The People’s NWO: Every Man His Own Central Banker

7 Jul

** 7 October 2014:  The concept described in the following essay has since been developed further — visit beta website for more information.

“To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not.”

– Julian Assange, Conspiracy As Governance (2006)

There is nothing more dangerous than personal initiative: if it has genius behind it, such initiative can do more than can be done by millions of people among whom we have sown discord.

– Protocol V

Are you seeking profit, or protection from the storm?  This is not for you.  Are you here because misery loves company, or to impress with wit?  This is not for you.

This is written for those who have moved to a place beyond fear, and preservation.  Beyond greed, and accumulation.  This is for those who have moved beyond, to a place the Sovereign Man knows not of.

It is the place where un-selfish thoughts roam freely; where the forces of greed and fear are “not of this world”.

If you are seeking comfort in confirmation of existing ideas and beliefs, then I encourage you to look elsewhere.  Here you may be challenged to reconsider.  To research and study.  To think outside the square.  And to take uncommon action.

In the introduction to the movie V For Vendetta, we are reminded that “an idea can still change the world”.  I will share my idea to change the world with you today.  I hope you may have an even better one.

First, an apology.  The basis of my idea challenges common precepts that you may hold as gospel truth.  In the interests of brevity I cannot author a supporting thesis.  So I encourage you to simply adopt a certain mind-flex; to entertain the underlying rationale for the moment, in order to consider the main idea in context.

My idea will particularly challenge those who conflate the concept of a “currency” with a “store of value”.  We have been trained to do this.  We have been taught to identify both of these different concepts, with the singular label of “money”.  This is the first and greatest delusion to be overcome.  If “money” is ever to be made a servant of mankind, and not continue to be his master, then we must begin by taking great care to distinguish clearly between “money” as “store of value”, and “money” as “currency”.

A “store of value” can be anything real, tangible, and (in relative, human lifetime terms) lasting.  Gold, silver, some art, property, gemstones, all these and more may be considered a store of value.

A “currency”, by contrast, should serve only as oil for the wheels of the economy.  To aid the proper, efficient, and right moral function of commerce and industry, in its pivotal role within civilised human society.  To achieve this, our chosen form of currency should have no intrinsic value whatsoever.  Moreover, in the interests of true social justice, the ideal form of currency should be destroyed at a modest, fixed annual rate.  Why?

For an in-depth understanding of the answer, I encourage you to read up on the concept of Freigeld (“Free Money”), as elaborated in the Natural Economic Order by Silvio Gesell.  Before rushing to dismiss this little known genius as some kind of crackpot, you may first wish to consider carefully the profound success of Gesell’s demurrage currency concept during the Great Depression.  The Miracle of Wörgl, Austria is an excellent example.  You will also discover how this alternative monetary “experiment” was promptly shut down; tellingly, at the behest of the Austrian Central Bank.  And how American economist Irving Fisher unsuccessfully petitioned Roosevelt to implement a similar monetary system, as a solution to America’s woes in the Great Depression.

The reason why a demurrage currency is essential for true social justice is this:  The product of labour – the sweat and effort of ordinary people – is subject to the natural laws of entropy.  The farmer’s produce spoils. The manufacturer’s product too has a “shelf life”.  It deteriorates, or is superseded.  The product of labour is compelled by the natural laws of entropy to find a buyer promptly.  If it does not, the producer – who has no personal use for surplus – inevitably suffers loss.  He wears the “carrying cost” of deteriorating product if it remains unsold.

The possessor of currency, by contrast, has an unfair advantage, if his currency is not likewise subject to entropy.  Simply by means of the unspoken threat to “shut his wallet” and withdraw temporarily from the marketplace, taking his non-deteriorating currency with him, he may force the producer – compelled as he is by the law of entropy – to lower the price of his ever-deteriorating goods.

This is the inevitable – and inequitable – consequence of adopting a form of currency that can also be perceived as a “store of value”.  The Supplier of currency (the buyer) is granted an unjust and unfair power over the Demander of currency (the producer/seller).  The very form of currency itself naturally encourages its possessor to mistreat and humiliate his fellow man, by taking advantage of the relative weakness of his bargaining position.  And arguably worst of all, the one who is disadvantaged is the producer of goods.  The engine, the very heart and soul of commerce and industry.  Simply by virtue of the possessor choosing to “save” his currency – since he also perceives it as a “store of value” – the  producer is forced by necessity to continually and ever more urgently lower the asking price for his goods, until the point at which the possessor becomes willing to enter the marketplace and buy.  While many may see this as “good business” or “driving a hard bargain”, it is hardly “to love thy neighbour as thyself”.

