47 Comments

Your make-up looks amazing! I’m also jealous of the lucky reader who gets to go hiking with you!

You have thought through all this very well. I get a little lost but I listen carefully. I’m hoping that one day I can be on your level. You’re right, we have to imagine our utopia rather than just complain about our tyranny.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you! At 66 I've just gotten my first tattoo--of my eyebrows. I planned my whole trip around it because you're not supposed to sweat for 10 days. My daughter said the only way I could do that is if I ran away from my dance teacher ;-) But I thought hiking was something I could do without melting them.

Yes, we need to go hiking too! Either I'll come to wherever you are or you'll come stay in my garaj mahal. I would love that!

Expand full comment

Ay caramba, Tereza! In college I came down with a wicked case of mononucleosis and had to take an Incomplete in Econ 101. I practically wept with joy. So much as I love you and your passion for the subject, I just can't share it. Instead, I trust that any plan of yours is effing brilliant and should be implemented everywhere, starting now.

Expand full comment
author

Haha, skipping Econ 101 has made you eminently more qualified to understand my plan than someone who aced it. One of the first quotes in my book is from Johan Galtung, the founder of Peace and Conflict Studies: "I have one advantage in my life: I'm not trained as an economist. So it is so much easier to see reality. When you have to see it through the kind of crazy training these guys get, it becomes very difficult. I admire any economist who nevertheless could talk sense--there's not many of them, but it happens."

Expand full comment

Including Rumble comment. Honestly very helpful for me to both read and listen when it comes to subject of money/systems and money systems. I got built in firewalls for some reason.

Yes you go broad and deep. A deep broad? (Bad joke)

It's good to hear more about your plan. And that others are engaging.

Agree we need practical steps to support abstract declarations around our sovereignty. Both are essential.

I'm glad you have thought it through, Tereza. (So the rest of us don't have to.) Working my way up to reading your book! These videos are very helpful, preparing my mind for a subject it tends to repel. Thanks!!

Expand full comment
author

And my reply from Rumble:

"Love your bad joke! Don't worry, my whole book isn't like this. Most of it is revisiting history, so story-telling. And re-envisioning systems, so more story-telling. That's why I'd love to have some people giving their fiefdoms creative names and getting into the weeds on what they'd want to grow there. Especially an occasional sci-fi fantasy writer or playwright. Then I could write the second book with more story-telling so this dry kindling catches flame!"

Expand full comment

Good to know and I will think about what to name my fiefdom!

Expand full comment

I needed to read this today. I opened my emails and thought 'I dont want to read anything negative today, I'm just not in the mood to hear about all the problems for the umpteenth time'. And yours was the first I opened - and lo & behold, it was about how we can move forward and create the future we want.

I think that's all I want to focus on going forward.

I follow Cal Washington of InPower Movement and he has become very knowledgeable about how the financial system really works. In fact, when we sign documents, such as mortgage documents, we are effectively creating a Bill of Exchange. In 'their' system a Bill of Exchange is money. You can't take it to a local shop to buy groceries, but it is money. And so by signing the mortgage document you create money to the value of however much your loan is for. So the bank not only gets your money (Bill of Exchange), but then you also pay them interest as well. The same system applies to credit cards and any number of things you sign. That is why some people talk about birth certificates, etc being 'monetised'.

Anyway, I just thought I'd add this in to show that 'they' are even more greedy than we think, and we are more powerful than we think. We can create money with our signature (in their system). So Cal has found a way to use their system against them.

On another note, I am tentative about the idea of having, or being, a Czar. I don't want to lead, nor do I want to be lead. I love the idea of your Carats however, but realise that they only really work within a defined community. I am such a free spirit that the thought of that makes me feel a bit claustrophobic. This is not a criticism of your ideas, but simply wondering how we could structure a 'system' that supports freedom of movement and also functions effectively outside the current matrix.

Ultimately, right now, I would take any minor negatives of a Carat fiefdom over the current slavery system, so i say, bring it on! 🙏

Expand full comment
author

Thank you for that encouraging comment, Claire. Now I'm feeling even more coraggio!

