Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Don't believe in working for money

Posted 1 year ago on July 6, 2013, 4:34 a.m. EST by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Money is the problem, not capitalism. Most people want a secure job for life, with benefits and raises. These people are often highly educated and most are afraid of risk.

The other type of people pay less taxes. Money works for them, not the other way around.

Money is not taught in school. Pay raises and benefits will never solve the money problem.

The 99% Conglomerate is the cure, by making people in the first group entrepreneurs with the right education and minimal effort. At the very least, they'd pay less taxes.

The working class can rule capitalism and bring it to an end.

130 Comments

130 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Money is the problem,"

Without money, you cannot effectively run an economy. You will never get demand to equal supply. You will get far less people to work. And you will never be able to achieve pareto efficiency which means being able to produce a unique basket of goods for everyone based on their tastes (Nancy consumes lots of clothes instead of video games, Bob loves to cook so gets an expensive kitchen instead of an expensive car, etc.). In other words, you need to give people a budget and allow them to spend their budget in whatever way they want based on their interests, tastes and lifestyle. You can only do that with money.

The problem isn't money, the problem for most people is the lack of money. The reason why people lack money is not because there isn't enough money or income to go around. The reason why people lack income is because income is not allocated fairly. Most income is paid to a few people at the top which leaves too little income for everyone else.

We produce $15.4 trillion in goods and services every year.

That is just under $50,000 per year for every man, woman and child. That is $200,000 per year for a family of 4. That is $65 per hour for each hour every worker works. That is $135,000 per year for every full-time worker.

No matter how you slice it, that is clearly enough income to make everyone in this country wealthy.

The reason why nearly everyone gets paid far, far less than those incomes is because we have an economic system that allows a very small group of people at the top to use exploitation to unfairly take most of everyone else's income.

That system is called capitalism. The problem is capitalism, not money, which brings me to my next point.

.

"...not capitalism"

The reason why people lack money is because of capitalism. Capitalism is the problem, not money.

Capitalism is barbaric, unfair and undemocratic as I explain here.

The only way a society can be just is if it has a fair economic system. The only fair economic system is a system where everyone has an equal opportunity and income is allocated based on how hard you work.

In capitalism, people don't have an equal opportunity. A Trump kid has a far greater opportunity to succeed than a kid in a poor family. Some are born on third base. Some are born in the minors with zero chance of ever getting called up to the majors. Some are born with bad knees which prevents them from ever being able to compete in the first place.

Opportunity in capitalism is very unequal.

And in capitalism, we don't pay people based on how hard they work. Only half the income is paid to workers (who do all the work), the other half is paid to investors (who do no work). We allocate income to investors based on how lucky they are at gambling in the market. And we allocate income to workers based on how scarce they are; it is the reason why Kim Kardashian gets paid hundreds of times more than a brain surgeon for working the same amount of hours.

Income is not allocated based on how hard you work, it is allocated based on how lucky or scarce you are.

People should have a right to a job. And income should be allocated based on how hard you work (which means based on how difficult your job is and based on how you perform your job). That is the only fair economic system. That is the only way to have a just society.

If we allocated income this way, we would be able to raise the minimum income to over $100k per year for working 20 hours per week as I explain in this post.

.

"Most people want a secure job for life, with benefits and raises."

The only way they are going to get that is if we have a fair economic system as explained above. The only way to make the economy fair is for the government to give every worker the freedom to choose to work for a democratic firm instead of a capitalist firm.

A democratic firm would be defined as one where you have a right to a job, where you, along with all the rest of the workers, are equal owners of that firm, and where income is allocated by law based on how hard you work which means no money is paid to investors (since they do no work), 100% of income is paid to workers (since they do 100% of the work), and differences in income between workers is limited to only what is necessary to get them to work difficult jobs and to give their maximum effort.

If we paid 100% of income to workers and limited differences in income between workers to only what's necessary to get people to work hard, we would be able to pay every worker from $115,000 per year to $460,000 per year as explained here. It would make every worker wealthy as a right. And when you make everyone wealthy, you eliminate nearly every problem in society.

The government should get the Fed, as lender of last resort, to lend whatever amount is necessary to launch a enough democratic firms to fully employ every American who wants to work at a democratic firm. The Fed is currently giving capitalist firms $80 billion per month. It should do the same for Democratic firms.

If workers had the freedom to choose to work for a capitalist firm or a democratic firm, nearly every worker would choose to work at a democratic firm where they are equal owners and are likely making four times as much income. That would probably mean the end of capitalism since they would no longer be able to recruit workers to exploit.

A democratic economic system works. Read Oscar Lange from the economic calculation debate, or Richard Wolf at rdwolff.com or democracyatwork.com, or Gar Alperovity from the University of Maryland at democracycollaborative.org. And see it working in practice with Mondragon.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

a lot of good points

and it is good to see numbers

a little job worshippy

and jobs should be to achieve objectives not merely circulate money

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Demand.. I almost agree... ;)

  • except of your representation of Capitalism & the Fed...
  • The Fed doesn't care about the American economy... as much as it cares about the World economy....
  • the Fed's goal is to create & put as much currency into world circulation as it possibly can... without collapsing the value of the currency....
  • now... that may be bad for America.... yet good for world industrialization.... which does help the world to some extent....
  • I say.... instead of trying to control the Fed....better and easier ...to let the Fed continue doing what it does.... and demand another Reserve Bank .... a Domestic or Social Reserve Bank ... that provides capital for the domestic and social institutions we need here at home....
  • after that is in place...we will have a strong middle and lower class economy... and we can then focus on cleaning up the ills of miss-used and abused capitalism....
[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"The Fed doesn't care about the American economy"

The fed only cares about doing what it is legally required to do. Its legal mandate from congress requires it to do 2 things: 1) to reduce the business cycle 2) and to make prices stable. If you compare the economy before the fed and after the fed, the fed has done its job well. There are a lot less business cycles and prices are more stable.

If the fed was given the additional mandate to fully employ everyone in a worker co-op who wants to work in one, it would easily accomplish that as well.

.

"the Fed's goal is to create & put as much currency into world circulation as it possibly can"

That's not its goal. Its goal is what I mentioned above. However, its goal is to lessen the business cycle. We are currently in a recession. In order to get out of the recession, it must increase the money supply. This will increase investment. Investment will increase the amount of people businesses are hiring. Full employment is what puts an end to a recession.

.

"that may be bad for America.... yet good for world industrialization"

Increasing the money supply which increases investment which lowers unemployment which ends the recession and grows the economy is GOOD for America, not bad.

Nobody benefits from unemployment. And if the fed did not intervene, like it didn't in 1929, the recession would have turned into another depression. If you just let the economy recover on its own, it will get much, much worse and will take much, much longer to recover.

Of course, just giving people jobs is not enough. They need to be high paying jobs. The only way that is going to happen is if we employ those workers in worker co-ops where they are equal owners in the entire co-op, and where income is allocated based on how hard you work instead of how scarce you are, and where differences in income are limited to only what is necessary for income to be an effective incentive. Doing that would raise the minimum income to over $100k per year for working just 20 hours per week as I explain here.

.

"I say.... instead of trying to control the Fed....better and easier ...to let the Fed continue doing what it does.... and demand another Reserve Bank"

You could do that, but I think that is far more difficult to accomplish. I believe getting the fed to invest in democratic firms the same way as it invests in capitalist firms under the guise of a jobs program and the elimination of welfare is politically feasible.

I do not think creating a second fed and a second kind of money is politically feasible.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

well.... I still have argument ;)

  • I think you might be correct in that the Fed may be welling to invest in democratic firms the same way as it invests in capitalist firms ... however .... I believe that may also be a politically difficult task ... I hope you are right....

  • as far as the Fed's legal mandate from congress ....

  • In 1977, Congress amended The Federal Reserve Act, stating the monetary policy objectives of the Federal Reserve as:

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates."

  • what I am suggesting.... is that the Fed.... is more concerned with the increased production and maximum employment of the global economy more than it is the domestic.... which I personally agree with ....

  • you state.... " We are currently in a recession. In order to get out of the recession, it must increase the money supply. This will increase investment. Investment will increase the amount of people businesses are hiring. Full employment is what puts an end to a recession...."

  • I agree... to a point .... if the increased money supply does not reach the masses of the American people ... it accomplishes zero towards increasing domestic employment...

  • Today's banks & most investors do not invest in the domestic economy... it is far more profitable for them to invest in trading currency, quick stock market schemes... and third world development.....

  • however, requiring support of domestic worker co-op's would help... no doubt... but it is not enough imo....

  • you mention... " I do not think creating a second fed and a second kind of money ..."

  • I do not believe we need or want a second kind of money ... We want a second kind of "profit"....

  • The State owned Banks... like the Bank of North Dakota .... does just that.... their loans & investments are based not on "monetary profit".... but on how many jobs the venture will provide for the state.... which I call ... providing a "social profit".... which is funded by "social capital" .... not different money... but a different accounting or source of the same fiat currency... currently used....

  • and I argue that .... if there was more "social capital" available for new business ventures.... we would see an explosion of new enterprises ... whose goals are more for "social profit" vs "monetary profit".... and therefore the creation of new competitive industry's & jobs ....

  • now I also very much believe in and support building new domestic worker co-op's....

  • however it is not our only venue to providing full employment.... we need to utilize everything that works....

added;

Federal Reserve Act

Section 2A. Monetary policy objectives The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section2a.htm

Related Websites

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/relatedWebSites.htm

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"the Fed may be welling to invest in democratic firms the same way as it invests in capitalist firms ... however .... I believe that may also be a politically difficult task"

I would say any political change is difficult. But I believe funding democratic firms is politically feasible. And if we did that, I think it would change the course of history. It would be that momentous.

I think it would be as revolutionary as if workers went on a general strike, took over the means of production and replaced capitalism with socialism. The point is that a socialist revolution is never going to happen, but funding worker co-ops can happen. And I think funding worker co-ops would have the same radical, revolutionary impact as a socialist revolution.

.

"In 1977, Congress amended The Federal Reserve Act, stating the monetary policy objectives of the Federal Reserve as...price stability"

When the fed was first formed, we were on a gold standard. So the fed's mandate was only full employment. A few years before the 1977 Act, the dollar became a fiat currency. So now the fed now had control over the money supply and had to manage it so that there was price stability. The congress just passed this act to formally recognize the fed's new role in doing that.

.

"the Fed.... is more concerned with the increased production and maximum employment of the global economy more than it is the domestic"

I don't think that is true and I don't think there is any evidence to support that claim.

The fed is concerned with the world economy because it affects the US economy and also because the dollar is the world's reserve economy. But I don't think it is true to say the fed cares more about the performance of foreign economies.

.

"if the increased money supply does not reach the masses of the American people ... it accomplishes zero towards increasing domestic employment"

I agree and so would the fed. They have no control over whether the money gets invested or how it gets invested. But that is because we have a market economy. We do not have a command economy. The govt can't tell private citizens how to invest their money.

But to this point, even Romney's economic advisor is now saying the govt should have just taken the money from the fed and directly used it to give the unemployed jobs. We could have fully employed everyone by now if the govt controlled investment.

We did that during the great depression.

.

"requiring support of domestic worker co-op's would help... no doubt... but it is not enough imo"

When you guarantee every worker a job that pays at least $115k per year and equal, democratic ownership of the economy just like they have equal, democratic ownership of the government, you solve every economic problem we have. What more do you think should be done?

.

"I do not believe we need or want a second kind of money ... We want a second kind of "profit"....The State owned Banks... like the Bank of North Dakota .... does just that.... their loans & investments are based not on "monetary profit".... but on how many jobs the venture will provide for the state."

Maybe you can better educate me on what that bank does, but from what I understand, the only thing that separates the North Dakota bank from any other bank is that they lend to companies who employ people in the state.

That may help unemployment, but that doesn't solve the most important problem with our economy which is the enormous income inequality which leaves the majority of workers broke. When that bank makes a loan, it makes it to existing business owners or new business owners of privately owned companies whose profits go to those private owners. Those companies perpetuate the inequality and concentration of ownership and income which is at the heart of the world's problems.

What I advocate is that the fed would give a bank all the money it needs to lend, whatever amount is necessary to fully employ everyone. But when that bank lends the money, it is not making the person it lends to the owner. That person getting the loan would not be personally liable for paying back the loan. That person would use that money to set up a new "democratic" company within the existing network of democratic companies.

When that person hires workers to this new company, those workers would automatically become equal owners not just in the company that is hiring them but in the entire network of democratic companies. So they share in the revenue generated by the entire network of companies.

The workers also now get equal, democratic say in how the company they work at is managed.

