Skip to content

Mental ‘Abstractions’ ($1.00) – should not serve as legal tender!

December 14, 2016

Image result for mental abstractions, dollar, yen, euro

Image result for mental abstractions, dollar, yen, euro

Image result for Plato's forms

Our monetary system is absurd and not viable long-term. We now use ‘mental abstractions’ ($1.00) as our legal tender for all goods/services/activities. Think about this! Symbols and numbers (mental abstractions) created from the human mind serve as legal tender. Each nation creates their own ‘mental abstractions’ (Y1.00, R1.00, P1.00, etc.) and this is what we use for price discovery within our markets. This seems absurd, to me, as the entire global financial system is now ‘subjective’ and ‘inner’. We all need to read the philosophy of Socrates and Plato so we can understand this system of ours.

Historical legal tender has always been a ‘thing’ external to our mind. Silver is external to my mind. Gold is external to my mind. Paper is external to my mind. But ‘symbols/numbers’ are NOT external to my mind. Our currency symbols ($1, $2, $5, etc.) in and by themselves are derived from my ‘inner’ self and they do not become ‘external’ by merely typing these symbols into a computer screen (cyberspace). Cyber symbols ($1, $2, $5, etc.) can not be held in my hand and can not be possessed physically. This makes all these symbols (within our computer screens) mere ‘forms’ or ‘metaphysical’ units (the philosophy of Socrates and Plato).

Let’s think about what our banksters are doing daily. These administrators are creating legal tender symbols ($1.00 and multiples thereof from their thinking) and then entering these mental abstractions into their ledgers as a ‘liability’ and an ‘asset’. The ‘liability’ is the mental abstraction number (say $1,000,000) and the ‘asset’ could be a luxury sailing boat valued at this number or greater. All this happens because our system allows these banksters to create ‘mental abstractions’ and call these symbols ‘legal tender’. If all the world’s banksters are doing similar this means that we have an ‘inner’ system of legal tender (money). This is NOT a viable system long-term!

Think about this question: What is a Dollar (in reality). What is a symbol/number ($1.00) in reality. I would suggest that what we have for our legal tender is ‘nothing’ (material). We have a ‘mental abstraction’ as our legal tender. This is ‘subjective’ and ‘inner’ with NO external reality to it. What does this mean for our entire global monetary system? I would suggest that this means that the entire system is mostly an ‘inner’ system. Our banksters now desire that we accept a ‘cashless’ world. What is a ‘cashless’ world (in reality)? A cashless world is what our banksters and politicians desire. This is now a ‘cyber cashless world’.

Cyber legal tender (called money) is not an ‘external’ thing which we can access directly. Cyber legal tender is stored within ‘cyberspace’. Cyberspace is merely an ‘extension’ of my/your ‘inner’ self (called our consciousness). Is this ‘subjective’ and personal? I would suggest that it is. Just think of this operation called QE. How is QE created? Where do the legal tender units (mental abstractions) come from? How do they enter our computer screens? Do they appear spontaneously into our computer screens? I would suggest that they are ‘typed’ or ‘clicked’ into our computer screens. A subjective human being is the SOURCE!

What we now need to understand is that Socrates and Plato understood reality correctly. We all live within TWO realms of reality (material realm and the realm of forms). Forms are the same as symbols/numbers. This ‘mental’ realm is where all our legal tender units derive from. Can ‘mental abstractions’ (mere subjective symbols/numbers) work for valuation of goods/services/activities? I don’t think so (longer term). Our global system of ‘cyber’ legal tender is unworkable long-term. Cyber legal tender is subjective legal tender. It does not technically EXIST within our space/time universe! Think on this! I am: https://kingdomecon.wordpress.com.

22 Comments leave one →
  1. December 14, 2016 9:43 pm

    …… so then we should stop being idiots and start to use the dollar in the price model context to support debt-free trades rather than using the debt currency application “at the other end”. The choice is one that now lives in the market. Goldmoney has made that choice a market reality.

    Measure your widget (price) that you wanna buy. Related it to the gold price you want to use for settlement. Calculate the settlement mass. Trade. The deal is closed. No debt involved.

    The second coming of gold currency is in real-time and has fully scalable liquidity

    Like

    • December 14, 2016 10:09 pm

      What is a Dollar? Think! What is a Dollar?

      Using a Dollar presumes that there is such a THING as a Dollar.

      Where is this Dollar? Can you USE what does not exist? D

      On Dec 14, 2016 9:43 PM, “Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now” wrote:

      >

      Like

      • December 15, 2016 6:35 am

        What is a dollar ?
        What is an inch ?

