Money as value vs money as debt
I'd planned to write a long post about it but guess what I found:
The reading in the link is "legalenglish" so be warned.
So anything I'd like to say is said. Our current money is nothing but debt, it is not value. If you tender money against something of value, this is the "value". Now imagine a world or money as value. the money would have some inscript like.
The holder has the right to get 4 pigs for this note. Then money is value not debt. it would not make a difference for the payer to either give something else but 4 pigs or the 4 pigs. But in our system if you want to "get" something for a bank note, you just will get "another" bank note. So you see there is nothing behind the money.
Now wher's the sham? The sham is that the central banks issue this promise. And they can and accept bonds of states/governments as "security" to issue more "notes". Now we have an instrument of unlimited generation of "debt" (well they (the deeldefs) call it money)) but you see it's a straight lie. The states issues bonds which can (and unfortunatly are accepted as security) and new notes of debt are issued. So government issues bonds for 100 ME, Fed accepts and issues another 100 ME "money" and so debts are paid with "debs".
You still do not see the sham? Well let's go further, This debt has to be accepted at straight value form everyone living in that country. And so you give something of value (e.g a house) and get a debt certificate in advance. Now imagine a world in which money is value. So let's assume money can be redeemed in precious metals. E.g 1 g of Gold is 1 ME. So if you house costs 1000 ME you can get a kilogram of gold instead. But this is a real value. No money can created which is not redeemable in gold. And so one could ask government to pay back bonds in Gold. And government can just pay Gold it has. It can not issue a bond and the Gold suddenly come into existence. This is what currently is not done.
The state can issue as much money (as debt) as it likes. If they would not have the "money" straight. The way would be, issue a bond, have it bought by the Central bank and "voila" money is there.
It's clear what money defrauders prefer. And so they do in every country of this world. The promise money but in fact this money is debt. It just says "trust us we give you something in return for your values". That's the biggest sham in the whole history of men. There's not bigger crime than issuing money as debt as make this debt a legal payment. It always will end in tears and misery. Because there is not limit to inflate money supply. But the governments are the first getting this "more" money and they get "real" values in return. The one givin away this "real" value, suddenly will see. Well the promise does not hold, just wait a yeare and most of the time you won't get back the same value as you had given a year before.
This inflation of the money supply, devaluates each unit of the currency and you can buy less "real" goods than before. This is than the "saying" of raising prices. Well no the prices of the goods do not change. If I give you a tomato today and you promise to give back a tomato next year. Then we are talking about value against value. Now with fiat-money and unlimited inflation of the money suppl y(potentially, but sure if the end is near). I would receive let's say 1 MU for the the tomato.
Now next year I have to give you a tomato. With an inflated money supply and assuming that everything else stays equal. I have to pay for the tomato in a year 1 Mu + what is needed to balance the devaluated money units.
So the only "honest" way is having money as value. Notes must bear a note which simply states. This note will give xy grams of (whatever).
I'd just like to see money as value, but for those who think the promises of governments are sound can use there money as debt. Why we do not get that option is probably all too obvious.....