I believe that is what is required to fix the world's problems and the North Dakota bank falls way, way, way short of that.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

"Without money, you cannot effectively run an economy"

  • see the Venus Project.

  • I wouldn't say something can't happen just because I'm not aware of it ever happening before. Just because you've never seen a mouse with two tails, doesn't mean you never will.

You will never get demand to equal supply.

  • Supply should never exceed demand.

You will get far less people to work.

  • People shouldn't work boring simple tasks and machines will do anything they are capable of.

  • Why shouldn't people have the right to do nothing productive all day for as long as necessary to recover from the rat race and become inspired once again?

"And you will never be able to achieve pareto efficiency which means being able to produce a unique basket of goods for everyone based on their tastes"

  • People can have and design anything to their tastes.

  • Incredible designs for any desire will quickly be known for their qualities and effectiveness.

  • Our educational system will have us memorize these "theories" and trick us into shutting our creativity off. We think there is no more undiscovered territory.

"The reason why people lack money is because of capitalism. Capitalism is the problem, not money."

  • Why does every society that's used money failed miserably in the FAIRNESS department? If it was capitalism (not $), every communism would have done very well.

  • If the economy was money free (like Venus Project's resource-based economy), there could be no lack of money.

"... where everyone has an equal opportunity and income is allocated based on how hard you work"

  • a recipe for rampant crime and mental disorders

"That is the only fair economic system. That is the only way to have a just society."

  • another theory taught as fact

I'm all about workplace democracy and WSDEs. Workers should be hiring/firing managers, not the other way around.

As for the |F|E|D|, that horrible disaster just turned 100 this year. It was checkmate. We gave everything, including our lives as slaves for generations to come. Anyone who works to live is a slave. It is a private corporation, not anything to do with government except to milk it. It must be destroyed yesterday.

"Most people want a secure job for life, with benefits and raises."

This is not what people should want.

My preference would be a Responsible Capitalism (I know why this term sounds silly to you), with a Wolff-ish workforce. Well, until we evolve beyond money.

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"see the Venus Project."

Jacque never explained how economic decisions are made. If you spend more resources on, for example, housing, you have to spend less resources on something else, for example, cars.

Jacque never explains how he will make all these economic decisions. He never explains how large a slice each good and service will get of the available resource pie.

If you use money, each consumer gets to make their own allocation decisions. They decide how much gets spent on clothes, electronics, cars, vacations, hotels, baseball stadiums, etc.

If you eliminate money, that just means you no longer get to make your own allocationg decision, instead Jacque's or his central government or his mystery computer now makes all those decisions for you. The obvious question then is why do you think we should produce what Jacque or his computer wants instead of what you and everyone else wants?

.

"I wouldn't say something can't happen just because I'm not aware of it ever happening before"

What I'm saying is that the economy should just produce whatever each consumer wants. But if you don't give consumers a budget to work within and give them the price of each available good and service, it is impossible to measure what consumers want.

So instead of producing what consumers want, you now have to produce what Jacque or his computer wants. That is not a better economic system! The economy should produce what you want, not what Jacque says you should get.

.

"Supply should never exceed demand."

When you eliminate money, the problem is not supply exceeding demand. The problem is demand exceeding supply. If people are not given a budget, they will demand far, far, more than what we can produce.

.

"People shouldn't work boring simple tasks and machines will do anything they are capable of."

I agree. I make the case in this post that we can automate 55% of the jobs we currently do. That means we can cut the work week in half without decreasing productivity.

However, you don't need to eliminate money in order to give people the option of working less. People should be free to work as many hours as they want. And the only fair system is one that compensates the people who work 40 hours per week more than the people who work 20 hours per week.

If we had an economic system that allocated income fairly as I illustrate above, people would get paid a high enough income to be able to live off of the income they would make working just 20 hours.

.

"Why shouldn't people have the right to do nothing productive all day for as long as necessary to recover from the rat race and become inspired once again?"

People should have the freedom to work as little or as much as they want. But it is not fair to compensate someone sitting on their couch at home all day the same as someone who was out working construction all day.

If you only want to work 2 days per week, you should be free to do that. But it is only fair to pay you half of what the person who works 4 days per week gets paid.

.

"People can have and design anything to their tastes."

People cannot just have whatever they want. Resources are limited. People can only consume their fair share of the resources that are available. You need money to prevent people from consuming more than their fair share.

If you eliminate money and make everything free and tell people they can consume whatever they want, you will have a bunch of people with new bentleys and 10,000 square foot homes and even more people without cars and in dilapidated homes because we ran out of resources.

.

"Why does every society that's used money failed miserably in the FAIRNESS department?"

Money is just a tool. It doesn't make an economy fair or unfair. The way money is allocated is what makes an economy fair.

Blaming money for the way it is allocated is like blaming a thermometer for the heat. Money just measures resources, it has nothing to do with how resources are allocated just like thermometers just measure heat, it has nothing to do with how hot it is.

If you allocate money unfairly, you will have an unfair economy. If you eliminate money and just allocate resources unfairly, you will still have an unfair economy.

If you allocate money fairly, then you will have a fair economy.

The way to allocate money fairly is to guarantee everyone a job as a right, pay 100% of income to workers since they do all the work and limit differences in income between workers by law to only what is necessary for income to be an effective incentive. Doing that would enable us to pa workers from $115,000 to $460,000 per year for working 20 hours per week as explained here.

If you allocate income through the market, like we do currently, the economy will be unfair.

.

"If it was capitalism (not $), every communism would have done very well."

Communism did not fail because it had money! It failed because it did not use a market to allocate goods and services, it had zero transparency, it had zero accountability, it killed or imprisoned all of its engineers, it was run by a brutal gangster who knew nothing about economics or science, companies did not have competition and little incentive to be efficient or innovate, income was not allocated fairly, they were poor, undeveloped, backwards, peasant countries, and they killed or imprisoned anyone who criticized the economic results they were achieving.

.

"[a system where everyone has an equal opportunity and income is allocated based on how hard you work is] a recipe for rampant crime and mental disorders"

Explain why you think that is so. It makes no sense.

.

"As for the |F|E|D|, that horrible disaster just turned 100 this year"

The legal mandate of the fed is to minimize the business cycle and stabilize prices. It has effectively done that for 100 years. Before the fed, the economy had far greater volatility. Price was not stable and there were more recessions.

So it has not been a disaster. It did the job it was supposed to do.

.

"Anyone who works to live is a slave."

Working is a noble use of one's time. It does not make you a slave. People working is required for our economy to function. Letting people who do not work consume whatever the people who do work produce is not fair to the people who work. If you want to consume, you must help produce. That is only fair.

.

"The Fed is a private corporation, not anything to do with government "

The Fed is not private corporation! lol. You are getting bad information from conspiracy theorists. The Fed is a division of the treasury, its chairman is appointed by congress, it must report to congress, the treasury secretary is its boss and all of its profits go to the federal government.

.

"My preference would be a Responsible Capitalism"

I don't know what you mean by responsible capitalism.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Kavatz, listen to DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom .... he's speaking truth.... ; )

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Thanks, I appreciate the vote of confidence!

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

TVP can build things without using resources? If you use more resources building, say, houses, you have to use less resources building, say, cars.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Right, thanks, somehow I missed the word resources. My bad for trying to use mobile to respond while working. You certainly offer a lot to think about.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

OK, to continue...

"If it was capitalism (not $), every communism would have done very well."

  • My point was that money systems never have, and my instinct is, never will produce equality. There has been enough history to know this now. .

"[a system where everyone has an equal opportunity and income is allocated based on how hard you work is] a recipe for rampant crime and mental disorders" Explain why you think that is so. It makes no sense.

  • If everyone is trying to get more wealth, but are unlucky or unsuccessful, they feel horrible. In some cases, suicidal.

  • Money is the reason for probably 99% of crime. This fact alone is enough reason to evolve. Who cares if the economy is troubled, when so much non-economic benefits are to be gained.

.

"The legal mandate of the fed is to minimize the business cycle and stabilize prices. It has effectively done that for 100 years. Before the fed, the economy had far greater volatility. Price was not stable and there were more recessions.

So it has not been a disaster. It did the job it was supposed to do."

  • Yikes! Are you defending the |F|E|D|?

  • I don't care what the textbooks say, or how the Act reads, the Fed was created by bankers to take control of the money supply and all the assets of the nation.

  • Why does a private institution need to exist? The public sector could just as easily print currency.

.

"Anyone who works to live is a slave."

Working is a noble use of one's time. It does not make you a slave. People working is required for our economy to function. Letting people who do not work consume whatever the people who do work produce is not fair to the people who work. If you want to consume, you must help produce. That is only fair.

  • Noble, I'm not so sure. That's an excuse and something people tell themselves because it creates a comfort. Why am I doing this stupid job, trading the best hours of my day to make someone else wealthier? There is no explanation that satisfies the mind other than it's noble. No one works because they want to help the economy.

.

"The Fed is not private corporation! lol. You are getting bad information from conspiracy theorists. The Fed is a division of the treasury, its chairman is appointed by congress, it must report to congress, the treasury secretary is its boss and all of its profits go to the federal government."

  • I'll bet you any amount of money you're wrong. It's owned by 8 other corporations (bankers), 3 in the US and the other 5 in Europe. It is absolutely not a division or branch of government.

.

"I don't know what you mean by responsible capitalism."

  • It's just a concept I came up with for the future closer than Venus Project. It's the last phase of capitalism, in my imaginary world. I have links to previous posts about it but they would probably bore you to death, when we have much more important things to discuss. Sorry I brought it up.

And I just remembered I was going to try to move this conversation away from Venus Project, as it's way too far out in the future. Unless you would like to challenge it more.

Shall we talk more about how capitalism should be until it expires?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"My point was that money systems never have, and my instinct is, never will produce equality."

They never have produced equality because we never had an economic system that allocated income equally. If we had an economic system that allocated income equally, it is impossible to have inequality.

.

"There has been enough history to know this now."

This is not true. There has been no history. No country has ever had an economic system that allocated income equally.

.

"Money is the reason for probably 99% of crime"

You have no evidence to back up that claim. You completely made that up.

Money doesn't cause any crime. The lack of resources certainly causes crime. But that doesn't have anything to do with money. Eliminating money is not going to eliminate the desire for people to commit the crime of trying to take more resources than they are legally entitled to.

.

"I don't care what the textbooks say, or how the Act reads, the Fed was created by bankers to take control of the money supply and all the assets of the nation."

It is impossible to have a rational conversation if you reject science, reject facts and believe in conspiracy theories.

.

"Why does a private institution need to exist? The public sector could just as easily print currency."

What private institution are you referring to? Banks? I think the banks and the rest of the economy should be equally owned by everyone. They should all be public.

Or are you saying the fed is private? The fed is not private. It is a public institution that is a part of our government. And only the fed can print money. No private company can print money.

.

" Why am I doing this stupid job, trading the best hours of my day to make someone else wealthier? There is no explanation that satisfies the mind other than it's noble."

I didn't say working for a private company is noble. I don't think that is a fair system. I advocate a system where everyone is an equal owner in the economy. Working in a democratic economy as I describe in this thread is noble.

.

"I'll bet you any amount of money you're wrong. [The Fed is] owned by 8 other corporations (bankers), 3 in the US and the other 5 in Europe. It is absolutely not a division or branch of government."

Whoever is telling you that is giving you bad information.

If you reject science, evidence and textbooks and subscribe to conspiracy theories instead, you will remain ignorant.

You need to turn off alex jones and pick up a textbook.

.

"Shall we talk more about how capitalism should be until it expires?"

Capitalism is a barbaric, unfair system. I would rather talk about alternatives!

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I bought a few more minutes...

"It is impossible to have a rational conversation if you reject science, reject facts and believe in conspiracy theories."

I was trained to question authority. You were not. It sounds like the perfect "textbook" example of our indoctrination. "It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

Allocating money equally might have the same effect of communism in some respects.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"I was trained to question authority. You were not. It sounds like the perfect "textbook" example of our indoctrination."

Your understanding of the scientific method is not correct. What you find in textbooks is the product of the scientific method. They are accepted facts that were put through a rigorous, peer reviewed, scientific process.

It is the opposite of indoctrination.

The content in textbooks do not get there because some unquestioned authority put it there. That is not how the scientific method works. The content got into a textbook only after it was rigorously questioned by scientists who have every incentive to question the validity of every claim and overturn any claim not supported by evidence.

.

"Allocating money equally might have the same effect of communism in some respects."

What do you mean by communism?

If you mean the stage society would reach after capitalism, as predicted by Marx, then I would obviously disagree. There is no difference between Marx's communism and Jacque's RBE. Communism, just like as RBE, is a society that develops the technology to eliminate scarcity and as a result can eliminate money since the elimination of scarcity eliminates the need to ration and because the technology would also exist to eliminate most or all of the undesirable jobs through automation which would mean we no longer need to pay people to work. People don't have to work any more. Machines do all the work.