        Both the dollar and the inch are concepts created by man as methods of measurement.

        I’m going to ignore the currency application of the dollar for the moment and simply focus on the pricing application that we find “at the other end” when we think of the USD as a segment of string with two distinct ends. The price model will be the focus here.

        Don, if you are 5′ 10″ , then based on a relative measurement of your height and my height, we can deduce that we are the same height. The relativity is the essential value of these comparative measurements, whether we use the imperial system of the metric system.

        If we transpose that concept of relative measurements to the fiat system , dollars included, we can still make relative measurements to see if two debt-free economic goods and/or services may be the same or very similar in perceived value by the market. This has nothing to do with using a fiat currency as a tool for so-called “settlement”

        If a blue widget sells for a dollar and a red widget sells for a dollar , then on the basis of agreement, it’s very conceivable that the two widgets might trade for each other , DIRECTLY , with no debt created or even involved in the trade. Note that this measurement process is one of relativity, by comparing prices. It is NOT placing the fiat currency (dollar) in a position of making a conclusion of absolute value.

        In the habits of most people, they will trade a fiat currency for an economic widget where the fiat currency is not only in the role of a pricing tool, but is also acting as the medium of exchange and is essentially creating a dysfunctional situation because the trade is not fully closed out with one party holding on to a debt based IOU. This example, unlike the barter example, above, has the dollar playing a role that is abstract in the measurement sense because it’s attempting to make a measurement that is absolute when we know that this is not the case.

        Just because a widget is priced in a fiat price model does not mean that trading for the widget must be “completed” with a fiat currency. It can be satisfied with trading for another debt-free widget. Gold is a debt-free widget along with all the other terrific things that the real economy produces.

        The necessary evil , in order to develop this price model of relativity is that the fiat currency (medium of exchange), created by fiat, had to be developed in order to create the “segment of string” that we call the floating dollar. One end cannot be created without the other.

        Now that the global price model has been created and has seen many years of market traction, we can use the price model in the relative price comparisons for the direct trading of widgets. It’s THIS APPLICATION of the price model that leads to increased economic activity without the use of debt. The added supplementation of using gold as a “trade widget” increases total liquidity in the market when combined with the existing debt based liquidity (fiat currency) and as such, debt based fiat currency can then be safely purged.! IOW, rates can rise without fear of economic collapse.

        This evolutionary process in the total model for liquidity is what I call “adding the yang to the existing yin” in a process of monetary completion, which is also a new course for proper and fair market price discovery.

        Don, you need to get out of denial that the dollar’s only function is to act as a medium of exchange (debt based currency). It’s all you seem to write about when writing about the dollar or the whole concept of fiat currency. What I have written about the price model is self evident and the application of http://Goldmoney.com/r/0UZxqF is also self evident as a market process toward greater economic activity, the purging of existing debt, the process toward rightful price discovery and peace of earth.

        Merry Christmas …. never forget the gifts of the magi.

        Like

      • December 15, 2016 2:47 pm

        Dan: These are your words:

        What is a dollar ?

        What is an inch ?

        Both the dollar and the inch are concepts created by man as methods of measurement.

        Comment: This comparison is invalid, Dan. The inch has meaning because we have a ‘ruler’ to measure with. The dollar has no meaning as there is no definition of what it is. I fully understand that I am 74 inches tall as I use a ruler (or equivalent) to get this result. With our dollar, however, I have no idea what this is. What is a ‘dollar’? We have no official definition and this makes it impossible to ‘measure’ value with this concept. How can I ‘measure’ when I don’t know what this ‘name’ is? Your entire logic breaks down, Dan, because your starting point is invalid.

        The ‘inch’ derives from our definition on a ‘ruler’. This measurement would have zero meaning within a definition via a ‘ruler’. This goes for ‘foot’ and other measurements.

        The ‘dollar’ however, is without any definition and no-one can define what it is? What is a ‘dollar’, Dan. You have not answered my first question. D

        On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now wrote:

        >

        Like

      • December 15, 2016 2:49 pm

        The dollar is a measure of value that is used as a tool.

        Like

      • December 15, 2016 3:05 pm

        Dan: The dollar is a measure of value that is used as a tool.

        What kind of definition is this? What does it mean? I have NO idea what the words you create mean. D

        On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now wrote:

        >

        Like

      • December 15, 2016 3:24 pm

        It’s a measure of relativity, synthetic, but provides relativity for comparative purposes when trading one debt-free widget for another.

