TheCommoner / The Commoner is on Nostr

Hi all - the following is an awful long email thread I have been having between myself and members of various monetary reform groups that I have been a part of for a couple years now.... Its a long story about how I came to be acquainted with them but I thought some here might find it interesting....
I feel as though I am slowly making some inroads with some (though they have yet to confirm my ability to speak at there upcoming conference)...maybe someday - but this is a tough group 😉
I hope you find some value in reading: - You can read my latest response here at the top of the thread and if interested I would suggest you maybe start at the end ....
Hello again Govert and all,
I cannot argue with you that Bitcoin is as of now....an unproven trojan horse of sorts - as only those alive in the future are able to write the tails of the past. If you are going to hold the bar so high that you will only consider a thing that has proven itself over history, I cannot help you.
I can argue that we are nothing, if not for our hopes, dreams, and expectations of the future - as those who have no future to explore are already dead.
Bitcoin will never succeed for those who fight against it - (this reminds me so much of growing up with the internet developing or when cd's came out or MP3's....you know when Blockbuster died.... or the land line....wait I bet a lot of you still hang on to those land lines :) and that is OK - it is a technology that served a purpose and really was valuable to the world for a long time and I understand the desire to hold onto the past and I believe it should absolutely inform our future. I do not believe however - it is representative of what the future should be. The future is made by those who come after us - the past is made by those who came before us....many of us are part of the past....
One of the major problems with our world is that those who hold the most power and influence of the present are those who developed the past .... and we don't respect that - we instead cling to the old and fight against the new...we attempt to bend the wills of the young to match that of our old...this is a mindset or thought process that is becoming marginalized as the boomers begin to age out of the processes....and as the young come to better understand they are the change.
But I digress....
To me - Bitcoin and the network and systems being built upon this protocol are slowly but surely consuming all the value of the world. This is evidenced by the 17 years of history proving that nothing can stop it....when the network has been around for 30 years and is valued in FIAT systems as whatever larger % of the total FIAT value than it is today....still others will wake up and move to the new system and the cycle will continue and continue...so long as the Bitcoin protocol and network remain decentralized and secure - that is all that really matters -
We can fight it all we want - we can rail against its unproven nature - we can argue its a ponzi until the cows come home - we can't however fight forever. At some point we either die (having not appreciated the technology of our future selves) or we become consumed by the power the network and learn to use the cell phone, computer, satelite dish....etc...
Again - I cannot argue if it is good or bad - quite frankly the concept of "good" or "bad" doesn't really make sense to me either - their are either things that we argree upon as a scoiety that are acceptable or not...but good or bad is not something any of yes can decide - we are not put on this earth to judge others as good or bad - we are here to share in the natural world and learn how it works, and to bend that natural world to our will - the things that work to keep society progressing and growing win - the things that don't (literally cost us our lives).
That is it -
Modern economics can go fly a kite....taxation...fuck that shit - credit allocation, public budgeting, infrastructure finance??? what the fuck - counter-cyclical spending (literally this is the stupidest sounding concept I have ever heard of) seriously what is that? Legal enforcement....seriously with all the bullshit illegal shit the people we have in power right now are doing - you want our young people to buy into the idea that the legal system is working...it is as broken as all the other systems....built on the FIAT bullshit we have spewed to ourselves for our entire histories....I mean literally look at our health care systems or our food systems....we literally incentivize people to treat sick people instead of keeping people from getting sick - it is perverse.... or maybe that is counter-cyclical - I don't even fucking know....all I know is that it is broken - and all those people who have come before us are scared shitless that the systems they built are about to get burned to the ground....and they/we are trying desperately to pass some act that will simply perpetuate more of the same (and you wonder why our numbers are dwindling and why the screen is full of the same couple hundred or couple people year after year)....
I am here because I want to make a change that will help assure our young (my kids) will have a fighting shot at living as long as our elders...not to keep promoting more of the same old shit....
History suggests the same old shit because that is all it knows....markets tend toward concentration of wealth...come on - again if they are built upon systems of theft through taxation FIAT ponzi bullshit....sure -
all this shit is going to happen - there will be bubbles in the future - there will be bad investments in the future (ocean front property oh wait that is kind of a known bad investment now).... if we have an open, decentralized money that allows for the smart money to leave freely when they see the writing on the wall - then more of the value will be transferred to the future....again those that fail to see the storm coming - will get swept away by the hurricanes and floods that are coming no matter what. At least some will have the chance.