Since I advocate using money because we have not automated all jobs and have not eliminated scarcity, it is not accurate to say this is like communism.

If by communism you mean the political party in the soviet union that promised that their political leadership will get the people of the soviet union to communism, then I would ask what effect in that society are you referring to?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

""Money is the reason for probably 99% of crime"

You have no evidence to back up that claim. You completely made that up.

Money doesn't cause any crime. The lack of resources certainly causes crime. But that doesn't have anything to do with money. Eliminating money is not going to eliminate the desire for people to commit the crime of trying to take more resources than they are legally entitled to."

  • Right I made it up, because it's impossible to know, but I'd bet my bottom dollar it's in the high 90s.

  • Money = Resources. Your car is money. Fiat currency is not money.

  • No one is going to take more than they are entitled to in TVP! You get anything you want. Of course, you can't have your own amusement park or transnational rail system... People steal/kill to eat or pay debt, rape because they are sick, etc.

Running out of time for now... But you REALLY THINK THE FED IS NOT PRIVATE CORPORATION? You better watch this, twice, and take notes. If you don't believe anything in it, investigate. http://occupywallst.org/forum/is-the-fed-a-private-corporation-or-part-of-govern/

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Right I made it up, because it's impossible to know [how much crime is caused by money], but I'd bet my bottom dollar it's in the high 90s."

I would encourage you to study what science is. It is a way of determining truth and facts.

Science is more than capable of determining what causes crime. It is not impossible to determine what percent of crimes is caused by money. The government maintains this data. You can look it up. I believe the fbi is the agency that publishes nationwide crime statistics. Just do a google search.

.

"Money = Resources."

Income is equal to the amount of resources being sold. And money is the tool we use for trading income for goods and services.

.

"Your car is money."

A car is not money. Money is what people in an economy generally accept as payment for goods and services. People do not generally use cars to buy goods and services.

A car is a good that you would buy with money.

.

"Fiat currency is not money."

Fiat currency is money. The dollar bill is fiat currency since it gets its value by law. And since you can use it to buy goods and services, it is money.

.

"No one is going to take more than they are entitled to in TVP!"

The purpose of money and prices is to show people exactly how much they are entitled to. And it is a system that prevents people from taking more than their income allows.

If you get rid of money then you need some other mechanism for preventing people from taking more than what they are entitled to. The only other method is a command economy where you only get what the government gives you. That is the way Jacque's plan works.

Jacque's plan will dictate how large your house can be, how much resources can be used in building it, how often you can remodel it, how often you can decorate it, what furniture you can use to decorate it, that you are not allowed you to live in a home other than his cheap igloos, that you are not allowed to have your own kitchen, how often you can get a new tv, how many tvs you can have, how often you can get a new cell phone, that you are not allowed to have a car, how often you can get new clothes, etc.

.

"You get anything you want."

You are contradicting yourself. Are people allowed to have anything they want? Or are they only allowed to have what they are entitled to?

It is physically impossible to give everyone everything they want. People want far, far, far, far, far more than what we can produce.

And Jacque makes it very clear that people are not allowed to have whatever they want. There are tons of videos of Jacque clearly stating what people cannot have. I linked to several videos of Jacque saying people can't have salami or any other unhealthy food, they can't have houses other than his domes, they can't have columns or moldings or any other ornamentation because it is a waste of resources, they can't have kitchens, etc.

Yes, everything will be free. But you are only free to take what the government decides it will produce and what the government says you are allowed to have.

.

"But you REALLY THINK THE FED IS NOT PRIVATE CORPORATION? You better watch this, twice, and take notes. If you don't believe anything in it, investigate."

Textbooks are credible sources of information because they are the product of the scientific method. Information gets into textbooks only after it has been proven to be correct. Textbooks are not the personal opinions of the authors. It is a collection of the latest scientific evidence.

You are terribly, terribly misinformed and gullible if you think random videos on the internet and conspiracy videos are more credible than textbooks.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

"Jacque never explained how economic decisions are made. If you spend more resources on, for example, housing, you have to spend less resources on something else, for example, cars."

  • I'm pretty sure it is discussed in some videos. Some people think we can create an abundance of resources if the world's resources are managed intelligently, without monetary incentives. Without built-in obsolescence, by increasing efficiency in every product and man-made system, and having more accurate longer-term figures on local/global consumption, better decisions will be made.

"Jacque never explains how he will make all these economic decisions. He never explains how large a slice each good and service will get of the available resource pie."

  • I'm convinced the idea is sound. A scale model of the world and space sits in the middle of a large room, and you talk to it. Far out, I know, but it'll be a reality one day. You find out what consumption rates are, and levels of scarcity (people want stuff that's not available), for a region. You have access to all the data, but the computer will already be running scenarios for how to get which resources to where they need to go and how to produce/manufacture/assemble most efficiently.

  • The stores you shop at now, imagine they are specialized "libraries". You want something, go to the store and take it. Take as much as you want. Fill up your house and yard with goods. If brass flutes are consumed at unprecedented levels, more flutes will be on their way. If you think you can improve the flute by adding a new hole, you have the resources and equipment to innovate. If you've created a superior flute, all the old flutes will probably get recycled.

  • I don't see why people would want 12 cars and collect so much. The need to collect and horde seems like a systemic disease that leads to poverty. This "disorder" could be corrected with evolution.

"If you use money, each consumer gets to make their own allocation decisions. They decide how much gets spent on clothes, electronics, cars, vacations, hotels, baseball stadiums, etc."

  • Only people with money contribute to the economy. The forces of advertizing are like tapeworms' cravings. People don't buy the things they need, or even really want in some cases.

"If you eliminate money, that just means you no longer get to make your own allocationg decision, instead Jacque's or his central government or his mystery computer now makes all those decisions for you. The obvious question then is why do you think we should produce what Jacque or his computer wants instead of what you and everyone else wants?"

  • The computer will not force all apples to the east coast and all oranges to the west. It's consumer demand that determines where things are allocated. Sure, if it makes more scientific sense to build a factory beside the resources, that's where the resources to build the factory will go. If people want stadiums, there will be stadiums where the people are.

  • If you give everyone 1 million dollars and say "make economy go now", many people will quickly have no money. Many will have a lot. The greedy and ignorant satisfied folks will make all the economic decisions. There will be abundant waste and inequality.

.

"So instead of producing what consumers want, you now have to produce what Jacque or his computer wants. That is not a better economic system! The economy should produce what you want, not what Jacque says you should get."

  • This is a low blow. It's just wrong to perpetuate the idea that this is the intention.

.

"When you eliminate money, the problem is not supply exceeding demand. The problem is demand exceeding supply. If people are not given a budget, they will demand far, far, more than what we can produce."

  • This is a wild guess. I don't think it's how life would be when you can't make yourself appear more attractive by owning more than others. If everyone is equal in this respect, people start wanting to stand out by how healthy, productive, attractive, intelligent, creative, inspiring they can be.

.

"However, you don't need to eliminate money in order to give people the option of working less. People should be free to work as many hours as they want. And the only fair system is one that compensates the people who work 40 hours per week more than the people who work 20 hours per week."

  • When you have to work to eat, you don't have the choice of working less hours. Only rich people have that option.

"If we had an economic system that allocated income fairly as I illustrate above, people would get paid a high enough income to be able to live off of the income they would make working just 20 hours."

  • I love the idea.

.

"People should have the freedom to work as little or as much as they want. But it is not fair to compensate someone sitting on their couch at home all day the same as someone who was out working construction all day."

  • True in the money system.

.

Without money, I think a shipload of workers would stop working right away. The transition is such a hard event to picture. Who would keep working and what would motivate them to do so. The transition would have to be designed with this in mind. Everyone who needs to take time off needs to f-off to the country while the brave pioneers take over.

I guess I picture that as an enormous organic food growing operation filled with hippies who work if they want or sleep all day. They eat what they grow and get treated to a sort of social reintegration therapy, plus study/practice whatever interests them.

.

.

I think I need to change the discussion a bit. I know there will be a long period before we evolve beyond money. Hope you don't want money to be used by humans for the rest of eternity. I feel like I can side with Fresco in everything. But he doesn't offer a way to get there. He declares openly that he has no way to make it happen. He doesn't know anyone who knows.

I know why communism sucks. I'm not interested in it, and would rather have capitalism. That doesn't mean I want capitalism either, though I am fond of certain aspects.

Money is a tool for power. It will be manipulated by elite and anyone who knows how. It doesn't matter what the system is, if there is money it will be abused. You can try to prevent that today, but you won't live long enough to prevent its misuse.

Money is the problem.

I don't have time to finish. Will try to follow up later.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"I'm pretty sure [how economic decisions are made] is discussed in some videos."

Jacque doesn't know what economics is. He has a poor understanding of the subject.

Economics is how to allocate scarce resources. Since demand is greater than supply we have to make trade-off decisions. We have to decide to produce some things and not produce others. When you use a given amount of labor, materials and energy for cars, that means all of that labor, materials and energy can no longer be used for houses.

So economics and economic decisions is deciding whether to use that labor, material and energy for cars or for houses. This is what you first learn in the very first chapter of an economics 101 course.

Jacque does not understand this. He confuses economic decisions with engineering decisions. Whenever he is asked who makes the economic decisions and how those decisions will be arrived at, he always answers by saying nobody makes those decisions. When the crops need watering, a sensor goes off telling the sprinklers to turn on. You don't need humans to make those decisions.

He doesn't understand that those are engineering decisions, not economic decisions. He is proposing a new economic system, not a new way to grow crops. He doesn't understand that an economy is a system for making trade-off decisions, a system for deciding what to produce and what not to produce. An economy is not a system for watering crops or building things.

.

"Some people think we can create an abundance of resources if the world's resources are managed intelligently, without monetary incentives. Without built-in obsolescence, by increasing efficiency in every product and man-made system, and having more accurate longer-term figures on local/global consumption, better decisions will be made."

Those people are wrong. Scarcity is real. People want tens or hundreds of times more than we can produce and you can't just increase production by tens or hundreds or times. Mature economies grow by 5% per year. It is physically impossible to get an economy to grow by 1000%.

.

"You find out what consumption rates are, and levels of scarcity (people want stuff that's not available), for a region. You have access to all the data, but the computer will already be running scenarios for how to get which resources to where they need to go and how to produce/manufacture/assemble most efficiently."

Here is what you are missing. Your computer will get all its orders and see that the amount of orders far exceeds the things we can produce. It is impossible to produce everything that people are requesting. So then it has to decide whose orders get fulfilled and whose orders do not. It needs to make trade off decisions.

Those are SUBJECTIVE decisions that a computer cannot make. Whether we make cars more luxurious cars or keep cars the way they are and make houses more luxurious instead is a subjective decision.

The people who should be making those subjective decisions are the consumers not the computer. If YOU can't have both a luxurious car and a luxurious house then YOU should be the one who decides whether you take the better house or better car, not the computer. You may take the better car. I may take the better house. Your sister make choose more clothes instead.

Each consumer should make all their own personal trade off decisions in the economy. In order to do that you need money. People need to be given a budget and need to make their own decisions about how that budget is spent.

.

"The stores you shop at now, imagine they are specialized "libraries". You want something, go to the store and take it. Take as much as you want. Fill up your house and yard with goods. If brass flutes are consumed at unprecedented levels, more flutes will be on their way"

What you are describing is a fantasy. It is science fiction. That is physically impossible to do. We can't just magically produce everything everybody wants. Claiming there is no scarcity is no different than claiming the world is flat. Scarcity is an indisputable fact about the world.

.

"If you give everyone 1 million dollars and say "make economy go now", many people will quickly have no money. Many will have a lot. The greedy and ignorant satisfied folks will make all the economic decisions. There will be abundant waste and inequality."

That is a bizarre claim.

If everyone was paid a million dollars per year in income, everyone would have a million to spend. Nobody would be left with no money. Nobody will have more than others. There will be no inequality. Everyone would be equal. Everyone would be consuming exactly a million dollars worth of goods and services.

I don't understand how you don't understand that!

.

"This is a low blow. It's just wrong to perpetuate the idea that this is the intention [of Jacque to create an economy where he makes all the decisions]."

Jacque is proposing a centrally planned, command economy.

The reason why he is getting rid of all the money is so that he makes all the production decisions instead of you. You are not free to consume whatever you want. You are only free to choose from the options he decides will be available!

