|
#12
11-18-2006, 09:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Walter
Quote:
The problem with your solution is that it is not a solution at all, but merely a shell game. It simply changes the mechanics of the game from one source of funding for another, within the same fiat money system we all abhor. Goverments of all stripes own approx. 70% of the stock market and are essentially nothing more than hedge funds. Its common knowledge that hedge funds can move markets, so 10%-20% rates of return are possible, but only within a fiat money regime. It is also common knowledge that the stock market is a zero sum game. When governments own 90% of the market, who in their right mind is going to participate and eventually be left holding the bag? Without greater fools those rates of return will be impossible to achieve. So if real inflation is 10% now and 20% returns are needed to fund government, inflation would double just to keep up with current expenditures. But as we all know government is ever expanding, as will be the inflation that is necessary to fund it. What you propose is akin to a perpetual motion machine, unworkable in the real world due to friction and gravity. Sure, it may succeed in the short term, but is unsustainable over time. The real solution is stable money (gold and silver), limited government and maximum freedom. It was successful for 100 years until the parasites took hold. gldskr |
|
#13
11-18-2006, 12:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Prosperity
Quote:
Gold Seeker: The "mechanics" of funding government over the last 100 years as it is currently, is based on deception and outright fraud. The public's focus is directed to taxation as the funding source when in fact if you digest total GROSS income government receives, only 1/3rd is tax income and 2/3rd is NON-Tax income. The commodity in a fiat system is the productivity value of the people. The difference in a "Slave" society and a "Prosperous" society is the real value of true spend-able income the individual receives and "maintains". Yes, it is true that for thousands of years (not 100) precious metals were used as the standard bartering tool for trade value. Also included were livestock, land, ect. Also true was that 95% of the population over a period of 4000 years was impoverished by the overlords in control of 99% of that Gold and Silver. Government today, with We The People having left the vault wide open (and in fact with 98% of the people saying; What vault?) took over control / ownership of most property and aspects of "taking" 85% of the productivity value of the people. The ownership they now have of the Stock market, loan market, and insurance market through investment is almost absolute. They did this simply by opportunity to do so, and they did. My "solution" as you call it is to reassert ownership for the public by making "them" the direct beneficiary whereby government "must" be motivated by seeing the people prosper to truly prosper themselves. For the last 100 years out of "opportunity" due to the money involved, government based its growth and wealth accumulation on deception and co-conspiracy for non-disclosure as to its real growth, investment status, and gross income. To do this, they always appeared to be operating in the red (to justify taking more) and expanded their operations to expand their budgets. The TRF mode of operation allows for transparence, but of even greater importance, it shifts the "mode" of operation that now puts the "motive" focus on downsizing, efficiency, and keeping the public prosperous. The less spent by government and the more stabile prosperity that ensues, government administration and management will be able to live high-on-the-hog also with the public being the "direct" beneficiary of the investment wealth under management by government. So in this fiat economy of TRF operation, the people will still be the commodity, the only difference is not as slaves or serves, but as true co-op owners. No longer, an economy based on; Cash; taxation; and investment, but one based on cash and investment only. When you mention "unworkable in the real world", that is false. It already is working in the real world and is the "primary" driving force IN THE REAL WORLD. Government now gets over 2/3rd of its income from non-tax sources. We will be changing the direct beneficiary IN THE REAL WORLD. Expanding investment helps absorbs inflation. Massive investment, to say the least under the principle of operation of the TRF. Government pension funds (standing at about 26-28 trillion dollars strong) drove the economy over the last 65 years as they grew. TRF funds can and will drive the economy for the next 500 years or longer. Just think, those TRF funds may just take sizable positions in gold and silver supporting your position also. I reiterate the point that under the TRF mode of operation the motive of government is to downsize its operations and to focus on the prosperity of the people and the corporations / businesses they own or work for by investment and not theft through taxation. Millennium anyone? And gldskr, if you call me a dreamer, you are right I am a dreamer and damn proud of it too! Greed and runaway thieves in government stops today or there may be no tomorrow. TRF funds allow the public to regain ownership of the key to the vault with government as the trustee over the vault. Prosperity balanced (for both sides). __________________
