Snoopy-Typing-Away-1-CVV14J0D95-1024x768

Ducati… I’ve had an epiphany in the past few weeks. Appreciate your comments on the thought process if you would indulge me.

Presumably democratic countries are predicated on a fundamental arithmetical problem that, assuming they are aware of it, few want or are ready to discuss.

The problem is money.

The money that is imposed by the state is the legal property of the central bank.

There are three major issues here: [a] the vast majority of ‘money’ is not held as fiat currency at all…it is held as an [electronic] deposit. What about the ‘monyness’of: bonds, insurance contracts, alternative currencies? [b] a deposit account in law is a chose in action [intangible property] which consists of an entitlement arising from obligations that are enforceable at law. [c] transfer of [legal] rights of assignment deal with the transfer of choses in action, and thus whether property could be retained by Central Banks for fiat currency. So without undertaking a legal analysis, the answer to that assertion is unclear at the moment.

Would Central Banks, even if in law they retained property rights, actually ever pursue those rights given that the legal right to print fiat currency underlies their power in the first place? A wholesale abandonment of fiat currency for say gold…would likely cause a crisis that would precipitate their collapse.

Since money is the legal property of the central bank, the money that is circulated for use is only lent to society at interest.
Money lent at interest is inherently debt.

Accepting for the sake of discussion that this is true, certainly inflation is a tax on fiat currency’s purchasing power. Could it be construed as ‘interest’? I think you would need to define ‘interest’ first and foremost.

And here is the crux of the problem.

If you agree that your ideas and your skills are your natural God given property, then in accepting money in exchange for your work you are inherently exchanging something you own (your skills) for something you do not own (money).

I agree with the premise, I’m not sure that the conclusion follows based on previous objections.

But money requires that interest be paid to the central bank.

Thus, by exchanging something you own outright for something you owe interest on, you are inherently and inevitably in debt.

This is the fundamental iniquity built into the architecture of this monetary system the ramifications of which reach far and wide giving rise to real life, arithmetically preordained results at the social, political and economic levels.

I accept that inflation is a tax. An exchange of values, that depreciates post-exchange is not an equitable exchange.

***

The key to understanding this problem is the following:

On one hand the state arbitrarily imposes upon society the use of one type of money under penalty of law

On the other hand, the central bank is under no reciprocal obligation to guarantee the value of money

Interest however does not ceteris paribus affect the exchange value of money. Interest is time preference, which allows for a discounted value of money to be calculated. Taxation through inflation does however alter the value of money through dilution.

***

Effectively, if you have a basic grasp of arithmetic, you can work out how this dynamic will eventually channel wealth towards the owner of the currency … which brings us to today…. ?

Well certainly government through policy advocates wealth redistribution!

Advertisements