In the people’s NWO economy, there will never be a shortage of oil for the wheels of commerce.  Neither will there be an excess.  As with your car, too little and too much oil both are highly damaging.  One starves the engine of lubricant until the mechanism seizes.  The other causes a build up of excessive pressures, until the weakest part blows.

If you will accept this basic premise concerning a “natural currency” – even just for entertainment purposes for now – then the rationale for my idea will follow.

Before introducing it however, a disclaimer for context.  I am vehemently anti debt, and anti usury.  Since early this century, a significant proportion of my own modest material net “worth” has been in physical gold and silver bullion.  Stored beyond the reach of the banking system.  Yet, this choice is predicated by external circumstance, and not by ideology.  My research leads me to conclude that gold and silver “bugs”, “sound money” advocates, and “Constitutional money” proponents, are all most subtly, yet most profoundly, deceived.  There is a very logical and ancient reason why ancient occult (secret) society symbology is a persistent feature of the founding relics of the USA, of Washington DC, and indeed, of the Federal Reserve Note.  To return to a precious metal standard would achieve nothing more than to take one small step backwards – straight into the previous stage of the monetary trap laid for humanity by “the powers that be” (TPTB) over many centuries.

I believe that the current system will collapse.  By accident, or by design.  Waiting for it, and scheming/hoping to profit during or after the collapse, is a fool’s game.  Those who pull all the monetary strings, who have this exclusive “money issuance” power over us now, will have it then too.  Only more so.  Because whatever system is suggested by the authorities to replace the present one, you may rest assured that it will be their system.  Of their design.  For their benefit.  Ordo ab chaoOrder out of Chaos.

Unless We The People beat them to it.  By introducing our own monetary system.  Not by waiting on “democracy” so-called.  By exercising our “dangerous” personal initiative.

My idea for a new monetary system, to undermine and ultimately take over from the collapsing present order, is simple.  Build a complementary currency system.  Starting right now.  One where you, me, and every participant assumes the basic human right to become their own central banker.

After all, if it’s ok for a tiny minority to create their own currency out of thin air – and then enslave us for the privilege of using it – then what is to stop all of us – the great majority – from simply going out and doing exactly the same thing … but with un-selfish intentions?

Here’s how I picture NEO – a Natural Economic Order for the digital age, and a true people’s currency.  Imagine some genius has exercised personal initiative, and created an encrypted software program that you can download.  It functions using peer-to-peer networks (thus, that much more difficult for TPTB to close down).  Let’s imagine that it is called “Jubileeus”.

The Creator.

And the Deliverer from debt slavery.

Using this program, you can create your own digital currency, right out of thin air.  Just like the central banksters.  There’s no cost.  No fees.  No interest charged.  Ever.  But (unlike the banksters’ system) there are encrypted, pre-programmed limits and conditions.  To ensure the system is functionally stable, and socially just.  And most importantly, to encourage right behaviours that are conducive to a stable, just, and equitable society.

You choose the initial amount you wish to create.  This will be your positive bank balance, denominated in “Jubileeus” currency.  When you create new currency, you will automatically have a second, linked account too – showing a negative balance, in the same amount.  That’s because you have taken up the solemn privilege – a future Human Right – of creating your own “credit” for yourself.  In other words, you “borrowed” currency out of thin air, to aid your dealings in the marketplace.  But that’s ok.  Everyone should have appropriate access to (not free “money” but) free currency.  So that everyone is empowered to contribute equally to oiling the wheels of commerce and industry.

In most respects, this currency system functions just like the familiar cash transaction (ie, positive credit) and loan accounts that you might have with your local bank.  Spending your Jubileeus to purchase goods and services will decrease your positive bank balance towards zero, just as you would expect.  When you sell something, or otherwise earn more Jubileeus, there is a subtle difference though.  You do not have a choice to not pay down your negative (“loan”) balance first.  Why?  The system designer believed it best to encourage people to learn to reduce their negatives, before giving thought to increasing their positives.  So any Jubileeus received automatically pays down your negative balance first, reducing it towards zero, rather than simply increasing your positive balance.  Having any income automatically applied in full to your “loan” account first, will create no hardship for anyone – if you are ever short of currency in your positive (“credit”) balance to pay the bills or buy groceries, you simply “borrow” (ie, create) some more currency.

