Dean said (December 25, 2014):

It is the solution to poverty in the land of plenty. Yes I said plenty. There is only one thing there is a shortage of: MONEY.

Now idiots and TPTB are the only forces I know of who deny the one credible, fully articulated and thought-out solution that exists to properly and equitably share this incredible wealth that technology has gifted mankind and that is SOCIAL CREDIT. You are a thinking man so I encourage you to do one thing. THINK about what I just said and do a little homework to see if what Wally tried to tell you is bullshit or not. It is not. You said it is too technical? Well then have a look at this. www.economiccuresl.com. Is that simple enough for you.

You are as close to being part of the solution while actually being the problem that I know of. How are you part of the problem? You are telling the poor bastard that is suffering because his foot is being pounded by a hammer that we need to outlaw hammers when the solution is as close as the nose on both of your faces. It is the hammer in the hand of the bastard hitting him.

Why is there as shortage of money? That answer is simple – THE GAP. Now what is the gap and how do you fix it? Read this
http://www.economiccuresl.com/

or look up social credit on Wikipedia or check out www.socred.org

The key to eliminating debt slavery is to figure out an economic policy that eliminates the need for it. Simple. End of story.

--

Thanks Dean for this short and clear exposition,

The problem is not that we lack a solution, but that we lack the power to implement one.

henry

Mike said (December 22, 2014):

The film by Damon Vrabel was well done and the solutions logical. However, it does not properly address what has allowed the current conditions to grow and stay in place. That would involve the psychology of the public. Assuming that 'understanding how we are controlled is necessairy to breaking free', it would behoove us to look at both sides of the picture.

The pyramid actually goes much further than what was presented in the film. It consists of a hierarchy of people within the general population who benefit from and give support to the banker-based system. The population has occupied the exploited pawn position all through the ages.

Bribery and promises have always been enough to maintain control. Legislators and judiciary have always essentially sided with the powerfull. Likewise the police and military. The issue of bribery is especially key, as it has been a tool in the making of all great fortunes, and exists at every level.The people who are bribed come from the general population, which tells us alot.

One example of the disunity of the public might be the Walmart store. It allows no union, even though some of its workers need food stamps. Union picketers cannot get public sympathy to boycott the store. If the workers dared to strike they would be fired and replaced by scab laborers who need the job and would be protected by the law. Yet the owners are one of the worlds wealthiest families.Unlike the workers they can protect their wealth through tax loopholes, and create any loopholes that dont yet exist. When they move a store into a town, the competition moves out, unable to compete in a price war.

The genetic heritage of the worlds population includes endless struggles, wars and punishments.This must account for difficulties in our present collective mindset. History might give the best explanation for the herd mentality and submission to power, which aids the efforts of the bankers. There is also, helped along by the religious organizations, general identification with guilt, low self esteem and unworthiness. Check the antidepressent sales for verification of this. Interestingly, these concepts can all be defined in terms of an unresolved balance, equating to debt.

Elm said (December 21, 2014):

MONEY cannot, in and of itself be "debt based." Money IS value in exchange, not simply a demand for value. There has come to be a wide spread confusion over the difference between MONEY and currency. Whereas MONEY proper is THE value in a value for value exchange, currency is a medium of conveyance, not an intrinsic quantity offered in exchange.

In times past, American claims -- Demand Notes or Bills FOR real MONEY read, "This Note Is "A" Legal Tender FOR Ten DOLLARS," in either gold or silver coins. Notice, the Note or Bill is not the MONEY, but rather, a Demand to the banker for a redemption of the Note FOR MONEY, also called a "Promise To Pay" To The Bearer On Demand. What occurred was, Demand Notes as a matter of convenience, in time came to be exchanged instead of MONEY. Today's Notes are not Notes, but rather a manipulated & fluctuating medium, or token units of exchange. Both MONEY and DOLLARS are measures, not values.

A currency cartel therefore, is the ULTIMATE CARTEL, with all significant political and economic decisions accruing to a few. To be sure, a currency cartel is the enemy of real MONEY, because whereas MONEY is a repository of labor and value accumulated from the past -- an intrinsic value, an interest bearing currency, especially that of a privately controlled currency, is a demand upon the fruits of labor into the future. To see where we are headed, we must first know from whence we came, and especially as to how this affects words and perception.

Tony B replies:

Elm, in this case at least, is a sower of confusion, exactly what the bankers love. I doubt if it's so intended, sometimes it's hard to get the point across with money because of all the past deliberately sown confusion.

The main part of the problem with his rant is that he is correct that the U.S. government used to peg our money to metal and he thinks, because the government did it or that it's in the constitution (really isn't) then it must be correct. It's not correct. It's dead wrong and it greatly confuses the issue.

Robert K said (December 21, 2014):

It's encouraging to see Migchels gradually moving from an obsession about interest/usury toward the more critical issue (as far as personal freedom is concerned) of the control of "credit allocation", which is seldom addressed by the simpletons who imagine that our monetary woes will somehow be cured merely by having bureaucrats in departments of finance control the issuance of interest-free money.

In all probability the results for the population of such an arrangement--i.e., absolute state dictatorship--would be worse than what our current corrupt financial masters are imposing. Proposals for "credit allocation" beneficial to all citizens have of course been at the core of the Social Credit proposals made by Clifford Hugh Douglas and his supporters for nearly a century.
----

Anthony replies:

"I'm not at all 'moving away' from 'my obsession' with Usury.

We should be looking for comprehensive monetary reform and in 'the goal of monetary reform' (2012) I identify Usury, manipulation of volume and credit allocation as the main issues with money.

I'd like, on the other hand, to see the Social Crediters get a little more involved.

The Socred's main obsession, the Gap, is mostly Usury and Social Credit only looks at its effects on purchasing power at the consumer base, ignoring the incredible wealth transfer (estimated at at least $2 Trillion per year in the US alone) to the very richest associated with Usury. Social Credit compensates for this wealth transfer, but does not end it. Social Credit plugs the gap, instead of fixing it permanently.

What this has to do with state technocrats in the ministry of finance eludes me. Credit allocation should be managed by interest-free credit facilities that are strongly embedded in local communities. Most of the credit can be allocated by straightforward algorithms based on the simple right of people to what is basically their own credit, as it is based on their promise to pay."

Robert:

Prime lending rates in December 2014: Germany, 2.7%; Netherlands, 2.17%; France, 2.07%; United Kingdom, 1.50%; Japan, 1.15%. Ignoring the facts that banks have huge infrastructure costs, provide direct and indirect "gainful employment" to armies of citizens, and pay dividends to millions of investors, Migchels characterizes this situation as scandalously "usurioius". Note that the most commonly accepted definition of usury is the exploitative charging of excessively high rates of interest on loans.

No doubt the banks would like to charge higher rates, but recognize that to do so could kill "fragile economies" in which they constantly endeavour to keep general populations simultaneously docile and financially insecure.

I agree that the banking system is operated on unconscionable principles, the fundamental ones being that banks claim ownership of the money they create out of nothing against the real wealth of the community, and thus unjustifiably hold liens against a vast amount of it, and that no inherent provision is made to ensure that production can be got over to consumers without generating endless claims against their future income.

And methinks the scheme Migchels envisages for providing financial means through local arbiters of creditworthiness would not protect against the corruption that inevitably develops when certain people are accorded coercive powers over the lives of others.