Wall Street spent a record $2 billion trying to influence US elections

[singular_me]

monetarism subverts most human behaviors
prevents from going after the too big too fail
Makes problems a lot more profitable

gold/silver or fiat it does not mattter. The choice over fiat is that the concentration of wealth goes faster
==========================
Wall Street spent a record $2 billion trying to influence US elections – report

‘Wall Street spent a record $2 billion in contributions to political campaigns during the last US election cycle. The staggering sums made the financial sector by far the biggest business contributors, however the real figure could be much higher.

A new report from Americans for Financial Reform has found that the total amount of money spent on campaign contributions for presidential, Senate, and House of Representatives candidates reached $1.1 billion, with another $898 million spent on lobbying.

The huge sums made the financial sector by far the largest source of campaign contributions. The total is more than $400 million more than was spent during the 2012 election cycle. The daily spend topped $2.7 million and more than $3.7 million was spent per member of congress.’

https://www.rt.com/usa/380042-wall-street-election-record-spending/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

[Ares]

monetarism subverts most human behaviors
prevents from going after the too big too fail
Makes problems a lot more profitable

gold/silver or fiat it does not mattter. The choice over fiat is that the concentration of wealth goes faster.

I've asked you this more times than I care to remember. But how does a farmer with the knowledge, equipment, skills and land grow food without being compensated for his labor?

You have NEVER answered that question.

The answer is obvious to those who live in reality. It's never going to happen.

[Glass]

A farmer is a commercial enterprise which means it exists in the fictional plane of commerce. Not in reality. Just like 100% of persons, who are in fact, franchises. None of them exist in reality. There are a very few people who recognize that there is a difference and that they are not "living" in reality. Most don't even realize they live as fictions.

As for the farmer, the farmer trades produce for fiat for the purposes of paying taxes (a tythe). The "lords" will only accept a specific thing in payment of thythe which is the fiat. They no longer accept chickens or hogs or grains etc. This is because of the limited time of utility due to spoilage.

If the overriding obligation of taxation were not there the man or woman doing the farming might be doing something different such as growing and producing to satisfy their life needs. That would be closer to reality than the current situation. In the social sciences it's called subsistence farming and the ideology is that people need to be saved from that. Americans originally had a perspective of trying to live as men and women producing for their own needs but that was eroded over time.

Consumerism was probably the nail in the coffin because not only was there the burden of taxation, there was the extra drain on the family wealth because of desirable consumption. Not necessity consumption. This further eroded the families ability to produce for it's sustenance. Effort and the produce of that effort which would normally ensure life needs were met, are traded for desirables. This is often justified by the opportunity cost analysis theory taught at a young age.

You can pay on Tuesday for the hamburger today. You can pay in 4 years time for the spring break today. You can pay in 12 months for the iPhone today.

Interesting reading: John Locke: Money Private Property (and spoilage limitation) (https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/john-locke-money-private-property)

[Ares]

A farmer is a commercial enterprise which means it exists in the fictional plane of commerce. Not in reality. Just like 100% of persons, who are in fact, franchises. None of them exist in reality. There are a very few people who recognize that there is a difference and that they are not "living" in reality. Most don't even realize they live as fictions.

As for the farmer, the farmer trades produce for fiat for the purposes of paying taxes (a tythe). The "lords" will only accept a specific thing in payment of thythe which is the fiat. They no longer accept chickens or hogs or grains etc. This is because of the limited time of utility due to spoilage.

If the overriding obligation of taxation were not there the man or woman doing the farming might be doing something different such as growing and producing to satisfy their life needs. That would be closer to reality than the current situation. In the social sciences it's called subsistence farming and the ideology is that people need to be saved from that. Americans originally had a perspective of trying to live as men and women producing for their own needs but that was eroded over time.

Consumerism was probably the nail in the coffin because not only was there the burden of taxation, there was the extra drain on the family wealth because of desirable consumption. Not necessity consumption. This further eroded the families ability to produce for it's sustenance. Effort and the produce of that effort which would normally ensure life needs were met, are traded for desirables. This is often justified by the opportunity cost analysis theory taught at a young age.

You can pay on Tuesday for the hamburger today. You can pay in 4 years time for the spring break today. You can pay in 12 months for the iPhone today.

The point I was making is that no one works for free.

The farmer isn't going to use his land, skill, knowledge to grow produce to give it all away for free. The money isn't to pay taxes its to pay for the raw materials (seeds, fertilizer) and labor (pest control, weeds). Anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves or hasn't spent a single day on a farm to realize how labor intensive it is. To even allude to the fact that someone will spend all of that time to grow produce for people and not receive any compensation for that time and labor is insulting.

[Glass]

To even allude to the fact that someone will spend all of that time to grow produce for people and not receive any compensation for that time and labor is insulting.

