Do you mean centralized government or policy derived by a central government?

Are you trying to impress people?

Because you're not...

Etienne,

That, and especially the last part, is so perfect from the standpoint of getting to the heart of the matter.

The actual system of finance is therefore fraudulent in the extreme.Whether the remedy is sought in some form of austerity,as a corrective to "shop till you drop" debauchery,or some form of "dirigiste" policy as a corrective to free-market anarchy,both approaches fail to question(or purposely avoid questioning)current practices.

Put another way,"liberals" and "conservatives" are both in agreement that the current financial crisis-the high levels of indebtedness,both public and private-is the RESULT of a problem,however differently they discern what that problem happens to be.When as a matter of fact the debt is ITSELF the problem.

With all of this in view,the path lies clear before us.The policy of any restorative or regenerative party should be to call for the cancellation of nearly all debts,public and private,currently in existence.

The monies thus liberated from service charges on that old debt can then be used in the creation and maintenance of a sounder economy.More importantly,this unburdening of the public can be used as a great political Tool to effect greater and wider-ranging change throughout the body politic.

By striking at the financial heart,we can bring down the imposing body of the present regime,and turn it into a corpse.

(to be continued)

Since we need currency to prosper,it has to be issued by some institution,and according to some principle.Who issues our currency,and what principle do they apply in so doing?

The answer to the first half of that question is,the Federal Reserve,a privately owned bank.

We've glimpsed at the problem this causes.In order for money to come into existence-and without some medium of exchange and some measure of value we're back to the primitive system of barter-a bank has to make a loan.And loans come with interest obligations attached,which means that the only way for that interest to be discharged is with more money created from more loans.But,as you can easily see,THOSE loans also have interest attached to them,and the only way to pay off THAT interst is with new money created from fresh loans, etc. etc. etc..

So collectively,we can never NOT owe the bank any money;because all the money that exists is never sufficient to discharge our debt- principle plus interest.The bank will certainly see to that.

The answer to the second half of the question is,the fractional reserve system.

In order for a bank to make loans it must keep a reserve of currency at the central bank,i.e. The Federal Reserve Bank.This reserve is a fraction of the total loans The Fed will allow a bank to make.Normally a bank will make loans up to nine or ten times the amount of its reserves at The Fed.

Banks are always making loans,and simultaneously receiving interest installments from loans already lent.During an expansion the amount of money in loans flowing outward from the bank exceeds the amount of money wending its way back to it from its debtors.But when it has made loans totaling nine or ten times its reserve at The Fed, its stops making loans.It now "calls in" its loans,and the amount of money flowing into the bank exceeds the amount flowing out.

The public now experiences a "credit crunch",and has less money than is necessary to carry on with its affairs.Belts tighten,enterprises fail,and people lose jobs.

(to be continued)

In order to deal with our economic-financial disorder we need to come to grips with one of its fundamental causes,coiled tightly at its inner core.It is the practice of usury.

All of the proposed ways of dealing with the crisis,"supply side" and "demand side","guberment" or "lazy faeries",take usury for granted and seek to promote recovery and stave-off disaster by trifling with superficialities.

Demanding interest on non-productive loans forces debtors to literally chase after money THAT DOES NOT EXIST.Put another way, if you collected every single legal tender note,and handed it over to the banks on behalf of every single debtor,both public and private,you,they,would still be in debt.

Money has essentially two functions.It is a measure of value-a BMW's price can be measured in loaves of bread instead of pieces of paper called "dollars",and the price of bread can be measured in fractions of BMWs-but it is much more convenient to measure everything against one thing and make our calculations accordingly.Thats one function of money.

The other function is as a means of exchange.A theater ticket gives me title to one seat at the theater.But it doesnt allow me to purchase a beer,or a loaf of bread,or a BMW;no matter how many tickets I happen to amass.The theater ticket is a claim on one specific thing;currency is a generalized claim on all or any-thing(s).That is the second function of money.

Ezra Pound once remarked;"saying the government cant do someting because it doesnt have enough money,is like saying you cant build a railroad because you havent got enough kilometers".In other words confusing money's function as a means of exchange with its OTHER function as a measure of value.

Similarly,saying the "free market" cant allow something because there isnt enough money(i.e. profit)is like a theater owner with an empty theater and a throng of spectators camped outside saying;"I cant open for business,there arent enough tickets".In other words confusing money's function as a measure of value with its OTHER function as a means of exchange.

(to be continued)

Didn't Grover get enough of that at the RNC Chairman debate, without you going and "irritating" him again?

I saw a few minutes and it was interesting to see just how afraid they seemed to be of Ron Paul's mysterious beliefs.

They are probably more afraid of said beliefs than they are of the impending economic collapse of the US economy, which is a wee bit ironic I would say...

Kind of like those ancient kings of Judah who were more concerned with muzzling Jeremiah than that minor issue of Nebuchadnezzar's approaching army.