06/17

From: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND < drthomas@naturedox.com >
Date: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: Beginnings of reply from Sunday
To: John Forster < honestmeasures@gmail.com >

John, to be certain, I’m not as well read as you.  So, maybe it’s just my ignorance that is the explanation for why your explanation of money (value, QMS, dollars in particular) is so far away from my own understanding.  You appeal to the authority and expertise of a group of writers with whom you agree that give your ideas/theory credibility. 

The Writers point to things. I see them. You can too. Start with Paul Hein – dumpy little old Missouri Ophthamologist – “All Work and No Pay”. It will make sense to you or it won’t. It is a quick read.

But, I likewise feel that my theories are supported by an equally prestigious band of economists. 

Please forward links to their articles or books, or loan me your books as I wish to loan you mine. Show me where they explain how the Description of the mechanics of modern money differs from the Federal Reserve Publications and all the Austrian Economists.

As I have said, I disagree with very little of what you talk about. 

Maybe. Let’s see:

Inflation is theft? John-yes, Tom-no

Dollar has no substance or measure, thus cannot have quantity, and to pretend to use it is fundamentally dishonest because you imply that it exists when it does not – and in the using of it you support and profit the banks manipulation of what they say are quantities, making you a partner with a thief: John-yes, Tom-no

Price stabilization cannot be practically accomplished except by one money, one bank, one government, and unaffordable man-hours collecting data, and unacceptable coercion of men?? John-yes, Tom-?

It is a sin and a crime to partner with the Federal Reserve or any of its branch banks in debauching the “currency” by requesting them to expand the money supply so that you can have an interest rate lower than the free market (or even lower than inflation/price-rises) ? John-yes, Tom-no

There will never be justice applied by American Civil Government to force bankers to pay double-restitution for their theft, because bankers control the government. The only possible reform will be the voluntary non-use of the central banking system and its imaginary “money” in order to take away their power to bribe, murder, enslave, and steal? John-yes, Tom-no

In fact, I’m not quite sure why you disagree with me,

1. Your analysis of the nature of the dollar does not match the other authors I have read nor my own observations in the field with the understanding of physics, economics, and morality that I have.

2. Your explanation seem to approve, or at least justify what I am afraid God's law condemns. Even if you grudgingly agree that it is bad, you don't yet see the necessity to appeal to the Church to preach and act in a definite way towards a reform of the regnant evils of the system.

or what you disagree with me about.  (e.g. Fiat money is not a violation of a spiritual principle by men who create something out of nothing.  It’s just tokens that people use to represent value, that have been loaned into existence.)  

I believe saying someone owes somebody else when there is nothing loaned and no way to pay anything back is not absolutely honest.

When you say “tokens represent value” remember how men value things is not something that can be quantified or measured. You speak of “value” as if it was the substance you were measuring. But you cannot set the value of any item AS THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT because different humans will value things differently, and you will not know until after the Trade when you see what they will give up for the item in question.

If you trade dollars for gasoline, I can know I get 10 gallons, but none of us can know what the service station business is receiving in exchange, because there is no way to measure or count what they are getting, since there is nothing there to measure or count. Although we can agree to mutually pretend we are trading something, in doing so we cannot avoid being partner with the banker-thieves who are responsible for centuries of murder, war, enslavement, and massive theft of family property.

We cannot tell the difference between the bank really paying the station or just pretending to owe the station. In our words of speech we say that we have paid the station for the gas, but is there anything beyond saying the bank now owes the station and nothing is said or known or verifiable about What it is that the station is owed by the bank?

I believe that central bankers have facilitated the agenda of governments and wars. 

I believe that governments have executed the agenda of foreign and domestic war that central bankers have paid them to- and forced them to do.

I believe that all money (the base or precious materials used as the media of exchange) must and does have quantity, measure and substance.  I do not believe that the machinations, slight of hand, and complexity, of the banking system, whether FRB or Fed origination of account ledger, in any way violate the fact that the money used in the market has QMS.  A good question is whether we should boycott the use of the government money, and create an alternate money system with only valuable QMS materials.  Should we use only 100% reserve banking? 

I think there are valid free market arguments that support such a system. 

I think there are imperative Biblical moral arguments that require such a system: 100% time-contract loaning, and honesty about all 3 aspects (qms). You and I are actively arguing about the nature of the measure and substance (ie. What it is that you think you are counting).

Perhaps we will never be able to resolve our differences (if we could identify what they were, that would help resolve them).  I have learned a great deal about money and economics both from you, and from the effort I have put in attempting to understand your theory, and researching your sources in an attempt to see why you/they held their theory of money. 

I have learned much from you, and from my attempts to put words to my understanding of it. Most recently, the breakthrough I mentioned where I am seeing that banks never loan out their own (earned/owned) money nor any of their Depositor’s money. If they did, they would not be able to restore the balances as the principle of the loan is paid back, since money loaned comes from nowhere, then returns to nowhere when it is paid. They can’t have the depositor’s money disappearing that way, and they certainly don’t want their “earned” interest income vanishing like that.

I have no proof or objective evidence that this is true but it is inferred for the models presented by the Austrians and the Fed Pubs. It seems unlikely that they could keep such complex records as to prorate each return principle payment to allocate between the 3 catagories: A. What was loaned out of nothing, B. What was loaned out of depositor’s savings, C. Bank Income funds loaned out at interest.

