Ignorant, or Complicit?
They seem earnest and all about liberty, at LibertyCon
I’m a miserable judge of character, though
The Miron/Yang debate was almost entirely as expected
Mr. Yang took off to catch a flight, and not address the question again.
Dr. Miron wanted to agree, mostly, except for.. math & stuff. He seemed like a nice man, I hope he just hasn’t considered the correction.
Mr. Yang seemed like a salesman, I worked for a salesman for nine years
Dr. Salerno delivered a talk on immigration policy, relative to Ludwig von Mises. From self determination to reducing State power, he could have been arguing for our equal inclusion in the process and profit of money creation, as those things are enabled, if not assured. After, I asked if he would consider equal individual inclusion in money creation as a path to self determination.
I thought phrasing as a yes or no question would allow him to choose and move on to the kids questions, and think about it later, or not. (I need to ask better questions) Should probably have prefaced it as such.
Instead, he decided to deflect, and dismiss… I guess that means No..
…also the treatment I’ve gotten on Reddit most of the last six years, or whenever trying to communicate with UBI ‘authorities’
Still no telling
He’s clearly smart enough to figure it out, but so firmly stuck in the complexities constructed to obscure our structural slavery, that perhaps he can’t see. That could be a selection method for who gets an economics degree. That one doesn’t question State ownership of human labor.
To be fair, the question may appear unrelated to the topic, of immigration, and if he had never considered equal individual inclusion, processing the thing instantaneously would be amazing.
Though, if he was well aware of the potential, and moral imperative, as a thing not to be addressed, I could expect the same reaction.
What Dr. Salerno refuses to consider, noting he wants a gold standard, recognizes why that can’t happen, so he’ll settle for a complete collapse of the monetary system, is that our equal inclusion in money creation is a ‘gold’ standard, and we are the ‘gold.’
Gold can’t be a standard for money because not enough of it exists. Even when there was more gold than money, the gold never really provided the value of money, humans did, by providing acceptance. No commodity can function as ideal money, because the value isn’t fixed.
Ideal money is a fixed unit of cost, for planning, a stable store of value, for saving, with global acceptance.
A globally standard, fixed cost process of money creation, based on our agreed acceptance, creates money with those characteristics, globally, with local fiduciary oversight.
When each community, or ‘nation’ as used by Dr. Salerno, may create affordable, fixed cost money for secure sovereign investment, what immigration problems will exist? Besides not being able to attract immigrants?
Moreover, how comprehensive a social contract may each community provide, with ubiquitous access to affordable money, when each member of the community receives an equal share of the affordable fees?
Why would someone compelled by von Mises to pursue any technologically feasible method to achieve self determination, arbitrarily dismiss/refuse to consider, an ethical money creation process, when he knows the existing one is grossly inequitable?
How can all of the economists not be aware of a simple correction to a simple and obvious inequity?
If I sell futures to purchase something I don’t own, isn’t that a crime? Can that get past every economist? Wouldn’t the correction be, to pay whoever owns the commodity, like any other market?
Money creation is the global human labor futures market, and our labor is traded by State. It’s now technologically feasible, using existing infrastructure and practices, to properly include each sovereign individual owner of future human labor in the process and profit of money creation
When each community has access to the fixed cost, sustainable credit (1.25%) of its individuals, social contract provisions may be financed locally, and State will borrow its currency into existence from all humans, collectively, through our trusts, establishing a libertarian relationship between human and State, where State acquires its sovereignty from its sovereign citizens, for a sustainable fee (which we ultimately return, which is the natural course of things) paid to each of us individually
That’s self determination
Steve Forbes’ bodyguard is awesome
I mentioned it to a guy who was talking to me, he said, “Steve Forbes has a bodyguard?” About twice my size, maybe twenty feet or so away, and moving through the crowd like a ghost. I thought, ‘If he’s not at least a ten percent partner, he’s underpaid’
Not an advertisement… The Marriot Marquis is beautiful, I felt (oddly for me) comfortable there, Thanks
Sponsors provided a Yoga session Saturday morning, with Diana Maria (not a paid advertisement) My balance still sucks
Aside from my concern about the ism being controlled by Wealth, hiding our rightful business interest behind State, there are a great many liberty minded folks working on projects that transcend ism..
LibertyCon was big and Shiny
My concern about the vision of reduced State power, is that it disregards the dominant power. Wealth, which controls State
So, reducing State power, benefits Wealth, not necessarily humans
We organized into society to protect weak from strong, among other things, to protect humans from Wealth… Wealth decides who gets to be an accredited economist.. just sayin’
I’d appreciate any insight into this
Thanks for your kind indulgence