Walter J. Burien, Jr. P. O. Box 2112 Saint Johns, AZ 85936 Tel. 928-445-3532 email: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com Web: http://CAFR1.com To automatically subscribe to the CAFR1 NATIONAL email list(s) and posts: CLICK HERE |
|
#14
11-18-2006, 04:13 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Walter
I admire your idealism. Quote:
True, but eliminating the fradulent funding mechanism still leaves us with a fraudulent money system. Fiat money is, by definition, inflationary, whereas increased productivity is just the opposite. This effectively leaves us running on a treadmill. Quote:
True, but our founders were well aquainted with the results of fiat money and its 100% failure rate, ergo its prohibition. It isn't a handfull of evil overlords that have made us a society of serfs, affluence and laziness has done the job quite well. The PTB are simply reaping what has been sown. Quote:
The government is motivated by one thing, power; to suggest that they would settle for a win/win situation is simply naive. The people are already the direct beneficiaries and the trustee has embezzeled the profits. He needs to be hung and you would give him a raise. Quote:
Government is like a vat of yeast; it constantly grows until its food source is consumed. Transparency is all fine and good but is meaningless unless the people are willing to look. How long will it be before the cloak reappears. Once behind that cloak it will be business as usual again. Quote:
True in a fiat world; what I should have said was unworkable in a world of honest money and limited government. Quote:
Expanding investment absorbs inflation as long as it just sits in an investment account. But once it is "reinvested" into the economy it dilutes the existing currency, diminishing its value. Paraphrasing from Warren Buffet, "with (26 trillion dollars), I can throw a pretty good party too." Sooner or later the party must end. What rate of inflation is acceptable? To any right thinking person, the only acceptable rate is 0%. The biggest problem I have and I think most Sui Juris members will concur, is that your solution is still premised upon the fraudulent FRN. Somebody eventually ends up holding the bag. Not only economically but with the additional detriment of lost freedoms. Had it not been for Bretton Woods in 1944 we would be living in a very different US of A today. Can you say Argentina? There is also the problem of sustainability. The system works precisely because of its inherent deception and fraudulence. Once out in the open, its foundation is shattered and sustainability lost. gldskr |
|
#15
11-19-2006, 11:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Pessimist�..
The Pessimist!..
A duck hunter was looking for a good hunting dog. One day he saw an old Indian shaman with a dog and he approached him and asked: "Is your dog a good duck hunting dog?" The old Indian replied: "Yes, he is." The hunter said: "I want to buy him, how much?" The old Indian said: "He is not for sale." The hunter said: "$10,000" The old Indian said: "Sold" The following day the hunter took the dog to a lake and set up his blind to hunt ducks. A few minutes latter, here comes a few ducks flying over the lake. BANG, BANG, BANG down falls the ducks in the lake. The hunter says: "Go get em boy". The dog jumps up, springs out over the water, but instead of breaking water, the dog lands on the water and runs across the top of the water, picks up the ducks, runs back across the water and drops the ducks at the feet of the hunter without even getting his paws wet. Well to say the least, the hunter was aw bound. He said to himself: "Hell, I have a dog who can walk on water." The same thing happened for the rest of the morning each time the hunter shot a duck, and he sent his dog to fetch the duck from the lake. Well, the hunter packed up his catch and headed off home. He could not wait to tell his best friend that he had a dog who "Could walk on water" but he knew his friend was a pessimist and would not believe him. So, he figured the best way to tell his friend was to bring his friend duck hunting with him the following day. Early the next morning, he packed up his dog and his friend and went back to the lake. It wasn't too long before a few ducks came into range. "BANG, BANG, BANG". The hunter looked at his friend with a smile, then his dog and said: "Go get em boy" Well, the dog jumped and again ran across the water picked up the duck, ran back and dropped the duck at their feet. The hunter looked at his friend for reaction or comment and there was none. This went on all morning and each time no reaction or comment from his friend. The hunter then rounded up his catch, his dog, and his friend, got in the car and began the trip home without a comment being made from his friend. The hunter was bursting inside, couldn't take it any more, and came forth with the question to his friend: "Didn't you notice something special about my dog???" The friend replied: "Yea, your damn dog can't swim" . . . __________________
Walter J. Burien, Jr. P. O. Box 2112 Saint Johns, AZ 85936 Tel. 928-458-5854 email: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com Web: http://CAFR1.com |
|
#16
11-19-2006, 11:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
TRF Example
Here is a hypothetical and real example for everyone:
You take 20,000 acres and incorporated a city. The new city government is established with taxation, set up "Exactly" the way it is now but with one change. That being; 25% of the revenue collected was put aside into a TRF fund. The learning question for you now is: At normal annual rates of return, as are currently being accomplished on most state government pension funds (14%), how long would it be with compounded interest, before the TRF was generating a return in excess of what the new cities ongoing operating budget was whereby all vested residents at that point could have their city taxation eliminated entirely? ANS: Seven to Eight years. NOTE: Now, you would think with this in place, EVERYONE will move into your city, which puts a strain on government services. However, this is not the case. Those moving in will "vest" just as the founders did. The above example is the start-off example for a "New" city. Those already in existence, having the well-entrenched greed factor already in play, will require a "Hostile take-over" of unified action from the residents. "Too many hands already in the cookie jar and an intricate web built already to keep it as such contrary to the best interests of the residents." The good point here even though it would take great fighting, and serious head to head confrontation to get it done, is that with a little trimming of the fat (downsizing), consolidation of the slush-funds, sale for privatization of entities government should not own (ie; golf courses), the TRF balance upon implementation can hit that "Self-Sufficiency" mark whereby the standing residents are "vested" in some case upon restructure and in general for most cases within two to four years. __________________
Walter J. Burien, Jr. P. O. Box 2112 Saint Johns, AZ 85936 Tel. 928-445-3532 email: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com Web: http://CAFR1.com |
|
#17
11-19-2006, 01:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Walter
I agree 100% in the workability of what you propose, however, it appears you are sidestepping the major points of contention. 1. The fraudulent nature of the monetary system which your proposal requires. 2. The inevitable double digit inflation that will surely ensue. 3. Blind faith that the government can/will downsize. As an interim measure it would surely be preferable to what we have today, but you have admitted that its achievement will take an inordinate amount of energy and head butting. Wouldn't it be a better use of that energy to strike at the root rather than pruning a few branches? Now, if this proposal was sold as an interim measure, with the ultimate goal of a return to honest money, that would surely be more palatable. As a stand alone it is still snake oil and the bitter taste will linger, long after its soothing effects have vanished. gldskr |
|
#18
11-24-2006, 01:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
TRF managment reality
Quote:
Gold Seeker: Sidestepping, not at all. The underlying money system is your contention for correction. What I am addressing is the underlying Political system. What a currency is backed by will inevitably be determined by market forces. The gold backed currency was dropped due to the inflexibility for all of the boys to make a profit. He who owns the gold makes the rules adage was just that. The gold of consequence was held by Select parties. This made the general consortium of countries and players weak on the idea of a gold backed currency. Thus in the 70's the free for all began. The flexibility of the usury Paper currency had and did offer unlimited potential and of course the ability for unlimited abuse. The TRF is an issue of returning direct and absolute ownership to the people of which in no respect IS IN PLACE AT THIS TIME. The underlying currency of a country issue is very simply a choice of barter to be used. Commodity backed or not, market forces can determine what transpires there. Direct, visible, and accurate accounting for ownership by the people of what is there is the only issue of my concern. Inflation? You comment as if the people were the true owners, inflation factors become an issue disqualifying to the TRF. Inflation factors are always at play. If the government owns the wealth or the people, I will choose the consequences of inflation as the true owner of the wealth every single time over the consequenses of inflation as an observer. Again, with market forces at play, when you go from a cash, tax, and investment system to a cash, and investment system only, inevitably the free ticket trillion dollar a year welfare system will shrink exponentially as the private communities take over the effort of taking care of their own. (Government no longer has the motive to expand budgets to take more money) They make more money by downsizing and being more efficient under TRF operations. Plunder through taxation is taken out of the equation, and an emphasis for a prosperous people is strongly enforced into the same equation. From my prior post, I will repeat myself. TRF managed funds will probably have very active investments in many commodities, gold and the like. People who say that currency should be backed exclusively by gold, on an investment sense I can not respect that position due to its limitations and the reality of whom would ultimately be in control. A broad based commodity index backing I would be in favor of. There the viability is sound and not limited to one specific item agenda that may be contrary to the interest of the many. . . __________________
 Walter J. Burien, Jr. P. O. Box 2112 Saint Johns, AZ 85936 Tel. 928-445-3532 email: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com Web: http://CAFR1.com |
E N D O F B O A R D C H A T
.
RETURN TO THE CAFR1 FRONT PAGE - CLICK HERE