Jacque says he will ban hot dogs and salami:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JInneyMbfFU&feature=pl­­ayer_detailpage#t=1700s

Jacque says the central plan is already made, you don't have a say:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=THo1DEYioac&feature=pl­­ayer_detailpage#t=2098s

Jacque says you must live in his igloo home, you are forbidden from designing your own:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCAGn8n3iec

Jacque says you can't have ornamentation on your home like columns or molding and will ban private kitchens:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXwQoLIEIEc

[-] -1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Sweet! I've been having trouble finding new video but my searches never brought up these TVP Seminars. It looks like you gave me several hours, which I thank you for, but it will take a while to find the references you mentioned.

"

  • Jacque says he will ban hot dogs and salami:

  • Jacque says the central plan is already made, you don't have a say

  • Jacque says you must live in his igloo home, you are forbidden from designing your own:

  • Jacque says you can't have ornamentation on your home like columns or molding and will ban private kitchens:

" I somehow doubt it, but if I stumble upon it I'll let you know. If you know how far into the vids he says this stuff, it would be helpful. I got none of that from the stuff I've watched.

"The reason why he is getting rid of all the money is so that he makes all the production decisions instead of you. You are not free to consume whatever you want. You are only free to choose from the options he decides will be available!"

Ya right! He's like 100 years old. How long do you think he'll last, another hundred?

It really sounds like you live in textbook reality and stuck as stuck gets.

You don't really get TVP. Nobody tells you what you have to consume and what you can't (unless it's illegal). If you want something that's unavailable, there will be a system so that you get it if at all possible/reasonable. The computer doesn't decide if you should have it, people do.

Not all things will be ordered and carried out by the computer.

"If everyone was paid a million dollars per year in income" I said once, not yearly. I meant, everyone gets to start with 1mil and go out and spend, work, and invest...

I think Jaque knows more about the world and systems, and the real meaning of economics than you think. Why would he regurgitate textbook garbage, when he intuitively knows better. You know the world doesn't work like precious textbooks tell you it does.

Money is so incredibly wasteful and harmful. The system creates giant floating islands of plastic. It makes economic sense to kill the world... I can't believe people only see it when it's their back yard getting poisoned.

  • How do we make a cheeseburger? Money: as fast and profitable as possible and who cares who gets sick until we get in trouble.

  • How do we make a cell phone? Money: make sure it doesn't work before the contract is up, and make sure it can't be fixed cheaper than buying new.

  • How do we build a house? TVP: so it can be easily modified and transported, easily recycled, most efficient and safe for its environment.

I bet if you put the same population into either system, waste in TVP would be a tiny fraction of what a money system produces. The money system is insane and just pretty stupid for behaving like it's not a closed system.

Future of people in TVP: Striving towards sustainability of all life for unlimited generations to come. Future of people in Money: Striving for more economic growth every quarter until the world dies.

When will people stop treating the economy like it's some kind of god. WE created it, not nature. It didn't always exist.

What does economize mean to you? That's not what the economy does, but that's what it is supposed to do. Or they should have named it something else.

But I'll watch those links and let you know what I think, if I find your points mentioned.

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"it will take a while to find the references you mentioned."

I linked directly to the relevant part of the video. It should bring you right there without having to watch the entire video.

.

"Future of people in TVP: Striving towards sustainability of all life for unlimited generations to come. Future of people in Money: Striving for more economic growth every quarter until the world dies."

All our progress comes from growth. Growth and progress has been enormously beneficial to us and fuels our ability to survive. People today live longer and have a higher quality of life than people did centuries ago before we have grown to our current point.

But you keep attributing things to money that have nothing to do with money. Money has nothing to do with growth just like it has nothing to do with inequality. It is just a tool used to manage the economy. You can use money in a growing economy and in an economy that doesn't grow just like you can use money to allocate resources equally or unequally.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

You don't think economic growth is a cancer? Don't you see the damage caused? How long do you expect economic growth to continue, and how do you deal with life when 20 billion people are here?

What's more important to you? Healthy people or economic growth at all costs forever?

[-] 3 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"What's more important to you? Healthy people or economic growth at all costs forever?"

People are healthy because of economic growth!

You think people were healthier 1000 years ago when our wealth was a tiny fraction of what it is today? You would rather live in poverty?

Not only is economic growth not a cancer, economic growth will eventually enable us to eliminate cancer.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

FYI just because the FDA, SEC, etc are "appointed" by (bought out corporate backed) politicians doesnt make them "public" either.

There's good proof that the entire system is private at this point.

[-] 0 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I think they're "anointed", instead of "appointed" now.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Money is the reason cancer isn't cured. But you think that's conspiracy too, because you can't stop tossing the salad of authority.

Economic growth was good. Not anymore. Any real economist will tell you that.

Like some economists say, we won't all come out of the industrial age together. There will be stragglers.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Science and facts are based on evidence, not authority. You can't stop tossing the salad of kooks, conspiracy theorists, the tinfoil hat crowd and flat-earthers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullibility

Gullibility is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence.

You need to re-assess your ability to differentiate between fact and fiction.

[-] -1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

If no one has a say in anything, it certainly isnt private

[-] -1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Unbelievable. Can someone please tell this guy the Fed is a private corporation, and that cancer would be cured if capitalists didn't run the show?

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

This is a good example of the point you are missing. What determines whether something is factual is not the ability to get some random person on the internet to write a forum post that it is.

You are being gullible. You believe in unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence.

There is no evidence that the fed is private. All the evidence says it is not. I think capitalism is barbaric and needs to go, but there is no evidence that it has prevented the cure for cancer. All the evidence says it is doing everything it can to find a cure. There are millions of scientists working in labs throughout the world looking for a cure.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3155) from New York, NY

"Shares are not bank deposites. A share is a purchase of ownership. There's no such thing as a non-ownership share."

The fed says differently. The fed says the shares do not entitle you to ownership. The fed's website is more credible than you.


The fed neither invented the term nor the concept of shares and is therefore not credible on the matter to everyone who independently possess the common knowlegde of what shares are.

.

"The only properties essential to the definition of private property is that you possess it and have some recognized claim to it."

And depositing your money at the fed does not entitle you to possession of a portion of the fed! You possess your deposit, that is it.


No, as already pointed out, you possess dividend rights, voting rights, and are corporately liable for a franchise tax when purchasing shares of the Fed. This is clearly different from mere deposites of reserves which, until October 1, 2008, did not carry interest http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081006a.htm .

.

"The meaning of the word stock pertaining to the fed is the same as the meaning of stock pertaining to other corporations"

Name a single company that: •doesn't charge anything for their stock •requires you to deposit your money with them •prevents you from selling your stock •prevents you from sharing in its profits •prevents you from using your stock as collateral


And that's a response to my statement how? As is already known,

  • just like owning stock in REI, the fed DOES charge for its stock as there's no such thing as stock that isn't charged

  • just like owning stock in REI, the fed DOES entitle you to share in its profits with a 6% annual dividend

  • just like owning stock in REI, you can't sell your stock in the fed

  • just like owning stock in REI, you can't use your stock in the fed as collateral

  • just like owning stock in any cooperative business, you are entitled to dividends and voting rights in owning fed stock while being unable to sell or use the stock as collateral

It's simply an ongoing observable fact that the meaning of the word stock pertaining to the fed is the same as the meaning of the word stock pertaining to all stockholding businesses. It's also an ongoing observable fact that the aspect of ownership is intrinsic to the concept of stock. And it's an ongoing observable fact that the nature of the ownership is determined by the issuer of the stock. There is simply no such thing as a purchased stock that doesn't carry ownership rights as determined by the issuer of the stock.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3154) from New York, NY

"Is a bank the only type of organization to have shares??? Are you telling me detective agencies, security firms, and science companies can't have shares?"

As it says on the fed website, these fed shares are not ownership shares. They are an agreement that require you to deposit your money at the fed and entitle you to earn a guaranteed interest on your deposit. Since a bank is the only type of company where you deposit money, then yes it is the only type of organization to have this kind of agreement.

Detective agencies, security firms, and science companies are not banks so they will not require you to deposit your money with them.


You're evading the question which in itself was an evasion of the fact stated "Unless it can be shown that the fbi, nasa, and the army, all require deposites i.e. shares from private entities to operate them and receive interest, the fed is clearly not a government organization like them. "

The fact of the matter is that corporations, like the fed, require shares while government agencies do not. Shares are not bank deposites. A share is a purchase of ownership. There's no such thing as a non-ownership share. The shares purchased in the fed entitle the owners to 6% annual dividends and voting rights on two-thirds of the directors. Mere bank deposits never carry such entitlements of ownership rights.

.

"The private nature of the ownership is determined by the nature of the entity to own the shares. The shares of the fed are owned by private national banks therefore the fed is privately owned"

You do not understand what those shares are. They are not ownership shares. You cannot buy an ownership share of the fed. Let me quote the fed again:

"[The Fed] is not "owned" by anyone...owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company."

Do you not understand what the fed says or are you claiming the fed is lying?

The Fed is NOT owned by anyone. And this stock you are referring to is not the same as ownership stock in a company. They have the same name, but different meanings. A word in the English language can have multiple meanings.

A share of federal reserve stock has NOTHING in common with an ownership share of stock in a company other than the name.

What makes something private property, regardless of what you call it, is the ability to sell it and use it as collateral. You can't do any of this with fed stock. Stock is just the word they use for the agreement that requires you to deposit your money at their bank and get interest in return.

You are trying to have a semantics argument. But the bottom line is that you can't do with the fed what you can if you really owned it.


On the contrary, trying to deny the meaning of the clear use of a term is trying to argue semantics. The ability to sell possessions and use them as collateral are accidental properties, not essential ones. The only properties essential to the definition of private property is that you possess it and have some recognized claim to it. As mentioned before, limitations on a recognized claim in no way negate the fact of the recognized claim. Contrary to your claim, one does indeed buy shares in the fed. It is the federally imposed requirement for any bank in the United States seeking to be a national bank. Like shares purchased in other companies but unlike mere interest bearing deposites, the purchased shares in the fed carry voting rights on directors as well as a right to dividends. The meaning of the word stock pertaining to the fed is the same as the meaning of stock pertaining to other corporations. Cattle are not being referred to. Items in a store are not being referred to. A financial interest in a corporation is being referred to.

As already mentioned, the denial of "owned" cannot be made without placing the word in quotations to avoid what would otherwise be a plainly false denial. The fact that the shares are purchased cannot be denied. The fact that the shares carry voting rights cannot be denied. The fact that the shares entitle the owners to dividends cannot be denied. And the fact that the shares make the owners liable for a franchise tax cannot be denied [no one pays a tax for operating a government agency]. Pointing out the differences between the ownership of this stock and the ownership of stock in other companies does not magically make them into something else other than ownership stock. The federally imposed restrictions on the ownership are just that, restrictions, not a negation of the fact of ownership. The restrictions to which the ownership is subject to is no different than the restrictions that any stock is subject to by the initial owners of the stock. Ownership of purchased stock has never been understood to imply complete, absolute, control by the purchasers irrespective to the chartered intents of the initial owner. Any purchaser of stock must abide by any rules placed upon the ownership of that stock. The stock owned in the Federal Reserve Bank is no different in that essential respect as to what stock is. To hold that it's not actually a stock at all merely due to being a different kind of stock is to confuse its accidental properties with its essential properties and is simply an untenable position.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Shares are not bank deposites. A share is a purchase of ownership. There's no such thing as a non-ownership share."

The fed says differently. The fed says the shares do not entitle you to ownership. The fed's website is more credible than you.

.

"The only properties essential to the definition of private property is that you possess it and have some recognized claim to it."

And depositing your money at the fed does not entitle you to possession of a portion of the fed! You possess your deposit, that is it.

.

"The meaning of the word stock pertaining to the fed is the same as the meaning of stock pertaining to other corporations"

Name a single company that:

  • doesn't charge anything for their stock
  • requires you to deposit your money with them
  • prevents you from selling your stock
  • prevents you from sharing in its profits
  • prevents you from using your stock as collateral
[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3153) from New York, NY 8 hours ago

"Yes, the fed site at the top of the page places "owned" in quotations since a direct denial would be plainly false"

To me, that word is put into quotations because it is addressing whether the fed is owned in the way most people understand the word owned.

The fed is not privately owned in the sense that a private individual or company can buy and sell ownership shares in the fed, or use any of the fed's property as collateral, or share in any of the fed's profits.

This is what people mean when they say an organization is privately owned. This is what people mean when they say the fed is as private as federal express. And the fed clearly is not owned or private in this sense.


Knowing that there are different kinds of ownerships in shares, I can't testify to what people mean when they acknowledge the fed to be privately owned. I can only confirm the fact that it is and the circumstances to pertain to that fact.

.

"Unless it can be shown that the fbi, nasa, and the army, all require deposites i.e. shares from private entities to operate them and receive interest, the fed is clearly not a government organization like them. "

lol

The fed is not like nasa or the fbi or the army. The fed is a bank! It provides banking services to commercial banks. So you have to deposit your money with it. That is how banks work. It doesn't solve crimes, fight countries or explore space.

So according to your logic the fbi is also a privately owned company? After all, can you show that the fed, nasa or the army require private investigation firms to hand over evidence to it? So the fbi is clearly not a government organization like them.


lol. Is a bank the only type of organization to have shares??? Are you telling me detective agencies, security firms, and science companies can't have shares? Clearly, the reason why the FBI, NASA, and the army don't have shares isn't because they're not banks.

In fact, the stock requirement was actually a safeguard against misuse of the Government credit that was being delegated to the banks. Because private banks, and the regional Federal Reserve banks they controlled, might pass on loans that were doubtful, the probity of Federal Reserve notes (and Treasury balances kept on deposit at the Federal Reserve banks) might be endangered. Forcing member banks to “invest” some of their capital in the Federal Reserve was a guarantee against loose practices. Today, it serves no worthwhile purpose whatever. Eliminating the stock would change nothing in the basic structure and functions of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve does not need the money. It can write its own check whenever it needs money.

.

"A federal judge is a government judge who judges federal issues and the issue that was judged over 30 years ago has never been overturned for the simple fact that it wasn't wrong."

I don't know whether that verdict was overturned.

That judge was ruling on a traffic case. He was not ruling on the status of the fed.

That traffic judge cannot show where a person can buy an ownership share of the fed, or sell an ownership share of the fed or use an ownership share of the fed as collateral or use an ownership share to share in the fed's profits.


The federal judge was ruling on whether or not the federal government was liable for being sued in a case involving the Federal Reserve. Due to the independent corporate nature of the fed as revealed in the U.S.C., the government wasn't liable.

.

Yes, private organizations do elect members to the regional bank. But just because its management has some participation by private individuals doesn't mean it is private.

That doesn't mean you can buy an ownership share of the fed, or sell an ownership share of the fed or use an ownership share of the fed as collateral or use an ownership share to share in the fed's profits.

And it doesn't mean you can change its legal mandate. The fed's purpose and goal is set by congress, not by the regional banks.


The private nature of the ownership is determined by the nature of the entity to own the shares. The shares of the fed are owned by private national banks therefore the fed is privately owned. The various restrictions placed upon that ownership by the federal government in no way negates the fact of that ownership which had also been established by the federal government.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Is a bank the only type of organization to have shares??? Are you telling me detective agencies, security firms, and science companies can't have shares?"

As it says on the fed website, these fed shares are not ownership shares. They are an agreement that require you to deposit your money at the fed and entitle you to earn a guaranteed interest on your deposit. Since a bank is the only type of company where you deposit money, then yes it is the only type of organization to have this kind of agreement.

Detective agencies, security firms, and science companies are not banks so they will not require you to deposit your money with them.

.

"The private nature of the ownership is determined by the nature of the entity to own the shares. The shares of the fed are owned by private national banks therefore the fed is privately owned"

You do not understand what those shares are. They are not ownership shares. You cannot buy an ownership share of the fed. Let me quote the fed again:

"[The Fed] is not "owned" by anyone...owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company."

Do you not understand what the fed says or are you claiming the fed is lying?

The Fed is NOT owned by anyone. And this stock you are referring to is not the same as ownership stock in a company. They have the same name, but different meanings. A word in the English language can have multiple meanings.

A share of federal reserve stock has NOTHING in common with an ownership share of stock in a company other than the name.

What makes something private property, regardless of what you call it, is the ability to sell it and use it as collateral. You can't do any of this with fed stock. Stock is just the word they use for the agreement that requires you to deposit your money at their bank and get interest in return.

You are trying to have a semantics argument. But the bottom line is that you can't do with the fed what you can if you really owned it.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

"In fact, in all that you quote from http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm no where in that writing on the internet is there any actual denial of the Federal Reserve Banks being corporations of private ownership."

You need to read it again! Because the fed makes it clear on that page in no uncertain terms that it is in no way private. It says at the very top of the page:

"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution."

Just like the fbi, nasa and the army, the fed is a government entity, it is not owned by anyone, it cannot be owned by anyone, and it is not a private company.

.

"Unlike the previous first and second Bank of the U.S., the U.S. government has no shares in the Federal Reserve Banks"

The government also doesn't have shares in the fbi or nasa or the army. Do you want to know why? Because the fed, like the fbi, nasa and army, are government organizations! They are NOT private companies.

Nobody can buy ownership shares in the fed, just like nobody can buy ownership shares in the fbi!

.

"The shares of the Federal Reserve Banks are completely owned by private sector banking corporations without which there simply is no Federal Reserve Bank."

There are no ownership shares that anyone can buy.

The stock that you have to buy as a bank in order to participate in the US banking system entitle you to 6% interest on your deposit, it does not entitle you to ownership of the fed. In order to operate as a bank in the US, you have to deposit your money at the fed, which means you will get this stock in return so that you can collect interest on your deposit.

.

"choosing to dismiss a federal court judgement as simply being a writing on the internet doesn't in any way invalidate that fact."

What makes the fed private is not what some random judge writes in some random car accident case. That judge was wrong. And if the purpose of that case was to determine whether the fed was private and not a case about who can pay in a car accident, that incorrect statement would be overturned because it is simply not true.


Yes, the fed site at the top of the page places "owned" in quotations since a direct denial would be plainly false. After all, terms based upon it such as "ownership" are plainly used by the Act that legalized the fed. One cannot honestly deny what is plainly stated. One can only deny what is actually meant by what is plainly stated.

Unless it can be shown that the fbi, nasa, and the army, all require deposites i.e. shares from private entities to operate them and receive interest, the fed is clearly not a government organization like them.

A federal judge is not some random judge just because you disagree with a judgement. A federal judge is a government judge who judges federal issues and the issue that was judged over 30 years ago has never been overturned for the simple fact that it wasn't wrong. The facts that the judgement was based upon came directly from the U.S.C. as well as from a previous federal case of the same nature. You can't be wrong when all you're doing is citing federal law. In fact, there's much about the fed that had only been hinted at such as the fact that:

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

The Federal Reserve was established as a public agency. But private banks were given control of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks that is, they were given the privilege of electing six directors of each bank, and these directors—a 2/3 majority—in turn, selected the presidents and other chief officers of the bank.

In practice the Federal Reserve is “independent” in its policymaking. The Federal Reserve neither requires nor seeks the approval of any branch of Government for its policies. The System itself decides what ends its policies are aimed at and then takes whatever action it sees fit to reach those ends.

Since the Federal Reserve is independent it is not accountable to anyone for the economic policies it chooses to pursue. But this runs counter to normally accepted democratic principles. The President and Congress are responsible to the people on election day for their past economic decisions. But the Federal Reserve is responsible, neither to the people directly nor indirectly through the people’s elected representatives. Yet the Federal Reserve exercises great power in controlling the money-creating activities of the commercial banks.

with an “independent” Federal Reserve, Congress and the President can be moving in one direction while the Federal Reserve is moving in the other. The result is sometimes no policy at all. At other times, it leads to the Federal Reserve’s neutralizing the President’s economic policies. This very possibility caused President Johnson to request the Federal Reserve in his 1964 Annual Economic Report to Congress not to nullify his efforts to reduce unemployment and raise incomes. Should the President have to ask any Government agency to go along with his policy as approved by Congress? Obviously not.

The President is elected by the people. During his campaign for election the President normaly advocates some economic policy. The economic issues weigh heavily in the campaign. Why then should the President find himself faced with an independent Federal Reserve Board which may not agree or may even try to nullify the policies he wishes to pursue? The President should be able to fashion a total package of economic policies, including monetary ones, as he sees fit. The money authorities should have the right and duty to counsel and advise. But they should not have the power, as they do when they are independent, to nullify the intended effects of the President‘s programs.

There are two sides to independence—one is economic, the other political. On the economic side, independence means that the Federal Reserve formulates and executes economic policy, using its monetary controls, without any necessary reference or coordination with the policies being followed by the other branches of the Government. This, of course, invites clashes between the Federal Reserve and other parts of the Government. Clashes have occurred, with sad results for all. On the political side, independence means that the Federal Reserve is not accountable to anyone for its actions. As the situation now stands, there is no mechanism by which the Federal Reserve can be made to change a policy it has chosen to follow. The members of the Federal Reserve do not come up for election as do Members of Congress or the President. Though an arm of Congress, the Federal Reserve is not responsible to it. The Federal Reserve does not present an annual report to Congress nor does Congress review the system’s actions as a normal part of its business. The Congressional power of the purse—the historic source of the legislatures power—does not apply to the Federal Reserve, which provides its own revenue. The System is not even subject to audit control of the General Accounting Office. Finally, the President, though he may select one or two of the members of the Federal Reserve Board, appoints them for 14-year terms. In the normal course of events, these men cannot be removed from office and because of their long tenures they do not reflect any single President’s ideas.

The private banks who control the System, together with some allies—notably, Wall Street newspapers and other members of the financial community favor Federal Reserve independence.

Of the 12 members of the Open Market Committee—the Committee which actually controls credit policy—5 are presidents of regional banks. These presidents are elected by the individual regional banks’ nine-man board of directors with its preponderance of private commercial bank representatives. Further, all 12 of the regional bank presidents participate an the Open Market Committee’s discussions, though only 5 can vote. The “discussion” Open Market Committee, then, has 19 members—12 regional bank presidents and the 7 members of the Federal Reserve Board.

when the System was originally founded a struggle was waged over who would control the Federal Reserve—public or private interest. The solution was a compromise. But what (in 1913) was the master switch governing the money Supply—the discount rate—was left in the hands of a totally public body—the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. This was a deliberate act. President Wilson rejected the notion of diluting the public nature of the Board when he said, “Which one of you gentleman would have me select the presidents of railroads to be on the Interstate Commerce Commission to fix passenger rates and freight rates?” But when Congress in 1933 and 1935 authorized the Open Market Committee, which in effect succeeded to the policymaking role of the Board, it gave private interests a firm foothold in determining monetary policy—the money supply and the general level of interest rates. Five of the twelve voting members of the Open Market Committee are regional bank presidents. These men hold their offices through the votes of bank directors, two-thirds of whom are elected by private bankers. The other seven bank presidents, of course, participate in the discussions of the Open Market Committee. The upshot is that men whose views must meet the test of the private bank-selected directors help determine the Government’s monetary policy. A purely public group has given way to a mixed body with questionable qualifications to represent the public interest.

All members of the Committee should be public servants. There is absolutely no reason why they should not be. Private influences—especially private bank influences—have no place in setting the Nation’s monetary policies.

No law or regulation specifies how much of the Federal Reserve’s earnings must be returned to the Treasury, but in practice the Federal Reserve spends all of the income it cares to spend, pays dividends to member banks on their “stock” and sets aside a large amount as “surplus.” The remainder is then returned to the Treasury. It usually returns an amount several times the amount of its expenses.

In recent years the Federal Reserve has, regrettably, followed a policy which has given away billions to the private banks. It has done this by increasing the money supply largely through lowering bank reserve requirements. The Federal Reserve could have provided part of the increase in the money supply itself by purchasing Government securities. But it did not choose to do so.

In the early part of 1958, the Federal Reserve lowered reserve requirements in order to let private banks increase the money supply by a maximum of $10 billion. The purpose of reducing reserve requirements was to make more funds available for loans to business. The banks, instead, used the new “excess” reserves to acquire $10 billion of interest-bearing U.S. Government securities. This is an example of a giveaway”—Where the Federal Reserve should have purchased Government securities instead of letting private banks do it—to the advantage of their profits and to the disadvantage of the taxpayers.

the bond giveaway bill was a bill sponsored by the American Bankers’ Association, introduced in Congress in 1959. Its purpose was to transfer $108 billion of Government securities from the Federal Reserve to private bankers. The goal was to reduce “enormous” Federal Reserve holdings of Government securities—and transfer them, and their interest income, to private firms. The mechanism was to permit banks to count vault cash as reserves, and use the “excess” reserves thereby created to buy bonds from the Federal Reserve. The bill was passed into law only after the House stated its firm opposition to the give that the new away sections of the bill, and expressed the hope “excess” reserves would be used to expand business loans.

The reward for buying bonds with money that private banks create is the “subsidized” profits they enjoy.

the “burden” of U.S. Government bonds, held by the private banking system is the heavy bond interest payments, borne by the taxpayers, that go to private bankers when the same amount of money could be created by an agency of Government . Then the taxpayers would not bear this tremendous cost on Government bonds purchased with reserves given to the private bankers.

It is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that carries out sales of bonds and bills for the Treasury. The manager of this account acts as agent for the Treasury, the Federal Open Market Committee and seven foreign banks.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York conducts these transactions as agent for the entire system.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Yes, the fed site at the top of the page places "owned" in quotations since a direct denial would be plainly false"

To me, that word is put into quotations because it is addressing whether the fed is owned in the way most people understand the word owned.

The fed is not privately owned in the sense that a private individual or company can buy and sell ownership shares in the fed, or use any of the fed's property as collateral, or share in any of the fed's profits.

This is what people mean when they say an organization is privately owned. This is what people mean when they say the fed is as private as federal express. And the fed clearly is not owned or private in this sense.

.

"Unless it can be shown that the fbi, nasa, and the army, all require deposites i.e. shares from private entities to operate them and receive interest, the fed is clearly not a government organization like them. "

lol

The fed is not like nasa or the fbi or the army. The fed is a bank! It provides banking services to commercial banks. So you have to deposit your money with it. That is how banks work. It doesn't solve crimes, fight countries or explore space.

So according to your logic the fbi is also a privately owned company? After all, can you show that the fed, nasa or the army require private investigation firms to hand over evidence to it? So the fbi is clearly not a government organization like them.

.

"A federal judge is a government judge who judges federal issues and the issue that was judged over 30 years ago has never been overturned for the simple fact that it wasn't wrong."

I don't know whether that verdict was overturned.

That judge was ruling on a traffic case. He was not ruling on the status of the fed.

That traffic judge cannot show where a person can buy an ownership share of the fed, or sell an ownership share of the fed or use an ownership share of the fed as collateral or use an ownership share to share in the fed's profits.

.

Yes, private organizations do elect members to the regional bank. But just because its management has some participation by private individuals doesn't mean it is private.

That doesn't mean you can buy an ownership share of the fed, or sell an ownership share of the fed or use an ownership share of the fed as collateral or use an ownership share to share in the fed's profits.

And it doesn't mean you can change its legal mandate. The fed's purpose and goal is set by congress, not by the regional banks.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

Replying here.

It is important that people know the fed is privately owned. Deception has silenced Democracy in this country for too long. We may not have unlimited time to solve these problems!

[-] 3 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

The world is flat, we didn't land on the moon, we are ruled by reptilian people, and the fed is private all share 1 thing in common: they are not supported by any evidence and all the evidence says the exact opposite.

Claiming otherwise makes you look foolish.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

Research this truth;

The global conglomerate summarized by Karen Hudes;

The best way to simplify the Federal Institute of Technology study: the eight largest U.S. financial companies (JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bancorp, Bank of New York Mellon and Morgan Stanley) are 100% controlled by ten shareholders and we have four companies always present in all decisions: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and Fidelity. In addition, the Federal Reserve is comprised of 12 banks, represented by a board of seven people, which comprises representatives of the “big four,” which in turn are present in all other entities. In short, the Federal Reserve is controlled by four large private companies: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and Fidelity. http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-controls-big-money-the-barclay-s-octopus/21392

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

He is not claiming that the fed is influenced by private companies. He is claiming that the fed is privately owned. The fed is not privately owned and there is no evidence that exists that says that it is.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

85 Billion a month in bailouts right now, since Novemeber. That half a trillion at this point.

Is Congress voting on this?

Does Congress have any say on this?

Do we have any say in this?

No. No. No.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Does any of that mean the fed is privately owned?

No.

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

The Federal Reserve Bank is indeed privately owned and there's no indication of it being otherwise.


"The shareholders of everv Federal reserve bank shall be held individually responsible, equally and ratably, and not one for another, for all contracts, debts, and engagements of such bank to the extent of the amount of their subscriptions to such stock at the par value thereof in addition to the amount subscribed, whether such subscrip tions have been paid up in whole or in part, under the provisions of this Act."

"No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or a director of a Federal reserve bank."

"The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $100 each. The outstanding capital stock shall be increased from time to time as member banks increase their capital stock and surplus or as additional banks become members, and may bo decreased as member banks reduce their capital stock or surplus or cease to be members. Shares of the capital stock of Federal reserve banks owned by member banks shall not be transferred or hypothecated."

"After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of six per centum on the paid-in capital stock, which dividend shall be cumulative. After the aforesaid dividend claims have been fully met, all the net earnings shall be paid to the United States as a franchise tax, except that one-half of such net earnings shall be paid into a surplus fund until it shall amount to forty per centum of the paid-in capital stock of such bank."

"Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from federal btate, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate."

"The Federal Reserve Board shall have power to levy semiannually upon the Federal reserve banks, in proportion to thdir capital stock and surplus, an assessment sufficient to pay its estimated expenses and the salaries of its members and employees for the half year succeeding the hvying of such assessment, together with anv deficit carried forward from the preceding half year."

http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf


Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

6 Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.

7 Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

8 It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

9 It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine.

10 H.R. Report No. 69, 63 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

11 The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

12 The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, a factor considered in Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

13 Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. Cf. Goddard v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 287 F.2d 343, 345 (D.C.Cir.1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 1085, 6 L.Ed.2d 235 (1961) (court held land redevelopment agency was federal agency for purposes of the Act in large part because agency received direct appropriated funds from Congress.)

14 Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. § 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys, e.g., Banco De Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 114 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1940); Huntington Towers v. Franklin National Bank, 559 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1977); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981), and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

Lewis v. United States

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/680/680.F2d.1239.80-5905.html

[-] 3 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

The fed was created by congress, its board is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, all profits go to the US treasury, you cannot buy ownership shares.

How does any of that mean it is private? Name a single private organization that works that way.

If it was private, private individuals would run it, not government appointed officials.

If it was private, you would be able to buy and sell ownership shares in it. You cannot buy a share of fed stock and you cannot sell a share of fed stock. (You are required to deposit your money with the fed if you want to participate in the banking system and the fed pays interest on that deposit but your deposit does not mean you own the fed).

If it was private, the profits would go in the pockets of private individuals, not the government.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

Exercise common sense.

[-] -2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

If you can't swallow these facst, and they are facts, then what chance do you have? This is pointless, I'm done.

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I agree, debating people who reject science is pointless.

[-] -2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

The fed was created by congress, its board is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, all profits go to the US treasury, you cannot buy ownership shares.

How does any of that mean it is private? Name a single private organization that works that way.

If it was private, private individuals would run it, not government appointed officials.

If it was private, you would be able to buy and sell ownership shares in it. You cannot buy a share of fed stock and you cannot sell a share of fed stock. (You are required to deposit your money with the fed if you want to participate in the banking system and the fed pays interest on that deposit but your deposit does not mean you own the fed).

If it was private, the profits would go in the pockets of private individuals, not the government.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

Exercise common sense.


Exercising common sense would be to attend to the actual facts that had been presented.

Government departments are not subject to taxation and therefore do not require the exemptions that the FRB has from federal, state, and local taxes. Government property is public property and therefore not subject to real estate taxes that the property of the FRB is subject to.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors.

the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine.

the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

[-] 4 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Exercising common sense would be to attend to the actual facts that had been presented."

Ok, let's do that.

.

"Government departments are not subject to taxation and therefore do not require the exemptions that the FRB has from federal, state, and local taxes. Government property is public property and therefore not subject to real estate taxes that the property of the FRB is subject to."

Simple common sense says that what makes an organization private is not whether they pay taxes.

Private ownership means I have control over it, have control over its profits, can sell or trade my ownership, and can use that property as collateral.

Since nobody can do any of that with the fed, it is not the private property of anyone.

.

"Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region..."

That is simply false. And writing that on the internet doesn't make it true.

"The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

.

"each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services."

You are confused as to what the definition of private property is.

What makes a company privately owned is not who hires the employees or what insurance they have.

What makes something private property is the ability to buy it, control it, sell it and collect its profits. Nobody can do any of that with the fed.

You can't buy the fed, you can't sell the fed, you can't control it (the govt, its appointed board, and its legal mandate control it), and you can't take its profits.

This is all simple common sense that you are not getting.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

What do you make of the first audit of the fed reserve, and the lack of media coverage of the 16 trillion the fed created to hand out to foreign interests?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Of course, none of that means the fed is private.

I think the fed is doing the job it is legally mandated to do. I think we avoided a great depression because the fed propped up the banking system which it wasn't allowed to do in 1929 and as a result turned a recession into a depression.

However, I think it is propping up an unfair system. I think the fed should be used to also fund a democratic economic sector where everyone is treated equally, where you have a right to a job, and where income is allocated based on how hard you work not on how scarce you are in the market or how much capital you have and how lucky you are in gambling that capital.

I believe we can get the fed to also fund a democratic sector. I think that is politically feasible. And if we did that, I believe it would mark an historic, revolutionary change for society.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

More common sense;

"I think we avoided a great depression because the fed propped up the banking system which it wasn't allowed to do in 1929 and as a result turned a recession into a depression."

Your quote from below becomes part of the problem because the bankers knew that when the bubble burst, they were in position to keep their ill gotten gains that created the bubble in the first place. They deserve no credit for anything good! Bush 2 went on tv to inform us that these steps were necessary to prevent a collapse, just as the Congress had already been told they must bail out the banks or else disaster.

You continue your post explaining that it's not fair, everyone should be equal and the right to a job, blah, blah, but expect us to focus on whether the fed is private or not. The Fed is, "uniquely", private and we can all agree with the fed not being private in exactly the same way as any other private bank.

This is common sense you are not getting.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Your quote from below becomes part of the problem because the bankers knew that when the bubble burst, they were in position to keep their ill gotten gains that created the bubble in the first place"

I don't think the bankers' gains were ill-gotten. They got it fairly within the system. The system is unfair, not the bankers.

I also think the banks made the bets they did because they thought they would win not because they thought they would lose and get bailed out. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any evidence that showed the bankers increased their risk because they thought they would get bailed out.

.

" They deserve no credit for anything good!"

I didn't say the banks did anything good, I said the fed did. The fed prevented the recession from turning into a depression

.

"You continue your post explaining that it's not fair, everyone should be equal and the right to a job, blah, blah, but expect us to focus on whether the fed is private or not"

I don't want to focus on whether the fed is private!! Who cares!! What matters is that the economic system is unfair. It isn't me that started this about the fed. I'm just clearing up inaccuracies about the fed.

.

"The Fed is, "uniquely", private and we can all agree with the fed not being private in exactly the same way as any other private bank. This is common sense you are not getting."

No!

The fed is not in any way private!!

You can get this right on the fed's website:

"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution." http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

The fed is a government entity and is not private.

This isn't difficult to understand and it is absurd to claim that the fed is lying to everyone and is part of a vast conspiracy to make the public think it is part of the government when it is really privately owned.

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Simple common sense says that what makes an organization private is not whether they pay taxes.

Private ownership means I have control over it, have control over its profits, can sell or trade my ownership, and can use that property as collateral.

Since nobody can do any of that with the fed, it is not the private property of anyone.


No, private ownership means that the ownership is of a private i.e. non-public source. The degree of control of that ownership does not determine the nature of the source. The source of ownership is either private or public. Unlike the previous first and second Bank of the U.S., the U.S. government has no shares in the Federal Reserve Banks. The shares of the Federal Reserve Banks are completely owned by private sector banking corporations without which there simply is no Federal Reserve Bank. In contrast, a publicly owned bank such as the Bank of North Dakota is owned by the state government, not through shares from private corporations.

.

"Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region..."

is simply true and choosing to dismiss a federal court judgement as simply being a writing on the internet doesn't in any way invalidate that fact. In fact, in all that you quote from http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm no where in that writing on the internet is there any actual denial of the Federal Reserve Banks being corporations of private ownership. Pointing out how the nature of ownership is different from other private corporations is just that, different, not a repudiation.

You are confused as to the distinctions between public and private ownership. Just because a privately owned entity is heavily regulated by the government for public purposes doesn't make it a publicly owned entity. Just because the government appoints and confirms non-civil servants from the banking community to oversee the operations of the privately owned corporations conceived of by a private banker and approved of by Congress, doesn't in any way transform the mandated private ownership into public ownership. The nature of the ownership is determined by the nature of the entites to have stake in that ownership, not the degree to which that ownership is government regulated.

The bottom line beyond any objections of what anyone may have is what stands up in federal court.

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/680/680.F2d.1239.80-5905.html

The official legal perspective is what has the force of law behind it no matter how much anyone may choose to object to that perspective.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"In fact, in all that you quote from http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm no where in that writing on the internet is there any actual denial of the Federal Reserve Banks being corporations of private ownership."

You need to read it again! Because the fed makes it clear on that page in no uncertain terms that it is in no way private. It says at the very top of the page:

"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution."

Just like the fbi, nasa and the army, the fed is a government entity, it is not owned by anyone, it cannot be owned by anyone, and it is not a private company.

.

"Unlike the previous first and second Bank of the U.S., the U.S. government has no shares in the Federal Reserve Banks"

The government also doesn't have shares in the fbi or nasa or the army. Do you want to know why? Because the fed, like the fbi, nasa and army, are government organizations! They are NOT private companies.

Nobody can buy ownership shares in the fed, just like nobody can buy ownership shares in the fbi!

.

"The shares of the Federal Reserve Banks are completely owned by private sector banking corporations without which there simply is no Federal Reserve Bank."

There are no ownership shares that anyone can buy.

The stock that you have to buy as a bank in order to participate in the US banking system entitle you to 6% interest on your deposit, it does not entitle you to ownership of the fed. In order to operate as a bank in the US, you have to deposit your money at the fed, which means you will get this stock in return so that you can collect interest on your deposit.

.

"choosing to dismiss a federal court judgement as simply being a writing on the internet doesn't in any way invalidate that fact."

What makes the fed private is not what some random judge writes in some random car accident case. That judge was wrong. And if the purpose of that case was to determine whether the fed was private and not a case about who can pay in a car accident, that incorrect statement would be overturned because it is simply not true.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I don't have the link but I did write this down a while back when I was checking out TVP. A quote from Fresco himself: "Never give people the right to their own opinion."

I'm not making that up. And personally, that sounds like a control freak to me. As does his refusal to let 'outsiders' help him with his plans.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

What outsiders? Peter?

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I heard that too. He's said plenty of questionable things, but it's got no context. I heard him say something like "ima get me a nigger." or "your dad should have used a condom".

What do you think he meant by that, about people's opinions? I think it has something to do with the environments people are raised in. A KKK member has his opinion, and it makes sense in his messed up environment.

I doubt he means to take away free thought. The type of environment he wants is one where children understand this early.

It's kind of like saying "I have the best dad in the world." It's obviously not true as there can only be one best.

I make mistakes all the time, not everything I say I mean or believe. It was either out of context or he didn't literally mean exactly what he said.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I wish I could remember the website I read that quote on, but it's been a while. See, in the early days of the forum there were a few people that came on here talking about TVP so out of curiosity I did a little research, like you're doing now. It was on a different computer so all my bookmarks from that time were lost. But the impression I got was he was an arrogant control freak. The people I'm talking about that wanted to help him that he turned away were engineers and scientists. Fresco thinks he knows it all and I admit he's an extremely intelligent guy. But when you've been working on something for fifty damn years and still nothing to show for it, I have to wonder. And when you have outside professionals offering their help to see the project become a reality and you turn them away, I have to wonder. Then there's the quote from Roxanne saying "No one but Fresco can understand these designs because they're beyond the understanding of everyone else." That's a serious problem, because it's total bullshit. There's no fucking way it's beyond the scope of EVERYONE. That's just arrogance. One site I came across was called "Zeitgeist is a mind heist." Google it and read other people's opinions about it. It's good to see all sides, you know? Sorry for the long rant.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

No prob, I hear ya. Roxanne fucks up a lot I think. She seems to love him too much.

I can only imagine the pressure and frustration she has to deal with.

As for Zeitgeist, I knew about TVP independtly. I saw the first movie. Many times. Then the second came out and I quickly lost interest. When I watched the third I was like "I know that voice!" and was super pumped to watch the 2 and 3rd.

I don't have faith in Peter. I think he is great at presenting entertainment and information. I was a little disappointed to learn they split, but that didn't last long.

Fresco is complicated. People have a hard time understanding his ideas. Plus, I think many Zeitgeist fans are really pissed off at him. They are probably capable of ruining his reputation.

One thing I really understand that other people don't is that he expects everything he's ever created to quickly be obsolete, or look anything like his designs, to be antiquated quickly. In the TVP future, his work is child's play.

The magic computer isn't going to impede democracy. It's to help humanity make the best decisions, which will always be controlled by most capable humans.

I wouldn't put Zeitgeist in a package with TVP. They are absolutely separate. Although I'd watch Z4.

The professionals he refused help from may really not get the picture, and may botch the outcome. There may be funding issues. who knows, but there must be a good reason. He's not dreaming of controlling anything but the environment children grow up in.

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I'm certainly not going to try and burst your bubble on this. Admittedly, I only researched it maybe a few weeks and definitely not full time. At the time my old computer wasn't good enough to watch any of the movies so I didn't see any of them, I only read websites.

I am skeptical about a cashless society though. i really don't believe money is the problem. Money is merely a tool. It's what you do with the tool that matters. But that's not to say a cashless society won't work. It's entirely possible, I suppose. But the transition would have to be gradual. It'll take a very long time, but mainly because it's become such an integral part of modern society.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I've been looking for something about TVP that turns me off. I almost did, but the more I learned, the more sense it makes, every little detail.

We can speed up the transition, watch for Conglomerate posts about that.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Will do. I try to read every post and yours are no exception. You definitely have a head on your shoulders, as they used to say. That means you're intelligent. Not sure you guys up there are hip to our American lingo, heheh.

But I gotta go. It's late. Talk to you next time.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Open minds will dominate. Glad you're able to consider things that sound wrong and that you don't fall in line. You are not stuck. You can change your opinion without fear of being wrong. Maybe that's a guess, since I don't really know you, but it's my perception so far.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

You're correct. I consider myself open-minded and receptive to new ideas. It comes from being the inquisitive kind, I think. Thanks.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I can't wait to follow up on this, but "So economics and economic decisions is deciding whether to use that labor, material and energy for cars or for houses. This is what you first learn in the very first chapter of an economics 101 course."

Textbooks... please.

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Are you asking for a textbook to look at?

Or are you saying textbooks are not a valid source of information?

[-] -2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

All that glitters is not gold. No thanks.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I don't know what that means.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Shit that's a big post. I better go to a computer to reply.

[-] 2 points by itsmyblood (10) 1 year ago

we should be working 2 hour work days. literally.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I agree.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

well.... while I agree with the goals of this thread.....

  • imo, as presented ...it is messy.... and will never gain large traction or support simply due to the use of the selected words....& perceived definitions....

  • primarily.... in the use of the word "money" ...

  • Money is a thing.... a reality... like a mountain or a valley ... it is something that exists ... no more good or bad ... than a mountain is....

  • now... focusing on how money is used ... might be a different story.... which could gain support....

  • Money is nothing but a "means of exchange" ... a form of currency .... something that can be earned and or later traded for something else....

  • Money can take the form of a precious metal, stone, a rare painting, a bitcoin... a promissory note...a contract ... or even an IOU.... like our Fiat currency....

  • You cannot legislate away money... people will continue to use it in some form ... whether legal or not....

  • And likewise...you cannot legislate away free trade... people will continue to use it in some form ... whether legal or not....

  • If you want support on these new economic & social systems .... you need to clean up the terminology ... or you won't get out of the starting gate....

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

There are a few key words I always capitalize. There needs to be a definitions page, that's for sure. I also have to apologize because I'm not well educated and things that end with ism, have trouble sinking in. I always struggle with what DG actually is.

Personally, I think fiat is not money and we should only refer to it as fiat. You can legislate away fiat, but not money.

[-] 2 points by forourfutures (393) 1 year ago

Quite possible that money is the problem, because it has no value to living things. With money, some can become money manipulators, bankers. Without money they are called traders, and actually know the value of their different stocks.

Why do you think is so easy for bankers to invest in industry that destroys the environment?

Now, there is another group that thinks that the written word is the root of all evil.

A long explanation is required to explain how this could be true. To shorten that, I would ask any who might ponder the issue, to explain why people were burned at the stake, then books were burned.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

It's the same elite we have today, using money, religion, armed forces, and media.

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 1 year ago

Actually I was going to differentiate between the "elite" and "nazis", but for all purposes, you would be right.

There are 2 kinds of elite, and this goes for all societies over time, and people too. Their intent makes them dark or light. The dark elite like nazis, the light do not.

We must be careful to not generalize no matter how bad they want us to. If we do, then they follow suit and call us "the masses". Right there is the beginning of a stupid class war that the nazis would love to see start.

[-] 2 points by forourfutures (393) 1 year ago

Yep, and the infiltration is deep. However, generalizing still does not help. Understanding helps. There is really only one explanation, but because we dpn't know what we din't know, understanding takes a bunch of cognition of foundational issues that have been made taboo!

Here is a site that seems close, but sea far deeper than just that. Oral histories and secrecy.

http://truthasaur.com

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Here's an idea. Start a thread with links to the 99% Conglomerate and the Cooperative Union http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-cooperative-union/ and ask people to evaluate which one is the most comprehensible to them. The point is that no matter how wonderful an idea may be, people will not patronize it if they can't readily understand it. By pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of understanding the 99% Conglomerate, their evaluations will allow you to receive feedback that can further enhance your promotion of the idea.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I think we should do that, though you linked to a lot of lengthy paragraphs. It took a long time to read and it kind of felt like reading a textbook or fine print in a contract. There was some guessing to do. I know my work has its flaws, and there are very good positions in your thread. I did read it earlier, and it's really cool you know about Mondragon. Your posts made me want to go look for that law/service in Italy providing startup money to groups of people who have similar situations, who want to start a co-op rather than receive unemployment benefits. (I better find that again to make sure I'm not making things up).

I think we should each prepare a well-written summary of our ideas, then do that new thread linking to them as you suggested. Our articles should be short and concise, and follow rules:

-word count max and min

-max number of sentences per paragraph

You know... something that most Americans have the patience and comprehension level for.

So far, what I think I disagree with is it's not really a significant systemic change. I like how you said "This voter solidarity across party lines in the use of affidavits and the demand for justice will be a people's revolution that either establishes democracy in America, setting an example for people of similar political situations to follow around the world, or fails and establishes the official American acceptance of the tyranny of corporate rule."

If we continue to elect representatives (keep the political system/processes), we give them the power to evade/disregard/avoid/change laws even when 99% of the population disagrees with them.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Significant systemic change results from the will of the masses and cannot be imposed without their participatory consent. All that can be done is to facilitate the means by which the masses can bring about such change for themselves if they should so choose.

For a summary of my ideas, the link to the Cooperative Union is it. That's why I offered it. People can click onto the two links pertaining to FreeDA to gain an understanding of that reference but the Cooperative Union still suffices as a summary without accessing those links.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Your first point might be debatable.

The reason I think DG is less complicated than FreeDA is because FreeDA is an enhancement to the current system. You have to understand the current system first, which many struggle to do.

To understand DG, you have to forget everything you already know about the current political system.

DG does not require debate about specific laws and legislation. It creates none, but rather establishes a true(er) democratic platform for these decisions to be made.

It's just a framework to facilitate universal social welfare, democratic technocracy (hope that's the right word for it), and national governance.

The concept will settle in for those who are interested. But eventually the 99% Conglomerate will draw the entire global 99% into acceptance (spoken as if it existed already, of course).

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

But it doesn't matter if you think that DG is less complicated than FreeDA or if you think that eventually the 99% Conglomerate will draw the entire global 99% into acceptance if no one else thinks it as well. That's the whole point of soliciting feedback. We are all clear on the promotion of our own thoughts and of what we think people understand but until we get actual feedback from others, what we think is just that, only what we think. Having to regularly communicate details to businesses online on how to fulfill orders for me, I know that no matter how clear I strive to communicate something I think to be simple to understand, there's always room for misunderstanding. Until you know the perspectives of others in how they're reading your words, you won't know to what extent you're coming across clearly to them and therefore to what extent you may need to improve upon it.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Whatever is proposed, the fact that most people don't care needs to be considered. They need to be supporters without needing to know of what or why, just like consumers are when they support the 1% by purchasing fuel or baby food.

I'm willing to bet enough capitalist haters will support the Conglomerate to get the snowball rolling. Once it rolls, it will be impossible to stop, until all consumers/employees/entrepreneurs are fully integrated (AKA Phase 3 maturity).

With the workplace democracy structure of the Conglomerate, all "shareholders" can be delivered a message. This is ultimately the source of power capable of taking power from the elite, and when that happens, we can systemically evolve.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Appealing to people's consumerism is indeed the key to making them activists without requiring them to actually become activists. That's the only way of getting around their apathy. However, betting on there being enough capitalist haters to support the Conglomerate to get the snowball rolling is not a good bet. Like any other adherents to a perspective, haters of capitalism are well entrenched into their own personally preferred versions of their perspective and will only patronize something new if it stands out in making sense to them. That brings you right back to making sure you're coming across clearly to them by soliciting their feedback on the matter of your clarity. Only then will you have the basis of making a good bet on expected support.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Currently only a few people here have tried to understand the two concepts. Several people read and don't comprehend, and I'm fine with that. Over time the concepts will be known, through short posts and conversation like this.

