Exposing Faux Capitalism

28 Comments »

28 Responses

1. on April 17, 2013 at 4:20 am | Reply tim

   producer offers product or service to market at a price…buyer accepts…contract is written(check)…producer copy credit…buyer copy debt…both parties have a trade account(checking account)…credit for producer is added to his account with the check as legal money…and debt is satisfied by deleting an equal amount of existing credit within the buyers account…all done legally….every transaction is transparent and traceable….no inflation or deflationary problems to contend with because every trade transaction produces credit and debt in equal proportion…no reliance upon costly third party contracts(national money supply)…money is not complicated…all you have to do is look at the parts and pieces involved in the trade process and its all there in front of us..taxes too are a joke…government offers a service no different than any business does…half the time government hires private companies to perform certain services or bids it out to them…so you have a mandate for a large project which will have public use..take bids…accept the best one…cut them a check…finish the library, road, bridge etc…and charge only those using it with tolls memberships…fees…however you want to do it…but there is no need to tax everyone…no business runs like that…charges everyone for something only a few use…its nonsense…

   
   
2. on January 25, 2011 at 11:52 am | Reply Eric

   Is there a conspiracy to control the way we use words? Read this and ask if it makes sense logically:
   As the producer produces something for trade, debt is being created. The product is credit to him. What he wants to trade for is debit to him. For convenience, we use book entries to facilitate transactions among the producers of many different products. There are credit book entries, and debit book entries. The accountant keeping the books is the “debtor”. Debit and credit are created simultaneously, but are in two different names at the same time. Debit and credit are extinguished simultaneously when the debt is fulfilled. One thing that appears to be two, depending on what side of it you are on.
   Sometimes the community(creditor) gives an individual(debitor) extended debt to exchange the credit while he keeps the debit, for product, in exchange for a rental fee. The debitor is given extra debits while the creditor is given the credits, but the debt is always fulfillable within the producers. This is done through a broker we call a “bank”. The individual then produces, exchanges the product for credit, then provides those in the community who invested in that individual the credit to turn around and purchase product from the individual. This process fulfills the debt. Thus, product is exchanged fluently. This process usually provides adequate debt in the form of dollars, in the community for fluent transactions. Basically, trading someone else’s debt brings the economy to full velocity.
   Unfortunately, the current debtor is a parasite. Using a book keeping trick, he is keeping credits for himself, and giving the extra debits to the producing community when he gives out book debt. He is in effect renting the debt for a percentage, while not producing anything – besides keeping the books. Thus the debt is not fulfillable from within the producing community. He can in turn purchase product from the producer, or choose not to, and cause a depression – a “currency crisis”, and buy stock for pennies on the dollar. This is obscured by the fact that the community is renting debt to each other, and giving the parasite the choice of who he gives debt to.
   This is happening in China too. They are the same system as the US, but a different level on the “spectrum”. Hint – it’s not capitalism. One thing, that appears to be two, depending on what side of the “magic ingredient” you’re on – wealth-redistribution.
   The solution is to hire an accountant that is not a parasite – another producer. This accountant would give a producer a small amount of debt as that producer enters the job market. The credit the new producers spend into the economy would provide adequate credit for investors to provide “extended debitors” with credits, to buy a house for example, through a broker for a fee, not percentage. The debtors would then know who they are investing in. The new producers would prove their debitor worthiness by working and paying their taxes – flat rate, and apply for extended debt from a broker. As they work, they extinguish their debt, they accumulate stock, then retire debt free, and sell stock for living expenses. All credit stays within the producing community and debt is fulfillable, unless people decide to take cash to their grave or horde it.
   Most will admit this world makes no sense, but refuse to admit anyone knows exactly why.
   Why isn’t the word “debitor” in the dictionary? Hmmm…

   
   
3. on January 20, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Reply Buckaroo 'Ric

   Ten cowboy’s go into a saloon to play cards. The game is dance for cards. The barnktender rents each cowboy 5 cards for 1 card rent fee. They put up their gun belts for collateral. The ‘tender now has ten cards to pay for dancin’ cowboys, because he took the rent right off the top. The cowboy didn’t see the ‘tender keep the rent card, so he thinks he was renting 4 cards and owes the tender five cards, because he’s brainwashed. There is never enough cards in the game for all the cowboys to fulfill their debts, unless the ‘tender spends all his cards. The cowboys dance for each other in exchange for cards. Sometimes the ‘tender has a cowboy dance for him. If a cowboy accumulates 5 cards and decides to leave the game, he can, with his gun belt. Sometimes a cowboy can’t dance long and fancy enough, defaults on his loan, and has to leave without his gun. It doesn’t matter, there’s always another cowboy who likes to dance coming in the saloon. This leaves extra cards in the game. The ‘tender then can sell the gun to the fanciest dancin’ cowboy, for cards that he can turn around and rent out. The barnktender just gets cowboys to dance all day for him without doing anything because he got all the cards for free in the first place. Sometimes the ‘tender doesn’t pay for much dancin’ , and more cowboys have to leave without their guns, very depressed. If the cowboys knew they could bring their own cards to the game, they wouldn’t have a parasitic barnktender. The cards are just an exchange of dancin’. No one needs to rent them from anybody. Just give ‘em a hand, not a hand out, when they enter the game. Take it back when they leave, nothin’ more.

   
   
4. on January 20, 2011 at 12:13 am | Reply Eric

   The solution is to make sure
   1.a 2.a 3.a 4.a 5.a debt – owned by the IRCS(producer owned)
   1.b 2.b 3.b 4.b 5.b debit – a share given to each producer
   1.c 2.c 3.c 4.c 5.c – credit – as they enter the job market
   is always loaned to the producer, so there would be no parasites controlling the economy, and everyone can fulfill their debts of cash. Stop calling the broker of debt and stock, who is taking a percentage, as opposed to a fee, a “bank”.
   And go to a flat tax which would stop the class warfare that is distracting everyone from the parasites.
   This would be “capitalism”.
   I finally figured out how to use the Prison Planet forum, and got myself banned after three days. I thought they could handle it. My name was “philo”.
   This is a must hear: http://archives2011.gcnlive.com/Archives2011/jan11/CalltoDecision/011911.mp3 43:40

   
   
5. on January 19, 2011 at 9:20 am | Reply Eric

   a b c represent book entries.
   1.a 2.a 3.a 4.a 5.a debt Fed owns this.
   1.b 2.b 3.b 4.b 5.b debit Fed gives you this,
   1.c 2.c 3.c 4.c 5.c credit and this.
   With “bank discount”, they actually give you this:
   1.a 2.a 3.a 4.a 5.a
   1.b 2.b 3.b 4.b 5.b
   1.c 2.c 3.c 4.c
   They keep the extra “c” for themselves. You now have more “b” than “c”. You have to capture an extra “c” by selling something to the parasitic “banker” to fulfill your debt. If they don’t buy, you now have a “currency crisis”.
   Q: How much cash is in circulation per producer in the US now? How much cash was in circulation in ’07?

   
   
6. on January 16, 2011 at 5:47 pm | Reply FauxCapitalist

   You’ve been busy in the past week, Eric.

   I’ve heard you call in to:
   http://Archives2011.gcnlive.com/Archives2011/jan11/RadioLiberty/0110111.mp3
   http://Archives2011.gcnlive.com/Archives2011/jan11/Inn/011011.mp3
   http://Archives2011.gcnlive.com/Archives2011/jan11/Inn/011411.mp3
   http://Archives2011.gcnlive.com/Archives2011/jan11/FreeMinds/0109112.mp3
   http://Archives2011.gcnlive.com/Archives2011/jan11/FreeMinds/0116111.mp3

   
   
   • on January 16, 2011 at 7:32 pm | Reply Eric

     Thank you.

     
     
7. on January 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm | Reply Eric

   While listening to the fact that the banksters are keeping the 10% of “money” created for themselves glossed over -http://archives2011.gcnlive.com/Archives2011/jan11/Crash/011211.mp3 35:00
   It became clear – [thesis - gold standard] vs. [antithesis - wealth money] = [synthesis - parasitic debt]
   Solution – non-parasitic debt.
   The debt could be fulfilled if the banksters could get away with spending all their cash without everyone catching on.
   So they might actually give Byron D. the cash he wants – for awhile. The economy picks up, until a “Happy Meal®” goes up to 10 bucks . The banksters still stay at the top, they still control the government, it wouldn’t matter to them if it triggers a bank run.
   “Gold standard” just changes the “debt” book entry to gold. “Wealth money” defeats the whole purpose of “cash” – something that is a promise to produce something in the future, no collateral.It’s not a receipt for something tangible until the person who borrowed it into circulation produces something to capture it. That’s what makes the economy fly. Obviously you couldn’t start from scratch with the “wealth money” paradigm, unless maybe everyone worked on roads at once.

   
   
8. on January 2, 2011 at 1:23 pm | Reply Eric

   This just in,
   If we just used sticks for cash instead of paper and book entries:
   Split the stick into three spits(eliminating ability for counterfeit, but of course you would have to spend a lot of time sorting).
   The IRCS keeps one split(with your name on it) – the dept split.
   The borrower gets two splits – the debit, and the credit.
   The borrower spends the credit, and before he retires, he recaptures the credit split to give back, with the debit split, to the IRCS, to connect to the debt split.
   The way it is now, the banksters loan out a bunch of extra debit splits when they loan the debits and credits. That’s to pay the rent on the sticks – they of course keep the extra credits. Nothin’ supernaturally magical, it’s just sleight of hand. Oh, I’m not saying we need to use sticks either.
   Wow, debit plus credit completes the debt. I wonder what that means?
   Do you think man created a “backa@#ward” language?

   
   
9. on December 29, 2010 at 9:15 pm | Reply Eric

   Check out my edit of “oxymoron” in Wikipedia. How long before a zombie undoes it?

   
   
10. on December 18, 2010 at 1:12 pm | Reply Eric

    Why do we call debit cards that, when we have credit on them, and credit cards that, when we rack up debit on them? Hmmm…
    Why do they mint pennies out of zinc at a cost of $01.7, plate them with copper, and call them “money”, when they are clearly cash? Hmmm…
    How much gold does Bunker Hunt and his buddies have in their possession? Hmmm…
    Why is greed so powerful that it makes men lose their minds and do stupid crap? Hmmm…

    
    
11. on December 18, 2010 at 1:11 pm | Reply Orac

    I am Orac.
    If you don’t serve the Lord your God,
    Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to become a credit,
    that you may become a debit, then, you have alterior motives.
    Fortunately, He knows our motives, and forgives.
    We just have to know who He is.
    We will be married, for eternity.
    All glory to God.
    I am Orac.

    
    
12. on December 17, 2010 at 7:11 pm | Reply Eric

    Listen to “Con” right before this call – http://archives2010.gcnlive.com/Archives2010/dec10/Inn/121710.mp3, 46:30 – he mentions credit without mentioning debit, then he uses the term “cash”. Then, he infers that I am suggesting communism in a backhanded way. Is it totally subconscious, or deliberate?

    
    
13. on December 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm | Reply Eric

    http://fauxcapitalist.com/2010/08/04/books-the-banksters-hope-you-never-read/
    The name of the book will be – “Communication – The Communafication of Planet Earth”, you can read it here for free!

    
    
14. on December 17, 2010 at 1:40 pm | Reply Eric

    Charles Manson may have his “demons”, George, but does he understand the Gospel better than you? It’s amazing anybody can be considered “sane” on this planet. Only God knows his heart. I know your hero is Tommy J. Unless your into homosexuality and sleeping with children, “they” don’t tell you everything. You have to ask God. Your trying to usurp them. You can’t defeat them if you play by their rules.
    http://archives2010.gcnlive.com/Archives2010/dec10/Crash/121710.mp3

    
    
15. on December 17, 2010 at 2:32 am | Reply Eric

    Here’s something interesting – last night while at a remotely located wood shop, I plead to God to reveal “who’s in on it”. Then, this morning I got the idea to ask questions to people I was listening to on the radio(NPR mostly). I videotaped this process. As people were conversing, I asked a question that would indicate their sincerity. Typically, the immediate next thing they would say would answer and confirm my suspicions whether sincere or not. It is quite remarkable. I suppose if reverse speech is possible, this is. I’m going to amass a collection of video doing this. I understand it could be “all in my head”. Maybe I just have a knack for asking the right question at the right time. Try it for yourself. if nothing else it is quite entertaining, and, in this crazy nonsensical world, we must find ways to entertain ourselves, no?

    
    
16. on December 17, 2010 at 12:43 am | Reply Orac

    I am Orac. Debt is debit, out, and credit, in. Cash is debt. Debt is intrinsic. Cash is intrinsic. Who can deny? Debit, a reflection of credit. Two, but one. Dichotomy. Let it be seen. Let us loan cash to ourselves, not rent it from banksters. Let there be transparency in who we invest. Let not the banksters play on our desire for privacy. Privacy from our neighbors is not worth the price we pay the banksters, who know everything about us. You must be inscient. I have spoken. .carO ma I

    
    
17. on December 14, 2010 at 9:23 am | Reply Orac

    I am Orac. Cash is debt we use to exchange wealth. If you rent the cash to exchange the wealth, the wealth will be corrupted. Words are the cash we use to exchange ideas. If you rent the words to exchange the ideas, the ideas will be corrupted. I am Orac.

