The best solution, giving the necessary wink to the egalitarian left, would be a flat rate income tax, with an indexed $20,000 fading exemption.

Suppose you had a 15% rate.

A person making up to $20,000 would pay nothing, regardless of family size or marriage status. From $20,001 to $50,000 you would pay 15% of the amount over $20,000. Between $50,001 and $70,000 the exemption would decrease by $1 for ever dollar over $50,000. From $70,000 to infinity, you would pay 15% on the whole amount.

You would be taxed on earned income, wages, salaries, tips, commissions. You would not be taxed on capital gains, dividends or interest. Corporations and business would not be taxed, only individuals.

All other deductions, exemptions, etc, would be abolished.

Come on gives us guys who file a Schedule C a break. I am not an acountant, I don't want to be. I am a programmer, I don't want to know about undocumented "standard" practices - i.e. this is what the code says, but you aren't actually supposed to do it that way. There is a better plan, the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org) a progressive national sales tax and most people don't even have to file a tax return. Does the government really need to know so much about how and where you make your money?

The so-called "Fair Tax" is fraudulent, because it claims to be a 23% sales tax when in truth it is a 30% sales tax. We should not be a party to fraud.

One-half of all income tax money goes merely to pay interest on the national debt. That should give all of us pause to wonder just how necessary a tax of this kind really is. Too many libertarians are trying to replace the income tax. I say we should eliminate it, period, and replace it with nothing.

Regarding the national debt, perhaps it's time to stop paying interest on it too. Perhaps it's time to recognize that the country should never have tripled its debt during the past 10 years. Perhaps it's time to stop the madness at its source.

The national debt is skyrocketing, and there is no end in sight. The only possible end, at this rate, is national bankruptcy, and it's going to happen within the next 10-15 years. It would be better at this point to simply stop the bleeding and thereby remove half the need for the income tax.

Would it lead to economic upheaval now to eliminate interest on the national debt? Of course. But that's nothing compared to the upheaval that will occur if we merely wait for the national debt to utterly destroy this country.

Instead of targeting new, "fairer" ways to tax people to death, we Libertarians should be fighting to free people from the onerous, unsustainable burden being foisted on us by Congress and the President year after year after year.

We should stop being victims of their ongoing initiated force.

It all how you play the game, they tax you for working, investment, anything you do to your property, and even leaving it to your kids, so even if you want to give money to your family you are double tax on the very thing you work for, so if you give it away it is tax some more even though it was yours to begin with.
With all the rules in place and crap, and you screw up the IRS comes after you and takes it all away. BYE BYE MONEY ALL GONE.

It will be a good day if we can abolish the IRS or minimize it to a good degree.

You guys are rocked......
The principals that your party stands for is totally flawed. It’s a far to simplistic view of the world.
1) lower taxes will increase business
Don't you understand that business is run by international monopolies etc. I drive through states (Because I drive a truck) that have a lower tax rate, and the roads and schools are falling apart. Answer me this, how does that stop wallmart from buying their products from China?. My former company just moved production from Mexico to China because wages were too high. These people were living in cardboard houses. Now they employ political prisoners, you know that radical sort that want democracy.
Question 2.. how do you expect to get elected: if you do not in bed with these international monopolies.?

Peter:

Thank you for your interest in the Libertarian Party, at least enough to say that we're "too simplistic."

Your facts need correcting. The following information comes from the U.S. State Department website: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0106/ijee/leebaert.htm

"From a two-person software start-up to a fleet of trucks helping to build cities, the small-business sector catalyzes economic expansion by:

"- making up 99.7 percent of all U.S. employers, meaning that only 17,000 companies, or 0.3 percent of all employers, have 500 or more employees;

"- generating half the nonfarm output of the U.S. economy, and employing about half of all Americans not working for government, while adding 60 to 80 percent of net new (nongovernmental) jobs annually;

"- comprising 97 percent of exporters and producing 29 percent of all export valueпїЅkey points when we consider that exports have accounted for about 25 percent of U.S. economic growth over the past decade and support an estimated 12 million jobs;

"- winning nearly 24 percent of all government contracts, ranging from ship construction to printing brochures."

Clearly, your claim that business is run by international monopolies is unfounded, fear-based rhetoric. The overwhelming majority of businesses in this country are small business, and they dominate the economy.

Therefore, we don't need to be "in bed" with international big business in order to win. What we need to do is to pass along the libertarian message that no one (including governments) may rightfully initiate the use of force against others. So far, we have done a terrible job of passing that message along to the public. (Let's be honest about this, fellow Libertarians!) It's the initiation of force that is tearing our world apart (not just our country). That's a main reason why we advocate small government. A small government is much less able to initiate force against others.

The main reason the LP has not succeeded so far is that we have not systematically gotten our message of non-initiation of force (called the Non-Aggression Principle) into the public consciousness. Odds are excellent that you've never even heard of it! This is why we haven't gotten anywhere, not because we refuse to get in bed with international business.

None of this may change your mind, but at least you need to be told that your facts are not in order.

By the way, I need to correct a statement in my earlier post. I said that the national debt has tripled in the past 10 years, when in fact it has doubled. Sorry about that. Doubling the national debt every 10 years (or less) is still far too much and will still inevitably lead us down the road to economic disaster for our country, but I do want the facts to be accurate.

RE: taxes
The worst mistake I ever made in my life was investing in the stock market (mutual funds) in the '80s. I started two accounts, Pioneer II and American Capital Pace, $1000 each, and unfortunately got accounts with wrong SS# and wrong address. Within months, I went from employed and making more than I could spend, to living out of my work truck and trying to survive attacks from IRS, a group that consistently picks fights on a sunny days, when there is nothing to fight about.
I not only want the abolishment of the IRS, but abolishment of the Social Security Administration, along with any US agencies that promote the SS number.
-C. Al Currier
559-90-7280 wrong SS# (from stock broker)

My problem with the national debt it that it's almost entirely fictional.

I may be wrong here, and please correct me if I am. But isn't the national debt almost entirely composed of two things? a) debts accrued by borrowing money from other countries, even while those same countries fail to pay debts to *us*, and often are receiving foreign aid from the US, and b) interest payments from the US Government to the Federal Reserve on loans of *our own* money.

So... we should be paying ANY of that *why*, exactly?

GREAT POINT, SAM!!!

As somewhat of an aside, I would remind 'monetary newbie$' who aren't familiar with our '$y$tem,' (apparently most of you) that an honest understanding of today's 'money' would lead to the conclusion that there really is no need to 'tax' us 'directly' i.e. "income taxation" etc....necessitating the need for countless wasted hours, trees, more mailmen etc. as we are forced to provide minions of Republicrat monetary ignoramusses, bean-counter$, etc. with 'economic diarie$'..

In other words, 'the government' could surely create all the money they need out of thin air--just like the $hady 'commercial bank$ters' do today!--and leave the rest of us alone!!..thus 'taxing' us 'indirectly'..and saving us from the hideous spectacle of 'income taxation,' etc. and all that entail$!..

But alas, Republicrats appear more familiar with the details of Alec Baldwin's relationship with his daughter, the latest episode of "Deal or No Deal," etceterot ad nauseam, than they are with the nature, origin of the very 'money' for which they lu$t, grovel etc....

RE: multiple tax rates
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
I am not a fan of R. Reagan, but his quote (above) not only acurately describes the government in general, but perfectly described the government under his administration(s).
I could be in a country with a 60 to 70% tax rate and do better than I have under the state and federal tax collectors of this country. Consistently the worst troubles I have been in is when the government is 'helping'. Their 'help' is rivaled only by tax lawyers and CPAs.

With the multiple tax rates proposed, I suspect that the government is scheming (again) to 'help' someone.

"The overwhelming majority of businesses in this country are small business, and they dominate the economy."

that's true enough but they are de-centralized and cant really write law to benefit themselves by buying legislators to introduce bills written by the corporations. What exactly did you think what was in all those "free" trade agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc? Ever wonder what makes them thousands of pages long?

I've seen and read some of NAFTA, and most of it is clearly designed to unlevel the playing field from politically unconnected competitors. Nearly all these documents favor overseas competition and further distort the market rather than equal it. Go down to the Library of Congress sometime and look at the treaty documents. You will be astounded at the manipulation. I could name as an example a certain Senator from Tennesee by the name of AL GORE who made sure that Jack Daniels and other southern whiskey/bourbon makers was protected from overseas imports by excise taxes. FREE TRADE?????

Small business is not guilty of this - large multinationals that owe no single nation anything are. it's a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Big business does indeed control these things - becuase they can impose regulations and law upon their competitors and create institutional barriers to a level playing field.

Tim,

That's all very interesting, but what does it have to do with Peter's point? He was claiming that we can't win unless we get into bed with international business because they "control everything." Are you claiming that the LP hasn't won because of NAFTA and CAFTA?

Walt

I'm saying that your point about small vs. big business is a misdirection. True that small business is the larger, but in fact, the collusion between big business and government does "run everything", although thats not the way I would put it, and I dont favor getting into bed with them.

Are you aware I am no longer a LP member? I dont know if you know. How the LP does is no longer a concern of mine. I'm continuing to write and revise a book as I'm able; exploring some new political ground which I will shop around when edited and ready. Most of my time now is spent doing research to support it.

Walt Thiessen:"The main reason the LP has not succeeded so far is that we have not systematically gotten our message of non-initiation of force (called the Non-Aggression Principle) into the public consciousness."

Me likey! Sounds very John Quincy Adams-esque... Our 6th President's wisdom is something we need to hammer at our Wilsonian internationalist Republicrat-Demican fellow citizens.

Perhaps one should learn at least a little reality about the hideous nature, origin, etc. of one stinking 'dollar' before one offers up one's 'advice,' opinion, etceterot about how to improve the illion 'dollar' economy, 'the tax system' etc..!..

;o)

Tim wrote: "I'm saying that your point about small vs. big business is a misdirection.....How the LP does is no longer a concern of mine."

A misdirection from what? I was addressing Peter's point that he thinks the LP needs to get in bed with international big business in order to succeed. Therefore, my claim that small business is the majority of the American economy is not a misdirection but a claim on-point. Your counter-claim, in light of the fact that you apparently no longer care about the LP, is therefore a misdirection of its own, since you are apparently trying to misdirect the discussion away from Peter's point.

There's something quite ironic about your use of misdirection to falsely claim misdirection.

I'm just curious, who pays the debt off and to whom? Does the IRS take the income tax revenue and pay a specific bank(s) or send a check to China, or what? Does anyone know, or is this money being siphoned to the politicians as one great scam? I'm really curious who holds the notes on this debt.

Nick:

I would assume you are talking about the U.S. National Debt.

First of all, it is necessary to understand that the debt is held in two major divisions. The first is the debt actually held by the public. The public portion of the debt is Treasury Bonds and Notes and Bills. Much of the public portion is held by foreign powers.

The second portion of the debt is the government held portion of the debt. This debt is held in three major divisions. The first is IOU's to the Social Security trust fund. The second is IOU's to the Medicare trust fund. The third as IOU's to the Federal Reserve, upon which quasi bills of credit are issued. You may know them better as Federal Reserve Notes.

The government NEVER pays off that portion of the debt that they owe to themselves. Rather, they endeavor to increase that portion, using the issue of Federal Reserve Notes to inflate the monetary supply, which devalues the money, which allows the government to engage in yet another cycle of borrowing.

The public portion of the debt is essentially a revolving credit card for the government. As current Treasury Notes, Bill and Bonds become due, new instruments are issued to cover the old and even more new instruments are issued to fund increasing debt.

The issue of paying off the debt is moot. The government has no intention of ever paying off its debt.

And yes, China and other foreign powers are beneficiaries of interest on the public portion of the debt.

So, is it best for us to simply default and start over (with a libertarian government, of course)?

I wonder if that would cause China to wage war on us. If they received no more interest paymentsm, that is.

A default is a possibility, but not the most likely outcome. The most likely outcome is a hyperinflationary spiral, as government debt finally saturates the economy, and the underlying real value of the economy can no longer sustain government debt. The government will try to compensate by flooding the economy with new money, creating a massive hyperinflationary spiral which will collapse the entire monetary and banking system. It would then necessary to start over from scratch. In the moment of collapse, all Treasury instruments would default and become worthless as would all Federal Reserve Notes, forcing a return to barter.

Can the system be saved without going through such a catastrophy. Maybe, be it would be difficult. Steps to a monetary reform:

1. Immediately phase out Social Security and its impossible future obligations. Use sales of federal lands and assets to buy annuities for current SSI recipients. All Federal Debt held by the Social Security Trust Fund could be cancelled out.

2. Immediately abolish Medicare. All Federal Debt held by the Medicare Trust Fund could be cancelled out.

Note: Steps 1 and 2 have just wiped out half the total Federal Debt.

3. This is the complex step. Eventually, it involves taking government gold and depositing it in banks in accordance to the current stated demand deposits of such banks. People would redeem their Federal Reserve Notes for bank notes, issued by their bank, such notes fully redeemable in gold coin or bullion.

4. Once step 3 is complete, the Federal Reserve would be abolished and all debt held by the Federal Reserve would be cancelled.

5. This would leave just the public portion of the debt outstanding. There are schools of thought that favor defaulting on such debt, other schools of thought that favor honoring such debt.

Obviously I have greatly simplified things, but that is the basic idea.

What are the consequences of defaulting OR honoring the remaining public portion of debt? It seems to me, we could easily pay off the remainimg portion in a few short years under the current tax structure and then be free and clear, that is with the elimination of most federal agencies and their budgets.

The most prudent course would be to honor and pay off the national debt. Of course, eliminating as much of the federal government as possible would help in this endeavor. Probably at least a 15 year, but no longer than 30 year window for payoff.

I don't recommend default, for the simple reason of the numerous consequences involved. First of all, you have immense damage to ordinary Americans who either hold savings bonds, or whose investments are heavily saturated with government bonds. It would be theft, pure and simple. Also, while default would have the effect of starting a global toppling of fiat currencies, that would not be a good thing UNTIL our own economy is well footed on commodity money and 100% reserve banking. Also, default would subject the U.S. to punishing global trade retaliations. In my humble opinion, the consequences of default are too dear to risk.

Are you saying it would take 15-30 years? Or, are you suggesting we spread it out over 15-30 years as opposed to doing it as quickly as possible under current taxation? I was thinking that with the elimination of the agencies and their budgets combined with the land sale and other methods of honoring entitlements through a certain age it wouldn't take that long. If you keep the current methods and levels of taxation but eliminate the spending wouldn't it be a pretty quick thing considering the amount of revenue generated? Add to that some hefty fines for pollution, charging criminals for their incarceration as a deterrent measure, letting out the non-violent offenders to ease the burden on the taxes we will still have to pay, I just think there are additional ways to cover some of the remaining costs so the whole deal would be paid off much quicker. I haven't crunched any numbers specifically, but with an annual budget of 2-3 trillion and a 9 trillion dollar debt, that's 3-5 years and we could probably negotiate some of the interest down, too. As the debt goes down the income tax burden would reduce every year but we could continue the curent level so that could cut a whole year or two off the total so it might be even less. I'm thinking 3 years and it's gone. I would be willing to pay my income tax at the current rate for 3 more years if it meant I didn't j have it at all after that. Who would ever vote out libertarians if we pulled this off? We're the only party responsible enough to maintain it.

Assuming first of all that the governmental portion of the National Debt is cancelled as I described previously.

The U.S. GDP is slightly over $13 Trillion. The publicly held national debt is close enough to $5 Trillion to call it that amount. Essentially the debt ration is 38.5 percent. Remember that much of what is saved by government reduction will be siphoned off buying out Social Security. Essentially, no assets will be left from which to retire any public debt with. Therefore, it must be done out of the general fund. Also, remember that interest is being generated on this debt. All told, I think that 15 to 30 years is a reasonable time frame. Ten years is too optimistic in my opinion.

That should have read "debt ratio."

light of the fact that you apparently no longer care about the LP

from a different perspective, I do. I'm still
interested in third parties as a whole and I am hanging around to see how accurate my various predictions will turn out to be as relates to the LP in specific, 08 AND '10.

I didnt want to spend another 2 years blithering on and on about what force means, and sometimes the best way to quit a bad habit is to just quit cold turkey and dont let the door hit you on the way out. In the end, I didnt want to waste any more time, because my time is more valuable because it's limited. So my illness had some part to play in not hanging around until the convention.

I wanted to spend my time doing positive things, and there is nothing positive about the LP unless you accept it's ideology as is.

timothy west:

I noticed a comment of yours on another blog related to party rank and file. I hope you are not judging the rank and file from comments on this blog.

For example, I am not a member of the LP, nor am I likely to formally join the party anytime soon. I have supported LP candidates on a candidate by candidate basis, and have commented on this blog, but in no way am I representative of the rank and file. I would imagine that if you could poll the rank and file, they would likely be very pragmatic and moderate. I could only wish that the rank and file shared my views, I know damn well they do not.

BTW, blogs are not representative of a damn thing. They tend to attract the interested, not the apathetic sheeple.

Not been my experience, Mark.

Mark says the national debt is about $5 trillion, but that's not what the National Debt clocks say. They calculate the debt at nearly $9 trillion. See http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/, http://zfacts.com/p/461.html and http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm for examples.

Add in unfunded mandates such as Social Security and anticipated health care costs for returning Iraqi War veterans, and the true debt probably would be 3 to 4 times that amount.

Mark's scenario of a hyperinflation is only true if we accept his assumption...that the government would resort to massive printing of money. I think that would happen last-gasp, because the political repercussions would be too immediate and too great for those in power. It's always difficult predicting who the politicians will choose to screw when the spam hits the fan, but my money isn't on them screwing the entire economy as their first option via hyperinflation. That's simply political suicide; even they know that.

More likely is that they'd fight tooth-and-nail to pretend that there's no need to default on the debt. Then they'd institute some sort of emergency tax or tarriff...on whom depends on which major party is in power. If it's the Democrats, they'll probably try to levy an extra large tax on big business and the wealthy. If it's the Republicans, they'll probably try to shift the damage to foreign investors.

I partly agree with Mark that a default would be terrible, but I question his motivation regarding paying it off. He writes, "First of all, you have immense damage to ordinary Americans who either hold savings bonds, or whose investments are heavily saturated with government bonds. It would be theft, pure and simple." My question for him is: are you saying that taking on the debt and requiring taxpayers to pay for it in the first place wasn't also theft, pure and simple?

I think there's something immoral about lending money to the government in the first place (in the form of savings bonds and other government bonds) as a form of investment...as if the money "earned" that way isn't itself a form of loot. Besides, those people were "banking" on the "full faith and credit of the United States" as their guarantee that their investment was "safe." I think a reasonable case can be made that they should have to pay for their poor foresight in trusting the government's ability to keep paying more and more interest with end.

It would certainly be a healthier outcome for all if people learned that the government is a bad risk for investors.

Walt:

Yes the Debt Clock does read $9 Trillion. However, as I explained above, much of that debt is NOT public held. Instead it is government held. IOU's to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, plus the IOU's owed to the Federal Reserve upon which Federal Reserve Notes are issued. When Social Security and Medicare are abolished, those IOU's will just be ripped up and that debt will disappear into thin air. Similarly, when the Federal Reserve System is abolished and the nation returned to commodity money, the IOU's owed to the Federal Reserve will similarly just be ripped up. Thus, only the public held debt need be dealt with.

I gotta run, will answer the rest of your post later.

Walt:

Usually, when people invest in government bonds, it is with an eye to safety and stability. I don't think it was ethical for the government to borrow the money in the first place. But it was and people bought the Treasury instruments in good faith. To default would be to magnify the original crime of excessive government spending with a new crime of defaulting "stealing" from its own citizens. Probably a classic case of "two wrongs don't make a right."

In any event, since we are still under fiat money, a default would be catastrophic. If we were on commodity money, a default would be much less disruptive. So default is off the table as an option, at least until the Federal Reserve is abolished and the nation is securely on commodity money.

Mark,

I am still disturbed that you don't seem to place any value on the fact that the people who bought the securities "in good faith" were making a bad judgment for investing their money. Any other investor in any other kind of security who places too much faith in management and then sees their investment go sour because the management didn't deserve that faith loses money. That's the way investment markets work. Shouldn't the same rule that applies to all other investors also apply to government security investors?

The bond investors basically invested in the management ability of big government politicians who voted repeatedly to acquire huge amounts of money via theft and deception in order to perpetrate their frauds. Frankly, those investors' claims that they bought the securities "in good faith" is something they should have to collect (if they can) from the politicians who voted for it. Good luck to them, of course, because that won't happen. But that's the price you pay for making a poor investment choice.

You say that people buy government bonds "with an eye to safety and stability," which I agree is what they counted on. You then claim that their trust should be honored by the taxpayers. What you don't seem to realize is that your claim implies that it should be safe to invest in management by thuggery, because force trumps right. After all, it wasn't the taxpayers who defrauded the investors! It was a bunch of politicians who will promise voters anything who defrauded the investors.

I feel sorry for those investors that they have to suffer the consequences of their actions, but that's part of the risk of investing, and it's not the taxpayer who defrauded them. Therefore, the taxpayer should have no obligation to justify the investors' poor investment choices.

There should be negative consequences for supporting big government, including for its investors. Otherwise, there will be insufficient reason for people with money NOT to invest to support big government, as the past 100 years of American big government growth has demonstrated quite clearly.

Walt

MARK B WROTE: "3. This is the complex step. Eventually, it involves taking government gold and depositing it in banks in accordance to the current stated demand deposits of such banks. People would redeem their Federal Reserve Notes for bank notes, issued by their bank, such notes fully redeemable in gold coin or bullion."

I believe this is pure hogwa$h...For example, I will ask you, yet again, for at least some rough idea as to how YOU AND MURRAY ROTHBARD, etc. would value the federal reserve tokens ('dollars' to Republicrats, etc. monetary ignoramusses) in "demand deposits"--and I would assume AT LEAST 'checkable deposits' and 'cash,' etc. too? vis a vis 'gold'..

This is a fairly SIMPLE QUESTION, MARK B.: i.e. How many fed token$ extant vs. 'gold' 'held' by 'the government?'..(you're not thinking of confiscating 'private gold' again are you, MARK B.??)

According to Zarlenga, the world's foremost monetary historian,--if you know of a better one please share the name--the notion of "%100 gold backing" has been impossible, practically, for AT LEAST 150 years..

;o)

Btw, any Republicrat 'economics' babblers care to explain how 'the fed' gets all 'their money' to 'purchase' 'government bond$?'....

... ;o)

For a good lesson on the history and current workings of our monetary system, read the book "The Creature From Jeckyl Island; A Second Look at The Federal Reserve" by G Edward Griffin. Very interesting and enlightening.

Oh Clark, you and your dollar$...

Tim W. glad to hear from you, it's been a while. I hope you're feeling okay.

Walt:

Maybe true. But for sake of argument, let's assume it is perfectly ok to default on these investors.

You still have the OTHER problems associated with default. Foreign retaliation. Total collapse of the money supply. Economic catastrophe. At a minimum, we could not even sanely begin to think about a default until the Federal Reserve is gone and we are on commodity money.

Clark:

Zarlenga may be a good historian, sadly he is a piss poor money architect. As I stated before, he is blatantly pushing the failed economics of the Keynesian school, which even most of the mainstream left no longer follows. In addition, his monetary scheme is a rehash of the Social Credit Theory, another long discredited idea. In any even, why the hell would I, or any other libertarian, be interested in promoting monetary plans which INCREASE the power and influence of government.

Secondly, it is obvious that you don't have a clue about Rothbardian economics. If you did, you would know that Rothbard vehemently opposed the confiscation of gold.

I would try to get a current reasonable exchange value between $1.00 in Federal Reserve Notes and gold bullion. I would then set permanent exchange value of gold to FRNs. Gold would be parcelled out to banks in proportion to peoples demand deposits. At that point, people would redeem their FRN's at their bank, in exchange for Bank Notes. For example a sample banknote would read:

Bank of America has on deposit 100 ounces of gold, payable to the bearer on demand.

Or instead of a banknote, the deposit might be recorded in ledger form.

Prices would be in terms of fractions of an ounce or grams of gold. Units such as dollar, pound, franc, dinar, ruble, deutschmark, etc, could simply be abandoned. Prices would simply be fractions of a gold ounce or gold gram.

MARK B. WROTE: "At that point, people would redeem their FRN's at their bank, in exchange for Bank Notes. For example a sample banknote would read: Bank of America has on deposit 100 ounces of gold, payable to the bearer on demand."

Yes, and according to the only figures I can find (please do enlighten me though, MARK B., or any other 'gold money' hallucinator$, Republicrats, etc.) that '100 ounce gold receipt' might be about a $50,000,000 million "dollar bill," right? absent of course poor dead murray's and your infamous "confiscation" red herring..with lot$ of mountain murder ruination to come..btw read your CON.! silver too, right, throwback$? (hint for Republicrats: the pre$$ure for gold/silver 'as money,' 'legal tender,' etc. would tend to come from people who control (relatively) lots of gold/silver and maybe their loud, Republicrat radio toadies, etc..)

I notice I miswrote "$50,000,000 million"..should be 'just' "$50,000,000"..proving even super-man CLARK has his difficulties when working in the zillion area of the number line.. ;o)

MARK B. WROTE: "Zarlenga may be a good historian, sadly he is a piss poor money architect. As I stated before, he is blatantly pushing the failed economics of the Keynesian school, which even most of the mainstream left no longer follows. In addition, his monetary scheme is a rehash of the Social blahblahblahblah.."

Yes, I may agree..but at least he offers SPECIFICS as to how he would reform the current WORSE THAN MERELY STINKING ROTTEN SYSTEM OF ISSUANCE OR MONEY..

You appear clueless that this IMPORTANT ASPECT OF "MONEY" is even of concern!..absolutely clueless!..

btw, BILL, that is a good book! some juicy nugget$!..here's the Mullin's classic online: "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" although "THE secrets" maybe presumes too much.. "SOME secrets"

http://www.whale.to/b/mullins5.html

For absolute basics I found the classic yet corny "The Truth in Money Book," by thoren and warner, a pretty good starter..hard book to find though..

Mark B wrote: "Foreign retaliation. Total collapse of the money supply. Economic catastrophe. At a minimum, we could not even sanely begin to think about a default until the Federal Reserve is gone and we are on commodity money."

I agree about foreign retaliation, collapse of the money supply, and economic catastrophe. I don't see how that leads to, "we could not even sanely begin to think about a default until the Federal Reserve is gone and we are on commodity money." Actually, I think such a default would demand the restoration of hard money. If the gov't refused to comply, then the free market would take over. There are already ways to trade online using gold, although it is still in its infancy and very few currently take advantage of it. I'd expect to see that sort of thing really take off in the event of paper-monetary collapse.

I also don't see how any of the above can be avoided. Whether we default by choice or simply wait until the national debt overwhelms us, your first sentence is bound to come true. I only question is when. Let's be honest: Congress and the President are not going to abandon fiat money for anything less than a crisis of this magnitude, and even such a crisis might not be enough.

The main advantage I see to defaulting sooner rather than later is that the overall price to all will be less, and it makes it possible to dump a major share of that price on those who financed this mess in the first place. Without them, it wouldn't be possible for such a crisis to occur.

Walt
Do u honestly believe what you have just said?.
Think about it for a second, OPEC for example the Cartel of oil company's its not a myth. How many products are directly produced by oil,"maybe everything" From the farmers diesel to the plastics in your Ipod. Small business does not have the resources to effect change in the political system; or will they ever. Russia for example had over 27 oil companies and only 3 were allowed to sell to the west, they were on a strict quota system. Don’t get me started on the other monopolies like in like the banking sector. You need to stop believing government propaganda for they are the problem not a solution.
Peter

Peter,

If you'll review what I said, you'll see that I did not at any time say that small business has the resources to effect change in the political system. You incorrectly inferred that I had said it, but I had not. All I was implying was that you were over-estimating the importance of international cartels and big business, and I implied this by stating that your facts were in error.

And indeed, they were at best considerably overstated. For you, the subject is black and white. There are no gray areas in your views regarding this subject. That's why you falsely concluded that because I disagreed that big business is as politically important as you implied, it necessarily meant that I thought that small business has major political clout.

You ought to consider the possibility that there are other sources of political power besides big business. You might be surprised by the results of such consideration.

Just because I don't buy the idea that big business is the cause of all our problems doesn't mean I buy government propaganda. If you knew me better you would know that.

Personally, I'm against the idea that legally fictitious persons, known as "corporations," are a good idea. Does that mean I think they are the cause of all our problems? Not at all. If you want to understand the root causes of corporate corruption, you have to start with government, not big business. It's government law which creates corporations. Without government law permitting and encouraging the creation of fictitious "persons" we would be left with joint-stock companies, which are free market creations. Such companies would not have the tremendous advantage that limitations on liability offer. The level of political power, or economic power, or any other power that joint-stock companies would have would be a lot less than modern corporations have.

Limited liability exists primarily because of the way common law has been corrupted over the years into supporting the idea that people are not responsible for their own actions. Thus, bar owners are falsely considered responsible by law for how much alcohol their customers consume, and people who own sidewalks are held responsible for whether or not someone else falls on them and breaks their leg. These are two obscure examples, but if you keep looking you'll see that the notion of limited liability became politically desirable because of the screwy way the law was twisted around so that people didn't have to be responsible for their own actions.

This is much too big a subject to tackle in depth here, but I hope I've at least given you a taste of what can be discovered if it is properly pursued.

Walt

Re: Walt
I can agree with you that these monopoly’s would have never of happened without government support.(They are one of the same) I do disagree with you about their importance. In all honestly; I believe without their support, you will never be elected to any office.
Peter

Peter,

You can believe and disagree as you wish, and if you do it will be true for you. You will thus build a limit in your mind that can never be overcome, because you have decided that it can never be overcome (since corporations aren't likely to go away in your lifetime).

Personally, I find no value in fatalism like that. It's only for people who would rather complain than actually work for palpable change.

The way to be elected without the support of corporations (or labor unions, or PACs, or any of the major sources of funding) is to develop an organization that is skilled in reaching out to and finding support among the people, then using the organization to promote a clear, coherent, and workable message. True, this requires hard work, persistence, dedication, and an ability to really organize, but it can be done. Read the history of the origins of either the Democratic or the Republican parties, and you'll learn how it can be done. They started their parties without massive corporate contributions more than a hundred years ago.

Money finds strong parties and supports them, but it can't build them from scratch, as the Reform Party's history clearly shows. They didn't fail for lack of money. Perot had plenty of money. They failed for lack of solid organization combined with a lack of a clear, coherent, and workable message.

Walt