The following is a long idea dump produced entirely for my own benefit to kick around ideas as the seemed to present themselves as I thought about (and strayed far away) from the ideas of the website in a related line of thought that probably only I understand. Nobody reads this all anyhow. It is for my own benefit like everything else on this blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presentation of and comments upon the subject title of this post are at this link:
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/10/is-debt-free-money-an-option/
A good presentation but the big picture created by the nature of the aggregate comments is excellent. Many different views are presented by individual comments. The best way to draw a line to divide the comments into two absolute groups for macro analysis is to decide which of two things the comment is focused on by asking the simple question:
1. Is the comment talking about what money is?
or
2. Is the comment talking about what money does?
Because it is most likely that the comment addresses both aspects of money:
Start Sidebar here:
For agonizing clarity I will restate the two aspects of money which are the same two aspects of any thing and every thing. There are only these two fundamental aspects of a thing in our world and there are no more than two aspects of a thing, everything else being a derivative of these two macro aspects of a thing:
1. What a thing is,
and
2. What a thing does.
End Sidebar here!
That is a simple view of all things. But it is not that simple but the key to understanding this contradictory statement is this:
. All things exist exist in the natural world only in relation to another thing in the natural world. I am talking about the natural world here. Clarification is agonizing isn't it but I hope you understand I am talking about the natural world.
A thing cannot "do" some thing in the natural world unless it does it in relationship to another thing.....in (not leaving anything to abiguity here) .....the natural world. In other words, if a thing cannot "do" anything in relation to anything else then it can't exist in the natural world. If it could exist in the natural world without any relationship to any other thing in the natural world then to satisfy the rule that it can only exist in relationship to another thing in the natural world then if it was the one and only thing in the natural world with nothing else to do anything with then it would have to "do something with the only thing to do something with: ITSELF! That is a relationship that by definition cannot exist in the natural world. If it did then we are really dealing with not one thing but two things that we perceive as one thing until we can see it in reality as two different things.
If a thing exists only and exclusively in relationship with itself and absolutely (emphasis on absolutely) nothing else (called a recursive relationship) then it does not exist, cannot exist, in the natural world. It can only exist in the supernatural world. If that "writing on the wall" does not take you to the logical conclusion of what that thing is (clue: Thing) and its implications as to how we have created our concepts that explain this situation then I have not been clear enough nor capable enough to lead you to the water.
Back to the real world and the Idiots Guide to "Things and What Things Do".
The comments on http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/10/is-debt-free-money-an-option/ deal in various degrees with what money is and what money does. In most the degree, mostly one or the other is obvious, a few have a fine line. Beyond making an either/or division in to two categories:
1. Either the comment talks mostly about what money is.
or
2. The comment talks mostly about what money does.
It is possible to analyze the comment and determine what percent of the comment talks about what money is and what percent talks about what money does on a sentence by sentence basis.
Whatever way it is sliced and diced, macro or micro level, the forest or the trees I believe that the results are the same. Mostly we think, conceive, express, structure our concepts, live our daily lives based primarily on what things do, not what things are in the plural. In the singular, which is called a uniquely identifiable instance of the class a thing is in, we talk mostly about what a thing does rather than what it is. What is thing "is" is usually fixed by its definition in the dictionary. We usually don't argue about that, we just accept as the given then get on to talk about what a thing does with maybe some ramifications that might go back to redefining to some degree what a thing is.
When the redefinition reaches a tipping point we realize that what we previously defined as one thing is really a different thing all together worthy of a different dictionary name and definition. In the larger scheme of things and where the new term and definition fits in that bigger scheme of things might be more important than the existing thing and its traditional relative importance in the scheme of things. Consequently, the new reality of a thing with a new word to define it challenges the old reality of the thing that has the ownership of the traditional word to define it. The conservative word to define it, the old word (and its meaning) being the best word.
I think that that the concept of "Spin" deals entirely with what a thing does, not with what a thing is. If the old thing that we once defined it to be is really something else in reality, maybe totally different, that essential difference in what a thing factually is can't be addressed because it acknowledge the new thing exists. The new thing can only be addressed in terms of what it does, not what it is. Defenders of the previous (continuing to exist unchanged thing) can only address the new thing in terms of what it does, not what it is a present what it does as contrary to what the existing thing does.
Focus the discussion and analysis on what things do and the debate and analysis goes on forever. That is the best defense of those that do not want to change what a concept is. Do not go head to head on the basis of what an old concept is compared to what the new competing concept is to defend the old concept that may deserve revision. An existing concept definition of what a thing is holds the high ground in the battle. Honestly dealing with a head to head analysis on the basis of what two things are (the result of which require some change in relative importance in the greater scheme of things, maybe essential change (not just a battle but a war of ideas) is certainly not the way to defend against change of the existing concept. The only way to defend the existing concept is to focus on what the new competing concept does. That strategy takes the conflict down into the confusing complexity of what a thing does.
Go to where conflicting things are analyzed on what they do and the war is likely to be lost to the concept that holds the high ground based on its accepted definition of what it is. That is true because what a thing is defines its nature which is limited, on the other hand what a thing does can be many things. The variety of actions a single basic thing can do are numerically immense in the operating the scheme of things. That is a law of nature and information. Actions a thing does introduces great complexity even if what that thing is remains conceptually simple.
If you are in conflict and losing the war on what your concept is then your only plan is to attack what the opposing concept does. What a thing does in terms of different identifiable actions deriving from what it essentially is means that some of the specific things it does will not be optimal and therefore reasons to throw the new baby out with the bath water that washes it. Nit pick the details of the adverse action results of the what the opponents concept does . Frame the selected actions. If you do an excellent job of framing the actions then the opponents concept becomes defined by an inflated perception of what it does that defines in weak minds what the concept essentially is and its superior benefits of adoption/replacement.
It is human nature for most people to build concepts of what a thing is by observation of (a function of) what a thing does. It has been that way for all of human history. Humans look first at what a thing does to create concepts of what a thing is. A thing is as a thing does. Somewhere along human history it started to change. First with realization of what things are in the natural world in spite of what they may appear to be because the natural world is based on natural laws for us to discover, not the rules or concepts we may wish to impose upon it. The world is not the center of the universe.
This is the Information Age. Information is conceptual and has its own "natural laws" applying to conceptual structures not so much different than the natural world. The fundamental law in both worlds structured on the same concept: What a thing is and what a thing does in relationship to other things. Ours is an object oriented natural world that extends itself into an object oriented conceptual world. First we organized (continue to organize) the natural world by what it is and what it does. It is like we reversed engineered (so far) the natural world creating the blue print schematic of the operating system (what the natural world is) and what the natural world does (its operating programs).
The natural world was created for us. We are creating our own conceptual world. What better methodology to apply than what was used to create the natural world. Physical and conceptual things are simply things. The same rule of creating the entire system is to first create what a thing is and then, by its design it will find, and then do (in time) the thing that it was designed to do. Create the right fundamental thing and and its actions will evolve to enable its functions. Some evolving lines might die out, others will survive.
Money is debt. It is time to change what money is but we are sidetracked or intentionally mislead in our progress to change by those that have a sub-optimized special interest in perpetuating an existing dysfunctional system. They perpetuate it because they know what money is, it is debt, and how to manipulate it. Debt free money as discussed by the website hints at the need to change what money is. The discussion of it by those that cared to comment shows that comments focus mostly, just like we generally are inclined to focus on everything, on what money does not what money is.
Debt is one of the multitude of things that is done with money. That is a function of money, what money is used to do, a single sector of what money does. A created negative object of money to balance the created positive object of money. That is the dual nature of money that divides it in to two different things, an asset and a liability so that the two different things can relate to each other by some some sort of primary action called a loan. Bankers created that system with their primary focus on what money does (for them) not what money is (or should be, which just might not really be what is in their sub-optimized self interest) in order to enable it to do what it was designed to do.
A Money System with no equally, to the penny, balancing debt is a concept totally inconsistent with the current banking system. That is why the government had to introduce positive money with no balancing, to the penny, debt aspect to it..............
Get this because it really is astounding:
However, we call that positive money that is in our bankster debt money system the National Debt! Our positive money is our national savings! There would be no savings in a total debt money system. How in the world can we call our national savings our National Debt and then focus on reducing the National Debt (equal reduction in savings).
One of the comments on the web site called attention to a site that defines the true nature of our National Debt:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/10/modern-money-and-public-purpose-2-governments-are-not-households.html
Is this perhaps the ultimate irony of focusing on what a thing does and defining it, elevating it to essential fundamental object in the conceptual structure scheme of things based on what it does, not what it is?
Is Randy Wray trying to explain to us that Money as savings is something that money is? Money as National Debt is just one of the functions that money does as an action?
In the Bankster system all debt money in the system existing as loans by the bank has to balance the the amount of asset money on the banks balance sheet and loans have to someday be payed off.
To think that the National Debt is our National Savings and that there is political desire for austerity to reduce our National Debt and therefore equally reduce our National Savings is incredible.
No comments:
Post a Comment