        The price model could only gain market traction and credibility with the launch of the “necessary evil” of debt currency, a proclamation by fiat. I am not supporting the use of debt as a currency but making the point that this price model of flexible relativity is only “one end” of the dollar and without its creation, the corresponding price model would not have come to be.

        There are necessary evils in God’s script. It’s self evident.

        Once the fiat currency & price model were to gain market experience over time, the price model could be used to satisfy debt-free trades. Just because a widget is priced with a price model created by fiat does not mean that trading for the widget must be satisfied with a trade with a fiat currency. The trade can take place by using another widget that has the same or similar pricing. This is now a market reality where gold is used as a “standard widget of value” that we can label as a debt-free market currency.

        We’re now back to trading a mass of gold for a man’s new suit.

        Do you have a problem with trading a mass of gold for a man’s new suit ?

        How would you suggest that people trade their economic goods and services.
        You’re quick to criticize for someone who doesn’t appear to have any practical marketing background.

        The method that I’ve explained on the basis of agreement holds up the natural laws of the market and the law of weights and measures.

        Like

      • December 15, 2016 6:24 pm

        To measure we need a standard of measurement. I measure time by motion. I measure distance by a ruler. I measure weight by gravity. But I have no measure of value. Value and price needs a Dollar with a definition. We have none. So measurement is not possible. D

        On Dec 15, 2016 3:25 PM, “Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now” wrote:

        >

        Like

      • December 15, 2016 7:12 pm

        The dollar is not an absolute measure. You’re looking for an absolute measure
        It’s a relative measure which is all that is necessary in the context of making a debt free trade. Compare prices and decide.

        If the gold widget is $1100 and the blue widget is $1100 , the owners can gauge whether a trade is warranted on the basis of agreement. Agreement is still the basis of the trade as a matter of free choice. The widgets can trade for each other …. no debt. Transaction closed.

        What we have here with the GoldMoney payment processing for settlement is as follows.

        a) Debt free transactions
        b) agreement of the transaction by each party
        c) gold currency payment is in real-time

        On the basis of those two points, what’s the problem with that trade ?
        Do you not agree with private agreements on the basis of doing debt-free trades ?

        You’re creating a problem where none exists. It you want an absolute measure , you won’t find one and none exists for this particular application unless you want to cripple global liquidity and send the world back to the stone age …. ?

        By chance, are you partial to the gold-backed USD where there’s a fixed price on gold, such as what we saw during Bretton Woods ?

        Like

      • December 15, 2016 8:17 pm

        Dan: Our ‘dollar’ can not be a relative ‘measure’ as it has no ‘existence’. It’s merely a ‘figment’ of my/your mind with no external ‘existence’. Think about what this means!

        To be a relative ‘measure’ it must first ‘exist’ within our space/time universe. D

        On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now wrote:

        >

        Like

      • December 15, 2016 8:23 pm

        I see that you don’t believe in relativity. That’s what trade is all,about. In your usual style, you also refused to answer my questions. I’ll ask them again.

        Do you not agree with private agreements on the basis of doing debt-free trades ?

        By chance, are you partial to the gold-backed USD where there’s a fixed price on gold, such as what we saw during Bretton Woods ?

        Like

      • December 15, 2016 9:41 pm

        Do you not agree with private agreements on the basis of doing debt-free trades ?

        By chance, are you partial to the gold-backed USD where there’s a fixed price on gold, such as what we saw during Bretton Woods ?

        Dan: I will do a debt free trade with you. I have a laptop to trade, what do you have as a counter trade? We can exchange items ‘debt free’ by exchanging products.

        I am actually for eliminating all money from this planet. But I do sense that a ‘fix’ of the dollar to gold would be healthy during this transition period (some 7 years). D

        On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now wrote:

        >

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 5:52 am

        Our difference is not so much academic but philosophical. A fix on the dollar would limit the ability for growth beyond the amount (mass) of monetary gold that’s on hand.

        Gold with flexible trade value is congruent with market laws.

        The barter proposal would not have a great deal of liquidity either, not at this point in time, IMO. We have to walk before we run. On that basis, why not start with gold as a standard barter item as a debt-free widget. ? That’s what GoldMoney has done, allowed the market to trade bullion mass for debt-free economic goods and services.

        I’m not in the market for a laptop, by-the-way, but I might be in the future at which point I’d offer you some of the mass ownership of gold that I own right now that is held in a Brinks vault in New York. It is segregated in my name and allocated in my name as my personal property . There is a 24/7 audit system associated with the gold ownership records that is owned and independently operated by PriceWaterHouseCoopers. Is that feasible for you ?

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 10:28 am

        Dan: Yes, I will exchange my laptop for some of your gold. No problem. Let me know when.

