I'm rereading the paper version of the book, so I'm a bit behind, but I'll ask questions here.
In this chapter you describe a gift economy, but the quote from the Inuit ("We say that by gifts one makes slaves") seems to mean that they practice something else. Perhaps it's more like the sharing economy described in Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed", which I just reread recently.
Oh good, I'm glad to have you initiate questions about the chapter here. That's perfect to keep them in one place. And so great that you're rereading!
I think what the Inuit were expressing went beyond what Charles Eisenstein, for instance, would describe as a gift economy or sharing economy. It's just what humans do when their minds haven't been twisted by barter-gain thinking.
You, for instance, likely don't characterize the help you've given your Vermont friend as a gift. I would guess you minimize your generosity because you don't want her to feel burdened by a debt she can never repay. You do it because you're human and that's what humans do. It's a very bad bargain on your part. Not very capitalist of you but also not communist--no one's forcing you to share.
A gift incurs an obligation of gratitude. It's actually a cheap way of getting compliance. How many NGO's can't criticize their donors, no matter how small? It sets up a social hierarchy. That's why I thought Graeber's mention of 'a little bit more or less' was so important. It takes a lot of subtlety to care for people and keep their dignity in tact. Otherwise, the gift steals the most precious thing they have.
And I loved The Dispossessed. Have I mentioned that UklG is my favorite author? I thought she explored the subtleties of that sharing economy well, and its flaws.
Thanks for the clarification about gifts and how they can induce obligation and compliance. I certainly didn't visit my sick friend out of any expectation of return. I was simply trying to alleviate some of her suffering. It's hard to describe, but I also got something out of it that was valuable: pushing my own selfishness and ego into the background for a while. Plus I enjoyed splitting wood and hauling water; my friend and I joked that this was also the Zen monk's path to enlightenment, though enlightenment seems pretty far away.
I read a lot of science fiction in my wasted youth, including Le Guin. On rereading "The Dispossessed", after a gap of almost a half century, I was surprised by how much better it is than I remembered. I think I was really too young for it back then.
I disregard his eschatological interpretation, but from around 1:02:00 Sheikh Imran Hosein makes some very insightful points about the coming conflict, Russia's destiny, and in particular about the new age of slavery that is about to be launched with the advent of digital ‘money’
• Islamic Eschatological Explanation of Current Events in the Middle East (Malaysia) - Sheikh Imran Hosein
Interesting quote, David. The NT, as I remember it, cites that as the 'old law' but Jesus says we should 'turn the other cheek' and 'go the extra mile.' Convenient for the Romans who were occupying the country, gouging out eyes and nailing people to trees. We've created the trope, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." But is that true? Or would it make no one gouge out eyes in the first place, if that was the punishment? It's an interesting point.
In later chapters, I talk about the banker cartel called the Federal Reserve and how it usurped the most essential privilege of any gov't--the right to issue the currency. And I talk about how direct taxation replaced the direct democracy of the US pre-Constitution.
These first two chapters lay the foundation for the rest and reverse three major assumptions: democracy is self-rule, money is trade and altruism is good. They challenge the three major systems of governance, economics and religion as all being designed for dominance over all by a few. I think it's important to reach agreement on these paradigm shifts, seeing each of these as a psyops that's worked for 2000 yrs, before moving on.
In an ideal world you are right but, if you have the threat that will defeat the situation on both sides you have stalemate , therefore peace. That was the principle behind M.A.D. in the cold war between America and Russia.
I wonder if you have read: The Creature from Jekyll Island. by Edward Griffin? It has been reprinted 42 times since 1994. It is a very deep investigation of the Federal Reserve and the vile politics that connects them both.
Yes, we're agreeing on that, David. An eye for an eye and MAD are the same. It was actually a better system for deterring empire than Jesus, who 'forgave' what the soldiers and Pontius Pilate did, but blamed the Judeans for their revolt.
I'll respond on Edward Griffin below, where I can catch Julius also.
David, just a couple of pedantic points of order …
“The Government can print as much money as they want via the Federal Reserve Bank and in the process stealth tax the country vis inflation”.
- -No, the Government does not print [or issue] money and has no control over the Federal Reserve. (perhaps pedantic is not the right word)
“Taxes were originally levied on corporation's.”
- That may well be, but Income Taxes were levied to pay the interest on the money printed by the [Non-Governmental Organisation], the Federal Reserve
• Today in History - c/o National Vanguard - December 23, 1913:
• The Federal Reserve Act is signed into law, creating the Federal Reserve System, with the government thenceforth effectively ceasing to issue money, instead borrowing it all from private banks — and setting the stage for the systematic looting of Americans’ wealth, and the vast enrichment of the Jewish power structure with trillions of unearned dollars, which continues to this day.
… is G Edward Griffin a John Birchian insider/gatekeeper?? I'll stick with Stephen Goodson - "A history of central banking and the enslavement of mankind"
Thanks, Julius and David, for livening up this unusually quiet thread. I thought challenging the ultimate basis of money and religion would be more controversial!
I do cite The Creature from Jekyll Island in my book, although primarily from Ellen Brown's references to it in her Web of Debt. Griffin was recently interviewed, btw, by Doc Malik, which I found particularly interesting: https://docmalik.substack.com/p/207-g-edward-griffin-the-plan-to enslave humanity, and how we fight back.
From his title and content, I'd think that he agrees with Stephen Goodson, unless you know something I don't, Julius--which wouldn't be the first time. I haven't checked out your link yet, so maybe that has new information. I've seen Griffin as legit, although I certainly have a different plan for 'how we fight back.'
And yes, David, that is what I get into in later chapters. The Federal Gov't has the right to borrow money, authorize banks to issue certificates of credit for trade (I think that's how they put it) and COIN money--which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as pocket change.
So the whole Bitcoin and monetary reform movement is blaming gov't printing money for inflation when the problem is the exact opposite--gov't can't print money, which is the primary function of gov't in order to organize labor for the common good. Benjamin Franklin will make that point later in my book.
However, size matters. This chapter lays the foundation that economies of reciprocity need to be human-sized. Under my system, that puts control at the level of a few thousand people.
I am happy with either account. Edward Griffin, in this case concentrates only on the Federal Reserve. His book is online and you can read it and make your own assessment of what he has written , it is referenced all the way through.
Stephen Goodston , starts much further back in history and incorporates the Fed in his broad assemet of the banking system.
I'm rereading the paper version of the book, so I'm a bit behind, but I'll ask questions here.
In this chapter you describe a gift economy, but the quote from the Inuit ("We say that by gifts one makes slaves") seems to mean that they practice something else. Perhaps it's more like the sharing economy described in Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed", which I just reread recently.
Oh good, I'm glad to have you initiate questions about the chapter here. That's perfect to keep them in one place. And so great that you're rereading!
I think what the Inuit were expressing went beyond what Charles Eisenstein, for instance, would describe as a gift economy or sharing economy. It's just what humans do when their minds haven't been twisted by barter-gain thinking.
You, for instance, likely don't characterize the help you've given your Vermont friend as a gift. I would guess you minimize your generosity because you don't want her to feel burdened by a debt she can never repay. You do it because you're human and that's what humans do. It's a very bad bargain on your part. Not very capitalist of you but also not communist--no one's forcing you to share.
A gift incurs an obligation of gratitude. It's actually a cheap way of getting compliance. How many NGO's can't criticize their donors, no matter how small? It sets up a social hierarchy. That's why I thought Graeber's mention of 'a little bit more or less' was so important. It takes a lot of subtlety to care for people and keep their dignity in tact. Otherwise, the gift steals the most precious thing they have.
And I loved The Dispossessed. Have I mentioned that UklG is my favorite author? I thought she explored the subtleties of that sharing economy well, and its flaws.
Thanks for the clarification about gifts and how they can induce obligation and compliance. I certainly didn't visit my sick friend out of any expectation of return. I was simply trying to alleviate some of her suffering. It's hard to describe, but I also got something out of it that was valuable: pushing my own selfishness and ego into the background for a while. Plus I enjoyed splitting wood and hauling water; my friend and I joked that this was also the Zen monk's path to enlightenment, though enlightenment seems pretty far away.
I read a lot of science fiction in my wasted youth, including Le Guin. On rereading "The Dispossessed", after a gap of almost a half century, I was surprised by how much better it is than I remembered. I think I was really too young for it back then.
Thank you for reading me through another
I disregard his eschatological interpretation, but from around 1:02:00 Sheikh Imran Hosein makes some very insightful points about the coming conflict, Russia's destiny, and in particular about the new age of slavery that is about to be launched with the advent of digital ‘money’
• Islamic Eschatological Explanation of Current Events in the Middle East (Malaysia) - Sheikh Imran Hosein
https://youtu.be/INkufR-xCIE?t=3681
Your opening comments about violence, I am of the opinion " an eye for an eye" .I believe that text is still in the Bible.