I suspect that there are “sound money” advocates screaming about now, that such a system is ignorant, insane, and doomed to failure.  For many there will be an automatic negative emotive response, because even this kernel of the idea instantly evokes the spectre of free, unlimited “money” supply, and fears of hyperinflation.  Doubtless some will be recalling the many historical incidents of excessive currency issuance by spendthrift dictators and politicians, and recoiling in horror or laughing in derision.  Patience, friend.  Your fears will be addressed by the end.

Two points to consider.  First, the fact of excessive currency issuance in the past does not logically necessitate tying currency issuance to physical commodities (eg, gold/silver).  In point of fact, doing precisely this has been the first stage tactic employed by TPTB over many centuries for gaining control over kings and peoples.  Linking currency issuance to a physical commodity does not limit your ability to expand or contract the total of available currency, if you already control the stocks, and/or the supply, and/or the  public reporting of reserves of that particular commodity.  On the contrary, encouraging, coercing, and/or bribing kings and politicians to pass laws linking currency issuance to a commodity that you already control, actually increases your ability to manipulate the currency irresponsibly, fraudulently, or indeed, nefariously.  It provides another layer of deception. Another curtain behind which to hide, while you pull the levers of power.

Secondly, you are quite correct.  Excessive currency issuance is indeed a real danger to be avoided.  Too much oil in the car eventually blows up the engine. The question is, How to avoid it?  Historical precedent suggests that the real challenge lies not only in the form of currency chosen, but also in the matter of Who has power to control its issuance.

Our “people’s currency” could address this danger simply and effectively, by way of a built-in, automated Honour rating system.  Don’t laugh.  I’m serious.

Let’s imagine again.  You’ve downloaded the Jubileeus software.  You decide to create an initial “loan” to yourself of 50,000 Jubileeus.  You now have a positive “credit” balance of 50,000, and a negative “loan” balance of 50,000.  The system automatically flags your account with a publicly visible Honour rating.  Of just 50%.

Every time you conduct a peer-to-peer transaction with another participant, they can see your Honour rating before proceeding.  And just as with eBay’s feedback system, some will decline to trade with you if they have doubts about your character, integrity, and indeed, your honour, as implied by your Honour rating.  In the people’s NWO of the future, in light of our experiences of the terrible outcome of permissive attitudes to financial corruption, immorality, selfishness and fraud, I suspect that any question mark over your financial “honour” will weigh far more heavily on others’ thoughts and social consciences than we have seen in recent decades.  Having an Honour rating of xx% or worse may result in your becoming a pariah in a society that has, through great pain and suffering, come to see the value of a strong social conscience.

The automated Honour rating system therefore encourages you to carefully consider whether you really need 50,000 Jubileeus.  After all, are you really going to spend it all now?  Since you can create currency for yourself whenever you need it, perhaps it is wiser to just create an initial balance of 5,000 Jubileeus.  And have a 95% Honour rating instead.

How do you improve your Honour rating?  Go out and work.  Create something.  Build something.  Sell something.  Ask for payment in Jubileeus.  After all, every other guy can also create new Jubileeus to pay you with.  (Just as in Wörgl, Austria, how rapidly might Depression-level unemployment rates fall towards zero, if everyone had access to a free people’s currency such as this?)  As you earn more “money” currency, your negative balance is automatically reduced, ever nearer to that perfect zero point.  And your Honour rating improves accordingly.

The zero point is perfect?  Yes.  Having zero represents the perfect moral and social position on personal use of free currency.  And the only way to have a 100% Honour rating, is to have a zero bank balance.

Just because you may completely pay down your previous (interest-free) “loan” balance – or, perhaps you never needed one – this does not mean that it is ok to start hoarding currency.  It is the oil on the wheels of commerce, and is supposed to constantly circulate, remember?  By hoarding currency, you are indulging in anti-social behaviours.  You could and should be passing currency ever onwards, in exchange for the fruits of others labour, thus doing your part to provide employment and opportunity for all your fellow men.  If you truly have no need or desire for more of others products or services right now, then you could and should be investing for the longer term. Perhaps in dividend-paying shares in a sound and ethical public (or private) company.  Or, perhaps simply in a true “store of value”.

So in the same manner as a negative balance, a positive balance is also penalised automatically with a reduced Honour rating.  Should there be a difference between your positive (“credit”) balance and negative (“loan”) balance, then the Honour rating is based on the larger – thus the “worst” – of the two balances.  For example, if you have 10,000 in positive, along with a 5,000 negative balance, your Honour rating will be 90%.  Not 95%.  But pay off your 5,000 negative “loan” balance with 5,000 from your positive “credit” balance, and you will be rewarded with that 95% Honour rating.

Finally, what about the demurrage aspect?  Recall that our basic premise is that the ideal “people’s currency” should be designed to automatically deteriorate if not used to conduct transactions.  Gesell’s original innovation of applying a “carrying cost” to currency – hence Stamp Scrip – is the primary means to encourage proactive circulation of currency rather than hoarding.  (My Honour rating idea is supplemental, but importantly, it also serves to discourage greed in the initial act of creating new currency by appealing directly to our sense of public reputation, personal integrity, and self-worth).

How do you make a purely electronic currency deteriorate?  I imagine some genius out there could simply pre-programme the software to automatically reduce all account balances – positive and negative – towards zero by a fixed percentage, calculated weekly and summed since last log-on.  How much should this fixed percentage be?  Gesell advocated an annual “carrying cost” rate for currency of 5.2%, or 1/10th of 1% per week.  I have no idea if this is an appropriate figure – though it would appear that it certainly worked a treat in Austria until the banksters had it shut down.  Perhaps some free-thinking economist (oxymoron?) will read this, and be interested enough to research and offer advice.

Once again, the system encourages you to use your Jubileeus.  If you have it and don’t use it, it slowly but surely fades away.  Back towards the zero point.

Such a system not only encourages productivity (ie, hard work).  It encourages creativity and innovation (ie, what new product can I make? what new service can I offer?).

It eliminates poverty. No one need ever again have insufficient “money” to purchase the basic necessities of life, when every person is their own central banker.

It also applies natural limits to global “growth”.  And thus, to the impacts on our environment and natural resources.

Under a Jubileeus system, no longer are there cabals of greedy banksters’ creating endless “credit” – at interest – in order to finance the Ponzi scheme of “capitalist” perpetual economic growth. And enslaving humanity to debt servitude in the process.

Instead, Jubileeus means that “growth” is naturally limited by the total number of human beings on the planet, multiplied by the sum of their collective willingness to “Honour” each others’ Jubileeus. Not only are there pre-programmed rules on the amount of currency that an individual can create. There is also a natural limit on how much public “disHonour” that people are willing to take upon themselves by creating more currency than they actually need at any time. And, there is a natural limit on how much “disHonour” that people are willing to accept in others, when choosing whether or not to buy or sell with other individuals.

Jubileeus means a true declaration of individual independence from those who control each and every one of us, through their exclusive control over the creation, and issuance, of  “money”.

Jubileeus means that every day, is independents’ day.

There you have it.  That’s my Big Idea.  I hope it inspires you to think about what is really happening to us all, and what (if anything) you are going to do about it.

For my part, I look forward to reading your thoughts, constructive criticisms, and insights.  Because I’d like to do something more than just ponder all this.  I’d welcome contacts from any who may be of like mind, and wish to get involved in a real project to bring this idea – or something better – to fruition.  Truth be told, I have the time and motivation, but lack the necessary technical skills to realise this alone.

I’d also welcome feedback from anyone who may be inspired to independently try something similar.

There’s plenty of alternative currency ideas out there – the Ripple Project, and more prominently Bitcoin, are two that spring to mind.

There’s also free-spirited genius software developers such as “Jaromil“, who has developed a tool that allows you to connect your computer with your neighbours – essentially bypassing the telecomms infrastructure – using the wireless card in computers and creating an effective “new net.”

Just imagine the revolutionary power of such brilliantly simple low-technology – combined with any number of possible hardware solutions such as One Laptop Per Child, or even just reuse of abundant, “redundant”, discarded-but-functional Western consumer PC hardware – in helping every human being worldwide, especially in developing nations, to each become their own central banker too.

Imagine too, the effect of such a system on human relations and solidarity. In Jaromil’s Dyne:Bolic example, you become reliant on your neighbour to break out into the network.  Inherent in this system is the expression of “love thy neighbour” – we must share, before we can benefit. Imagine how we would all feel about our neighbours, if they were the only way we could connect to (and buy-sell with) the rest of the world.

There’s also the grassroots network of hackers at ‘digital foundry’, and the researchers and developers at These are all doing sterling work as they “Imagine the Future of Money”.

Unfortunately, in the words of Henry David Thoreau, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil for every one striking at the root”.  My research suggests to me that all the complementary currency systems currently out there are flawed in key aspects, and so represent a less-than-ideal solution if we are to have a sustainable, tamper-proof, boom-and-bust proof, truly egalitarian system of free “money” to serve the human race.  But that’s just my viewpoint, and I wish everyone the best who may have a mind to try setting up a new and better currency in competition with TPTB.

The system that I have proposed here, a “mutual company” so to speak, or a “commonwealth of stewardship”,  represents a singular threat to the #1 weapon which those who would continue to reign over us possess.