        With respect respect to a ‘fix’ of the dollar, this does not necessarily mean no liquidity in the market. People are psychological and will spend dollars without exchanging them for physical gold. This is history. The money game is a psychological game at the core.

        Fixing the dollar will improve price stability but it does not mean that people stop spending ‘dollars’. D

        On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now wrote:

        >

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 10:50 am

        The fix would require an event by fiat. That’s a disaster waiting to happen and nobody knows this better than central bankers. They even knew before I did, even before i was born before they set on this quest with the advent of Bretton Woods, back in 44. The end in mind had already been achieved to set gold prices free , but the right price model had to be put in place before the price peg on gold was served, which took place in 1971

        People can spend dollars with a price peg and a full backing of gold but how do you keep expanding the currency supply for the sake of growth when gold is limited and finite and your liquidity is based on gold mass and mass, alone because you set and pegged the price ? My book on the law of supply and demand says that’s a breach of the law. The trade value of gold and its liquidity should be set free. When you set it free, the market can then choose to monetize it simply by its mass, something that was impossible to do for the sake of scalable liquidity and “reach” when the gold price was fixed.

        No Don, a gold backed dollar with a fixed price peg only works short term. Why not let the market set the price and let gold circulate with mass as the rightful and organic unit of account ? That’s what goldmoney supports

        You’re not a free market thinker, IMO. You feel government should tell us what gold is worth. You need to pray on that issue. There are some necessary evils in God’s script, agreed, but lets be careful as to who we choose to worship.

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 11:08 am

        Dan: I agree that they should quit using ‘algorithms’ to suppress the gold/silver prices. Let the market set the prices of gold and silver. Unfortunately, our Central Banks are not doing this, Dan.

        Our Central Banks are rigging and controlling the spot price of gold and silver via their trading strategies on the Globex and other futures markets. This is done daily with algorithms. Are you aware of this?

        You probably are unaware of the price suppression scheme of our Central Banks and their use of source codes and algorithms to control, suppress, and manipulate silver/gold prices.

        Let the markets set the prices is also MY view, Dan. D

        On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now wrote:

        >

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 11:31 am

        Of course they are !!! Of course !!!

        Central banks love gold …love it , love it , love it …. but they ONLY love it in the context that its role is as a circulating medium of exchange. It’s the currency application that they love. We should too as it supports real economy. We’re congruent there.

        On the other hand, they abhor the static application of gold sitting in a hoard like the abomination of a sacred calf that sits useless to economic value in the middle of some desert. The economic value of gold is truly in the free movement. Ask Moses.

        Now that gold’s price system has been set free , we are looking for a first-time feature in gold since the de-pegging in 1971. I call this feature the “kick-point-price” of support where the market will monetize and circulate market gold. It doesn’t yet exist. We’re no there yet.

        The last thing that banks want, as you and I should share in , is for gold to run up in trade value (USD/oz) while still being used as a static store of value and not circulating as a currency. Hoarding is an old habit that may die hard and banks cannot take the chance of gold running to $3000.00 USD/oz while it all sits in the desert unemployed. Can you image the state of the world if gold was to run up to $3000 while the only thing circulating was debt based fiat currency, the same stuff that you so religiously criticize and condemn in your weekly rants ??? Not pretty. We need that kickpoint-price and the lower that price is as a level of monetization support, the better !!! There’s a long term view here.

        Once we see gold currency get traction based on its circulation and economic support, we’ll then see CB’s support gold and the shorts will fade away. You can count on it.

        They have full appreciation of the yin-yang and the proper order of creation that sees light emerging from darkness. They follow “the script”. You should too.

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 3:11 pm

        Dan: I can’t believe how ‘deceived’ you are. Central Banks HATE gold. They want it out of the entire global system. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

        If they loved gold they would not reduce the sentiment for gold circulation. By suppressing the price they reduce sentiment (especially of Western investors) and this helps them promote their cyber money.

        You are so wrong, Dan, but you can not SEE reality as you have a ‘faith’ in what you desire to happen. Your ‘faith’ is misplaced. BUT that is my view after listening to you for years.

        I see your view as a form of ‘mental’ illness (or we could say mental suppression of reality).

        Talk to any Central Banker (say Bernanke) and he will tell you that He hates gold and he even refuses to call it money or a currency. He calls it merely a commodity for dummies. D

        On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now wrote:

        >

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 5:05 pm

        There are necessary evils in the script for a reason , Don. God wouldn’t have it any other way. They follow the script ….. His script.

        The elephant is in the room. It may be time for you to go back and hit the books again.