In America there is no requirement to pay Tax , from a lawful point of view.
Taxes were originally levied on corporation's.
The Government can print as much money as they want via the Federal Reserve Bank and in the process stealth tax the country via inflation.
Interesting quote, David. The NT, as I remember it, cites that as the 'old law' but Jesus says we should 'turn the other cheek' and 'go the extra mile.' Convenient for the Romans who were occupying the country, gouging out eyes and nailing people to trees. We've created the trope, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." But is that true? Or would it make no one gouge out eyes in the first place, if that was the punishment? It's an interesting point.
In later chapters, I talk about the banker cartel called the Federal Reserve and how it usurped the most essential privilege of any gov't--the right to issue the currency. And I talk about how direct taxation replaced the direct democracy of the US pre-Constitution.
These first two chapters lay the foundation for the rest and reverse three major assumptions: democracy is self-rule, money is trade and altruism is good. They challenge the three major systems of governance, economics and religion as all being designed for dominance over all by a few. I think it's important to reach agreement on these paradigm shifts, seeing each of these as a psyops that's worked for 2000 yrs, before moving on.
In an ideal world you are right but, if you have the threat that will defeat the situation on both sides you have stalemate , therefore peace. That was the principle behind M.A.D. in the cold war between America and Russia.
I wonder if you have read: The Creature from Jekyll Island. by Edward Griffin? It has been reprinted 42 times since 1994. It is a very deep investigation of the Federal Reserve and the vile politics that connects them both.
Yes, we're agreeing on that, David. An eye for an eye and MAD are the same. It was actually a better system for deterring empire than Jesus, who 'forgave' what the soldiers and Pontius Pilate did, but blamed the Judeans for their revolt.
I'll respond on Edward Griffin below, where I can catch Julius also.
David, just a couple of pedantic points of order …
“The Government can print as much money as they want via the Federal Reserve Bank and in the process stealth tax the country vis inflation”.
- -No, the Government does not print [or issue] money and has no control over the Federal Reserve. (perhaps pedantic is not the right word)
“Taxes were originally levied on corporation's.”
- That may well be, but Income Taxes were levied to pay the interest on the money printed by the [Non-Governmental Organisation], the Federal Reserve
• Today in History - c/o National Vanguard - December 23, 1913:
• The Federal Reserve Act is signed into law, creating the Federal Reserve System, with the government thenceforth effectively ceasing to issue money, instead borrowing it all from private banks — and setting the stage for the systematic looting of Americans’ wealth, and the vast enrichment of the Jewish power structure with trillions of unearned dollars, which continues to this day.
https://gab.com/Sushipal/posts/111630968828285463
… is G Edward Griffin a John Birchian insider/gatekeeper?? I'll stick with Stephen Goodson - "A history of central banking and the enslavement of mankind"
Thanks, Julius and David, for livening up this unusually quiet thread. I thought challenging the ultimate basis of money and religion would be more controversial!
I do cite The Creature from Jekyll Island in my book, although primarily from Ellen Brown's references to it in her Web of Debt. Griffin was recently interviewed, btw, by Doc Malik, which I found particularly interesting: https://docmalik.substack.com/p/207-g-edward-griffin-the-plan-to enslave humanity, and how we fight back.
From his title and content, I'd think that he agrees with Stephen Goodson, unless you know something I don't, Julius--which wouldn't be the first time. I haven't checked out your link yet, so maybe that has new information. I've seen Griffin as legit, although I certainly have a different plan for 'how we fight back.'
And yes, David, that is what I get into in later chapters. The Federal Gov't has the right to borrow money, authorize banks to issue certificates of credit for trade (I think that's how they put it) and COIN money--which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as pocket change.
So the whole Bitcoin and monetary reform movement is blaming gov't printing money for inflation when the problem is the exact opposite--gov't can't print money, which is the primary function of gov't in order to organize labor for the common good. Benjamin Franklin will make that point later in my book.
However, size matters. This chapter lays the foundation that economies of reciprocity need to be human-sized. Under my system, that puts control at the level of a few thousand people.
I am happy with either account. Edward Griffin, in this case concentrates only on the Federal Reserve. His book is online and you can read it and make your own assessment of what he has written , it is referenced all the way through.
Stephen Goodston , starts much further back in history and incorporates the Fed in his broad assemet of the banking system.