Their current plan to address the fear of global systemic banking risk – a fear which they have created through control of the boom-and-bust “cycle”, of which the GFC is only the most recent example – is to divorce the transactional currency system from the store of wealth system.

This is precisely what my idea would achieve … without the centralised control.

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, gave a speech at the Buttonwood Gathering in New York on October 25, 2010. His speech was titled “Banking: From Bagehot to Basel, and Back Again.”

Here’s an excerpt from the speech (emphasis added)*:

Another avenue of reform is some form of functional separation. The Volcker Rule is one example. Another, more fundamental, example would be to divorce the payment system from risky lending activity – that is to prevent fractional reserve banking (for example, as proposed by Fisher, 1936, Friedman, 1960, Tobin, 1987 and more recently by Kay, 2009).

In essence these proposals recognise that if banks undertake risky activities then it is highly dangerous to allow such “gambling” to take place on the same balance sheet as is used to support the payments system, and other crucial parts of the financial infrastructure. And eliminating fractional reserve banking explicitly recognises that the pretence that risk-free deposits can be supported by risky assets is alchemy. If there is a need for genuinely safe deposits the only way they can be provided, while ensuring costs and benefits are fully aligned, is to insist such deposits do not coexist with risky assets.

Straight from the mouth of Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King. Separating the “store of value” system, from the “currency” system. In its effect, precisely what the system I propose would achieve.

But with the banksters still in control of both systems.

Unless We The People beat them to it.

But first, we need to wake up.

We need to understand the true and proper nature of “money”, and “currency”. So that we are not hoodwinked by the next stage of the global bankster scam.

Many are aware of the evils of “fractional reserve banking”. And it is these who will be the first to sing “Hallelujah!” and fall for the trap, when TPTB suggest doing away with fractional reserve banking as a “solution” to the global systemic banking crisis that they have created.

The only way that “money” can truly be rendered a servant to mankind, is with a decentralised system.

One that no one controls. And every one shares.

A “Natural Economic Order”.

With the writing on the wall ever clearer, and financial doomsday drawing nearer, I honestly reckon that we all have little to lose – and everything to gain – by trying to exercise some “dangerous” personal initiative.

Will yours be the one with genius behind it?

Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have.  It is the very last inch of us, but within that inch, we are free.


Beneath this mask there is more than flesh.  Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr Creedy.  And ideas are bulletproof!

– V

* Acknowledgement – reference to Mervyn King speech originally cited and brought to this author’s attention by Dave Harrison

23 Responses to “The People’s NWO: Every Man His Own Central Banker”

  1. maatilda July 7, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    Put my yukky medicine face on and read this. V pleased however that you included PolEconomics 101 intro for the likes of me, and then gently backgrounded to your point. My conclusion? Not looking forward to the inevitable GFC catastrophe, but if this is rising from the ashes then bring it on!

  2. maatilda July 7, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    Confidentially ***** , I think you should take a leaf from James Johnsons worthy book. Nominate for a prominent seat, then sit back and wait for press attention to focus on you and your policies, philosophy (and hidden agendas it must be said) . Less to it than you think. And you could get lucky like Vic DLP senate seat winner. (That’s >140 chars I’ll bet!)

  3. Fred July 9, 2011 at 11:37 pm #

    BI, you are a deep and wide thinker. This is so novel I can’t think what to say yet. I’m literally gob-smacked. Nevertheless a seed is planted and I guess that is something. I have read of decentralised currency making before; bank issued notes, where for example various commercial banks dollar notes circulated together. As if RBA notes were as good as the notes of other banks like the NAB or ANZ – as long as they behaved. They had to keep a good reputation in the market for people to accept and use their currency. You however have taken the idea to a new electronic age level, which I suppose, given the right software smarts, who knows what may result?

    • The Blissful Ignoramus July 10, 2011 at 12:26 am #

      “…a seed is planted and I guess that is something.”

      That’s the important thing 🙂

  4. Chris Foster (@chris_foster) September 19, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    Regarding the divorced currency system, I believe you may have absorbed this information from Dave Harrison who put Mervyn Kings speech into context on February 13th, 2011 via a blog post and via comments on Zero Hedge and Max Keisers blog. If that is correct, his work should be acknowledged in my opinion.

    Regarding the destruction of the currency after a certain period of time, if I am right, this was the normal course of commerce prior to World War One via ‘Real Bills of Exchange’ ( circulate for 90 days after which they are extinguished/ redeemed for metal)

    When talking about precious metals as money/currency i.e Gold Standard or Bi-Metalic standard, I think the works of Professor Anatal Fekete could be referenced when stating that such a system is no longer viable. Antal states that utilizing Gold and Silver as money, cannot be successful without also implementing ‘Real Bills’ in combination i.e minus Real Bills a metal standard is set up to fail.

    Bankers have exclusive power to create credit and hoards of gold are held in private hands, both correct. A struggle between the Political and Banking classes as to who has the right to issue the peoples money supply. So maybe governments can grow a pair and take back the right to issue the money supply and maintain very low to zero inflation. They can also outlaw the private holding/hoarding of Gold by any entity but itself.

    Virtual currencies will be hacked/ reverse engineered as will electronic voting systems. Paper and metallic currencies, along with voting being superseded by binary is a worry. How’s that electronic property system in the USA going?

    I think your ideas have merit and would be great for the world, but I feel it would have to be mandated by government to grab back power from the ‘Capital Machine’ as coined by Damon Vabel:

    So while the ideas of new currency systems continue, should the main objective be to bring governments back to the heel of the people? I’m not sure the money wheel has to be re-invented, when the world has had periods of stability with either government issued currency or a gold/real bills standard.

    ‘Freigeld’ is only one part of Silvio Gesell’s theory of ‘Freiwirtschaft’ (Free economy – natural economic order) via Wikipedia

    Not sure (2) would prove too popular, because ‘Property Rights are Human Rights’ ? ( quote: Murray Rothbard )

    (1) Freigeld (free money)
    All money is issued for a limited period by constant value (neither inflation, nor deflation).
    Long-term saving requires investment in bonds or stocks.

    (2) Freiland (free land)
    All land is owned by public institutions and can only be rented, not purchased.

    (3) Freihandel (Free Trade)
    Free Trade has long been a mainstream position now, but the anti-globalization, movement largely opposes it.

    I would assume in this theory, that all 3 parts would require implementing to achieve Gesell’s desired outcome?

    • The Blissful Ignoramus September 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm #

      Thanks for the insights and links Chris. Yes, Dave Harrison brought the Mervyn King speech to my attention, after his reading my essay posted elsewhere. Now so acknowledged.

  5. spencer October 7, 2012 at 9:17 am #

    You should check out MtnHours in Breckenridge, Summit county,Co. We have started our own currency. Also Mile high hours in Denver, Soon to come Clearwater hours Fla. and Long Island Hours, N.Y. Very similar to what you have discribed, help us along and get one started in your area. Wayne will guide you through the process.

  6. Democraatus October 24, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    This is where you lost me: “By hoarding currency, you are indulging in anti-social behaviours.”

    By no means does a person behave anti-social if he choses not to invest but to hold. It provides a much needed signal to markets and enables market participants to correctly ‘read’ the prevailing preferences.

    But please do not feel restricted to feel otherwise.

  7. jo January 4, 2013 at 12:08 am #

    hey i have been pondering on this question a long time and i really like your system. i can see this spreading like wildfire with the software program and maybe an app. question – what do you think will happen to our mortgages and loans? will they just evaporate or will the banksters enforce some kind of freaky control over our property e.g. foreclose us all? great idea what a beautiful concept keep going with it please 🙂

    • The Blissful Ignoramus January 6, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

      You’re right, an integrated app allowing users to transact with each other via their phones would be an obvious extension. I’m also partial to the idea that simply recycling discarded “developed world” technology (pc’s, modems, handsets, etc) can allow such a system to be brought to the developing world very cheaply too.

      An answer to your question about what might happen re current mortgages etc would take too long to do here, as it is a wide-ranging issue, with lots of possibilities. Inevitably, it would be rather speculative too. I have recently been re-inspired to pursue development of this system, so perhaps I may write another post to that end sometime soon. Thanks for your encouraging words.

  8. Tavroch March 24, 2013 at 1:36 am #

    I was very pleasantly surpised when I read your idea of a money system based on populaton size. It was the very first time I read about this since I discovered it for myself. A few years back, when contemplating money and the ruling financial system, I realized that this is the only really fair money system possible, thinking beyond PMs as a backing for money. Possible problems: 1) Doesn’t this invite the reintroduction of slavery or feudalism in some form or other? By owning or controling people by force one can control or acquire their Jubileeus. 2) This depends completely on the advanced infrastructure needed for computers and networks. This implies an inherent information asymmetry which can (and thus will) be taken advantage of by the same parasites that control us now. 3) Aside from that, if the coming collapse is really profound (and the longer it is postponed, the more profound it will be) there will no longer be such an infrastructure.

    My conclusions for now: a sustainable currency system should be based on something really simple and basic that should be impossible to forge and that can be checked and handled by anyone without the need for any special tools or infrastructure. Otherwise the door will always be open for the parasites. At the same time there should be total and worldwide freedom of information to prevent any information asymmetry that can be taken advantage of. Quite a tall order. I seriously doubt if we are ready for this.

  9. mikestasse April 28, 2013 at 7:51 am #

    Reblogged this on Damn the Matrix and commented:
    Found this through the blogosphere network……. well worth the read (don’t let the Barnaby Joyce thing put you off….!), and I’d love to hear what DTM readers think of this…

  10. mikestasse April 28, 2013 at 8:01 am #

    “The product of labour is compelled by the natural laws of entropy to find a buyer promptly. If it does not, the producer – who has no personal use for surplus – inevitably suffers loss.”

    Not necessarily. I farm sustainably. I only produce food for me and mine. I often have surpluses, right now it’s cucumbers, soon it will be pumpkins……. but I plough them back into the ground (after composting) such that my soil continuously improves over time. Having done this for some time now….. I hardly have to work, and certainly not for MONEY!!

    • The Blissful Ignoramus April 28, 2013 at 8:23 am #

      Individually true for some of course, Mike. However, our context here is human society more broadly –

      “I only produce food for me and mine”.

      Not everyone on the planet can be a self-sustaining food producer, and, have neither any need nor desire for what products or produce others can provide. Nor would such be an ideal base situation for the overall progress of humankind, it could be argued. I think the basic premise as I have outlined it broadly holds true in practice.

  11. davekimble2 April 28, 2013 at 4:19 pm #

    Isn’t this just a LETS system, described from another slant?

    If it is set up as a true peer-to-peer network, (i.e no central database) then there would have to be a lot of traffic between peers updating everybody’s database. A central database on a server would be much simpler to implement, secure, update and back-up.

    The eBay “reputation” system shows the seller’s number of sales and %age positive feedback, and has a shop-front to advertise the goods/services on offer.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus April 28, 2013 at 4:49 pm #

      LETS systems typically have some form of central authority. Those that correctly identify the need for demurrage often have actual “carrying cost” charges in existing currencies applied to the LETS currency. There are other key differences too, depending on which particular LETS system we are contrasting/comparing.

  12. KP April 29, 2013 at 3:14 am #

    Would this new system be mandatory,forced upon us by some authority,or would it be voluntary? I am all for voluntary participation in commerce by consending adults.
    By the way,assuming we had some politicians,police and military left in society,how would these people get fed?

    • The Blissful Ignoramus April 29, 2013 at 7:10 am #

      Definitely voluntary, is how I envision it. In fact, that’s why my observation in the essay wishing all the best to those with alternate currency ideas. I think that a world of competing decentralised currencies is how things should be – everyone should have complete freedom of choice whether to participate in any use of any particular currency. As things stand now, we are all forced to use the “money” of our local rulers, due to legal tender laws – thus have to pay our taxes in whatever currency the government (actually, their bankers) dictate.

      EDIT: Regarding politicians, police, military, they would earn income (in Jubileeus) in the same way they do now. If you pause to contemplate how it would all work, you could still have a government, with government employees. Taking away government’s exclusive powers over “money” though, would hand greater (direct democracy?) power to the masses.

  13. graphite May 3, 2013 at 4:13 pm #

    Hi all, Thanks for the interesting site and discussion. As a newbie here I’m impressed with the cutting edge thinking about money; something that I’ve considered more closely in recent months.

    I look at the works of different blogs / authors and see that there is a range of opinion about what’s broken with our current system of creating money. Some call for a return to the gold standard. Others claim that fractional reserves are the issue – and want a 100% reserve requirement. Still others see interest as the issue. Some want money created by government, interest free, for spending on public works. Others want money created by government, interest free, paid to citizens as a kind of dividend. Some say that state owned banks are the answer..

    Personally I’m still working through the various positions and don’t imagine I’ll have any answers in the short term.

    I like the Jubileeus idea, though, because it seems logical and goes some way to addressing two issues that I tend to think are fundamental – interest and overborrowing.

    With that in mind, I do have some questions / suggestions:

    . The Honour system is interesting in that it could potentially identify (in a negative way) those who create currency for their own expenditure without crediting their own accounts through earnings. However, I’m not sure how the system would differentiate between those who have a big ‘debit’ balance because they just don’t earn anything, vs those who temporarily have a big debit balance because they’ve created currency to buy a house, or business, or something else substantial. This latter group may be able to ‘pay off’ their debit balance over a longer period of time and shouldn’t be ‘dishonoured’ in the same way as someone who just creates currency for consumption without ever earning anything. Perhaps the ‘honour’ system could identify those who aren’t paying down their debit balance at a particular rate, rather than those who simply have a big debit balance?

    . The idea of a progressively devaluing currency (via Gesell) is worth looking into further. I understand that this Jubileeus system is designed to work as an alternative currency – outside the control of government, however, if it were implemented as a national system by government the value removed from hoarded currency could be used to fund public spending, instead of relying on taxes and charges as at present.

    . The original post, above, isn’t entirely clear about whether the proposed value deterioration process would apply only to accumulated credits, or to accumulated debits as well. I understand that rationale for deteriorating credits but not sure how the debits would work?

    . The original post also says “It (the Jubileeus system) eliminates poverty. No one need ever again have insufficient “money” to purchase the basic necessities of life, when every person is their own central banker”. Not sure I understand this. I get that without the burden of interest, fewer people will be forced into poverty, but this sounds like something more? Let’s say I’m totally lazy and don’t want to earn any currency at all. As i understand it, I could create enough currency to get by using this system – and accumulate a deficit that would see me ‘dishonoured’ by the system. Fair enough. Perhaps there are limits envisaged so that I can’t go wild..? Alternatively, if I received Jubileeus from the government as a benefit, I could live within my means by balancing my spending with my income. But that wouldn’t eliminate poverty, of itself. It’d be interesting to know what you had in mind here..

    In summary, great idea that deserves further thought.


    • The Blissful Ignoramus May 3, 2013 at 5:47 pm #

      Hi Graphite,

      Thanks for your comments and observations. A couple of responses to your questions:

      1. “I’m not sure how the system would differentiate between those who have a big ‘debit’ balance because they just don’t earn anything, vs those who temporarily have a big debit balance because they’ve created currency to buy a house, or business, or something else substantial” – You’re right, the Jubileeus idea as described would not distinguish between these two actions. That, I think, is a good thing, for this reason: it would discourage people from excessive borrowing – even against their own “credit” – just to make large asset purchases. When you pause to think about it, doing just this is both (a) a key reason why the world is so indebted now (the “I have not saved anything, but want it now, and will borrow to have it” mentality, one encouraged by the moneylenders-at-usury), and (b) the temptation that the moneylenders exploit in order to ply their parasitic “trade”. A fundamental concept that Jubileeus is built on, is that “savings” (ie, investment) should be done in real assets; “currency” should not be used for saving/investment, but purely as a medium of exchange, NOT a store-of-value. There are many ways in which a Jubileeus user could potentially “finance” a large asset purchase without simply resorting to going into massive Honour-deficit to do so (eg, a total stock purchase agreement/commitment, with payments and amount of stock received per payment spread out over time). However, in general I would maintain that it is better for people to “save” (invest) in real assets until they have sufficient in order to sell/trade those assets for the large asset they desire.

      2. “I get that without the burden of interest, fewer people will be forced into poverty, but this sounds like something more?” – It is not merely the absence of interest, but also, the equal access to a fair and equitable currency system that would (over time) serve to eliminate poverty. There are many additional reasons why solving the true root problem will have that flow-on effect – perhaps I should expand on the theme, with an essay just on this. However, for now merely consider that it is well-documented that as a society grows in general happiness and wellbeing, there are more people who are more willing to share, engage in philanthropy, etc. Have a read of this post (A May Economic Jeremiad For All Ages) for a small insight into how England came to have the name of “Merry England”, during the period when usury was completely outlawed.

  14. usurykills October 7, 2013 at 4:33 am #

    There is already a simple and elegant solution to the economic problem — Mathematically Perfected Economy(TM.) It is the work of Mike Montagne and has been described since 1979.

    Mike’s site was one of the very first on the net and has been plagiarized by many of the “big name” alternative currency/system promoters/authors. Unlike Mike, they all have something to sell you (and it ain’t MPE.)

    What you describe is confusing. I think it is unworkable, but how can I be sure without understanding it? -5000 and +1000 is 90 or 95% “honesty?” Honestly! Money with time stamps? The people creating money today have no honor, that much we agree upon!

    If you want to strike the root, the root is usury. Usury is interest. Interest is a form of cheating, and cheating is the best description of usury there is.


  1. On giving up | Damn the Matrix - May 6, 2013

    […] for him/herself.  Nothing will change until the monetary system we currently follow is dumped, and a new world order like that written up earlier is […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: