All three major religions drawing from the Old Testament, renounce unearned gain. Yet at the hand of a monetary system which itself purposely devalues the currency for unearned gain, many of us are at least defensively driven to a perpetual battle competing for unearned profit at cost to all the rest, even as in the end, only the monetary system can profit when the music ultimately stops.
All the while, perpetual devaluation of the currency through perpetual multiplication of debt will not only ultimately stop the music, but, for the subjects of the system, will reduce the prospects, both of earned and unearned profit, eventually to nil. Thus in the monetary obligations which are left, the usurpers of the authority to publish a virtually costless “money” subject to “interest,” make themselves the collectors of all the chips which must be forfeited to them when we cave in under the perpetual escalation of their unearned takings.
So, we are driven to this battle for unearned gain, even by the fatality of it.
This morning, Mario Sikorski sent a post which well projects from current trends what many correspondents have been telling us for decades. We should know these things of course, because inherent multiplication of debt by interest can only engender the wild vacillation we are about to see described as if it is a mundane and even advantageous process. But why should we know the adverse consequences of all these forms of unearned taking? Because interest-bearing monetary systems inherently and irreversibly multiply debt in proportion to a circulation. Their maximum practical lifespans therefore are readily projected by accumulating the interest we must re-borrow into circulation to maintain a circulation, until we find the day when the sum of debt they inevitably multiply exceeds the very possibility of sustaining the commerce which is obligated to further service it. So, the death throes actually and accurately described by the following post are foreseeable.
In the end, the whole point of drawing a perception of these simple process together however, is to understand that any practical/intrinsic rate of interest multiplies debt into a terminal sum of insoluble debt. From this, we understand that no practical rate of interest is exempt from producing termination, because in the least, the very intention of imposing such systems is to impose such rates of interest as inherently multiply debt in proportion to the circulation. This is the intended vehicle of unearned profit, and whole raison de etre of every such system. And so we understand ultimately that for all the subjects of the system, unearned taking is ultimately self defeating, because to engage in it versus eradicate it is to perpetually fail to address a problem which will defeat all the combatants but the usurer of the circulation. The only way to solve the problem which will defeat all of us therefore, is to eradicate not only interest, but any other manifestation of unearned gain — any and all forms of which defeat the very idea of just reward for actual production of wealth.
While the following post of course is exemplary regarding the potential determinability of this kind of projection, it even matters not whether its figures are accurate. What matters is the cycle of strife and cost it well and succinctly depicts, because every ostensible gain is in fact balanced by the very loss the information only hopes to avoid. Yes, it can succeed in a relative sense to what losses are imposed upon the whole subject system. But it can succeed only to a relative, diminishing degree of suffering less of the overall loss; and only so long as the outer system has not finally destroyed the *practical* value of the intended vehicle. Some day soon enough for instance, leaving the outer process to prevail over all such unproductive, eventually futile defensive efforts, an ounce of gold may not be “worth” a tomato, or half-ounce of lead. So, it is the very inconsistencies and instability of the underlying usury system which engender all the resultant and otherwise redundant study, activity, competition, and perpetual unaccounted re-evaluation of all things… all to the ultimately self destructive process of never ending all this waste and self destruction, by instead asserting solution:
The Dow and Gold — from Russell 02 July 2008
The chart below [not sent] will bring us up to date on the Dow-to-gold ratio. The chart runs from 1980 to the present. In January of 1980 with the Dow at 887 one share of the Dow would buy only 1.04 ounces of gold. The ratio was heavily in favor of gold.
From 1980 the ratio shifted in favor of the Dow. By July 1999 one share of the Dow would buy 43.8 ounces of gold. At that time gold was dirt-cheap compared with the Dow — gold was selling around 265 an ounce while the Dow was selling around 11,600.
Since mid-July [YR?] the ratio has been declining in favor of gold. Yesterday, Dow/gold ratio dropped to a new low since 1999 of 12.05. The ratio had dropped roughly 72% since its 1999 high. In terms of gold, the Dow has lost almost three-quarters of its value over the last nine years.
How low will the ratio go? There’s no way of telling. I’m guessing that somewhere ahead the Dow/gold ratio is going to collapse, as gold goes parabolic on the upside and as the Dow finally sinks into its ultimate bear market low. That will probably be the time to switch a goodly portion of our gold into the top Dow stocks. Fortunes will be made by those who make the switch and then sit.
How self destructive is it for us to focus on out-competing a system which itself can only extinguish all competitors?
The answer to that question is not so difficult as you might imagine, because, as its destruction is self escalating, *how long we allow it to afflict us* determines the degree to which we shall suffer further.
In the tunnel vision which is dedicated only to cannibalism, for the ever more temporary sake of ever fewer, we only escalate the end. Before you know it, gold bugs are insisting we return to the gold standard, hoping to “make” a fortune; or “investors” in nuclear technology are arguing against clean solar or wind implementations, not on the real overall merits of either, but on costs established by temporary and artificial conditions which make the right choices impossible only because the undesirable choices serve the few who will so ambitiously undermine representation to preserve their unearned taking.
If we mature beyond this such self destructive short-sightedness, it will only be because we finally realize that all unearned taking is destructive to earnings. All unearned taking disposes us not to solution, but to self destruction.
If we ever allow ourselves to deliver monetary justice, then alone will truly free markets determine a fitting value of gold. Then alone too would we have long ago embarked on the course of energy independence which yes, would have avoided wars fought on the unnecessary behalf of big oil. Only under monetary independence, free of unearned taking, do we restore to ourselves even the option of making the right decisions, because then alone are those decisions determined by natural, relevant factors, versus who particularly is satisfied with their conduit of unearned take.
So a caveat should be reserved against the last assertion. What if “recovery” involves processes which are sufficiently deterred or delayed, that the survival of the vehicle is impossible?
That question however is far too narrow, because it is necessary for us to preserve so many further things to even sustain ourselves; and because even all the vehicles at our disposal have no power to sustain even minimal industry against a monetary system which inherently culminates in systemic bankruptcy.
The oddest thing about this question however is that the respondent will usually say, “But gold cannot be destroyed.”
Ay, it can’t. But so many other things can; and still, only a just monetary system can preserve a reasonable value of gold, by preserving a reasonable value of all other things, so that value of gold can itself be preserved.