Behind it is a writing project entitled CHANGING MONEY.
London, Spring 2019
PART I ECONOMICS: double-phoenix.com
no matter how many tomes have been composed on the topic of economics, trade and commerce, the bottom line still hasn’t summed up the matter like the statement i’d been given by the owner of one of the last coin shops in london:
“every transaction means that you agree on an exchange rate that you then have to live with until you exchange again”
in other words, we have all been doing barter trade all along, only that money, as so called “legal tender”, has (for most of us) confused things. sure, at the time where silver, gold and copper exchanged hands, carrying the official ‘imprints’ of the governing cesars during monarchies or the goddess’ during republics (“money” and “mint” stem from the word “moon”), you didn’t need a ‘bank’ to tell you what it’s worth, since the piece you exchange had an intrinsic value, a value that was based on the precious metal value (even copper had a lot of value, being called the ‘gold of africa’ in local currency, collected, exchanged and stored at home to provide a household budget). the worth of the precious metal, before the bankers had done their daily ‘fixing’ over the phone each morning in london, was a matter of the universal law of values:
“scarcity and demand”.
so the exchange of precious metals, pearls, jewels, spices (and of sex, alcohol and cigarettes to the craving 🙂 meant to balance even any kind of transaction on what I call a ‘no-man’s land’. it’s otherwise difficult or futile to negotiate whether fixing a computer is possibly equivalent to cleaning a toilet. that’s acually the great thing about money that from the monent you exchange into ‘official’ legal tender, it gives you the freedom to go on and again exchange it – at your own leisure – into whatever else you please.
trouble are the banknotes, though. and the game is finally over with fictional currency such as mere figures changing ownership on a computer. actually, the thing about banknotes is interesting in itself and can teach us a lot. they’re called ‘obligations’. the carrier of a banknote holds a cheque or an obligation in his or her hand that is accepted by other people as a legally binding promise of the value printed on it. originally, the value printed on it obliged the issuing bank to give you the amount in gold instead. and that’s the interesting thing about them. most of the banknotes people should’ve changed (changed BACK, actually, since they were originally issued on that backing) at the first opportunity into gold coins. yet some of the banknotes, it turns out, now far exceed the value of the equivalent gold. back then, in terms of barter or individually gauging the law of scarcity and demand, the decision which ones to keep and which ones to change was entirely left up to you. most of them you should’ve changed into gold and appartments. but not all of them. it would have helped things if the banks (with the help of their croney governments) hadn’t had the audacity to withdraw some of them from circulation and declare the remainder null and void. as a matter of fact, since no expiry date had been originally printed on these issued obligations, I personally feel that if seen from higher levels, suddenly not exchanging them anymore can in fact be regarded as fraudulent and a promise or an obligation will surely remain as such, even though out of the blue and out of ‘convenience’ (thanks for the trillions:), they decide to slap on an expiry date afterwards.
anyway, be it modern coins or banknotes or computer figues – bartering them into some other assets and valuables would always prove more beneficial in the long run, while in the short run it keeps ones life volatile and dynamic. the key question then being:
what to exchange it to?
and here, it all comes down to a level of personal (even ‘political’!) choice, or a little remainder of ‘freedom’ on the material plane, as any decision will have major impacts not only on our personal but also on our collective fate.
PART II ECONOMICS
now, the world having come to this present stage, with mass media and mind control techniques, with international supply chains and worldwide marketing campaigns, it’s easy for the ‘powers’ to manipulate both, whether scarcity or demand and thus ‘falsify’ the picture to purposefully mislead you. so the big question that provides the fragile hinge to your economic ‘survival’ is to have a vision and a rationale as to the truth of what’s truly scarce and what’s truly in demand. when you’re done throwing the money out of your window that you hadn’t handed over as ‘taxes’ to the cesars (taxes that only serve to somewhat cover the interest debt on the ‘playing money’ that your trusted governments issued by selling you out to these powers), when you’re levelheaded again and not emotionally on a hook by sinister seducers, then you can prove what you believe and say and envision, by putting your money on it and see how you fare.
there’s one more thing that adds enormous difficulty to really understand the true situation. that’s the law of mass production and mass distribution, the law of units. ever wondered why many of the things you bought for 50,- or 100,- or even 500,- $|€|£ a little while ago nobody wants to buy off you for even 1,- lately? well, that’s because the truth reveals itself at the moment. there are just too many of these things around, they can be obtained too easily and they aren’t manufactured to a high standard either. from the outset, the powers have had a laugh at the ‘people’ (they call them we, the people to flatter their egos while they secretly abhor and detest them to the extreme) who ‘buy’ into this stuff. none of them would ever buy anything that can’t be sold on with a profit. they know the law of “scarcity and demand” in and out and are aware of the principle of barter trade and of exchanging with a view of gaining an advantage. they’d think who would buy an item for 99,- that cost to produce perhaps 0,20 and almost nothing to package and distribute given that millions upon millions are bundled together like that. perhaps for the advertising and marketing occurs a cost. and perhaps when you resell it, if the marketing campaign is still fresh enough to stick in people’s minds, or has been done for a considerable length of time to outright ‘shape’ the public mind, you will still benefit from it, to get maybe 15,- to 20,- instead of not even 1,- (monetary unit). but you’re obviously exchanging at a loss at this time, even considering the fact that you had for a period been ‘using’ the item (which wouldn’t weigh much on truly valuable items, quite the opposite oftentimes).
what this tells us is to stay away from mass produced things as much as we can, really, either from a buyers or a sellers point of view. from a sellers point of view, perhaps the most obvious reason is to avoid by all means engaging in a futile struggle against powers beyong imagination. if many of the same arcticles are available, any possible buyer will inevitably always choose the cheapest one. and to be the cheapest (unless you steal or use slave labour like some of the Made in China stuff, with many of the ‘slaves’ actually being completely innocent Falun Gong practitioners), you will inevitably have to be the biggest in order to command the cheapest production and distribution deals. and because you’re the cheapest then, you’ll be the only one who really gets going those millions of units which in turn will make you even bigger – to the point that you’re finally so big that everyone else around you has already died.
only then, when you have the monopoly after the war, will you be able to ask about any price for what you offer. hooking people while you’re on that journey will obviously help not to be abandoned again after that.
didn’t rockefeller say that “competition is a sin?”