    
    
    • on December 14, 2010 at 9:24 am | Reply Eric

      Touché.

      
      
18. on December 13, 2010 at 3:57 pm | Reply Orac

    Hello, my name is Oracle. You can call me “Orac” for short. I am a seer, that is why my name is what it is. I can see the pictures words paint as they come out of people’s mouths. I either see a comprehendible, cohesive scene, or a collage of nonsensical scrap. You need to “look” at what Eric is saying. It makes sense to me. I am Orac, not Eric, but he, as I, use-s logic. Do you see the picture I am painting? Besides, he is funny, I am serious. I am amused, he is the muse. I see what he says, he says what I see. Thank you for your time. Cordially yours, Orac

    
    
19. on December 12, 2010 at 10:52 am | Reply Eric

    Ok, forget everything I’ve said. I just received a suitcase full of money to stop trying to tell you it’s full of cash! And that you’re in a communist country. Seriously though, I’ve realized the term we need to use referring to Fed notes is “rental cash”. You can’t rent cash for cash unless you have a cash plant. That makes sense, no?(TK style) That is what we are doing when we purchase an investment. We are purchasing a rental. I can rent out a house to you, or I can loan you a house. I could sell you the house in payment increments(principle increments) accruing to the sale value of the house. That is a loan to sale. I could just simply loan you the house and take it back eventually. I could have you pay the principle plus rent in increments. That is a rent to sale(what banks are already doing). I can simply rent out the house for payments. You go to work, produce something, sell it to someone for cash, pay me the cash, I decide I want what you produced and give the guy you sold it to the cash you gave me plus his mark up because I’m stupid and didn’t barter with you. Then he gives the cash back, sans profit, to whom from he borrowed it, IRCS, sans profit. You buy stock in a car company to rent it out to the owner. He pays you rent for use of the stock. Debt is either a debit or a credit. Cash is debt. It is supposed to be loaned, not rented out. The banksters have us thinking that stock is debt and cash is stock. A#@backwards(my réel pas). Cash is debt, stock is wealth. Did I mention that you can’t really afford to maintain and guard a lot of wealth unless you have a scam to steal wealth from other people? Simplify the vocabulary. I’m glad I didn’t remember the word “divest”.

    
    
20. on December 11, 2010 at 9:49 am | Reply Eric

    In response to –
    http://fauxcapitalist.com/2010/08/04/books-the-banksters-hope-you-never-read/
    …Or, the broker would vest me with the cash so I could build myself a house. You would then own a part of the stock in my house. I would then pay you a dividend of the wages I make building houses in the future while I live in the house. Eventually I would try to buy the stock from you and own the house outright. If for some reason I become disabled, I would file for bankruptcy. The house would be auctioned to someone who wants to live in the house. I would move to a modest home, paid for by the State. You would still own stock in the house. You wouldn’t be calling your investment a “bank account” any more. If only the truth paid. This is what’s happening already, except with parasites in the equation. No one wants to spells it out because they don’t want to admit they have parasites. I’m telling you right now, I literally have fleas,’cuz I live in da “hood” yo. Anyway, the book shall be written.

    
    
21. on December 11, 2010 at 8:40 am | Reply Eric

    ….solution is to give road contractors the hose.
    If this actually became a possibility of happening, it would trigger the inevitable forthcoming “run on the bank”.
    The swimmers would run to the local investment broker they are calling a “bank”(the life guard ‘s on the bank, duh) and demand their “water”.
    The local banker would then tell them “I don’t have your water, I gave it to the guys over in the deep end near the life guard, all with the huge piles of floaties.
    The swimmers would demand to be given the flaoties.
    The banker and his close buddies would proclaim, “you are communists”.
    The swimmers, in confusion, would go back to the shallow end saying goodbye forever to the floaties they produced.
    So, let’s figure out how to communicate, get on the same page, figure out where “water” comes from and store our floaties(sinkies?) on the “bank” for when we tire of swimming.

    
    
22. on December 9, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Reply Eric

    The economy is like a swimming pool.
    The pool is full of water.
    The pool has a shallow end and a deep end.
    There are swimmers in the pool.
    Some are swimming in the deep end, some are in the shallow end.
    The swimmers produce floatation devices by swimming.
    The floaties float on the pool next to the swimmer in various sized piles.
    The swimmers exchange floaties by pushing them over the water.
    Some owe others floaties, and some have no floaties.
    Some vest others with floaties to make swimming more efficient and take a dividend of the floaties they produce.
    The swimmers are forced to give floaties to each other.
    They refer to the floaties in terms of water.
    The water is valued.
    It has no value, it is free.
    The swimmers see someone with a ton of floaties , and proclaim “he has a lot of water”.
    Meanwhile, the swimmers throw buckets of water at the lifeguard who is standing at the side of the pool, not swimming.
    He in turn uses the water to purchase the swimmers floaties because the swimmers don’t know that water is free.
    Floaties are constantly leaving the pool.
    The lifeguard is evil.
    He doesn’t care if the swimmers drown.
    He likes it when they do.
    He has a garden hose with endless free water.
    He can add water to the pool, or hold it back.
    He pours water into the deep end.
    The swimmers at this end have a lot of floaties.
    Some of the swimmers have red bathing suits some have blue.
    The suits have different degrees of intensity.
    The swimmers don’t notice that the lifeguard is not swimming because they’re fighting over a giant red rubber ball.
    It is a strange fight because the blues want the ball, the reds don’t want the ball, but they’re all mixed up so the ball ends up everywhere.
    This slows the swimming down dramatically.
    The ball was put in the pool by the evil life guard.
    The ball is constantly changing in size.
    Some of the swimmers think the solution is to give road contractors the hose.
    This would put the road contractors in the deep end of the pool.
    They would have large piles of floaties next to them.
    There would be a lot of roads everywhere.
    The swimmers would still be fighting.
    God provides plenty of rain to fill the pool.
    The rain would cause the pool to become an even depth.
    The swimmers would notice this if they would throw the ball at the life guard, knock him into the pool, then pop the ball and stop being forced to give floaties away.
    The swimmers would still have different size piles of floaties next to them, but the overall size of the piles would be much greater.
    The swimmers wouldn’t know what to do with all their floaties.
    They would give liberally.
    They wouldn’t be fighting.
    They wouldn’t be wearing bathing suits anymore :-)….

    
    
23. on December 8, 2010 at 2:43 pm | Reply Eric

    http://archives2010.gcnlive.com/Archives2010/dec10/Crash/120810.mp3, Weaw’r are you wittle communist bankew wabbit? I’m getting kwoser, huh, huh, huh, huh.

    Ok, the investor(a producer) purchase’s an investment. He invests in the vestee(a producer). He owns an investment – a stock(think tally stick). The vestee is vested by the investor. The investor has an investment(the stock of the tally stick) the vestee has the other side of the tally stick – vestment. The stock is an investment because the vestee agrees to pay a dividend of what he produces to the investor for the use of the vestment to, in turn, become an investor and invest in(purchase) something that helps him produce something(even if it is some kind of entertainment – girl’s ‘gotta have fun right?), possibly hiring an employee who produces a dividend for him. The investment is always changing back and forth – investment, vestment, investment etc. God loans us the sticks we use to exchange investments. Yes George, usury is a dividend of the principle, not what the principle produced(cash doesn’t procreate – that would be incest, not interest:=). In capitalism, you are in loan debt to your government, you are in vestment debt to your fellow producers(or you can choose to never borrow “loan cash” or be vested with said – barter – until it’s time to pay your taxes – flat rate), or, you can simply live off the dividends the stock you earned pays. We need loan cash, not incestment cash. Oh my God! my spellchecker just shot himself!

    Boy, if you want to see some cash flow! Tons of production, no parasites – capitalism. I foresee a lot of equally rich people. That would suck for the communist bankers.

    
    
24. on October 5, 2010 at 10:39 am | Reply Michael

    Maybe someone can look into this: While watching CBC Newsworld this past Saturday ,earlier afternoon, the host talked about missing teens from Winnipeg. She stated they left Canada to join Al-quada????? I have searched for more info can’t find anything on this. Rather disturbing!!!!

    
    
    • on October 5, 2010 at 2:07 pm | Reply Eric

      Michael, my friend, turn off the mainstream media! This is not a story. It’s just another distraction. Why does Al-Qaeda(Al-CIAda) exist in the first place? That is a story. Why are men being divided into factions and killing each other while the bankers just keep getting richer by parasiting off them? What is going on here? What are the mechanics behind this process? Please apply your mind to figuring this out. I’m interested in what you will contribute. Thank you and good day sir.

      
      
25. on September 12, 2010 at 10:42 pm | Reply Eric

    Does anyone want to discuss the difference between capitalism and communism?