        Bankers hate gold that cannot trade in real-time as a currency. They love liquid gold that flows. You’re letting your prejudices follow you. Even the elect will be fooled, don’t worry.

        The dollar-gold relationship is moving toward symbiosis. They set the whole thing up . Think of all the steps that led to the development of real-time gold with variable price and liquidity. Quite a feat ! Go all the way back to 44 because that’s when the price model was developed before the subsequent severing of the price peg in 71, They wanted to avoid the FDR fiasco when the price peg created a liquidity crisis.

        The market gets the final curtain call. Fitting isn’t it ?

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 6:36 pm

        Dan: Your comment: Go all the way back to 44 because that’s when the price model was developed before the subsequent severing of the price peg in 71, They wanted to avoid the FDR fiasco when the price peg created a liquidity crisis.

        P.S. This is inaccurrate, Dan. The decision in 1934 was that of FDR. He called in all the people’s gold without their approval. 1944-46 was the Bretton Woods Agreement devised by Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes. This agreement ‘fixed’ the price of gold at $35/ounce. This was done for international trade reasons. Foreigners wanted to ‘tie’ our $ to gold at the ‘fixed’ rate. This changed in 71 due to foreigners exchanging their excess $ for gold at the ‘fixed’ rate. Then Kissinger and Nixon created the Petro Dollar to give some support to our floating $. None of this happened by design, Dan. This all happened as a result of what foreigners did. Our gold supply dropped from 742 million ounces (in 1944) to 272 million ounces (in 1971). This history is available to anyone who desires to learn. Your view, Dan, is fantasy thinking. Read the history. D

        On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now wrote:

        >

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 8:45 pm

        They agreed to the fixed gold rate in 44 with the USD having the fixed price peg on gold. That price model of the fiat currencies ran a global trade concept with the USD being the only price peg directly into gold. That good will had to be established before the price peg was to be severed so that the gold price could be set free and the stage was set for gold’s remonetization by way of the market and with mass as the unit of account. They knew that the fixed peg would run its course since gold is limited and finite in supply. Do you think they were stupid, Don ? Please ! That period from 44-71 was to establish the price model and the undisputed measurement role of the USD as intellectual property. That would ultimtely protect the dollar when the price model would revert to supporting debt-re trades in the future. It’s happening today, based on that very foundation.

        The USD is still the lone price tool, now with a floating relationship which is capable of better reflecting ever changing fundamentals.

        Need proof ?

        Gold money has come out of that market stage setting utilizing exactly what the beginning of BW started (price model) and with gold mass now having flexible value for the sake of fully scalable liquidity and fully scalable debt purging abilities.

        The “whys” are not nearly as important as what actually happened. Credit bankers’ designs or credit the work of the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t matter because it is what it is. Mysterious ways to say the least.

        Now that we have a debt-free gold backed market currency (goldmoney) with fully scalable liquidity (USD/oz) , what exactly do you have to complain about ?

        Are you afraid of admitting to yourself that God’s necessary evils were by design ???
        Why are they in the script and at who’s choosing ? There’s no denying they are written in. It’s self evident.

        They fed you a lot of cover when you went to school , Don, cover that maintained a cloak of what appeared to be evil intentions because of the role that had to be played in the script to set gold free. Any semblance of good long term intentions would have posed a market danger to the debt based stage of this evolution. Considering that both sides of a yin-yang are vital to its health and survival, great strides had to be taken to protect the debt based currency paradigm as part of the yin-yang that is beginning to form. This should go far in explaining USD hegemony. The dollar is now the measure of measures in support of global debt-free trades that are now taking place daily, although it’s still very young.

        Like

      • December 16, 2016 9:16 pm

        Dan: Your story is just that…YOUR story of events. I have studied all the history behind the decision of BW and the closing of the gold window in 71. This event in 71 was not desired by Nixon, Connelly, or Milton Freidman. This event happened because France (mostly) under De Gaulle did not like the dollar inflation in the USA. France, Britain, and a few other countries decided to cash in their excess balance of payments $$$$ for gold at the fixed rate. This was being done from the late 1950’s up until 1971.

        This (exchange of $ for gold) is what caused the closing of the gold window and also because our official supply of gold at Fort Knox had declined by 60%. We did not have the GOLD to honor these foreign exchanges for our gold any longer. Your story is pure fantasy and not based on any real history, Dan.

        You can make up your story for yourself (if you desire) but it will be foolish to anyone who understands the real history. If you want to be credible, I would suggest that you read the history and internalize the real events. D

        On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now wrote:

        >

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: