So far in fantasy land: All the money in the USA exists as serialized digital record individually denominated in the amount of one on a server farm located at Fort Knox. That record has provision for the current owner in possession and a link to history of the last owner. All owners are financial entities registered to use the system.
Banks have the power create money as debt as an agent to whom the government has granted but not ceded their sovereign right to create money. It is the Constitutional right of the government to create money and that right should be reclaimed from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Government creates money by assigning new serial number to denominated money on the Fort Knox server to be spent by the government into the economy. Once created that money exists forever and can only be withdrawn from circulation and held in suspense by the government as necessary to maintain zero inflation and full employment. Taxes draw money from circulation to the extent it is a economic management tool used to maintain stability.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
How Much Is All The Money
What is all the money in circulation and who has it and who does the transaction accounting?
If all the money currently in circulation is debt money then once it is converted, dollar per dollar from debt money to real money then there would ultimately be about 50 trillion GADs (God Almighty Dollars) in the Fort Knox server. All of this 50 trillion dollars of currently circulating spendable money is somewhere on some digital record today with the exception of about 2 or 3 percent of it circulating as greenbacks in the USA.
Let's just say that all the money there is in the USA amounts to 50 trillion dollars. Money is something that everyone keeps track of. We collectively know where all our personal money is and how much of it we have. Beyond personal holdings, all financial entities know how much they have and where it is at. In either case all the money is recorded on some computer digital record. That record is maintained by some financial institution on different computers in different places.
Can all this money, 50 trillion dollars be called the gross amount of spending money in the USA? In other words does it all qualify to be spent to buy and pay for something in exchange? That is what money does.
Cash and coin went from hand to hand when (or if) it was the only means of exchange. With the checking system payments/recepts went through a bank to clear the accounts of those involved in the transaction. Checks cleared between banks if necessary. This removed it from our pockets to record held by a banks. Other financial intermediaries like PayPal now handle this exchange process. Many businesses produce and market programs and computer platforms to manage the transfer of money form one account to another.
I conclude that there are two things here that seriously suggest a single facility to accomplish the accounting for money and its use in transactions that change possession ownership of the money
First: Essentially it is money simply changing hands. Keeping track of it in my proposed monetary system is just changing who has their name on it. Having their name on it is as good as having it in their own pocket. Collectively having all our money in the same collective national pocket would reduce a great amount of systems redundancy as well as provide many other opportunities for efficiency as well as new opportunities related to the vast amount of information about what our economy is doing.
Second: Money changing hands in a transaction is a property of what money is, not what it does. I say that it is a property of what it is because it is something that all money is conceptually capable of accomplishing with its own internal programmed method independent of what that money is exchanged for in a buy/sell transaction. This is an additional reason that all money should exist as a single centrally maintained digital record.
If all the money currently in circulation is debt money then once it is converted, dollar per dollar from debt money to real money then there would ultimately be about 50 trillion GADs (God Almighty Dollars) in the Fort Knox server. All of this 50 trillion dollars of currently circulating spendable money is somewhere on some digital record today with the exception of about 2 or 3 percent of it circulating as greenbacks in the USA.
Let's just say that all the money there is in the USA amounts to 50 trillion dollars. Money is something that everyone keeps track of. We collectively know where all our personal money is and how much of it we have. Beyond personal holdings, all financial entities know how much they have and where it is at. In either case all the money is recorded on some computer digital record. That record is maintained by some financial institution on different computers in different places.
Can all this money, 50 trillion dollars be called the gross amount of spending money in the USA? In other words does it all qualify to be spent to buy and pay for something in exchange? That is what money does.
Cash and coin went from hand to hand when (or if) it was the only means of exchange. With the checking system payments/recepts went through a bank to clear the accounts of those involved in the transaction. Checks cleared between banks if necessary. This removed it from our pockets to record held by a banks. Other financial intermediaries like PayPal now handle this exchange process. Many businesses produce and market programs and computer platforms to manage the transfer of money form one account to another.
I conclude that there are two things here that seriously suggest a single facility to accomplish the accounting for money and its use in transactions that change possession ownership of the money
First: Essentially it is money simply changing hands. Keeping track of it in my proposed monetary system is just changing who has their name on it. Having their name on it is as good as having it in their own pocket. Collectively having all our money in the same collective national pocket would reduce a great amount of systems redundancy as well as provide many other opportunities for efficiency as well as new opportunities related to the vast amount of information about what our economy is doing.
Second: Money changing hands in a transaction is a property of what money is, not what it does. I say that it is a property of what it is because it is something that all money is conceptually capable of accomplishing with its own internal programmed method independent of what that money is exchanged for in a buy/sell transaction. This is an additional reason that all money should exist as a single centrally maintained digital record.
Money Lives Forever
If Money is to be designed to live forever as a uniquely identified entity instead of for the life time of a loan then it needs a good home. The nature of Money is a conceptual object thing existing on a computer just like the words you are reading here. Therefore I will give it a home as well as a purely hypothetical existence there as a starting point for a wild and crazy fantasy about what the monetary system could be.
On this fantasy journey always keep in mind the distinction between what money is and what it does. Money is an information structure with rules like our language. What it does is also like using our language to say anything we want to say.
The fantasy home of Money will be a computer server at Fort Knox. Since there may not be any gold left there as suggested by Bill Still. Actually the home of Money would be somewhere up in the Cloud and its security protected by the NSA, giving the public investment in NSA some real purpose in the security world.
Every single dollar would exist as a computer record at Fort Knox and have a name. Its computer record name would be a unique serial number. Its denomination would be the value of 1. Each dollar would be an instance of the Super Class: "God Almighty Dollar" or "GAD:. Each dollar would be called an eGAD.
The attributes of the Super Class GAD:
Denomination. For initial presentation purposes a value of 1. Greater denomination amounts will be the subject of more complex system design later.
Serial Number: A unique number with information content to be developed as a more complex system design later.
Owner: The financial entity to whom the eGAD belong. The owner is identified the the owner's unique financial identity number. Every financial entity has one. A person cannot transact money without one.
Date of last owner transaction exchange. This links to transaction history and the name of the previous owner
Unlike the current financial system where the principal record is the name of the owner of an account in which money resides, the eGAD itself is the principal record of ownership with the name of the owner to which it belongs changing. This allows owners to say "My money has my name on it"
On this fantasy journey always keep in mind the distinction between what money is and what it does. Money is an information structure with rules like our language. What it does is also like using our language to say anything we want to say.
The fantasy home of Money will be a computer server at Fort Knox. Since there may not be any gold left there as suggested by Bill Still. Actually the home of Money would be somewhere up in the Cloud and its security protected by the NSA, giving the public investment in NSA some real purpose in the security world.
Every single dollar would exist as a computer record at Fort Knox and have a name. Its computer record name would be a unique serial number. Its denomination would be the value of 1. Each dollar would be an instance of the Super Class: "God Almighty Dollar" or "GAD:. Each dollar would be called an eGAD.
The attributes of the Super Class GAD:
Denomination. For initial presentation purposes a value of 1. Greater denomination amounts will be the subject of more complex system design later.
Serial Number: A unique number with information content to be developed as a more complex system design later.
Owner: The financial entity to whom the eGAD belong. The owner is identified the the owner's unique financial identity number. Every financial entity has one. A person cannot transact money without one.
Date of last owner transaction exchange. This links to transaction history and the name of the previous owner
Unlike the current financial system where the principal record is the name of the owner of an account in which money resides, the eGAD itself is the principal record of ownership with the name of the owner to which it belongs changing. This allows owners to say "My money has my name on it"
System Design Differences
Understanding the Object Oriented Paradigm helps to understand what I have presented and will continue to develop in my monetary system design concept.
The paradigm shift is from a fundamentally and principally functional oriented system design approach to an object oriented system design approach. Essentially it is a shift in design approach from understanding the problem domain in terms of what a thing does to the nature of the things involved in what is done. A combination of approaches is certainly required. Just like nouns and verbs are essential to the understanding of the meaning of a sentence.
Perhaps I can explain it this way. If I had to choose either nouns or verbs to convey and idea to you then I would choose nouns as the better tool and let you deduce the verbs of your choice to flesh out the idea. If I used only verbs to attempt to convey an idea it would be more difficult, especially in a complex highly structured thought.
Complex highly structured thought is what we deal in more today with the assistance of computer tools to think that way. Good old functional decomposition thinking, just like ancient Banksters used to design their system initially served the development of computer systems and languages. As systems grew beyond simple ability to handle functions and into abilities to model object related systems, not so much on what the objects do but what their inherent characteristic relationships are there was a shift to Object Oriented Design.
In many cases, object oriented design has replaced, often in a revolutionary manner, older systems based primarily on functional decomposition of functional hierarchies. Our Constitution is a good example. It is based on a design statement of what the basic objects of the system are. The function of the system is derived from the established relationships of the objects. The founders knew what "things" were important to make the democratic republic work. It remains up to us to fill in the functions dictated or permitted by those object thing relationships.
In contrast, the Ten Commandments was a functional design statement. It specified what to do, or not do by specifying the verb functions up front. Old School thinking but it was good enough then. Some say that it is all that is good enough now. That divides our society today between people that think somewhere along a continuum between action/function/verb orientation and object/thing/noun orientation.
Banksters created a monetary system using functional decomposition methodology. That sounds like an obtuse statement. What does it mean? It means that historically, as far back in time as banking and money go, they created the system based on what money would do for them. What function would it perform for them as it performed a function in exchange by doing some thing beneficial for someone else. A functional trade in a conceptual object (money with a time value) to accommodate trade in real objects initially and increasingly conceptual objects over time. Everything was based on the functional decomposition of the trade to benefit the banker.
The system design difference is between the Bankster functional designed system and what it has evolved in today and an object oriented design system which is the modern and most productive method of problem domain analysis, design and implementation.
The paradigm shift is from a fundamentally and principally functional oriented system design approach to an object oriented system design approach. Essentially it is a shift in design approach from understanding the problem domain in terms of what a thing does to the nature of the things involved in what is done. A combination of approaches is certainly required. Just like nouns and verbs are essential to the understanding of the meaning of a sentence.
Perhaps I can explain it this way. If I had to choose either nouns or verbs to convey and idea to you then I would choose nouns as the better tool and let you deduce the verbs of your choice to flesh out the idea. If I used only verbs to attempt to convey an idea it would be more difficult, especially in a complex highly structured thought.
Complex highly structured thought is what we deal in more today with the assistance of computer tools to think that way. Good old functional decomposition thinking, just like ancient Banksters used to design their system initially served the development of computer systems and languages. As systems grew beyond simple ability to handle functions and into abilities to model object related systems, not so much on what the objects do but what their inherent characteristic relationships are there was a shift to Object Oriented Design.
In many cases, object oriented design has replaced, often in a revolutionary manner, older systems based primarily on functional decomposition of functional hierarchies. Our Constitution is a good example. It is based on a design statement of what the basic objects of the system are. The function of the system is derived from the established relationships of the objects. The founders knew what "things" were important to make the democratic republic work. It remains up to us to fill in the functions dictated or permitted by those object thing relationships.
In contrast, the Ten Commandments was a functional design statement. It specified what to do, or not do by specifying the verb functions up front. Old School thinking but it was good enough then. Some say that it is all that is good enough now. That divides our society today between people that think somewhere along a continuum between action/function/verb orientation and object/thing/noun orientation.
Banksters created a monetary system using functional decomposition methodology. That sounds like an obtuse statement. What does it mean? It means that historically, as far back in time as banking and money go, they created the system based on what money would do for them. What function would it perform for them as it performed a function in exchange by doing some thing beneficial for someone else. A functional trade in a conceptual object (money with a time value) to accommodate trade in real objects initially and increasingly conceptual objects over time. Everything was based on the functional decomposition of the trade to benefit the banker.
The system design difference is between the Bankster functional designed system and what it has evolved in today and an object oriented design system which is the modern and most productive method of problem domain analysis, design and implementation.
The New Deck and the New Deal
All money in the current monetary system is debt money. It was created out of nothing by Banksters in the form of loans that introduced it to circulation. Loans that created public debt (government debt) or private debt. If all of the loans that initially created it were to be paid back today then there would be no money. Paying back a loan extinguishes money originated as debt. It goes back into the nothing from where it came. Money ceases to exist along with the debt. The debt has been paid. New loans are made as old loans are paid off. That is the Bankster's business that perpetuates the existence of money.
Banksters designed the debt money system to their advantage. It works well for them, not for us but that was their design intention.
In my proposed money system the concept of debt is moved from what money is to what money does. What a thing is determines what it does, how it operates. It is most important to establish by design what a thing is in accordance with what it is intended to do. Banksters did that. Absolutely. To hide the advantages they designed into their creation of money as debt they confuse what money is with what money does. They put the cart before the horse. It is easy to confuse people by focusing on what a thing does because a thing like money can do so many different things. What it is, on the other hand is only one thing.
Turning the Table.
The essential concept of the monetary system design that I propose is that once money is created it never goes out of existence. Money remains in existence as a uniquely identifiable entity forever, or as long as the conceptual value of the idea of money is needed, whichever comes first. Once created, it may be sidelined by withdrawing it from circulation but it continues to exist as a uniquely identified entity. More money existing as a unique entity forever can be created and added to existing money as required.
This fundamental concept of money I propose is different from the Bankster system where money exists as a uniquely identifiable entity only during the lifetime of a loan. Money is the function of a balance sheet equation with credit on one side, debit on the other. Furthermore the conceptual entity called "Money" in the Bankster system is associated with the conceptual entity called "Loan" as an object oriented child of the parent class called "Loan". That is a key relationship that I would reverse.
In the system that I propose, the entity "Loan" or "Debt" would be a child of the Parent Class or Super Class called "Money". The fundamental relationship of Money to Debt is reversed. Debt becomes one of the things money does, not what money is. The Banksters have slyly established that debt is what money is.
It is a simple matter of determining what entity in the relationship of debt and money is the Parent Class and which is the Child Class. Which one inherits all the characteristics of the Parent Class.
Bankster system: Debt is Money. Money equals Debt. Money does not exist without Debt. They are one in the same. Money only exists as long as debt exists.
My system: Money is not Debt. Debt is a subclass entity of Money with conditional existence. Money exists independent of debt existence. Debt is not what money is. Debt represents something money does.
Banksters designed the debt money system to their advantage. It works well for them, not for us but that was their design intention.
In my proposed money system the concept of debt is moved from what money is to what money does. What a thing is determines what it does, how it operates. It is most important to establish by design what a thing is in accordance with what it is intended to do. Banksters did that. Absolutely. To hide the advantages they designed into their creation of money as debt they confuse what money is with what money does. They put the cart before the horse. It is easy to confuse people by focusing on what a thing does because a thing like money can do so many different things. What it is, on the other hand is only one thing.
Turning the Table.
The essential concept of the monetary system design that I propose is that once money is created it never goes out of existence. Money remains in existence as a uniquely identifiable entity forever, or as long as the conceptual value of the idea of money is needed, whichever comes first. Once created, it may be sidelined by withdrawing it from circulation but it continues to exist as a uniquely identified entity. More money existing as a unique entity forever can be created and added to existing money as required.
This fundamental concept of money I propose is different from the Bankster system where money exists as a uniquely identifiable entity only during the lifetime of a loan. Money is the function of a balance sheet equation with credit on one side, debit on the other. Furthermore the conceptual entity called "Money" in the Bankster system is associated with the conceptual entity called "Loan" as an object oriented child of the parent class called "Loan". That is a key relationship that I would reverse.
In the system that I propose, the entity "Loan" or "Debt" would be a child of the Parent Class or Super Class called "Money". The fundamental relationship of Money to Debt is reversed. Debt becomes one of the things money does, not what money is. The Banksters have slyly established that debt is what money is.
It is a simple matter of determining what entity in the relationship of debt and money is the Parent Class and which is the Child Class. Which one inherits all the characteristics of the Parent Class.
Bankster system: Debt is Money. Money equals Debt. Money does not exist without Debt. They are one in the same. Money only exists as long as debt exists.
My system: Money is not Debt. Debt is a subclass entity of Money with conditional existence. Money exists independent of debt existence. Debt is not what money is. Debt represents something money does.
The Deck is Stacked!
It is almost a year since my last post. There has been no vacation from researching, investigating and thinking about money. Simply a time out writing about it. I had decided not to write about it until I got it all down to the simplest approach upon which to build a new money system.
The conclusion I have reached over the past year is equally simple:
The deck is stacked!
That is an interesting phrase which is explained here. Imagine someone playing the game, perhaps for a lifetime. Getting the feeling that the game is rigged because the deck of cards or chips are rigged to begin with. Finally, how they were rigged dawns at the same time they draw their six-shooter.
As an alternative, in order to continue playing the only game in town, a fresh deck or stack of chips is called for that is not fixed to start with. A neutral medium that favors neither player. Players can still seek to cheat and use every trick in the book to win but at least they all started with a new deck of unbiased cards.
A new deck of cards, a new stack of chips, in needed. The cheating and the tricks in playing the game with a fair deck and tokens can then continue. However, if the deck is neutral, the cheating and tricks become more transparent leading to increased honesty of the game.
Dealer! Bring me a new deck!
Nobody is going to bring us a new deck. The old one was created by the Banksters to benefit themselves. The question is: Who really owns the only game in town? It is us, not the Banksters. We gave the game away when we, our government, gave the Banksters the power to create money out of nothing. Of course they created it, the cards and chips of our economy, to favor themselves. They called it money but that is how they stacked the deck. It is debt money. Not real money or honest money. Because all money is created as debt money in the beginning, the deck is stacked against us and in the favor of the Banksters.
Stacking the deck has an advantage to the one that stacks it: They win more often than they lose. Ultimate winning is to never lose. Banksters are too big to fail, too big to lose all their chips because they really had no chips in the game.
Banksters have won it all. To add insult to injury, They were playing with our chips and a stacked deck.
Dealer! Bring me a new Deck!
Bring me a fair deck to play with. The one I have the right to create because in our Constitution we conferred that sovereign right upon ourselves as a nation. Our representatives loaned it out to the Banksters and their Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. Our representatives have been bought by what they loaned that was ours, not theirs. It is up to us to take it back.
It is our right to create a fair deck of cards and our right to name the purpose of the game.
So, what is a fair deck of cards? The purpose can then follow.
The following entries in this blog are my idea of what a fair deck and chips might be. It facilitates subsequent choice of purpose and rules of a game of choice.
The conclusion I have reached over the past year is equally simple:
The deck is stacked!
That is an interesting phrase which is explained here. Imagine someone playing the game, perhaps for a lifetime. Getting the feeling that the game is rigged because the deck of cards or chips are rigged to begin with. Finally, how they were rigged dawns at the same time they draw their six-shooter.
As an alternative, in order to continue playing the only game in town, a fresh deck or stack of chips is called for that is not fixed to start with. A neutral medium that favors neither player. Players can still seek to cheat and use every trick in the book to win but at least they all started with a new deck of unbiased cards.
A new deck of cards, a new stack of chips, in needed. The cheating and the tricks in playing the game with a fair deck and tokens can then continue. However, if the deck is neutral, the cheating and tricks become more transparent leading to increased honesty of the game.
Dealer! Bring me a new deck!
Nobody is going to bring us a new deck. The old one was created by the Banksters to benefit themselves. The question is: Who really owns the only game in town? It is us, not the Banksters. We gave the game away when we, our government, gave the Banksters the power to create money out of nothing. Of course they created it, the cards and chips of our economy, to favor themselves. They called it money but that is how they stacked the deck. It is debt money. Not real money or honest money. Because all money is created as debt money in the beginning, the deck is stacked against us and in the favor of the Banksters.
Stacking the deck has an advantage to the one that stacks it: They win more often than they lose. Ultimate winning is to never lose. Banksters are too big to fail, too big to lose all their chips because they really had no chips in the game.
Banksters have won it all. To add insult to injury, They were playing with our chips and a stacked deck.
Dealer! Bring me a new Deck!
Bring me a fair deck to play with. The one I have the right to create because in our Constitution we conferred that sovereign right upon ourselves as a nation. Our representatives loaned it out to the Banksters and their Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. Our representatives have been bought by what they loaned that was ours, not theirs. It is up to us to take it back.
It is our right to create a fair deck of cards and our right to name the purpose of the game.
So, what is a fair deck of cards? The purpose can then follow.
The following entries in this blog are my idea of what a fair deck and chips might be. It facilitates subsequent choice of purpose and rules of a game of choice.