Conspiracy: Theory or Fact
Two or more people planning anything is a conspiracy. Each person involved is aware of the fact. That fact may be logically deduced from evidence, when such evidence exists. Not all conspiracies are criminal, or secret. A surprise party is a conspiracy, openly revealed.
Conspiracy theories are primarily created by law enforcement to direct search for evidence, by observers or those affected for similar reasons, and by conspirators to distract from their actions/crimes/complicity.
Of course I’m most concerned with the factual conspiracy of Economics in Academia. The foundational enterprise of human trade is money creation. Note the cost of money creation is variable, by design, based on subjective valuation by oligarchs at a given time, theoretical, faith based. Like any trade good. But money is not a trade good, it has no intrinsic value. The only functional definition of money is an option to purchase human labor/produce/property. That’s all anyone can do with it, trade with other humans for their stuff conveniently without arranging a barter exchange. That’s an exchange of trade goods with intrinsic value. Economists will sometimes assert money is a neutral trade medium, which based on the variable subjective cost and valuation is a lie. Since they get together and peer review their theories, conspire to deceive.
The volume of literature theorizing about money without acknowledging the functional definition is tremendous and stretches back centuries. If you read the theory that prices rise to consume all available money, considering the source, it reads like an excuse to hoard all the gold in vault instead of minting more money. That, because gold is not money, gold is a trade good.
The problem was allowing humans to hold the gold until it could be recovered with taxation. (that’s why monarchs picture was on the money, the money was property of State) Humans had a nasty habit of melting the gold to make other things. Because gold is a trade good.
When western governments learned of China’s Emperor paying for State purchases with fiat money, options to purchase human labor in the form of claim notes for measures of trade goods, they adopted the practice. They were able to hoard gold and demand an income for owning it. Fiat money backed by gold could be borrowed from oligarchs for an option fee. The factual conspiracy to create more money than gold is well documented, and eventually ended the illusory practice when Nixon was forced to abandon the gold standard. The only current value of fiat money is our willingness to accept it in exchange for our labors, it’s nothing other than an option to purchase human labor/produce/property. But we don’t get paid our option fees as owners of the commodity.
The brilliant Academic Economists, through peer review, have conspired to present a tremendous volume of literature to convince humanity that fiat money is anything other than what it is, an option to purchase human labor, unethically created, where our rightful option fees are usurped by Wealth with the authority of State. Peer review establishes conspiracy, false representation demonstrates intent. Unless they’re just that stupid, or driven insane by their greed? Either way, it’s a false representation, theft, and graft, factually.
Monetary system is global human labor futures market. State asserts ownership of access to human labor, licenses that ownership to Central Bankers who sell options to purchase human labor to their friends as State currency. For complex and absurd contrived notions, no good reason, the friends of Central Bankers, Wealth, then buys sovereign debt for a profit and has State force humanity to make the payments on that money for Wealth with our taxes in debt service, along with a bonus to finance human activity at their whim. The structure created by many, in a factual conspiracy. It’s not a naturally occurring structure…
The macro state of the global economic system is clear from WEF estimate of $255 trillion in existence with over $200 trillion in bond market. Theoretically should be equal, if Nations created bonds to back their currency creation to validate the value. Appears that when debt is written off in bankruptcies, the money persists in the system without corresponding debt… In any case, the vast majority of money in existence is demanding the largest stream of income on the planet, the interest paid on global sovereign debt to Wealth by humanity for no good reason.
That’s not an ethical global human labor futures market. Analogous frozen orange juice futures market would have Central Bank sell options to purchase frozen orange juice to their friends, borrow back the options from their friends, claim the frozen orange juice and tax the orange juice producers. State has no more right to sell options to purchase human labor than it has to sell options to purchase frozen orange juice. State has no right to pay for State purchases with options to purchase human labor created without our express informed consent and compensation. Fact, not theory.
Economics supports a complex structure of money creation based on lies to distract from the foundational inequity. The structure is deliberately unstable to provide maximum confusion and opportunity for manipulation. A deliberately unstable system requires controls to stabilize, those controls enable manipulation.
If not a centuries old factual conspiracy to economically enslave humanity to Wealth with the force of State, it has to be the result of madness. Because it exists and is the result of centuries of ongoing factual conspiracy.
Perhaps observing an ethical global human labor futures market will provide clarity?
Since monetary system is global human labor futures market and the inequity is usurpation of our rightful option fees for participating, options to purchase human labor must be borrowed into existence from humanity and the fees paid equally to each adult human being on the planet by contract. The simplicity of an ethical structure demonstrates the effort involved in contriving the current unethical structure. Our existing international banking system designed by the most untrustworthy and devious people on the planet to protect themselves from each other is transformed into an ethical global human labor futures market with a simple rule of inclusion for international banking regulation: All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual local social contract.
Fixing the value of a Share at $1,000,000 USD equivalent and the sovereign rate at 1.25% per annum establishes a stable, sustainable, regenerative, inclusive, abundant, and ethical global economic system with mathematical certainty. All money will then have the precise convenience value of using 1.25% per annum options to purchase human labor instead of barter, mathematically distinct from money created at any other rate. The value of a self referential mathematical function can’t be affected by fluctuations in the cost or valuation of any other thing. We will know regardless what currency is in hand, it was created for secure investment and someone somewhere is paying 1.25% per annum on it we each share equally. That’s ideal money; a fixed unit of cost for planning, stable store of value for saving, with voluntary global acceptance for maximum utility, and nothing else.
If these brilliant Economists wanted to create a neutral, fixed value, globally fungible trade medium, why wouldn’t they just do that? With a sixty word rule of inclusion for the existing international banking system? For a significantly reduced global cost of money creation paid ethically to humanity, we get an otherwise cost free global basic income and ideal money.
Money loses its coercive property. When existing global sovereign debt is repaid with new fixed value money, Wealth will have over $200 trillion to save or reinvest in something else, with over $6 quadrillion of 1.25% per annum credit readily available locally, globally, for secure investment with local fiduciary oversight. All human needs can be sustainably financed locally, globally, without any of Wealth’s accumulation. That seems to be sufficient motivation to conspire against humanity.
The fact that Economists refuse to honestly and logically address the foundational inequity demonstrates to me their complicity, though, proud ignorance and insanity could be alternate motivation. In over a decade no Economist has answered the question: “Can you provide a moral and ethical justification for the current process of money creation?” I suspected they realized the rhetorical nature of the question because there is none, accounting for their lack of response. Then Karl Widerquist the Georgetown Economics Professor and UBI advocate said the question was incoherent, along with associated questions he didn’t want to answer. He can’t imagine why the foundational enterprise of human trade should be moral or ethical, or he’s being deliberately obtuse. After reading the rule, the excuse of ignorance is invalid. After a career of academic inquiry, there’s little excuse for him to overlook something so obvious.
For over nine years this particular Economist has disregarded the inevitable and most likely effects of adopting the rule of inclusion, providing logical fallacy and dismissal in the face of math, logic, and ethics. Referring to his moderation of the r/BasicIncome bit of Reddit, and his time heading BIEN, where I’m a member, and have never been provided voting materials as required by their charter. They finally banned me from that subreddit, after my bans from r/BasicIncomeOrg for asking the same questions, and from r/ScottSantens preemptively, because he had long since blocked the questions. They all refuse to honestly acknowledge the validity, ethical basis, and functional improvement provided by the rule of inclusion. Won’t address it or the inevitable or most likely effects of adopting the rule in any way. In that nine years no one provided logical argument against adopting the rule, logical dispute of any assertion of fact or inference, or logical falsification of any claim. Only dismissal.
That’s pathological. Dangerous. The foundational inequity that can destroy civilization, if not humanity and all life in the planet.
If there’s anything you can do help dislodge heads from assess, or get answers from your representatives, it’s past time.
Thanks again for your kind indulgence