When the mortgage was first introduced, it was understood to be a bad thing. I was a member of the farmer group called The Grange that goes back to the 1920's and the Populist movement. Some of their old songs are "Do Not Mortgage the Farm."

An early lawsuit challenged the mortgage because for a contract to be valid, both sides need to have put something of value in. The judge admitted that banks were putting nothing in but said that if he ruled them invalid, the whole system would collapse.

The fiefdom you'd be czarina of is entirely in your imagination. There are no rulers. What I'd hope to see is a simulation game that could run the numbers on various models and predict how many times the carets would circulate before leaking out. You'd get points for stealing modules from other people, and points if they stole from yours. Communities have different strengths and issues so one size doesn't work for all.

The caret system doesn't take away anything that exists now. It only adds new money for internal exchange but the imperial currency still operates just the same. Like any bank, you'd have the ability to issue dollars to buy out any foreign (meaning outside the commonwealth) owners of properties within your borders. I would definitely do this for any predatory or extractive owners--in which I'd include the university in Santa Cruz. We should own it, it shouldn't own us.

I'd also pay out remote landlords and owners of vacation properties, of which we have many from Silicon Valley. During those first six months of 3% interest for commoners, when remote landlords realize their rents will be half along with their eventual sale price, I'd pay out sales in dollars without taxing them. Then I can maximize home sales to people who already live or work there.

Ongoing is tricky. People in California tend to sell and move somewhere more affordable (i.e. anywhere) when they retire. This skews housing prices in Oregon, Washington, etc. because of the influx of 'easy' money, money made where it flows too fast. So I'm looking to enable families to stay together by enabling the older generation to afford retirement without selling, and the next generation to buy homes or add on to the one they already have.

For people who want to sell and move, I think I'd either tax it by half as a lump sum or offer a caret-exchange over time for an ongoing income with the commonwealth they're moving to. It would be at the commonwealth's discretion whether they'd do a 1:1 exchange or if they'd proportion it by the caret distribution per person, reflecting housing cost. The dollar amount would then go to their reserves, generated by the sale, with the inheritance details worked out the same way for their children.

But if you mean less permanent change than home ownership like travel and exploration, you would like my Reinventing Education concept with edu-travel. And if you moved to a new place that wanted to attract new energy, like Cumberland, they could include you as a commoner right away. Even places where foreigners aren't allowed to work now, like Europe, could choose to let others earn carets. Why not? It creates more lovely things and services for the people who live there, at NO cost to them. As someone has said, it's like creating more inches to build a house, just an imaginary concept.

Expand full comment

Thanks for clarifying. I was looking at it too literally. It's a very interesting concept and you've obviously given it a lot of thought. I don't know where you find the time, but I love when people look to creating positive change. I've listened to all the negative stuff for so long now, I just need to move on. Have you come across Michael O'Bernicia (UK) and his Universal Community Trust? Another interesting concept that I woukd like to find time to understand. I also like The Sovereign's Way courses about living in the private whilst using their system when it suits you.

I look forward to your future posts about these and other ideas. Your Substack is a breath of fresh air.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for those kind words, Claire. Michael is definitely heading in the same direction talking about The Great British Mortgage Swindle and anarcho-nation. So we're in alignment that nothing can be changed without changing that. It seems, from the little I've read, that he's looking to operate a community outside of those parameters without changing the system for everyone. I may be wrong.

I understand now where certain phrases that I'm hearing a lot are coming from. What I just wrote on a note is "My principle is that it's easier to transform everything than it is to transform any one thing without transforming everything, because the former may be hard but the latter is impossible."

Bringing a specific problem or project to my system and figuring out how you'd solve it is where the plan comes to life. Can you live outside the system and only engage when you want to? Sure if you have enough money or inherited land. But I don't think that works for everyone. I'm so glad and encouraged that you're looking forward to more posts on this! I love going into the specifics that make the dream pragmatic.

Expand full comment

hola, tereza.

nice exploration of a workable thesis. i was on a similar economic line of reasoning and action as i worked through my anti-economics courses 'economics debunked' and 'banks skanks'. you have filled in my nascent/initial scheme with great details and workabality. thank you!

and it goes far beyond the idea i saw in a small bc community that wanted to go back to city currencies as elucidated beautifully by jane jacobs. at its core the city currency was very similar to your description/elaboration. did you read jane jacobs' great book 'cities and the wealth of nations?'

question:

how would you deal with people investing in 'savings' that fall outside of the community?

when i did my deconstruction of economics and community financial flows it became clear to me that the savings process was not very different from the banking process as it stands: to siphon out from communities the citizenry's 'true' monetary wealth. my analysis clearly showed that yes, ironically, savings creates impoverishment in almost the identical way that the banking system does. that impoverishment is a result of a savings structure based on lack, a cornerstone of the religion of economics, and the need for profit. at the end of the day, as much as people dismiss marx and much of what he wrote is dismissible, his idea of the surplus value of labour is fundamentally correct. (I remember reading a famous american economist make that statement and was surprised when he said, despite its evident truth, we haven't seen that at all. i was surprised because it was clear to me that the truth of it was in the massive expansion of debt in the various forms we saw in the 60s and 70s — the available 'cash' and been taken from the community and so give them fake cash, debot, to help 'steal' the other assets and labour hours.) and now, we have a huge pile of evidence: our current global financial situation with mass impoverishment and the concomitant total concentration of wealth in the clutches of the greedy few.

great stuff, tereza. (you may find my next essay, my experience and thoughts about how we, using my own personal experience as lens, use and are spiritually by-passed by and with 'money.' my intention is to finish it tonight.)

gracias.

Expand full comment
author

I read the review of Jane Jacobs' book that you sent me awhile ago. Very interesting.

As a collaborative project, the question is how you'd deal with savings outside the community in Guytopia or the Duperrealm (or ?) What would your plan be?

In making the transition, I'd allow a certain amount of outside savings to be deposited at interest in long-term savings depending on the person's age. Somewhere I did calculations on what it would take with Social Security, savings and interest to reach the maximum income for the rest of your life, and that would be my target. People could have more than that but I wouldn't give the same rate of interest.

I wouldn't take away anything that people can do now. The only people I'd be inconveniencing are the bankers by not being able to lend money they don't have. To spend money locally would require a commonwealth bank account, and that would track your targeted dividends, earned carets and dollars, etc.

Thanks, Guy. I look forward to your essay later tonight.

Expand full comment

at the time i didn't have a great solution. now that i'm more experienced, i will consider and reply after that consideration.

the one more global solution i proposed at the time, long before my current state of awareness of the deliberate nature of the 'problem', was a corporate tax system based on measures of social weal or misery: inverse corporate taxes based on measures of social health, tending towards zero as all health measure increase: illness, median pay, literacy, access to government agencies, etc. this does not directly address your question, of course, although it may tangentially suggest something. i'll consider.

lol 'dupe(d)-realm' does have a kind of nice ring to it, doesn't it!? rotl.)

gracias.

Expand full comment

I love your ideas, but wow, is all of this daunting to think of how we could ultimately accomplish it. I used to often leave comments on YT about nationalizing the banks. Basically, bankrupt ALL private/central banks, and then OUR government steps in and starts collecting the interest on the loans as revenue, until we could level the system out. We would also take over ALL resources, where the money would go into OUR monetary system. I think it was Qatar who used to keep all resources within the govt's coffers, and the people paid taxes of around 3% for running everything else. I'm going off memory, however, so I'll have to take another look at the setup Qatar has now.

Perhaps a large portion of us should come up with our own Bible and say that our God instructed us on what to do:) If they want proof then so do we.

Expand full comment
author

Remember, asking 'how will this happen?' is a stalling technique to keep feeling helpless and not do the work of figuring out what you want. Is a nationalized bank for 360M people, that uses the interest for social services, really what you want? Would they also create the money out of thin air for whatever they wanted?

Qatar is a tiny oil-rich country and, like Alaska, can afford to pay off its population while selling off its resources (or that's my impression, maybe wrong). I have a subsection called The Resource Curse showing how an expensive export makes a country more dependent on imports and less self-reliant.

In my system, all resources that go under and over the land--like minerals, water, oil, gas, air, atmosphere, weather--belong to the whole continent, not just the place they're closest to the surface. So they need to be sold within the continent and not shipped overseas. And one commonwealth can't do things, like rig the weather, that affects others without their choice.

I don't think we need to figure out how this will happen. Our only job is figuring out what we want next, and that's a big one. Just from these questions, you can see that taking responsibility for how we'd structure a sovereign and fair economy is a complex task! When we know what we want, the opportunity will be there.

Expand full comment

Very well-made points. We need to manifest our destiny - be the change we want to see:)

I hadn't thought about our country creating more money out of thin air, for whatever they wanted, as they do now. I was thinking that they, like the people, would have to live within the means of the interest they collected, based on a set and fixed interest rate. And you're right about the resources being kept within an area and staying self-reliant. Would we then bring back much of our lost industries that have been moved to various places, as well?

I must then ask the question that if one country squandered their resources, b/c they didn't live accordingly within their means, and decided to invade and pillage another's booty, then what would we do? Would we still need a military, of which I hate that thought? This could even happen between states, as CA has great weather for growing produce, whereas northern states, not so much.

You don't need to answer these questions, as I need to read your book and also read everything you have posted about this, b/c I DO BELIEVE you're on the right path:) And, btw, I hadn't thought about Crop-ration also meaning things other than food. You're so right. There is one thing I know for sure and that is, I want everyone to live happy, prosperous, and fair lives, without fear - ONLY LOVE!

Expand full comment

"Our only job is figuring out what we want next, and that's a big one. Just from these questions, you can see that taking responsibility for how we'd structure a sovereign and fair economy is a complex task! When we know what we want, the opportunity will be there."

🎯

Expand full comment

Excellent concept, Tereza. I was just having a driveway chat with a neighbour the other day and I sketched out the following on the back of an envelope.

Insurance – we can eliminate this racket also.

Let’s say we each pay $2,000 per annum for house (and contents) insurance. That’s $20,000 in 10 years and $100,000 in 50 years. EACH!

Suppose we talk to the other households in the street and then extend it to a community of say 200 households. That’s not a very big neighbourhood.

Collectively we are paying $400,000 per annum - $4 MILLION over 10 years - $20 Million over 50 years for ’insurance’. (It sounds like a protection racket, doesn’t it? – If you don’t pay up, we’ll make SURE your house burns down!!)

And not ONE of our houses is ever likely to burn down or be destroyed (*asterisk – see above) in our lifetimes. We need to get the actual statistics, and not just the sensationalised events on 'the news', to determine how many zeroes there are behind the decimal point in terms of such a risk.

Certainly the ‘tragic event rate’ would be a lot less than 1 in 200.

Let’s say each house is ‘worth’ (market valued at) $1 Million.

So, we get each of the 200 householders to ‘invest’ or put aside a ONE-OFF amount of $5,000 and put this $1 Million into a trust fund for ‘that emergency’. It can earn your nominal 2 or 3% interest.

Each householder has now saved $95,000 over their 50-year lifetime of residence.

Not enough? Some areas more risky than others? Okay, broaden the community corporation to 300 or 400 families.

Or broaden the community anyway and reduce the ‘bond’ to something LESS than $5,000.

Then convert to ^ carets.

Of course we may need to talk to the Joneses about the topic of ego.

… and I thought the article was going to be about the science of caring – which it kinda is.

… and thank you so much for the kind mention.

Expand full comment
author

That's funny, Guy also saw it as care-tology and asked if that was intentional.

I'm so happy that people are delving into the details of various aspects. I've also given a lot of thought to insurances which are the I in the FIRE economy of finance, insurance and real estate. The second biggest expense, put together, next to housing. And for nothing!

I would leave medical insurance alone. Medicaid for All or Single Payer will bankrupt your caret system immediately or make it accused of Death Panels for not prolonging life another six months with the highest-priced pharmaceuticals and interventions.

Here's my wild idea--I'd like to have a caret-fund that 20-yr olds decide how they'd use for the health of babies born that year. Again, has to apply to all equally in terms of availability, whether equipment, doctors, clinics, etc. They'd have the same fund every year. So it would create a link between young adults thinking as parents to the next generation. And I think I'd want to use the village or hamlet ^s for medical clinics for non-life threatening care.

For fire/ homeowner insurance, there's a reader who works as a broker who's told me privately she'd do away with it entirely. In CA it's worthless anyway because it doesn't cover earthquakes, floods and now can't even be bought where there might be wildfires.

It also creates the 'victimless crime' or 'victimless lawsuit,' both of which seem problematic. I'd recommend that my fiefdom allows no lawsuits other than class action where the settlement goes towards making sure it can't happen again. But along with the home improvement stipend is a maximum wage that makes handywork affordable and a livable income so maintenance can be done instead of disasters.

In any construction, labor is the biggest cost. I'd like to believe that people on the block might pitch in, both with work and the block caret-allotment, for small emergencies, and at the neighborhood, hamlet or village level for larger. And here's my other crazy idea--in my fiefdom, I'd like to pay the travel costs and a daily stipend for anyone with skills who wants to go help out after a disaster, anywhere in the world that's part of my federation. I see the world as having a couple dozen non-contiguous federations so there are sibling cities and connections to particular places on the globe, more personal than just anonymous. You might have special agreements for trade, travel and education. But it could also include a bond of friendship in disasters. Much better than just sending money.

Expand full comment

Love your mind and spirit, Tereza! Can’t wait to say bye-bye to those shady bankers.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you, my many-splendored friend!

Expand full comment

oh! one more, funny(?) aside.

when I looked at your desciptor, i read 'care-tology'. is that a purposeful double entendre-like thing?

Expand full comment
author

Oh I didn't see that. It seemed like cartography to me. But another funny aside, one of my YT viewers wrote, "A minute in and I'm smiling ear to ear, I agree and empathise entirely with your child like wonder and curiosity... 🙏"

I suspect this is thanks to your curious rabbits analogy.

Expand full comment

lol! maybe. thank you for including my words in such an uplifting and funny way. i could so clearly see the imagery in my imagination with fresh dirt filled eyes. humour is very important now, because our naked emperors will not survive our laughter. all the best.

Expand full comment

Have you read this post that came out on the same day as yours? Maybe you and Chris could work together on some ideas in this direction as you are coming at this elephant from similar angles.

https://christophercook.substack.com/p/one-rule-rule-them-all

Expand full comment
author

I just read and posted on it. Thanks, Antila!

Expand full comment

A belated and grateful thank you for this! It clarifies a few things that my poor little brain was confused about. It would be great if what you wrote here could be made into an addendum to your book, though perhaps that's too difficult and/or expensive to consider.

(Last week I was in CrazyLand, aka SF Bay Area, and ended up getting sick and horribly sleep-deprived, hence my late return to the non-Crazy world here.)

Expand full comment
author

It's a whole new book, How to Build a Commonwealth. This doesn't even touch on the geographical considerations, which was actually what you wanted me to clarify ;-) The last section of my book is really the bare bones of the system but it's in the application and all these decisions that it comes to life.

Someone on YT asked if I had an infographic and that was an interesting idea. Not quite sure how to wrap my brain around that.

Glad you survived the crazy. I read your post and it sounded harrowing. Welcome to my life.

Expand full comment

Tereza- amazing that someone is going to make an app to play around with the caret possibilities! And you are slowly opening me to learning to think more about this potential. Like some of your other readers have commented here, I mostly stick my head in the sand when it comes to economics or thinking about these concepts that you present. But each time I read what you’ve written, I open a little more. Thinking about what we do want- that’s a great approach!!

So in this system, we can get paid in the imperial federal money and in carets? People would have both?

And the existing governments would continue to do things like public works?

Expand full comment
author

Yes, isn't that amazing, marta? I need to send Mark a note, he hasn't read this post yet.

I'm glad that I'm wearing down your resistance to economics, drip by drip.

And yes, everything is the same except we have these extra supplemental carets to play with that used to be sucked out by the bankers. And the only thing I'd take over from gov't is Social Security. Nothing else. They run on taxes same as always. The carets can be taxed at our discretion because they're not part of their system, so it doesn't take money away from them. They just create more economic activity.

Expand full comment

I so appreciate the thought that went into your system and while it's over my head (my brain don't wanna do this stuff) because I know enough about you and your values, I trust you've thought through the specifics, guided by these larger frameworks.

Understand enough to see the importance of money / carets flowing in a community-based system. (CAF talks about this too) And a public bank tied fully to that community.

PS - I'd change 'mortgages' to a world that doesn't mean Death Pledge, because of course the idea of transferring land and a home to the next generation is more about generating a better life. I'll listen to your video (it will slowly seep in I trust) while making breakfast.

Enjoy the hiking!!

Expand full comment
author

Oooh good idea on the word mortgages. I translate it as death-grip in my book. I'll have to think about that.

I take the public bank concept (on which there's a chapter in my book) a step farther with the ability to create, tax and set the exchange rate for the currency to repay it, and by withdrawing the ability to create money from private bankers. I spent a lot of time working with Ellen Brown and the Public Banking Institute. It's an essential part but ends up only having the interest go into a public fund (where it was already being fought over in meetings I attended) and competes within the Federal Reserve system.

Women, in my experience, think they have no interest in economics and men think they know everything. This really does need to change. If mothers, specifically, aren't involved, it won't be a system that serves families. In raising more than one kid, you've spent decades figuring out what's fair and how to make things equal but not the same--because every kid's different.

You're already neck-deep in economics, which means the management of the household. You can't force your kids to do anything but you can structure the reward-and-hassle system to nudge them towards not thwarting their own best interests ;0 This is the same but scaled up. I think you might have already seen this one, where I talk about my point system in raising my kids as the genesis of the caret system: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-caret-system. Thanks for reading and thinking with me, Kathleen!

Expand full comment

I know you're right - my ignoring of the topic has bitten in me in the arse more than once and in significant ways. 😊

Expand full comment

Clever concepts. I'd dump "Social Security" and replace it with a "Universal Income" system.

Expand full comment
author

Ah, this is where a simulation game would come in handy. So as czar of Wrightville, you'd take the ^500 per person and distribute it with no strings attached? And it can be spent on anything with no taxes? A retired person gets the same as anyone else?

The objective of the game would be to maximize the number of exchanges, each representing a good or service produced locally, before the carets leave the community. It seems like, if you're issuing the same amount as the cost of housing, people would use if for that and there would be no additional goods or services produced. It would go out and come back in, producing nothing. In fact, it would raise the cost of housing by the same amount because we compete with each other for what we can pay. If we all have ^500 more a month, housing will cost $500 more a month.

And how would people retire if they only had the supplemental income that a working person had? Would the savings that people have paid into Social Security disappear? I certainly wouldn't be happy about that, as someone who'll turn 67 in a couple of months. It would seem very unfair.

Expand full comment

The goal of maximize the number of exchanges, really helped me conceptualize the caret system better, thank you.

Expand full comment

I'm afraid I haven't had the time to study your caret system in detail, so I made a rather general comment.

While I'm very pro-capitalism, I also believe in having a socially responsible society. Just not the way it's being done in the USA currently with bloated, corrupt, moronic government agencies. Thus I'd like to replace *all* benefit systems with a single "universal income" system. No more administrative overhead or screwed up failures in not giving people who need it the benefits they need.

Transition from our current system to a new system will be a serious challenge. As I'm approaching a point where I look forward to getting back a fraction of the social security I've paid in over my lifetime I don't want it to just vaporize either.

With "Universal Income" you essentially tax everyone more and give equal benefits for everyone. So for the very wealthy the Universal Income would be a trivial amount they wouldn't even appreciate or care about getting. And for those earning not much more than universal income they would have almost no tax burden.

The game / simulation is where we get back to the beauty of the original constitution of the USA. Give the power back to the states and make the federal government tiny. Then each state experiments and competes so that with fifty states experimenting we have excellent opportunity for the best ideas to flourish and bad ideas to die off and be abandoned.

Expand full comment
author

Capitalism is ownership of the capital, which is the assets that back the money. Right now we have banker capitalism. Would you keep it that way?

As I say in this video, Greed, Need & the 3P: https://youtu.be/6Qu5zCxafWU:

"I define capitalism as a system that favors the accumulation of capital, which can be good or bad depending on who owns the assets. I propose that Capitalism favors greed and Marxism favors need, but a different paradigm favors community sovereignty. If the community owns the assets (capital) that back the money, people can own the products of their own labor, which then go back into the community. I cite Ivan Illich on why institutionalized welfare steals what makes us most human--our generosity, as anthropologist David Graeber confirms."

Since I live in California, the third largest economy in the world, home to 1 out of 10 US citizens and run by WEFfie YGL Gavin Newsom, I don't think states are the answer. Delaware and Rhode Island are the size of my county. Iceland is barely bigger. I think you need to figure out the right size for self-governance and create a new unit without the political baggage.

And I think we're trying to get back to the beauty of Ben Franklin's system before it was outlawed by The Currency Act, sparking the Revolutionary War, whose gains were reversed by the Constitution: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup. And yes to experimenting!

Expand full comment

Bankers only own the assets while you have borrowed money from them to "buy" the asset. Once you've paid it off, then the private individual owns the asset.

Yes, our states are "too big" now. A state like California is far larger (population) than the original 13 colonies combined! It seems to me, we can't have reasonable "representation" when we are dealing with such large groups. (thus I like your idea of smaller communities)

Expand full comment
author

Correct, after you've given them the most productive 60 years of your joint lives, you own the house as long as you pay the property (head) tax on it. And you haven't borrowed money from them, none of them took it out of their pockets or even out of other deposits. They issue the debt on one side of the ledger and create the credit on the other. Poof! Money created with the stroke of a key.

Good point about CA being bigger than all the 13 colonies combined!

Expand full comment

Yes, banks make money out of "thin air". This is in my opinion a huge problem. Yet at the same time, we do need some ability to borrow and finance some things (otherwise we should avoid debt like the plague).

I've elaborated a bit more in an article I posted.

Expand full comment

I'm catching up on this very interesting post and reading comments, so had to stop here, just to leave this specific comment:

Gavin Christopher Newsom = Roth's Misgovernance Whip.

'Roth' reminded me of Rothschild/bankers, and the obsolete German meaning of Roth, means "rot or red," which reminded me of "Red Sheild." Red, in German politics, also means Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. A whip, in politics, means a member of a political party who is in charge of enforcing the party's policies in votes, (perhaps by direction of WEF and the Red Roths). With Gavin's middle name being 'Christ'opher and "Rothschild = Hold Christ," and then like I mentioned before, "Young Global Leaders = Loyal Doublegangers" (aka doppelgangers), this could possibly mean Gavin could be equated, and trained/brainwashed, to be part of their Christ 'messiah' network, and also represent what the synonym of doppelganger is, alter ego. I often thought Satan was the alter/altar ego of Yahweh. Doppelganger also means "evil twin." Just couldn't help myself, in pointing this out:) Perhaps by breaking their word "spells" we break their clown-world hold over us.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whip

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/roth

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rot#German

Expand full comment

Totally butting in here to say that I find this convo fascinating and once I get out of my current predicament, I’d love to host a live stream with you guys discussing the details of a new monetary policy, if you’re down for something like that.

Expand full comment
author

That sounds like great fun!

Expand full comment

I was about to tag you to weigh in on this. Glad to read through the comments.

Expand full comment