There in lies the problem. They are doing what they are doing for the wrong reasons. But I accept they are "trapped". In an ideal world, they would only produce for themselves. But because of all the other things, they have to sell...... engage in commerce.

[Ares]

There in lies the problem. They are doing what they are doing for the wrong reasons. But I accept they are "trapped". In an ideal world, they would only produce for themselves.

Agreed, in an ideal world each would provide for themselves. But I'd say 95-98% of the worlds population has no idea how to farm or grow food. They think you just put seeds in the ground and make sure you have enough water. They don't consider nitrates, potassium, calcium, iron or even soil Ph for that matter. Different crops have different soil requirements and not all crops can grow in the same soil or region.

So the reality of the world is we do need people (not corporations) who have the knowledge, skill, and land to produce our food. I have no problem exchanging my knowledge, skill and labor in the form of money for the farmers knowledge, skill and labor for produce.

Money is a medium of exchange, I think along the way some of us forget about that. It's a tool, a very powerful tool that is controlled by people who should never of had control over it. But it's a tool nonetheless. The power to create is the power to destroy.

[singular_me]

well in a money-free society, people do what they love doing.. and their interests (governed by creativity first as opposed to "the theory of the fittest") synchronize themselves. The fact is that machines will do all the jobs that are repetitive and/or boring.

Of course one has to believe in cosmic synchronicity (that nothing happen by accident)

I have answered but you have a problem with the premise

the less corecive society is = God oriented
the more coercive society is = Evil oriented.

Money is coercive, always.

My guess is that in 5 years from now, people will have to choose: centralized universal basic income VS money-free decentralization



I've asked you this more times than I care to remember. But how does a farmer with the knowledge, equipment, skills and land grow food without being compensated for his labor?

You have NEVER answered that question.

The answer is obvious to those who live in reality. It's never going to happen.

[crimethink]

The Wall Street Casino made a sound investment. They couldn't lose. Professional criminal Hillary Clinton or Jew York City realtor indebted to Jew York City banks Donald Trump.

[woodman]

well in a money-free society, people do what they love doing.. and their interests (governed by creativity first as opposed to "the theory of the fittest") synchronize themselves. The fact is that machines will do all the jobs that are repetitive and/or boring.

Of course one has to believe in cosmic synchronicity (that nothing happen by accident)

I have answered but you have a problem with the premise

the less corecive society is = God oriented
the more coercive society is = Evil oriented.

Money is coercive, always.

My guess is that in 5 years from now, people will have to choose: centralized universal basic income VS money-free decentralization

Markets determine the cost of goods and services in a free market. Socialism and outright communist governments have tried again and again to do the job of the market by centrally control. It has never worked. It won't work any time soon. without money there is simply no incentive to produce. People will starve, freeze and lack all the things that make life worthwhile, like a safe place to raise a family. This last is in short supply in any of the cities where the forces of collectivism have held sway.

[Glass]

But I'd say 95-98% of the worlds population has no idea how to farm or grow food. They think you just put seeds in the ground and make sure you have enough water. They don't consider nitrates, potassium, calcium, iron or even soil Ph for that matter. Different crops have different soil requirements and not all crops can grow in the same soil or region.

So the reality of the world is we do need people (not corporations) who have the knowledge, skill, and land to produce our food.

But again, this perspective is framed on where we are at at the moment AND we had to get here by learning things other than the knowledge of how to grow things, how to condition soil, how to conserve seed for the next crop, what crop to grow in what soil and during which particular time of the year.

And there is no big deal about different things growing in different places due to soil or weather. Different countries have their own diets based on what they "traditionally grew" and what they traditionally grew was based on their soil, weather and available resources. It is why mediterraneans have a mediterranean diet, why tropical countries grow tropical fruits and food stuffs, why temperate climates grow grains and livestock. Food preservation is also a key aspect of most "traditional" practices. I put traditional in brackets because it's held in derision as if it's some kind of dark ages practices of simpletons.

Society could have taken any another path at some point in the past, or more correctly carried on the path it was on before taxation/tythes came in to play. It's only matter of knowledge as to how to grow what you need AND the elimination of taxes and consumerism so that people aren't forced to spend so much time doing getting enough to pay those costs and could spend their time more productively in meeting their survival needs. Given the abundance the earth can provide it would probably enable people to have more time, to be more knowledgeable overall to the point where they would know the truth and pitfalls of the protection and extortion racket called government. We share enough historical writings here that it's plainly obvious that people generally were that knowledgeable in the past.

[singular_me]

COMMERCE boils down to

HOW MUCH are you willing to PAY to have the RIGHT to LIVE

Simple... competition just makes it worse... now we all pay for the RIGHT to DIE

The monetization of the GIFT OF LIFE is demonic in essense

It is because people never consider this a premise that monetarism is killing the planet and humanity

this reply is not to Glass, just speaking aloud



There in lies the problem. They are doing what they are doing for the wrong reasons. But I accept they are "trapped". In an ideal world, they would only produce for themselves. But because of all the other things, they have to sell...... engage in commerce.

[singular_me]

Nope... value is subjective... always... and if you go along with the market, then how much will be worth 1 hour of whatever activity when 90% are out of jobs?

The incentive is PASSION. LOVE, love yourself... to love what you are doing... and Cosmic Synchronicity will take care of the rest.

For centuries, the incentive has been a job that one hates to pay the bills... you really call that an incentive? 80-85% of population just do that... 24/7, then spend it all because society must produce obsolescence or it crashes down due the the endless quest for profits.

Chasing profits is what led us to this impasse to start with. Not money itself, but money is the tool, would it be gold/silver or fiat. And who says profits says POWER... and the only goal of power is to dumb down the masses. Best of luck resolving this... by chasing money we just give the top 1% the right to exist. ALLOO !! The top needs a bottom of useless eaters to chase money like crazy or they are over. How evil is this??

example: the coltan war is still raging and coltan mines are located in the gorillas' habitat... as a result they kill the apes and sell their meat, called "bush meat", and guess what ? Because it is expensive (subjectivity of value) the demand is RISING!!! ALLOOO!! The fact is that a money driven society will just do the same with everything, including trafficking humans and kids... what incentive???

What has become the once hailed genius invention of plastic... profits made it happen, now all the oceans are under threat. we dump 275 million of metric tons of plastic into the seas... that is what money makes people do. Plastic is everywhere, even in the fish guts and muscles.... now. Incentive???

In the best of the world, assuming that the vast majority is honest, there will not be any profits to make anymore... so where is the incentive? Just go money free then... simple

Money is utterly coercive and things will go worse before they get better, until we realize that.

As soon as we seek profits, monetarism becomes a metaphysical evil. So why bother... just go money-free or endure the privatization of the right to live/die.

I dont believe people will just sit down and watch TV when/if explained the above. But right now it is easy to assume that because 80% hate so much what they do for a living, intuitively they know they are being exploited and will exploit all the loopholes possible to satisfy this impression.

The mindset has to change. And my documentary will be about that, will demonstrate that the flaws are embedded in the premise itself.

Money is a medium of exchange but stop being so as soon as we want to hoard and use it for perks to be head of the game. Why? Because present is the only value in the Universe. And it is essential to grasp that the NWO operates on that very level of Reality -- to get rid of ((it)).



Markets determine the cost of goods and services in a free market. Socialism and outright communist governments have tried again and again to do the job of the market by centrally control. It has never worked. It won't work any time soon. without money there is simply no incentive to produce. People will starve, freeze and lack all the things that make life worthwhile, like a safe place to raise a family. This last is in short supply in any of the cities where the forces of collectivism have held sway.

[palani]

how does a farmer with the knowledge, equipment, skills and land grow food without being compensated for his labor?
Farming is a subset of commerce in general. Perhaps you should be asking 'When private property is abolished how can I exchange what I own for any other thing?'

You tend to exchange what you PERCEIVE you own for what you PERCEIVE another owns. In reality all you are obtaining is a quit claim from that individual which extinguishes any future claim he might have and you have a claim (in EQUITY) for whatever item you traded for. Ownership is reduced to mere possession.

I prefer to follow common law and make my various claims public (LEGAL NOTICE) and all I claim is the right to possess whatever I claim to possess in order to abate the nuisance of abandoned property. My claim terminates when someone with a better claim comes along (and, of course, in EQUITY has paid my expenses in managing his property).

When you abandon responsibility and join a bankrupt social welfare system then you have no warranty deeds. You have only a quit claim deed. Abandoned property needs to be abated properly or anarchism erupts as evidenced by an oligarchy.

[singular_me]

the fact is that Rothschild doesnt give a damn about his investors... thank you for chasing monney and help make our family even richer, we'll be there to buy everything for pennies on the dollar when it all crashes down
=================================

Rothschild Makes Dismal Admission — His Financial World Order Now “Threatened”
march 9 2017
The chairman’s statement continues with what some might say is an ominous and uncertain view of the future. “Since the last World War, we have enjoyed some 70 years of patiently crafted international cooperation, which is now threatened,” an apparent reference to Brexit and the UK’s referendum to withdraw from the European Union............ Echoing President Trump’s call for deregulation, Rothschild also was reportedly pleased with the “reforms of an over-regulated system.” Likewise, in step with Trump’s call to exponentially increase spending on America’s failing transportation infrastructure, Lord Rothschild is pleased. However, Trump’s call for, “increases in fiscal and infrastructure expenditure…come at a time late in the business cycle, when the labour market is close to full employment,” means there’s no forecast of immediate returns on infrastructure spending forecasted in the future..............

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/03/rothschild-makes-dismal-admission-financial-world-order-now-threatened.html