And as to the deflationary pressure as you call it....of a currency with a fixed supply....you are looking at it wrong. It is a fixed total supply - it is infitely divisible into smaller and smaller pieces....that makes a huge difference in its ability to function as dynamic investment over the entire economy...it is OK though because you are right - those who begin using the network earlier benefit the greatest from it into the future while again the rest of humanity literally kills itself - if you zoom out far enough this is what people using FIAT currencies have proven they are doing to themselves....they literally fight for a cheaper value meal instead of appreciating and reaping the benefits of natural, hormone free, burger or steak...that is what we have been trained to optimize for - cheaper, mass produced slop that kills us....Did anyone else watch 60 minutes where the government literally admitted that our ultra-high processed diets are making us sick???
I am not sure what it will take to wake us all up from this delusion that we are the generation that solved the worlds problems - but fuck all if we have solved anything - just because we can keep ourselves clinging to life by a thread doesn't equate to us thriving....
Again - Bitcoin is new - I concede that - and its future is unknown....however its past has proven to be very beneficial to those who adopted it and it continues proving its benefits as time goes on....
FIAT and our current systems - have failed us - we are more divided than ever and all that leads to is fighting for supremacy - and I say fuck that - I am not superior to any of you and you all sure as hell aren't superior to me - we all are made of the same shit
I do not mean to offend with the language - or the tone of this email - but we have to wake up and I am not as articulate as most - Please don't think negatively of me - I am one of you - I am one of us - I am just a commoner
THank you again for your time and sincere interest in changing the world for the better - we will get there - just not with more of the same old shit. You all are better - you all understand the problems - you all are working to solve them - If changing the protocol for exchanging value among each other to one that allows for freedom of everything doesn't happen - then I do fear the future.
The Commoner
Another superb exploration of the topic.
Let me add
1. MR is a means to an end, not an end itself. I am not sure that is true of cryptos. Google says there are
Millionaires: 241,700 individuals hold at least $1 million in crypto assets, with Bitcoin holders accounting for about 145,100 of these.
Centi-Millionaires: 450 people hold crypto portfolios worth $100 million or more.
Billionaires: There are 36 individuals globally whose wealth places them in the crypto-billionaire tier. [1, 2]
2. MR as per the Need Act has a goal - a just democratic society consistent with the founding documents of America as per my attached file. The current version is way off that target and shows that even with the spirit of those documents and the many good amendments things are much worse than they were before Reagan's libertarian revolution. It overwrote the 30's years of pursuing prosperity and security for all, turning it into a law of the jungle survival of the fittest, plutocratic culture.
Economic_Rights_in_America.mp4
Jason & my fellow MR peeps,
The unresolved issue is not whether Bitcoin can facilitate secure decentralized transactions. It probably can. The unresolved issue is whether such a system can scale into a stable macroeconomic civilization capable of financing public goods, coordinating long-term investment, managing crises, constraining oligarchic power, and reproducing democratic legitimacy across generations.
At present, Bitcoin theory seems far more developed at the level of transaction architecture than at the level of political economy. The discussion repeatedly returns to the presumed virtues of the network itself—openness, immutability, decentralization, voluntary participation—but these characteristics do not by themselves explain how complex societies are to function at scale.
Modern economies depend not merely on exchange, but on institutional coordination across time: taxation, credit allocation, public budgeting, infrastructure finance, counter-cyclical spending, disaster response, pension systems, healthcare systems, scientific research, environmental regulation, and legal enforcement. Bitcoin advocates often assume that decentralized incentives and spontaneous market coordination will somehow generate these functions organically, yet history suggests that markets left largely to themselves tend toward concentration of wealth, monopolization, speculative bubbles, and political capture rather than equilibrium and fairness.
Moreover, there appears to be a persistent confusion between technical decentralization and socioeconomic decentralization. A protocol may be decentralized at the computational level while economic power surrounding it becomes increasingly centralized in mining pools, exchanges, custodial platforms, venture capital firms, and large asset holders. Bitcoin’s own history already shows significant concentration tendencies. Likewise, the claim that users can simply “fork” away from bad actors underestimates the enormous power of network effects, liquidity concentration, infrastructure dependence, and capital accumulation.
There is also the unresolved macroeconomic issue of deflationary pressure. A currency with a structurally fixed supply may function well as a speculative asset or store of value, but it is far less clear that it can sustain dynamic productive investment across an entire economy. Persistent expectations of appreciation tend to incentivize hoarding and financial speculation over productive circulation. Historically, successful economies have generally relied on some degree of monetary elasticity and credit expansion to accommodate growth, innovation, demographic change, and emergency conditions. India's success is partially its relatively high inflation target of 2% - 6%, usually closer to the 6% benchmark. Bitcoin theory has yet to provide a convincing account of how a rigid monetary architecture would respond to recessions, banking crises, wars, pandemics, or large-scale infrastructure needs without reproducing either severe instability or new centralized authorities. From history we know that financial crises trigger self-amplifying deflationary tendencies.
