This post at Zero Hedge this morning is a lot of head scratching to figure out what kind of a thing the NY Fed is. If what kind of a thing a thing is then the general nature of that thing is already established by the nature of its higher level or "Parent Object" thing. Half the battle is already therefore won. The rest is simple: What are the unique attributes of the "Child Object" thing that make it different from all its other siblings
For example: What kind of tree is this? What attributes does it share with all trees? With similar trees? Which are unique? Does it walk like a duck. Don't know? Ask Darwin, he was good at it.
There is an assumption of some controlling logic to the organization of things. It is a good assumption for things in the natural world. It is also a good assumption for things in a human conceptual related world. The difference is that in the natural order of things world fundamental things, "Parent Objects" at the top of the ontology of which all things inherit attributes are controlling objects. If your parents did not have children, you can't have them either.
In a conceptual structure existing as a product of the human mind independent of the natural world but similar to it in that it claims a lineage as concrete as can be found in the natural world to validate its logical existence, the logic of the argument is hard to pin down and may or may not be logical at all. That problem in truth is easy to leap over on the premise that problem domain is just like nature and the driving force of the creator of nature and natural law also applies: God wants it that way.
So what kind of a thing is the New York Fed?
Exactly what God wanted it to be of course.
How many questions in this world of human nature are answered with that reply.
There are two ways to look at a conceptual high level thing created by the human mind. Money is one of those high level big things. One is what the thing is and the other is what a thing does. In the entire history of human perception the first and easiest to perceive is what a thing does. What a thing "is" and why it is what it is has emerged as a deeper meaning and higher level analysis of the thing beyond, but still tied to what the thing does. The basic idea in the deeper look is that what a thing does is driven by what a thing is. In nature, what a thing "is" is a dictate of natural law to be discovered to explain what it does. In conceptual creations of the human mind that create structures outside the dictates of natural law, although it may claim to be in accordance with natural law and all the dictates that laws of nature establish, stuff that comes purely from the mind comes from a different world, different rules. Trace back to where it all comes from in the beginning to discover the source and logic and where does that go?
One Creator of All Things is a common conception. In the natural world a good place to start and proceed with a clear understanding of the boundary of physical word and meta physical world. Science being the physical domain. The non-physical domain? Just call it non-science until it is defined into the physical domain. Out in that non-science domain there are many explanations
In our conceptual human mind created world we have structures that interpret the natural world as explanations of what was not created by us but by nature. Nature is a good model. Beyond that we can conceptualize anything that we can dream up that works.
Things that work in our human mind conceptualized dreamed up world can be structured things that "work" (function) to independent degrees of association with what the thing dreamed up "is" but more related to what it does. In other words, some products of human thought have loose binding to what the thought thing is.
There is a loose binding between what money is and what money does. I look at money as a Thing that has illogical relationship to what money should do. It has, from a sub-optimized viewpoint of the entity that created the Money concept a very logical, from that self serving viewpoint, structure. It serves the creator well.
The NY Fed is the creator of money.
If the conceptual structure of money was created to serve first and foremost a different entity, The People, it would have a different conceptual structure foundational premise.
The NY Fed created a debt based monetary system. It was designed by the NY Fed to serve their self interest objective: Make money on their design and control of the money system. The controlling function is debt. The monetary system is a functional based and driven system.
A monetary system designed first and foremost to serve the interest of the people would be founded on an object base, not a function base. An object base of what money is, not what it does first for special interest and secondarily for those that use the system.
Debt is a function. A "debt free" monetary system design Object is the place to start as the foundation of a conceptual system to serve the needs of those that use it.
Object based design systems are simply better than function design based systems. That is the way that nature is designed.
Objects come first, functions follow. The Information Age is the emergence of Object Orientation.
That prior statement is hard for even the practitioners of the Information Age to comprehend. Especially those that are products of the birth of the Information Age in the last century that will hold on to their conceptual belief in the supremacy and dominance of the functional based system design and analysis. Object and functions combine is system design but Objects embody their fuctions.
This link is an example of the defense of the Functional design and implementation approach. Functional designers will hold on to their belief in Functional design and programming supremacy until the end. that end will come when that school of thought dies with them. They are functional programmers and only program the designs of Object oriented analysts that integrate Objects and their functions but start with Objects first that encapsulate functions.
The functional based and dominated monetary system design will die at the hands of an Object Oriented monetary system design built on the concept of what money is, not what money does.
The functional based and dominated monetary system design will not die easy. Object Oriented monetary system design will triumph based on logic and reason. The functional based system must defend the premise that a monetary system is not built on an "Object Thing". They must defend a monetary system built on a function of Debt which is the relationship of two primary Object Things in the debt loan loan relationship. Asset and Liability Asset to one party, Debt to the other. The relationship implemented by the function of money.
The functional based debt money monetary system is going to die. I hope it will elegantly skin itself into its own demise with a smooth transition into an object oriented debt free monetary system because the alternative of skinning it in the old fashion way is both unproductive and messy.
In the big picture of social systems we seem to have progressed from big destructive land and related resource acquisition to less bloody but equally destructive economic warfare acquisition of power and control of resources aggregating to the few through the debt money system. The third stage will be more equitable sharing based on an object oriented monetary system designed with that objective.
Our country was founded on the principal of what government is. Based on the design of what government is as a thing, what that thing does as a function is logically derived. The founding principal of Object Oriented Design can be subsequently subverted with a shift back to former failed Functional based designs and focus on functional design dominance at lower levels inconsistent with object oriented design method dominance control of the entire system. Our monetary system is the primary example of the conflict between an Object Oriented system design approach and the socially entrenched world wide centuries old Functional Oriented system design approach.
Functions change. Objects are persistent. That is some kind of rule that I believe rules. Build on Objects, based on design functions will naturally follow. That is good creation art. Objects come first, then their relationships implemented by functions even in our mythology.
At all costs, the Debt Based Banking System absolutely must maintain social focus on what money does as a functional based system and not allow any consideration of what money is as an object. That means total denial that it even exists independently with an identity and attributes as a foundational Object in the first place. Only the function of a loan gives the concept any meaning and role. The only role being a functional one to serve the debt relationship which the Banking System is built upon. Any concept of money being an high level object based thing rather than a function based entity relationship undermines the foundation objective of the Banking system. To make money on the function of money. It is a business called a racket when it serves the racketeers to the detriment of society. More than that it defies logic and reason of "common good".
Start asking about what kind of an Object Thing is the NY Fed is, independent of what it does, which is its natural function of what it is and the entire Functional debt money design and implementation starts to unravel in favor of a better Object Oriented design based on first what money is then what to do with it to implement the design objective. Money is a thing, a tool to build something. An Operating system system on which to run a variety of application programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment