There's and old adage out there that's been around for years that has it that modern central bank-issued paper money - Federal Reserve notes, Bank of England pounds, euros, yen, etc - are nothing but "monopoly money," the worthless scrip that is used to play the famous board game. Well, in a certain sense, the adage is truer than most people using it are aware: our money is indeed loaned into circulation (not issued, there's a difference) by what is effectively a "money monopoly". It is a command and centralized economic system in one very important respect: money itself is not responsive to market demands and forces.
Once again, I think there is an important article at the Daily Bell to draw your attention to:
Here, for me, are the salient points:
"You see how it all comes back to banking, dear reader? The point is being made that banks are "overstrained" and their lending capacities are diminished.
"But who would really care about this if we had a free-market money system available? If we had a free-market system of money instead of a monopoly/government/mercantilist one, then the market itself would take care of the money necessary.
"That is not what the powers-that-be want you to think. They want you to be frightened and thus use their dominant social themes like this one (the world is running out of money) to make you feel hopeless and powerless.
"These themes are almost always scarcity-based. At the end they propose globalist solutions (run by the power elite) to provide the necessary antidote to market failure."
Already we have seen a growing response to this system in the form of local currencies, most recently with the "nanto" in Nantes, France. The problem with local currencies is, of course, that they're local, while the trade of the world is increasingly conducted globally. Consider: many of you have bought this author's books either off his website or from amazon, probably paid for it in electronic blips from Paypal or a credit or debit card, denominated in your country's currency.
Now let us recall another dominant social meme that has been promoted by the globalist elite, namely, the obsolescence (in their view) of the modern nation state. From the constellation of these two ideas, it is easy to predict what their next move might potentially be (and indeed they have already implemented some aspects of what I am about to suggest). Suppose a large global company like amazon were to issue its own corporate currency, taking, say, Ithaca Hours as its model. We'll call this currency "amazons". It could then negotiate with other companies to exchange goods and services in amazons, grocery chains, etc. People could opt to be paid electronically in a whole basket of such "currencies" depending on their spending habits and needs. The "value" of such currency itself would be determined by the corporation(s) in question...
Well, you get the point I am sure...before too long, with enough corporations driving the innovation, soon the national currencies, and indeed, much of the mechanisms of the nation state, would be obsolete....corporations would increasingly come to occupy the institutions and functions of government. Consider only the moves toward "privatization" of "security" and military functions, or even the move by some corporations to hire chaplains or (for those of you out there with MBAs), their calls for "whole person management". In short, not only is a transference of government functions to corporations occurring, but a transference of religious ones is as well.
That, of course, is to a certain extent a return to where we began: to the Middle Ages and the rise of the doctrine of the corporate person. Of course, that doctrine as understood by the mediaeval jurists carried with it some implications - corporate guilt among them - that modern corporatists have forgotten. We had best remember that lesson of history as well, for in the modern period, some nations were founded upon, and others gradually came to recognize, the that human beings had certain inalienable rights that were not a grant by kings or governments or any entity other than God, or the universe, or Chaos, whatever one wished to call it. Corporations, let it be noted, have not in the modern period been compelled to recognize, formally and as a component of their corporate charters, these rights. Perhaps, as part of the debate during this age of cultural transition, this too, should be added to the list of things that need thorough, open, and public discussion. What would be the consequences of compelling them to do so? Is such a measure really needed? And so on....
See you on the flip side.