Finally, there is a broader political concern. Much of the rhetoric surrounding Bitcoin assumes that reducing the role of the democratic state automatically increases freedom. Yet weakening public institutions does not eliminate power; it often merely transfers power from imperfect democratic structures to private concentrations of wealth, technical elites, and corporate actors operating with even less accountability. In that sense, the danger is not simply that Bitcoin fails, but that it succeeds partially: undermining public monetary sovereignty and regulatory capacity without providing viable democratic replacements. The result could be not a decentralized utopia, but a fragmented neo-feudal order dominated by those with the greatest technological, financial, and infrastructural advantages.
Ergo again, Bitcoin, if universally adopted, would be something like a Trojan Horse, promising a beguiling Utopia and delivering its opposite.
Hi Govert and all -
I am not sure you are "positioning" or thinking about Bitcoin in the right light here Govert - Bitcoin doesn't assume the existence of any government - Bitcoin simply (sounds simple but isn't) is replacing "money" as we all know it....it doesn't matter what government we have or live under - This is just one of the beautiful characteristics of its network - it is open for anyone, any group, any corporation, any government, anyone...to use. And it will record whatever transactions those groups or people chose to record on it.... and those transactions cannot be altered or manipulated by any other entity.
I think processing just these "truth's" of Bitcoin and imagining a monetary system working under those conditions is exciting and a breath of fresh air.
I also think it is important to dream big dreams and I would argue with you that while the Bitcoin Utopia isn't scientific it doesn't make its idea any less valid. The fact is that the network has been active for over 17 years without any corruption or manipulation....without any one entity taking it over, without any one entity shutting it down for anyone but themselves. It simply cannot be stopped....
The beauty of that is that it is now up to us - the users of the network to decide how we use it :) The beauty of it is that if the majority of the network decides someone someone or some entity isn't using in a sustainable and equitable way they can fork off the network.
As to your obstacles - I agree with you - there are many and I wanted to give an alternative view here of some of the ones you raised:
1) The current state of human psychology is hardly fit for anything - we have devolved as a society to the point which we allow psycopaths to rule over us, and openly elect corrupt officials....I mean can you really make an argument that trying to fix the systems from within the current systems is even doable? We need to start an entire new system (which I would argue we have had for the last 17 years now)
2)the steady deflation will lead to hoarding - it absolutely will until such time as those hoarding their Bitcoin realize that the only way to grow the value of their bitcoin is to use the network - the network fails if all the bitcoin falls into the hands of hoarders (before you go there...think about what that implies from within the network) If one entity hoards all the bitcoin and the network fails all their value falls to zero-that means the FIAT system or whatever other system has been developed at that time and is being used to measure the value of Bitcoin wins....that is a free market doing its thing or so I believe is how it works.
3)Bitcoin is a sovereign system - it only gets stronger or more valuable by increasing the number of people using it - that only happens if its a better system than the alternatives being offered by governments....this is what is currently happening
4)again here you are right - there is no clear path for this - that is why this is going to be messy no matter what happens - no matter how many of us begin using the network...until it becomes "normalized" think about scientifically I guess - the network wants to find balance - the network wants to equalize and to do so against the other systems in use to measure value between humans equates to major volatile events occuring as it developes and strengthens - this is what it is doing...and will continue doing until it either fails completely or succeeds completely
5)Your impression may be correct - my impression is that the people who are currently using the network are simply those who clearly see the current systems failures and have found themselves with nothing to lose by moving into an entirely new system. The only way they get to write new laws, and corporate contracts is if the system they are using proves to be more valuable than the old systems...this is something that only time will be able verify...and codify
6) as to the mining - the only reason behind the increased costs of the mining infrastructure is due to the increasing difficulty of process and the greed associated with entities wanting to ensure they can record their transactions to the ledger - the entire network could revert back to using the most basic computational methods should enough fewer entities chase this power of recording....that will happen begin to happen as we approach smaller subsidies for miners....I imagine a future time where the energy usage involved in mining becomes negligible to the total usage of the worlds population. However, until that time - mining will continue using more and more power as greed still drives these early network adopters.
And finally - yes Bitcoin is extremely underdeveloped - and will take time for it to grow. I assure you though, that people like me are building toward a future that completely rewrites the rules of how democratic societies not just survive (as we have barely managed to do for the last couple thousand years) and instead will write the rules on how they will best thrive. Sure there will no doubt be faults, and corruption, and ideas that sounded really, really good and people adopted....and then they will fail - and people will suffer - and people will die....but that is the story of humanity is it not.... We are nothing if not resourceful. We are nothing if not persistent. Indeed if we do not persist into the future we are dead.
When we measure, or view Bitcoin from the systems we have held in our heads we are doomed to repeat the failures of those who are in past....when we measure Bitcoin as a new economic network that is fair, just, and equitable and available for all to use....well we get to write an entire new future for those coming after us...
Thank you for you time and energy in reading this email - and know I feel privileged to be able to share my time and energy with the great and thoughtful thinkers that are here and a part of the world I interact with. I hope my point comes through clearly as I am not as well studied as many of you.
Jason
think the underlying question hardly addressed here is of political economic nature: The NEED Act assumes the existence of a democratic state, which will have the political will to nationalise its currency and stops banks from issuing credit from nothing. The Bitcoin proposal seems to propose a somewhat anarchistic political arrangement, which is so decentralized that only transactions between individuals (maybe small firms?) will take place allegedly free from exploitation or other power mechanics. Such a Bitcoin Utopia can be imagined, but is hardly scientific. I see many obstacles: 1) Current state of human psychology is hardly fit for anarchy (look at the present authoritarian movements led by psychopaths); 2) the steady deflation of Bitcoin will lead to hoarding, which will depress economic activities (its opposite, demurrage, has a better track record); 3) if Bitcoin encourages hoarding and , people will demand a better alternative, either from the state, like sovereign money system, or locally with community currencies; 4) there is no clear path for going from radical decentralization to the organizing and financing of infrastructure, insurance schemes for unemployment, healthcare and old age, and law & order and national defense; 5) I have the impression that most Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, which is a problem, because they seem to be helping out corporate, fascist-friendly, neo-liberals in their pursuit to take over and minimize the state, which will only be good to impose its own predatory laws and corporate contract; and 6) the mining of Bitcoin is capital-intensive, making ownership highly concentrated, and is a serious source of pollution, which is not build into its cost.
So, as a universal monetary architecture Bitcoin appears theoretically underdeveloped. It offers no convincing account of how large-scale democratic societies would finance public goods, stabilize economic cycles, constrain private concentrations of power, or sustain welfare and infrastructure systems. In that sense, its anti-state promise risks becoming less a path beyond domination than a transfer of power from public institutions to private capital and technical elites. At best, Bitcoin could be a hedge against inflation, a speculative asset, or an unstable, alternative payment platform.
In short, Bitcoin, if universally adopted, would be something like a Trojan Horse, promising a beguiling Utopia and delivering its opposite
I think the underlying question hardly addressed here is of political economic nature: The NEED Act assumes the existence of a democratic state, which will have the political will to nationalise its currency and stops banks from issuing credit from nothing. The Bitcoin proposal seems to propose a somewhat anarchistic political arrangement, which is so decentralized that only transactions between individuals (maybe small firms?) will take place allegedly free from exploitation or other power mechanics. Such a Bitcoin Utopia can be imagined, but is hardly scientific. I see many obstacles: 1) Current state of human psychology is hardly fit for anarchy (look at the present authoritarian movements led by psychopaths); 2) the steady deflation of Bitcoin will lead to hoarding, which will depress economic activities (its opposite, demurrage, has a better track record); 3) if Bitcoin encourages hoarding and , people will demand a better alternative, either from the state, like sovereign money system, or locally with community currencies; 4) there is no clear path for going from radical decentralization to the organizing and financing of infrastructure, insurance schemes for unemployment, healthcare and old age, and law & order and national defense; 5) I have the impression that most Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, which is a problem, because they seem to be helping out corporate, fascist-friendly, neo-liberals in their pursuit to take over and minimize the state, which will only be good to impose its own predatory laws and corporate contract; and 6) the mining of Bitcoin is capital-intensive, making ownership highly concentrated, and is a serious source of pollution, which is not build into its cost.
So, as a universal monetary architecture Bitcoin appears theoretically underdeveloped. It offers no convincing account of how large-scale democratic societies would finance public goods, stabilize economic cycles, constrain private concentrations of power, or sustain welfare and infrastructure systems. In that sense, its anti-state promise risks becoming less a path beyond domination than a transfer of power from public institutions to private capital and technical elites. At best, Bitcoin could be a hedge against inflation, a speculative asset, or an unstable, alternative payment platform.
In short, Bitcoin, if universally adopted, would be something like a Trojan Horse, promising a beguiling Utopia and delivering its opposite.
Hi Joe and all,
Sorry for the delayed response here to your question(s).... The answer(s) to them is more philosophical than absolute...
If we (as society) replace what we use to "communicate value exchanges" amongst each other to something that is difficult to be manipulated by any one group or groups of people (such as the current monetary currencies out there are) then I believe yes - we can achieve everything the NEED Act espouses.
I think one thing I need to clarify here is that I am not motivated by wealth (though it is nice to not have to worry about where I might lie my head at night or how I will get my next meal) - I have no desire to convince any of you that you should buy Bitcoin.... in fact "buying" Bitcoin is the FIAT way of thinking about it....and while it is the most common method used to acquire Bitcoin currently, you can "mine" it for yourself, and/or increasingly provide someone something of value in exchange for some.
Bitcoin to me - is the most decentralized, neutral, secure, and open "Network of value communication" that the world has ever seen. It is based on that knowledge that I am so steadfast in my drive to educate anyone and everyone about it.
Now back to your question(s) Joe - If you (any of you) game play the idea of just what a world would look like if we (humans) were able to communicate/exchange our time and energy with each other is way that was cummulative over time - we (humanity) would benefit from all the time and energy of all the people in the network indefinitely. I know this sounds too good to be true and I agree it certainly sounds like myself and this network of people called Bitcoiners are reaching for sun - however I only ask you to think about for yourselves - don't listen to the "talking heads" that claim to be "experts" on anything - Really think it through for yourselves... right now....take 5 minutes and imagine a world wherein the "money" you use appreciates in value over time instead of depreciating (as everything else you know has)....
This single change (which we the people) have the ability to change, accept, adopt (because the system is open to anyone to use and can't be stopped by anyone) would lead to the "just" system we all want to see - Imagine having all of humanities time and energy building upon each other opposed to tearing each other other down - you don't need to bomb another country just to extract resources as you value resources in an open, decentralized and honest manner.
It isn't going to be easy by any means - it isn't going to happen overnight - there are people who are greedy, selfish and egotistical and those people will fight this system as it progresses...in fact many of those people are likely the people at the top of many power structures that we have in place today....and they will fight this idea (to the death in some places/cases) and it is going to be a continued grind for a while.
Joe - I hope this answers you question(s) and thank you for taking the time to read/hear me out.
Jason
Most people who support monetary reform are looking for away to make society more just. That is an innate part of the Need Act. Do you see Bitcoin as having that motivation? Please respond to my questions below.
Thanks
Joe
Jason
Can you explain how Bitcoin addresses the social justice goal of the Need Act as summarized in this one pager NEED-Act-1-pager1.pdf Such as fully funding infrastructure needs, education, and health care. Ensuring everyone has food and housing.
Producing Total living wage Jobs 52,900,000 398136a9-6cd4-495c-ac7e-443eaa01dfa7.png
I wrote some responses inline below....
I think you've gotten so good answers here, Jason, and here is mine:
I appreciate the passion, especially your concern for young people and your refusal to be cowardly. Those are exactly the energies we need. But you've mischaracterized the NEED Act / monetary reform, and overestimated Bitcoin. Let me clarify. Thank you and I did not mean to mischaracterize the NEED Act - though it is "simply more of the same."
You said the NEED Act is "an improvement" but "simply more of the same." That is a misunderstanding and is factually incorrect.
The current system: Private banks create money as interest-bearing debt. Every dollar starts as a loan. That debt must be repaid with interest, which requires perpetual growth, extraction, and wealth transfer upward. I believe it is more of the same in that - it is attempting to fix the problem while measuring from the same system.
The NEED Act: Returns money creation to the Treasury. Money is spent debt-free, interest-free into circulation exclusively for productive public purposes. No banks. No interest. No built-in requirement for exponential growth. This is still a central "authority" creating the very thing we all have to work in order to aquire....Bitcoin is different in that there is no central aurthority in charge of the creation...no one to be corrupted...
That is not "more of the same." That is a complete reversal of the creation mechanism. It is as different from our current system as a garden is from a strip mine.
Also, Bitcoin does not solve the problem you name. Bitcoin is a fixed-supply, decentralized, digital asset. As Gerry Perry says, if you have to buy your money, its not money. Consider the following problems: How is it you come about your "money" now? You have to work for it - in other words - you have to expend your time and energy for something that right now - someone else gets to simply print? That is no different - the difference is that when I expend my time and eregy for Bitcoin, I know that no one in the future is going to print more of it (and therefor devaluing it). This means I keep more of my time and energy into the future
Does it solve the private bank creation of debt-money? No Bitcoin exists alongside the dollar. You still need dollars to buy Bitcoin. The debt-money system continues. You are wrong here - Bitcoin is replacing the dollar - sure now it exists alongside of it - but we all know the dollar is a failing system (hence why we are trying to fix it)....come on - be honest with yourself - we are moving to revelutionize the world and adopt the technology for money that allows that to happen - much like digitalization of everything else in our world....this is happening - I am not necassarily happy about it all myself but none the less I want the future to be the best it can be and that takes change.
Does it solve Interest-bearing debt? No. Bitcoin's fixed supply and deflationary design encourage hoarding, not spending. It becomes a store of value (like gold), not a circulating medium for daily needs. It only encourages hoarding to a point - as if the network isn't growing - meaning more people aren't using it or buying it or earning it - then the value of it will go down.
Does Bitcoin solve the concentration of wealth? No. Bitcoin ownership is highly concentrated. Early adopters, large holders ("whales"), and miners control the network. It is not democratic. Again - currently yes ownership is concentrated by the few....as everything starts off small and grows - see my statement above - the incetives are not there to simply hold Bitcoin and not use it and therefor spread it around to more and more.
Does Bitcoin solve young people's debt burden? No. You cannot pay your student loans or taxes in Bitcoin. The state demands dollars. Utah and Colorado both allow taxes to be paid in Bitcoin - it is also only a matter of time before the federal government allows it as well. State governments are waking up to the actual physical nature of Bitcoin and the networks operating on it.
Does it solve the problem of the state? No. Bitcoin does not abolish the state. (organized violence in defense of wealth) It only tries to evade it. The state will regulate, tax, and eventually suppress it if it threatens the debt-money system. No one can stop this network - all the state can do is stop themselves from participating in/on it.
You wrote: "Money is whatever we the people agree to use as money." Okay, but the state decides what it accepts for taxes. Until the state accepts Bitcoin for tax payments, it will always be a speculative asset, not a currency. And the state will never accept Bitcoin, because doing so would cede its sovereign power. Of course that is the political issue we want to address.
Bitcoin does not challenge the debt-money system. It retreats from it into a parallel, privatized, deflationary asset. That is fine for those who can afford to speculate. But it does nothing for the young person who needs a job, healthcare, or a home, all of which require dollars created as debt. My residents who pay me rent in Bitcoin and are young - do financially benefit - I give them a 50/50 split of the FIAT value appreciation of the Bitcoin they pay me for upto 6 months after they send me the Bitcoin. This works (it drives my wife crazy as she doesn't understand why I am giving away part of the appreciation) and yet I keep doing it - it incentivizes my residents to learn about and use the network for payments.
You want a revolution. I want one too. But a revolution that leaves the debt-money system intact is no revolution at all. It is a luxury escape hatch for the financially literate. The revolution is coming - I don't necassarily want it, but I acknowledge it is likely a necassary future step as people both fight and accept this network in larger and larger numbers. It is going to create two economies for a while...FIAT and Bitcoin -
If you think Bitcoin is the answer, great, advocate for it. But do not misrepresent the NEED Act or AMRA as "more of the same." And do not dismiss monetary reform while offering a solution that does not actually replace the debt-money system or enable the solutions to the problems it creates. We can agree to disagree. But let's at least be accurate about what each proposal actually does. Again I apologize if misrepresented - I do not think that is what I am doing - I am most certainly advocating for monetary reform and offering a solution which can and is currently replacing the debt-based systems.
What Nick said,
Crypto is a ponzi scheme with slick marketing, that has made some people a lot of money as a gamble, but it's no different in that aspect then beanie babies.
It can never work as a medium of exchange because it is ridiculously resource intensive to process transactions and does not scale. All attempts to get around this actually throw out the very technology that crypto advocates say is it's strong point.
And then lastly, the one type of real world transaction it has very successfully enabled due to its digital nature and anonymity, is ransomware attacks and other criminal enterprises, hardly a panacea to societal good.
This is still my favorite explainer that makes the most sense to me. It's from a computer scientist with decades of experience and deep knowledge of the subject matter.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/05/why-this-computer-scientist-says-all-cryptocurrency-should-die-in-a-fire
-Andrew
Jason,
As human began to live together in groups they first developed the power of language. As the groups became larger and more sophisticated they developed rules to live by in their groups -- the Rule of Law. As societies continued to develop, the people through the state and Rule of Law continued their development by creating money. The Money Power rests on the Rule of Law and belongs to the people, not individually but collectively through the people's government and the Rule of Law. (Thanks to Patrick Rose Levine for this explanation.)
Crypto currencies are privately created gambling schemes created by individuals and later purchased by other individuals in the hopes that their value will go up. They are not a money system, but a gambling system. They are not a foundational basis for society. God bless you if you bought Bitcoin at a vastly lesser price than it is today. I do not see how that is in any way beneficial to the other 340 million Americans. They need a stable money system that benefits them when it is publicly created. They benefit directly if they are an employee of the state. They benefit if the state builds infrastructure, or hires police, firemen or soldiers to defend the people and state. Or hires teachers and janitors, librarians and cafeteria personnel to educate and care for their children. Or builds ports and highways and should have built the railroads with publicly created money. Or any of the other of the services the state provides. With publicly created money, this is done without indebting the people. In our present system it is not. In a crypto currency system, it would not, but it would tremendously benefit those who got in on the ground floor.
In a democracy or democratic republic our government is us, we the people. In today's America it is certainly less representative of all of we the people, than it has been in the past. Our job is not to junk our system because of its flaws, but to make it better for all our people. I believe that is what we in the AFJM and AMI are trying to do.
Nick Egnatz
Thanks for the additional information Joe....
I think you are making my point for me though - Who gave that power to the government or congress? Was it not... We the People
So - if "we the people" gave the power to the government - wouldn't it also make sense we can take that power back?
When being faced with the tyrannical, overbearing, greedy, manipulative ruling class that we find ourselves dealing with - it is our right, responsibility, duty to take that power back.
So I do believe in fighting for our rights (that is what led to the founding of this great republic) and when those in power, or those who are comfortable with the status quo....(due to their proximity to those in power or their ability to manipulate the system to their benefit) fail to recognize the harm they are creating - they need some coercion to see the error of their ways...
This is when my frustration with our little group(s) comes into play.... I believe all of us here see the problem(s) both here in the USA and around the world - I believe we all are pushing for change - I believe we all want justice and equity in our dealings - I also believe that just because something has been a certain way for a certain amount of time, does not mean that is the only way things must be done. I believe we have fought hard for change, equity, and justice and have been thwarted at every turn. The momentum of the system has grown so vast and strong that it is all but impossible to change the system from within as the rules/laws have been subverted. The NEED act is exactly this - a valiant and patriotic effort by we the people to effect change and we are simply fighting a losing battle...
Bitcoin is a "Trojan Horse" if you will - the powers that be are attempting to bend it to their will and they are going to find themselves unable to do so....this is just one part of the beauty of the network - by the time those with the fiat money realize they can't actually control the network - it will be too deeply integrated to stop it - it is virus like in its ability to adapt to the changing markets and uses -
At least I have not been able to figure out how to stop it - and neither has anyone else who is using it... many are trying to change it, or to define it as some narrow store of value, or some technology that can be turned off, or attempt to take it from those who have/use it....and it cannot be shut down. On top of that anyone can use it and no one can stop it - we can't stop other countries from using it or people like Trump from using it - it is for friends and enemies....
I can only imagine that our founding fathers would be ashamed that we have so basterdized the future they imagined for this country and our citizens - I can state for a fact that the world is completely different from the world of 1776....and those founders could not have predicted the world as we see it currently. We are more global than ever and with that we have to look at the Macro - we cannot simply say the USA gets to control the value of other peoples time/energy - which I think the governments of the world are starting to figure out -
We have to adopt a new system of value communication (money) - that can be depended upon by every human around the globe - we are a global market - we are a global society - the dollar is a provably failed system (like every other FIAT money system in history)
And to address the specific articles/ammendments/clauses of the Constitution - I would again fall back to "We the People" have the power to change that document - I know that will be hard, I know it is easier to simply follow the plan laid out by those founders....but again the world is not what it was in 1776 - the only constant is change - the world progresses because we age and die which makes room for new ideas - we have to skate to where the puck will be....not where it is.
It is a great country with a breakthrough constitution. And it gave the federal power over money creation to congress. The Need Act capitalizes on that.
Money is an organizational feature in an organizational document - the constitution - as this organizing constitutional line in the Coinage clause conveys "and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" .
So money is a 'we the people' component in that great document and your concluding line is already taken care of ... the battle has already been won. It is not the decision of a King, it should be decided by the representatives of the people in congress.
No need for this - I would rather die fighting for the rights of individuals to choose their method of exchanging value than do nothing.
The specific lines granting these powers are:
The Coinage Clause: Grants Congress the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5).
The Borrowing Clause: Grants Congress the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 2).
The Taxing and Spending Clause: Grants Congress the power "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1).
The Appropriations Clause: Dictates that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law" (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7). This means the Executive Branch cannot spend money unless Congress specifically authorizes it through legislation.
Joe -
It is the foundation this great country of the USA was built upon... Why do you ask?
Jason
What is your view on the American Constitution?
Hi all,
I saw crypto / alternative currencies - and I had to jump at the opportunity....
Please take this (not as criticism but as an alternative idea).... I have long been saying this forum...AMI/AFJM etc... have (from my perspective) been "preaching the gospel" of monetary reform and the have been making almost all the same arguments I have been making with one glaring exception....there doesn't seem to be a definitive solution??? I mean passing the NEED act or whatever is something (and in the absence of an alternative would have been an important improvement)....but thats all it is as I see it. It is an improvement upon the current system - but I view it as simply more of the same.
We all have a solution staring us in the face in Bitcoin (again I am aware it is my opinion) but you can't argue the facts - ok sure - try to argue that the constitution states only government can coin money.... realistically though money is whatever "we the people" agree to use as money. Unless you want to argue that the US should be some form of dictatorship upon which the government is truly the only group of people that get to tell people what to do... That really hasn't worked out so well for us over time has it? We continue to have problems, fight wars that most of us likely would choose to not fund, as well as many social programs that have proven out to be unsustainable.
The USA's failed experiment is accelerating towards its ultimate demise (as have ever other form of FIAT currency in history) and as such I believe we should be focusing on truly solving our problems not simply "kicking the can" down the road and extending its demise to the enrichment of the few at the top - while leaving the rest of us "commoners" behind.
If we want to draw more young people to this issue - we have to give them what they want....and they don't want to see the "old white guys" conitnue enriching themselves off the backs of their work... (no offense meant to any old white guys or anyone really) - The debts incurred by our government is perhaps the most egregious of all debt - that debt is literally slapped to the backs of all the young wage earners to repay - and they aren't going to have it. Just look at the numbers - young people can't find jobs that allow them to support themselves let alone to pay off that debt so they are literally choosing to opt out - and more and more of them are actively fighting the systems...look at the driving habits of society, look at the drug and alcohol usage of society, look at the depression, the obesity, the proliferation of gambling sites and porn sites. What kind of society benefits from 14% of their 18-24 year old women having an only fans account?
If we want to seriously have a conversation about changing the monetary system of this country - we have to do better than the NEED act....
I know that probably irks many of you and that is not my intent - my intent is to ensure we are having the difficult discussion(s) about what needs to be changed for the betterment of the society coming into the world and to stop trying to protect the systems that got us to where we currently are. This idea of changing the monetary systems of the world is literally "Revolutionary" and while I understand trying to protect ourselves from pissing off the men with the guns....I can't reasonably expect our youth (my kids) to respect me for being cowardly when faced with an overpowering opponent - I would rather die fighting for the rights of individuals to choose their method of exchanging value than do nothing.
Jason
?? Gesell was offering an alternative currency. And in today's world it opens the door to crypto.
Zarlenga said they did not work. I think you can assume he was against them.
Why are you bringing in public banking? Walton did publish a critique, but I can't find anything by Zarlenga. In any case we all agree the Need Act is superior.
Joe
That only confirms what I said.
This part includes alternative currency:
Whether through public issuance, demurrage-informed designs, or other frameworks that prioritize circulation over accumulation, changing the monetary foundation could unlock many of the market reforms Better Markets champions.
This captures Zarlenga's thoughts in his book :
image.png
Joe
I guess you did misunderstand Joe, I did not mention alternative currencies. You keep saying Zarlenga was opposed to alternative currencies, not true. He thought in pursuing them they were a distraction from monetary reform. He also thought the public banking efforts were a distraction from monetary reform.
Oh I misunderstood. I thought each of us were taking on a separate assignment. This is the first time I saw a copy of anything on ACRE. Howard did a good job.
I would exclude the alternative currency theme. It is confusing to our audience. Our entire legislation is based on sovereign constitutional money and in this era of crypto, we are providing a window of opportunity and support for those wealth extractors. Zarlenga was opposed to alternative currencies.
Our support for public banking including the national infrastructure bank is related in the sense that it is related to the more extreme monetary reform - nationalize the banks ☺️ - The Chinese government has moved that by way being the majority shareholder of its major banks, which permits all the funding and credit guidance it wants.
Joe
Dear Monetary Reform Friends,
ReCapping one part of this Saturday’s meeting was that Joe Polito was easily moved to invite Better Markets, and Howard Switzer was moved and actually had a little history with ACRE, Action Center for Race and Economics.
Well, I finished drafts to both organizations and I sent them respectively to Joe and Howard. Perhaps, in the next day or two, they can revise and share with us (without any need to show edits) what we might send these organizations and all of us can make any last comments we want before sending them. As soon as I receive them back, I will forward them to our BCC’d participants!!!
Mike Holden and I will be at the CH Douglas Social Credit Economics Conference this week. We'll give you a report when we get back.
We will for sure have a meeting the first Saturday of June, and if necessary, we might find the need to meet the prior weekend (May 30th, too).
Forward, let’s see if we can get our first letters sent!
Best,
Steven
Here are the recordings from our Unrig the System meeting 5/16/26:
<opengraph-content-icon-folder-dropbox-landscape.png>
AMI:AFJM, Int'l Monetary Reform Mtg 5:16:26
dropbox.com
My action items are, if possible today, I’ll write a draft template letter to an social justice organization. I thank everyone for their comments, particularly the email Howard sent me on being more direct and oriented toward their interests.
After next Saturday, I’ll communicate with Stuart about the Media day training(s) on MR.
After this last meeting, our task became bigger, but we are making progress. Let’s go forward working together, and we’ll make these good projects a success.
Best,
Steven