I've challenged readers to find a flaw or ask for elaboration. It seems the logic is undeniable. If this is true, it should be presented as the one point of focus for those willing to unite against the corporate elite.

I hope I didn't offend you and there is still some willingness to tune into DG/Conglomerate posts, even if only to find that flaw that everyone missed.

FreeDA is an excellent initiative for this system. I must focus though on DG. Plus I'm not a US citizen so can't really help influence your legislation.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

FreeDA isn't so much about legislation as it is about people being able to come together to get the legislation they agree upon passed. It's about forcing democracy through the crack of a democratic resistant designed wall. As such, it is a complement to the Cooperative Union, not the primary focus.

Does the logic of the DG/Conglomerate seem undeniable because that's what readers have actually confirmed in their replies or is it a conclusion based upon an absence of responses from the challenged readers who simply may not have been all that interested in it in the first place? That would make a very big difference in the determination of how the readers truly feel about it.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

There have been attempts on it but I've argued successfully. But you're right, there hasn't been much. So I talk about it with such confidence to hopefully draw out more. Take your best shot at it.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Over all, it seems that you're applying a capitalist tactic to achieve a socialistic goal. If so, no matter how logical it may seem to be, those of a socialistic perspective won't support it due to the employment of a capitalistic tactic and those of a capitalistic perspective won't support it due to its anti-capitalist goal.

On top of that, it seems that you may simply be re-inventing the wheel and calling it a unicycle. By this, I mean that the 99% Conglomerate seems like a cooperative in essence and therefore appears to be overly complicated in its expression as a corporation.

The bottom line is that no matter how great an idea may be, it will go nowhere if it doesn't capture anyone's interest in terms and concepts that they can readily understand. A promising idea has to be simple to understand and simple to apply in order to get people to patronize it. Otherwise, without understanding, people will have no interest in it and without simple application, people will have no time for it.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Most of that is your opinion, which I mostly disagree with. Oh well.

If you can find a flaw in the guts of it as opposed to your opinion on how well it will catch on, I'm all ears.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Well, in the end, the proof is in the pudding. Is it catching on? Do you propose a time scale in which a certain amount of support is expected? That would determine its value as a promising idea beyond anyone's mere opinions.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Well, since you are among the fist 20 people who have heard of it, because it was only released to the world a few months ago, it's far from complete, and there is no attempt to inform the world yet, no public website, I'm doing fine.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Then, under those conditions, statements such as

...eventually the 99% Conglomerate will draw the entire global 99% into acceptance...

and

...the logic is undeniable.

would seem to be a bit premature and capable of alienating potential supporters to the idea. When do you see it as being completed to the point of having a public website?

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

So you didn't follow any links or spend much time at all learning about it. I don't mind, because I never take a second look myself. I don't particularly like reading. I like audio and video. I have a bit of a learning disability. Most people do I think. That's why I have a hard time comprehending paragraphs made of 20 sentences.

My current strategy is to write about it so much that I can hear people report flaws, and overcome all of them. I'm doing the 10,000 hour thing.

I don't want to make a website that's full of nonsense.

When I sound conceited, it's to get attention and hopefully get more replies. Believe it or not, it's hard to get replies from people.

I can write up the whole thing without getting stuck, unless I haven't traversed it previously. I don't know how close I am to 10,000 hours, but I have a long way to go. Enough writing up Word docs and deleting them... Now I need feedback.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

What would you like me to do?

We can talk about it more if you are interested.

Pick any problem with the world or aspect of any political system, and I'll explain why DG is superior.

Think of any initiative that has a chance of uniting the global populace and I'll explain how the Conglomerate has a better chance.

I still contend that these two things are the best solutions for the world.

Undeniable logic... Prove me wrong. I know how unlikely it seems and understand why you would say socialists and capitalists won't participate. This isn't the topic currently. Plus in the future (or if you must know now) I can explain how these groups could be convinced. I believe it, just not that interested right now.

Did I upset you somewhere along the way by saying its wrong/foolish to participate in the current political process?

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

No. Do my words somehow come off as being as if I'm upset?

Imagine someone saying that love is the answer. If we just love one another then all of our problems will be resolved. Wouldn't that be true? Wouldn't such logic be flawless? But would it be realistic? Would people actually do it be it now or at some point in the future? The best laid plans are just plans until they're actually implemented. Such plans don't need to be implemented completely but just enough to garner involvement from others. Once that's done, a plan has support and can grow in its implementation. One example is Phanya2011's screenplay; a work in progress that she has involved others in helping to develop. She may not have everything figured out about it but she probably has some idea as to when she expects to have various stages of it completed. The thing is is that she's actually doing it, she's not just talking about how great it will be. That's what's needed for any great plan; a bare minimum of involvement that can be seen to grow over time as it attracts more people. Otherwise, it simply remains an unrealized potential that will be ignored. If everything about it, including convincing people of it, is still a future endeavor for you, what is there for people to discuss about it?

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I found that Italy thing again, there are probably better sources of information than this http://wikipreneurship.eu/index.php5?title=Marcora_Law :

A summary of the Marcora Law’s provisions

FONCOOPER, a fund for the general promotion of co-operatives

CFI, a revolving loan fund invested in phoenix co-operatives

employees’ investment matched threefold

maximum of three years’ unemployment benefit can be capitalised

corporate investors permitted up to 25%, providing networking support
specialist monitoring and advisory body established

€40m invested

89 businesses and 3,100 jobs saved (by end 1992)

10% failure rate of co-ops

5% of capital and jobs lost through failures
[-] 1 points by elf3 (2411) 1 year ago

fluff and poorly stated mindless garble ... nonsensical

(hypothesis, facts to back it up, arguments, conclusion) - don't they teach that in school anymore or are you a dropout who expects me to put your idiotic thoughts together for you?

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

oh really, what specifically do you disagree with? Let's see who is the fool.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

If all the money were to be worthless tomorrow, what would still be in place? Everything else.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Except the 'Too Big To Fail's' but that would be a good thing.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

The economy as we know it would be gone, but we would still need a way to distribute goods and services. We could trade stuff, which would be a pain to organize, so gold and silver (which isn't fiat currency) would naturally be utilized. Fiat would again be so necessary we would forget why we outlawed it.

A different kind of economy would have to emerge, where earning money isn't part of the goods/services distribution equation, yet everyone has access to anything they want.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

We operate now on credit, really, which is based -- as we have learned -- largely on air. I like the idea of redefining what we consider to have value. People and Planet come to mind as primary. Perhaps everybody "earns" one hour of credit for every hour they do anything that contributes to a better society: for example, both students and teachers would receive equal credit for class hours. A person would not be identified by a job; the job would be filled by someone who enjoys doing it, or at the very least does not object to it for a way of contributing. All of this, of course, requires an element of trust, which our institutions have been very good at eroding -- not only trust in them, but trust in each other. And, of course, in order to implement anything, the very first thing all of us have to do is to convert the need to be right into a willingness to make a mistake, learn from it, and move on. Then we can try out new ideas without fear of "failure," but rather the ability to learn if things don't work out. There would be no investor class, because our time is our money. As far as farming, etc., there are environmentalists who would jump at the chance to reclaim the land from corporations. We've learned that if it is done right, we can reclaim land that has been turned to desert. It's a start to a conversation, at least. :)

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I'm not sure I'm a fan of credits, distributed in any way. Sure, I've considered it. I just don't see the point, and it feels like debt slavery.

It wouldn't be that tricky to do it Venus Project style with scientific (anti capitalist) input, mechanized labor, and intelligent management/distribution of resources.

I might see credits used for status or determining competence/qualifications.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

I love the Venus Project concept. I pretty much assume in any future that survives us we will have a lot of mechanized labor and no need to worship work. The "credit" idea was more of a transition tool from dollars per hour to the idea of being credited with the time one spends doing practically anything except, possibly, eating, sleeping and other strictly personal things which I will not enumerate :)

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Yes, the transition is what needs hard thinkers. The 99% can't just flip a switch, only the elite can. I don't want to see the world in their light. The power needs to be of the people, so we can control the switch.

They control with money (and religion, media, etc.), and utilize corporate capitalism (sword) and the republic (shield). The Conglomerate is our sword, and DG is our shield.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I think this is an excellent thing to talk about, thanks for bring it up.

What would happen if money was less valuable than yesterday's newspaper? And fiat currency was outlawed?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 1 year ago

It is my opinion that, because all of us "ordinary" folk have learned to connect with one another and work together to survive the assaults from our institutions, we at the local level would do just fine. All the new ideas that have grown on this and other forums (fora?) during this transitional time will be put into effect in ways, probably, that we haven't yet foreseen. Those who isolate themselves with their money might have a problem. Hopefully, because governments would have no money, they could not wage war with one another,

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Those of us paying attention to Richard Wolff are aware of Mondragon. This is the closest comparison to the Conglomerate. Workers do not get laid off and it doesn't really need a socialist government. It is sufficiently socialist and most democratic. The employees hire and fire management, not the other way around.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

The entire monetary system is set up to benefit a few and keep the rest working their asses off.

Ya, it pisses me off.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Glad to hear. We ought to focus on the solution rather than fight surface issues. The worst of systemic surface issues (like Keystone and tar sands), should probably be ignored.

Reason being, if the system is not totally overhauled, these critical disasters will recur, victory after victory. If you think any David Suzuki environmental victory is more than a bandaid... even he knows and tells us that.

We fight and fight, going around in circles, lost, wheels spinning for decades.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

I appreciate your constant banging away at your solutions/plan, we need more people proposing solutions and trying to think their way out of this.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Thanks. Which are you most familiar with: 99% Conglomerate or Departmental Governance? How do you rate them in terms of simplicity? 1 being very complicated/incomprehensible, 10 being simple to understand.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Honestly Im not very familiar with either one of them. Do you have them all on some online form that I could print out and read.

I know Ive liked some of it though, honestly just impressed that you actually put the time in to put it all together.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Thanks! It's been evolving in my head for a really long time, I'm kind of obsessed with it.

I sometimes add the following to my posts:

Back to Topic References: http://occupywallst.org/forum/conglomerate-and-dgrc-topic-references/

You can find that if you link to my user page.

DGRC is the political-economic system I can see following the "brutal capitalism" we have now. Departmental Governance (DG) is like a plug and play thing that fits in with brutal capitalism, communism, or Responsible Capitalism (RC).

RC came first, then DG, as RC probably cannot be achieved until we stop electing representatives. The Conglomerate was created as the means to achieve DG.

When I first started boring friends with it, I really didn't know much. Without a guide I found my way here, and the vision evolved with new input. A little while ago I found The Venus Project, which filled in a big part of what my vision lacked. It almost feels within reach now. I can see it more clear than ever. Every new day reveals more.

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I remembered how much fluff is in there. Maybe scroll down to the heading "DG&RC: Manifestation of Departmental Governance".

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

So this didn't piss anyone off? No one has an opinion?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

technology has made it so we must make up jobs to keep money moving

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

Matt is exactly right....

today's economic problems are twofold....

  • one... being the need to create new unnecessary jobs just to keep people employed ... primarily due to new technological advances and increased population.... and

  • two... being greed....only for the sake of greed, power & desire to win... regardless of the impact....

  • the truth is.... if mankind wanted to ... we could easily create a system where no-one had to work more than a few hours a week.... and a system that required no taxes to be collected... and no-one would be w/o food, shelter or healthcare...

  • it is within our reach....

  • money is not the problem.... capitalism is not the problem.... socialism is not the problem.... gold is not the problem.... technology is not the problem.... population is not the problem.... etc....

  • greed for monetary wealth, power & control IS the problem...

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Money is the problem. Fiat, that is.

Doesn't matter what type of society/system you have. If there's money, it fails.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

all fiat money is.... is a way to increase the amount of capital in circulation... if currency was based on gold... how would you increase the amount of gold ?... you can't....

fiat is perceived value... fake money.... but truly that is all any money is to begin with

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

What is the future of technology if not automated labor. The time has arrived where machines can do nearly anything a human can, with far greater precision and efficiency. So who will be able to earn money in order to spend and keep money moving?

The monetary market economy will end right away. We have to make decisions now, implement and fortify.

[-] -2 points by georgyz (-16) 1 year ago

cuckoo cuckoo.

Take another hit Cheech.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Great contribution snapperhead!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

What the fuck does this guy think he's talking about. Who said to implement communism? If you're confused, ask questions, because you sound like a dizzy goof to the informed people here.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

communism is mostly a buzz word used to reinforce a bad guy to continue waring

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Yup