After our last conversation, Margo felt that my arguments made sense, and that yours did not.  She encouraged me to confront you on a more psychological level, to attempt to eliminate the blocks that you were putting up that kept you looking for validation of your theories, and preventing you from grasping the logic of an alternate theory. 

What is wrong with seeking a second or third witness that the model I picture corresponds with reality (Ie. Validation)? I think I have been as clear as my ability to communicate about the contradictions I keep seeing in the alternate theory. It’s simple (ha!). Just help me resolve them.

Let me know if you are interested in pursuing such a track.

Doubt it is a psychological block. If I was in your shoes, or of the pastor’s who take an opposite view about the application of the law of God in economics – I would hesitate to embrace the view’s I put forth. My views require that you either make radical changes in perspective and action, or embrace some level of hypocrisy. To be thoroughly consistent with what I, intellectually, believe to be my duty – I would renounce all use of my SSN (they will not scrub you off the books, apparently all you can do is stop using it, stop benefiting by it), which will include not being an ordinary employee, and changes in health-care/ins, it means not borrowing from banks, including use of credit cards, it may limit travel. It means risking sudden revocation of highway access, perhaps even vehicle confiscation (since once you have been assigned a SSN, they will not let you have a driver's license w/o linking it to your issued SSN – drive w/o license – lose title to your vehicle). It means actively working towards minimizing use of dollars and current banks, and attempted to trade QMS with folks who don’t understand it and don’t want to do it (but alsovery much do not want the long-term consequences of NOT changing the way they trade). If I was pastor it would mean teaching these things, including how it is also a sin and crime to accept any kind of benefit from tax-supported government beyond punishment of Biblical crime. No more public P-20 classroom education, no more State / Community College. Not the best job security for a pastor.

(You probably feel the same about me – that I have some psychological block interfering with understanding the truth and logic of your worldview/data.  The only difference is, I think, I understand your theory, it makes perfect sense what you are saying – it’s just that in some areas (e.g. about value, dollars, QMS) you do not grasp what I say – and I think this is because you are so committed to your model.  It appears that while you are listening, you are not attempting to grasp the logic of the argument presented.  Rather, you appear to be engaging in an ongoing reframe of everything I say, as you attempt to refute my theory, and validate your own.  In short, I don’t think you listen with an open mind.  I think you are committed to your theory.  You are sure it is right, and I don’t think you realize how blinded you are by your commitment to validating it.) 

I am still open enough to read what you give me, listen to what you say to me, and to work hard at trying to understand the words you are using, even when the definitions seem contradictory with each other or the world as I observe and study it. It seems to me, that whenever you get close to understanding what I am saying about the double-meanings or the inconsistency in the way you use certain words – you pull out “reframe” accusation. I think you want to use words that both end up condemning and approving a certain practice, or words that could be taken to refer either to: the money itself, or just the recording of the qms of the money. Then when I try to point out the evil “frame” part that must be condemned according to Biblical Morality, you pull out the positive, good meaning (frame) of what you mean by the same words and justify the practice thereby. Or so it seems to me. “Wait, you are just reframing the idea, you are misunderstanding” might be used to wiggle out of anything.

I know it is meaningless to say this, but I will say it anyway: When I speak these same concepts to other people, I have complete understanding and agreement within minutes.  There is no confusion about definitions/meaning about value or dollars or QMS, although I explain and use all these concepts in my monologue.

When you describe this, you are painting a picture of how it works, and its morality – that is compatible (although more sophisticated and detailed than the Mainstream understanding) with what most people think about these things after 100+ years of brainwashing from serious businessmen and educators with a near-unlimited budget. Sure they are going to nod their heads. But they still cannot define the USD or diagram out for you how fractional-reserve loaning operates and its affect on the markets.

I’m sure you will diminish the above fact, assuming those who were listening to me only, were not getting the full story of Jekyll Island, WWI/2, 9/11, medieval bankers, the south,  FRB, God’s vs. Man’s authority, and printing vs. creating etc. 

I completely agree that central banking has been instrumental in financing wars and oppression and advancing the cause/welfare of favored groups.  I understand the transient nature of money loaned into existence.  I recognize the evil that is potentially facilitated by giving a small group of men the power to introduce new money into the economy.  The thing I don’t understand is, “Where is our disagreement?”

See above: but bottom line is, understanding this is a call for radical action, because of the emergency situation of our advanced stage of national, Divine Judgment. After you say, “it is potentially an evil” you deny that it is categorically theft, or that Christians have a moral obligation to work to reconstruct an honest system outside of what we have now. You still maintain that manipulating the “money supply” is wrong in principle. You only admit that manipulating outside of certain bounds is wrong, and I have tried to point out that it is not possible for any amount of men or treasure to be able to righteously implement those limits.

I believe individual men, especially Christians, have the primary responsibility in our generation of speaking and acting differently. If your neighbor is appropriating the property of Another, by employing a partnership with mass murderers who have been openly demonstrated to be enslaving and robbing whole nations of men – it is love for him to apprise him of the law and judgment of God, and give him the opportunity to please Him instead of angering Him?