The Question of Money as Government Issue Credit Versus Bank Issued Money

I fail to understand the difference in the two notions (1) The notion of a government making money versus (2) The notion of a government using the banking system to make money. All governments control money. It has got to be so because that is why the governments control who makes the currency or the paper or the coin or the mode of debt settlement. If the US Congress has the Constitutional power to make money I wonder who else would or could it ever be? The US Congress must use the banks to dispense the money, be it as credit or as physical currency. If it gives away that power then it has given the right away, right or wrong. But if any government ever wants it back, or if a government lacking any stated constitutional power over money wants such power in the first place, any government may do so by fiat backed by the army, as any government has the power to do anyway, if it is a government worth talking about seriously.

It was LaRouche who asserted the need for the USA Congress to take its constitutionally asserted power over money creation seriously. This LaRouche asserted as opposed to what he said was every other country which uses banks.

I love Lyndon Hermyle Larouche and his basic economic ideas.

But here, again, I find him odd. His argument bypasses the need for the US government to take control of the economy out of the hands of the gamblers (who do not run the economy but ruin it). If the US government wants to end the financial debacle it needs nothing more than its own power backed up with the military, which here is the people, which, in the end, IS the power.

I figure that what LaRouhe means is that Congress has the power built in without resort to invention. and they are not using it. And that they had better use it and use it right.

The problem is that no one seems to be listening to him too hard. He wants to cancel debt that makes no sense. NO money to finance bad debt. That is what happens in a bankruptcy, as properly done. And Congress has the given power to not pay anything to the bad debt holders. What seems to be happening is that "they" want to keep the bad debt and have us finance it. If it is bad, and the gambling debt they created while they, like gamblers out of control, played with our economy, is B A D, then Congress should refuse to pay it.

A little early but ...

To Dutch and Flemish readers, een fijne Sinterklaas!
Sinterklaas (also called Sint-Nicolaas in Dutch and Saint Nicolas in French) is a holiday tradition in the Netherlands and Belgium, celebrated every year on Saint Nicholas' eve (December 5th) or, in Belgium, on the morning of December 6th. The feast celebrates the Saint Nicholas' name day the patron saint of, among other things, children.
It is also celebrated to a lesser extent in parts of France, as well as in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. The traditions differ from country to country, even between Belgium and the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands, Saint Nicholas' Eve, (December 5) is the chief occasion for gift giving. The evening is called pakjesavond ("presents' evening").
Sinterklaas is the basis for the North American figure of Santa Claus. It was during the American War of Independence, that the inhabitants of New York City, a former Dutch colonial town (New Amsterdam) which had been swapped by the Dutch for other territories, reinvented their Sinterklaas tradition, as Saint Nicholas was a symbol of the city's non-English past. The name Santa Claus is derived from older Dutch Sinte Klaas.

The nonsense I was given as a child that “Santa” comes from the Spanish and “Clause” from the German and that the name “Santa Clause” had an inexplicably unknown source and at best a purely commercial source is shown to be absurd.

The fundamental error in environmentalism is three fold.

The fundamental error in environmentalism is three fold.

1) It is assumed that the so-called Law of Entropy actually is a dynamic of the universe that cannot be halted nor altered.
1)a) In fact, “they” assert that the law of entropy is absolute and even if alterable is not to be altered.
1)b) In fact, “they” assert that it is irrelevant that the so-called Law of Entropy is alterable and not a irreversible doom of physical systems but assert that the law of entropy should be morally the law of humanity.

2) It is assumed that the human ability to alter the universe is either impossible or irrelevant.
2)a) In fact, “they” assert that the universe should not be altered.
2)b) In fact, “they” assert that the very ability of humanity to alter the laws of the universe is immoral.

3) It is assumed that the reality principle is irrelevant.

[I am not even going to bother quoting chapter and verse on this as I have heard it from the environmentalists and their horses’ mouths for thirty years and I am not into writing a treatise here.]

I assert that humanity is the universe looking at itself and is the universe’s ability to know itself and that human ability to change the universe just is what humanity fundamentally is.

How does a universe exist without an external creator?

I assert that the universe is the entirety of all, the totality of everything, the all of all else, and the one which includes all and is itself all inclusive. There is nothing “outside” to create anything or even exist for there is no outside. All time and space is within. All causes are within the universe and do not come from anywhere else. It and what there is does anything and everything that gets done and includes that which is gotten done.

The assumption that the universe is a reaction which must have a cause or action before it is a useless assumption. The assumption that the universe is a “thing” such that it can be acted on from something somewhere or somehow elsewhere or else wise is a useless assumption. The assumption that the universe is an action which had to have an action before it is a useless assumption. None of these assumptions can ever be knowable. Since the universe contains and envelops and is composed of all actions and reactions, it is therefore impossible for anything to act before there was a universe, impossible for anything to have come before the universe to affect it, impossible for anything to exist outside the universe to act on it. It by definition includes all sides including all and any outsides. There is nothing left over to be “outside” the universe.

One thing we know of the world is that nothing is immutable. As far as we are aware of the way the world works: nothing remains the same and there is always the new and unpredictable even if we human beings have to create it ourselves. We human beings are always thinking of new ways of doing things and of new things to do ... and then trying to do them and often enough actually doing them. It is my personal guarantee that the universe will always have the new and unknown.

Is the new and unknown caused by the universe upon itself or by that which is within it? Or, is the universe such that it also contains itself and is a part of itself and has the ability to act on itself? Is it like people who grow and learn and come to know the world they live in and change as people?

But do I believe in spontaneous creation? Well, yes and no. (What other answer did anyone expect of me?) The universe does not have a mind of its own except for the intelligences, such as us ourselves, in the universe. The universe needs no plan for anything to happen in it as all plans, happenings, actions, reactions, energies, and exertions are all part of the all and of the universe. Where else but within the universe would and could anything new come from? The universe needs not “create” anything new. The universe, to be point blank about it, needs to give no account of its self to us anymore than god. We must deal with the new and the unusual and the novel and the unexpected and the unexplained just as we always have. There is the brute fact that this is a practical world we live in and we have to get on with life and make our life work and we have to live in spite of the all of it no matter how little we understand any of it at all. If things happen that have no explanation I won’t blame the universe for being mysterious. It is already mysterious and a new mystery won’t be surprisingly new. If something happens that cannot be ever explained and can be shown to have no explanation and shown to simply be utterly and forever unexplainable then there and right there is the explanation! Sorry, Charley! If something is finally shown to be unexplainable then no more can be nor need be known about it except it itself! Nothing on my part and nothing on anyone else’s part can or will change the reality of anything’s being, whatever it is being is shown to be. I assert that there is no need for phantasms such as angels, demons, gods, spirits, a dead nor any dead, a semi-dead, a partial-dead, or some undead to “explain” anything.

The question comes up about the grand and super grand unified theories of the universe as if there can be a one and only one and also a definite theory of how the universe operates. I assert that the very notion is unnecessary. The universe needs no phantasms such as angels, demons, gods, spirits, a dead, a semi-dead, a partial-dead, nor any dead or some undead to “explain” anything. If the universe is self reflexive and self changing and if it acts on itself and needs no outside prompting, as if it has a mind of its own, then so be it. The universe has now a mind of its own or within itself by any human and its mind and that being needs no more than the universe it is acquainted with to change the world as it knows it. That is sufficient self reflexivity. The very idea of the universe collapsing in upon itself and ending everything, the popular science cosmic apocalypse, would require us humans to figure out an exception for ourselves, the rest be gone and done if that be so. We won’t go without an effort to stay!

For these reasons I can not see god as outside but necessarily either in the universe or as the universe itself, in the one case not being god and the other being unnecessary. Summarily, then, there is: the immutable, incommensurate, all encompassing, timeless, placeless, everywhere and nowhere at once, creative and creating, ultimately unknowable, utterly and fundamentally mysterious universe or god. Exploring one can be said to be exploring the other. That is the sort of exploring we will have to go on ceaselessly forever. (Please forgive me: amen.)

The Love of God

Why love something that only exists in the mind?

Where else would love be? Of necessity: love is in the mind and what is loved is figured to be somewhere else even if it is an idea or notion only in the mind. God, being a social thing, does exist elsewhere than one’s mind: it is in others’ minds.

I used to ask “Who created god if god created everything else?” because I figured, as many do, that everything needs a separate creator. So I just dumped the god and was left with everything as a given just as god was a given.

Since people insisted there be a creator of everything I figured that the universe would work very nicely as its own creator. Since it encompasses time and space it does not exist in time and does not exist in space. Therefore it has neither a beginning nor an end in time. Nor does it have any measurable spatial boundary to allow any measurement to be made of it. Since it encompasses all finites and infinities it is neither infinite nor finite. It is therefore as non commensurable as god.

No one was satisfied. So I said that the universe impregnates itself and gives birth to itself anew. I said that it is the creator of everything including itself. I said that it does this as often and whenever it simply does. It is its own big bang. And it is its own self progenitor forever and ever. And I said “amen”.

I love god. I do not believe a word of any of it. And I would rather not pay for any of it. It is a real question. But most people want answers that are not requisite of actual work. They would rather kill you than think. They would rather fight mindlessly, even if they might fight well and bravely, and would rather then die than think. Most intellectuals are cud lipped cattle and want intellectual shepherds to tell them what to do.

My religion is just as important and at least as real as yours. So all you human holier than thou self righteous intellectual lightning bolts: F. U. !!! Come on!!!

Is There Money In Philosophy?

Is there money in Philosophy? Is there any money in the creation and exploration of ideas? Do they not charge you to hear their ideas? Do they not insist that their way of thinking is right? Do they not assert that it is their way only and other ways are wrong? Do they not pass the hat, pass the plate, pass the blank checks, pass the credit card forms, pass the money laws, and collect the taxes and the fees? Do not those with Power show their contempt for those without? Do they not hunt down and kill those who think and thus act differently? In the land of free speech do they not assault those who speak out and demand freedom in the land of the free?

Ideas move humanity at least as much as boredom, hunger, cold, rage, sex, and any want and desire. What of Christians who do not believe in Christmas, even if such Christians are not very interesting and wonder why they are shunned by regulars?

What of Atheists who do not believe in any holiday of religious origin be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or otherwise, and how they are shunned and hated and even hunted down for murder?

Honesty and Socrates

Honesty was what Socrates instructed. He came up with the refrain "I know nothing" but in the course of conversations demonstrated that it was the partner in the conversations that knew nothing that they said they did. [Others wrote down the dialogues or conversations. It was a skill highly prized in those days to be able to repeat verbatim entire conversations, whole speeches, or sets of instructions while someone else could write it down.] The famous were confronted in public and the public listened while Socrates would very politely but very thoroughly demonstrate that though he claimed to know nothing that it was the famous-for-something who had no good nor sufficient reason to be famous for anything. They were publicly shown to be mendacious in their claims of skills and abilities and knowledge. Thus publicly humiliated they walked away angry. They eventually managed to kill the become old man, Socrates, at 72. It was not just personal. The power depended on the hoi polloi being duped and kept that way. 2500 years later we learn ... something!