demand and it is
> lethargic.
> It seems that in this analogy a nurse is frantically running
> between sick
> patients bleeding some to infuse into others, letting some die
> momentarilyto be revived in the nick of time or letting others
> have diluted blood. The
> result seems to be that each patient never leaves the hospital
> because they
> are now all dependent on the nurse. The nurse has taken on all the
> autonomicfunctions of the patients, badly.
>
> The actual blood in the veins and arteries is called M0
> The blood in very vascular and compressible organs + MO is M1
>
> Then the nurse kicks in and then the definitions go all high order
> and a bit
> screwy
>
> M2 is M1 + the fraction of blood obtained from another patient
> M3 is M2 + the diluted blood made from other patients that can be
> made in 1
> hour and promised to all the patients
> M4 is M3 plus blood from other wards or from her new machine which
> is "nurse
> backed blood securities" which makes blood out of thin air. The nurse
> insists she can make all the patients better, she controls the
> blood bank.
>
> The patient's blood M0 and M1 seems to be well controlled by his
> body which
> knows him and responds to his needs of growth or lethargy but the
> nurseinsists that the true measure of the health of the patients
> is given by M3
> or perhaps M4 (which is blood taken from another ward or the thin air
> machine). The nurse is in league with other nurses in different
> wards. They
> are in the habit of running several wards (something called the
> Inter Nurse
> Fellowship) and promise the people that there is always enough
> quality real
> blood and they can always make it.
>
> Then several scruffy orderlies see what the nurse is doing and
> borrow some
> of the machine made blood from the nurse, thicken it with tomato
> sauce and
> offer it to the patients too, on condition that they get some of the
> patient's real blood back from their leg, tomorrow (the leg is
> well looked
> after, the rest of the body rots). Sometimes they bailout the
> nurse, most
> times the nurse bails out the orderlies and makes a public scene
> of them
> saying, "they are not professional nurses and are the cause of the
> illnessin the wards". Both orderlies and nurses seem to be doing
> the same kind of
> thing. The scruffy orderlies think only of themselves, whilst the
> nursesfeel born to this duty and feel good about themselves.
>
> A patient requests some quality blood from the orderlies at first
> port of
> call to get on with his life. The orderlies gave the patient a catch22
> 'we'll give you (fake) blood when you are capable of making
> quality blood'.
> Damn thing was this patient was the most likely to make real
> quality blood
> in the long term and then be a donor. Orderlies don't think long term.
>
> Sometimes a patient actually thrives on the blood from the blood
> machine and
> manages to leave the hospital. Nobody knew why this happened as he
> had to
> fill in several forms and know the right people to get this blood
> whilstdying from anaemia.
>
> The nurse makes a big thing about this success and says you need
> nurses. The
> orderlies now like the healthy patient and ask to borrow from the
> patientand show him the tomato sauce trick. The ex-patient sees
> how the orderlies
> have built up a real blood bank for their retirement and given the
> veryvoluminous toxic blood back to the nurses to somehow purify
> and put back
> into circulation.
>
> Both nurses and orderlies feel fine because the M3 figure was fine
> for a few
> years despite an honest nurse complaining about irrational
> exuberance with
> the blood dilution and the blood making machine.
>
> Suddenly many patients die and they begin to realise that M1 is
> the real
> blood although they forgot that long ago. You've really done it
> this time
> shriek the nurses to the orderlies! Nurses come to the rescue and
> take all
> the toxic blood in one fell swoop, say a few incantations and
> crank up the
> blood-making-out-of-thin-air-machine. The orderlies are given some
> quality"liquidity" blood which they promptly hide.
>
> The patients are going to be very anaemic for a few years.
>
> It's late. I'm tired and vague and need to think about this.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 27 October 2008 23:18
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: RE: [Vo]:IOUs and ITUs
>
>
> Prior to the 20th century (from records dating back to about 1800)
> therewere periods of inflation followed by periods of deflation.
>
> Harry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Monday, October 27, 2008 6:47 pm
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:IOUs and ITUs
>
> > Concepts such as money supply, paper money, gold standard,
> > inflation and
> > government borrowing apply here.
> >
> > Monetarists say that inflation didn't exist before paper money
> and
> > big 20
> > century government spending.
> >
> > How should a central bank manage money supply and the interest
> > rate? How
> > independent should it be from government control? Are they
> merely
> > the minter
> > of coins, the bank of banks or the government's banker?
> >
> > Is modern wild credit fashion just a natural inevitable
> consequence of
> > valueless money from the fashion for big government spending?
> > Government did
> > it so why shouldn't joe public? We live by example.
> >
> > I don't know enough history and economics nor have the benefit
> of
> > experienceof living through several economic cycles in my adult
> > life. When last did
> > 'you never had it so good' then so bad.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 27 October 2008 21:43
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: [Vo]:IOUs and ITUs
> >
> >
> > Some terms defined:
> > IUO is an I-Owe-You
> > An IOU is given for what *will be* produced. I will define this
> as
> > puredebt.
> >
> > ITU is an I-Thank-You.
> > An ITU is given for what *has been* produced. I will call this pure
> > credit. This is in contrast with credit derived from the
> creation
> > debt,which is consistent with a banker's conception of credit. A
> > good portion
> > of wages is derived from debt, so a wage is not really a pure
> > source of
> > credit.
> >
> > Because the current monetary system is debt-driven, it fails to
> > recognize the value and significance of ITUs. This has resulted in
> > overproduction and pointless consumption.
> >
> > Harry
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
