During The Great Depression in the United States from 1929 to 1932, what the bankers thought would never happen did finally happen. A wave of "bank runs" happened when depositors in large numbers panicked and withdrew their funds at once causing then President Franklin D. Roosevelt in March 12, 1933, to close all banks. Then in 1933 he proceeded to outlaw private gold ownership (except for the purposes of jewelry), gold was taken out of the picture completely with the exception that the value of paper money was still stabilized by the fixed price of an ounce gold. 

Then on August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon ended the fixed price of an ounce of gold allowing the value of money to become unstable. With the gold standard erased banks went to what's called a fiat currency. The words printed on the dollar bill changed from "This Bill Is Redeemable in Gold," to “This Bill Is Legal Tender For All Debts, Public and Private."

So what exactly is a fiat currency? A fiat currency holds value by mutual agreement. For example: all the citizens of a country agree to accept a means of exchange by mutually agreeing to do so. It’s also accepted by “order of the Government”, meaning that the money has value because the Government has ordered it to be so and this order is backed by the full military might of the Government and its willingness to force anyone to accept the currency. 

Should another country not agree to accept the currency of another, this is means for war. Money has been and still remains the only reason for war. The value of a fiat currency is ruled by world supply and demand and is inflated or deflated by interest rates fairly easily, this is why gas used to be $0.50 per gallon but now it's $4.00 per gallon. It is not that gas actually went up, it is the value of the money used to purchase gas went down.

Once a currency becomes a fiat its value doesn't exist. Instead of holding value in tangible resources, it has become common for people to hold it in the means of exchange and a fiat medium of exchange does not have any real value. This is why the term real estate means real and tangible property.

All economies of Empires eventually reach the point of having a fiat currency they all go through the same stages:

All Empires start out with money of real value which is precious because of its limited quantities. To allow the rich to enjoy their money without interruption by revolt of the poor the empire implement social programs to meet the survival needs of its poor for food and shelter, in the United States this is done with programs such as food stamps and section 8 housing projects.

The Empire's wealth is poured into expanding its military. The expanded military is put to use in unnecessary wars. The wars drive up the expenses of the empire as a result the money is replaced with a type of money that can be produced in unlimited quantity and is of no real value such as paper money (Fiat money). The value of the new money continues to decrease (inflation) which is seen by the people as if the cost of real goods such as food is actually increasing.

The wealthy begin to move their wealth out of the valueless money and back into precious commodities such as gold, cotton, land or silver, the price of precious commodities increase drastically because of the new demand and the fact that the fiat money has not real value and eventually dies. Those who have not moved their wealth back into items of real value will be left bankrupt.


Over the last 100 years 30 countries have gone through this cycle the United States have gone through it twice in the last 200 years. The most millionaires are made during economic depressions and millionaires also become billionaires. 


Banks came about because gold was too heavy and cumbersome to carry around. In the early days it was actually  men who carried purses because they had gold in it. But you can imagine that large transactions involving bars of gold can be very strenuous which is why banking became useful So you would place gold on deposit and the bank would issue you a deposit receipt, a certificate of guarantee or bank note later became known as money. 

Businessmen would exchange a banknote which was the proof of how much gold he had on deposit for goods and services then the merchant could go to the bank present the banknote to take possession of the gold or just exchange again with another merchant.

In those days each town had its own bank and printed its own notes. The number of notes issued was determined by how much gold reserves each bank had in its vaults.


The bankers realized that only they knew how much gold they really had on deposit. So, they took advantage of that opportunity 
by printing more notes than they had gold. Since the banknote was as good as gold people readily exchanged it and the bankers became wealthy off this scheme. 

That was the beginning of the pyramid scheme that continues to this day. They knew that it was unlikely that every depositor would come to withdraw their gold at the same time so they just recycled the deposits and withdrawals. 

All gold looked the same anyways and was measured by weight. If you would allow me to get a bit conspiratorial for a moment and note the image of the pyramid on the current version of the U.S Dollar bill. Eventually, larger banks took over the local banks until there was only one central bank that provided money to all the local banks the value of which was based on gold.

Then they made it official, the fractional lending system which made it legal for banks to lend out more money than the value in its vaults. Thus, if the reserve requirement is 10%, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $1,000. 


What is money and how did money come about? In the old times people would simply exchange one tangible resource for another, or in the case of a market setting, several people would exchange many tangible resources amongst each other otherwise known as the barter system. 

As societies became more modern, there became a need to have a medium of exchange that can be easily measured A dollar for example, is a unit of measurement like a gallon or a pound of a commodity. In all seriousness when someone says “give me 20 dollars” your response should be “20 dollars of what?” That's all money is; a medium or temporary a holding state of something of value in a specific amount, the same as ice can be a temporary holding state of water. The original purpose of money was not to become the permanent holding instrument for value as it has become in today's society.

Let’s say that I am a carpenter and I have some wood and you are a butcher and you have some beef. I need beef but you don't need any wood. How do we exchange? How do we both get what we both need? How can we do business? This is why the medium of exchange became useful. So since you don't need any wood, I can exchange money instead and you can go and get whatever it is that you do need. So money is essentially whatever you want it to be.
The current form of money is different than it was in the early human societies. Money was once a tangible resource such as gold, silver or some “real” commodity. Today money is simply a number printed on fancy paper or some digits on a computer screen.

The way in which individuals get money and who controls the value of it is the important thing. Let's suppose you are a farmer and you own a lot of natural and tangible resources. However, you need to develop your resources in order to build an income for yourself and expand your farm. So you go to a bank and ask for a loan of $100,000.

The Banker looks at you and asks, “Okay, what do you have as collateral?” So you tell the Banker that you have a lot of land, animals and wood. So, the Banker says, “Okay, we will accept that.” So you put up your farm as collateral and the Bank loans you the $100,000. What did you just do? In essence, what you just did was hand over something of real value in exchange for something of no real value.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the Bank is actually still in control of the value of what they remitted to you, because the bank controls interest rates that they use to inflate and deflate the value of the money they just loaned you.

So you borrowed the money to buy tractors and other farm equipment. At the time you took out the loan a tractor cost $10,000 but now a tractor cost $12,500. It’s not that the tractor went up in value, it’s that your money went down in value due to inflation and who controls inflation? The bank.


In other words, if I were to loan you $5.00 but I have a string made of inflation attached to the $5.00 and as soon as you walk away from me I pull the string, suddenly your $5.00 is worth $4.50, I pull it again a few days later and now its worth $4.00, then $3.00, then $2.25 then down to $2.00. 

However, as in the previous example, the Bank will own your farm if you fail to repay the loan with the agreed interest. The value of your farm will not decrease but the value of the money you borrowed will. It will also cost you more if you ever had to buy another farm after the bank foreclose on the farm you put up for collateral. 

A monetary economic system traps people in cyclical and ever accumulating debt but since monetary systems currently operate as a monopoly we will explore one possible way we could transition from a monetary based economy to a resource based economy.

A resource based economy uses human ingenuity applied to natural resources to invent technologies that would gradually free earthlings from labor permanently. So how would this work? Currently, when a new machine is developed to do manufacturing, people are upset because that means an earthling will lose their job. However, this need not be the case. 

Take an automobile manufacturer for instance, once upon a time all labor down to every screw was screwed in by a human hand.  Then machines came and started doing some of the work which freed some people from performing some functions in the manufacturing process.

With the addition of a machine the human labor time required to produce an automobile is reduced by some units. Let's say 40 hours a week for instance, which allows the company to fire one human worker to save the company money. Instead of laying off that human worker, what if the company simply reduced the workweek from 40 hours to 39 hours for each human worker at the plant while maintaining the same salary for all. The plant did not lose production capacity; however, it freed one hour of human time to be spent enjoying life instead of working.

Imagine that this happened in every company and government all over the world as more advanced technology and better machines take over more and more labor. Eventually, we could all have a 20 hour work week instead of 40 allowing more time for everyone in the society to spend nurturing their children, learning new skills, developing the arts and making new discoveries that will further ease the strains of life. 

Eventually, we may all only have to work a few hours a month, perhaps even not at all for the first 30 years of our lives. Paying workers back with their own time  is the most valuable and effective way to increase quality of life and allow everyone to share in the equity of human  advancement and ingenuity.  It also prevents inflation completely. 

Sure, there will be a few lazy people who will sit at home and do nothing but that's OK we have that now. But the vast majority of people would pursue their passions to the benefit of us all. Any number of scenarios could happen based on this “pack” model all of which would be better than the “eat what you kill” model we currently live in.

Instead this is what happens now: The owner(s) of the company uses less human labor to produce a car much faster. The increased efficiency results in bigger profits that the owner(s) places in his bank account. The size of the owner’s bank account increases beyond what he or his family can use within their lifetimes. Most of the time their money is just sitting in a virtual world seen as digits on a computer screen doing absolutely nothing for anyone, not even the owner.


The earth has enough natural energy and resources now. We have enough knowledge now, and we also have enough labor now to build the technology necessary to free all earthlings of labor along with all its ills. Generation in the future would inherit such high standard of living that we would be able to pursue spiritual advancement, space travel, and even populate the oceans with cities if we wanted to. 

But since we didn't develop that kind of society generations ago, we have to work but labor remains the only real currency. A monetary system is a pyramid scheme of the highest order based on ascending wage levels. At it's base, all human labor has the same value. The only variance is the scarcity for labor in various sectors.


Most people never realize that when they work and receive money in exchange, that new money is not being printed for them. The worker is simply getting in line to receive a share of money that is already circulating. 

When the Central Bank prints additional money, it actually has a negative effect called inflation that makes the money already in circulation able to buy less goods because the supply of money has increased. 

In a monetary system, money, the same as labor, is ruled by supply and demand. With a monetary system in place each person is automatically born into debt since each human life requires food, shelter, and security and these things cost money. 

The debt inherited from your birth many times is taken on by your parents for a certain period of time or until you are expected to pay for your own survival. Labor is what you do to pay debts. Any labor that is in excess of your debt, the cost to live your life, is your net worth.

This excess labor is the most common way people get the flow of money energy circulating in their life in our current society. The point at which you begin to earn above the cost of living is usually where money problems should start to improve but often it begins to get worse and worse. 

It is at this point; the point of just-over-broke (JOB) that most people begin to stagnate the flow of money in their life.

Cash flow stagnation occurs because the expulsion of labor energy for higher and higher pay is seen as the only way to increase money and thus security.


People who have little or no inheritance, or those who's parents may not be able to afford to pay for the living expenses of their childhood inherits even more debt in the form of lack of education, knowledge, and a skill that would allow them to enter the workforce and use their labor in a meaningful and beneficial manner.

Instead, they become stuck, never being able to lift their wages above the level of their living expenses; doomed to live forever in financial doom only to pass on their doom to their children and to taxpayers.  




For the human ego, capitalism is attractive because it enables those who are strong enough to attain, while cursing those who can’t. The produces a polarizing effect that can only be enjoyed by one pole.
For this reason some people will enjoy the challenge of capitalism because it is a “eat what you kill” model that satisfies my ego. 

However, this kind of selfishness leaves large sums of the population without inheritance, doomed to feel the sting of poverty while wallowing in the bliss of ignorance.

The alternative to the “eat what you kill” model is the “pack” model where the inheritance is shared and invested in the people to ensure the survival and advancement of the “pack.” This would allow each generation to build into the collective equity of the previous until ultimately millions of life spans worth of human equity has been realized. Which would eventually allow each newly born earthling to be born debt-free.

I realize that perhaps it is difficult to imagine a society that is any different, since working is all most people have known their entire lives. In recent history humans have tried only a few types of societies: Capitalism, Socialism, Imperialism and Communism are the major ones, all of these models have served us less than ideally.

So it's worthwhile to imagine an ideal society, one in which food, shelter, education and security is a human right at birth for all humans regardless of class that is paid for by the billions live spans, over millions of years of work done by previous human generations. Then all earthlings would be born free of financial worries.  

Is this possible? and how could it happen?

It is not that the earth doesn't have enough wood to build homes for everyone, its not that the earth can't grow enough food to feed everyone, and the only reason we fear for our lives is that when some people don't have sufficient food or shelter they become criminals or try to cut corners, make a few extra bucks or squeeze out a little more profit all of which ultimately passes human need from one household to another instead of providing for it.

It's not that we have too many people or too many animals as the population control enthusiast would have us all think. While humans do put a great strain on the earth's resources it's not like they are not replenishable and all the waste could easily be fixed with technological efficiencies. 

So, if all survival needs were provided for from birth, there would be hardly any crime and not much need for laws or prisons. Since you would not have to work to stay alive, everyone can dedicate their lives to building the future and inventing systems that improve conditions for all life forms. The most important job in this reality would be the development, management, and distribution of the earth's resources to ensure everyone's needs are met. 

If we need more food, simply plant it or genetically engineer it.
In this world, money would not be necessary because development would not be about if we can afford to build something, it would be, do we have the resources, the knowledge, and the labor to do so.

The scenario I am hinting at is a resource based economy. In this system if you can imagine with me for a moment further, no resource that provides for a human need can be owned by any one individual. Water, land, plants, animals etc. are all provided free of charge by the earth. These resources would be used as needed by and among all humans. 

Our mathematicians would calculate how much of a resources and human labor is required to fulfill all needs in an abundant amount. Meanwhile, our engineers and scientists would build the systems, to produce, and distribute the required amount from the natural resources that are abundantly available. All this while maintaining adequate recycling for continued growth of the natural resource by the Earth.




Concepts such as owning land and water feeds competitive survival behaviors. How can a human own something that predated human life? The idea of taking control of a piece of land or water then charging another human a price for it is criminal in itself. The earth do not charge for using its resources. Why then, should one human charge another? Or a government tax a human for owning it. Money then becomes a barrier to human survival and causes conflicts.

All living things owes its survival to the land and water that is abundantly available on the earth. All that is required to survive on the land is human labor and intellect.

No one should be able to own land. Land should only be held by the primary users of it. Much worse than a human owning land is it being owned by an “artificial person” otherwise known as a corporate entity.

Corporations owning land create the scenario whereby land is owned by people who do not use it directly while still being able to suck the benefits from it. This type of arrangement enslaves people. The entire concept of requiring proof of land ownership in the form of a deed is proof itself that the land in question is stolen land.


Think about it, if the land really belonged to you then everyone would know that's your land because it has been in your family for generations, you and your family live on the land so there is no reason to prove that you own it with a piece of paper. 

However, if you stole the land then you would need proof to protect you from other thieves stealing it from you. 

Examine the following scenario; an invading force kills the inhabitants and take their land.  In order to avoid conflict among the invaders there must be a way to definitively prove who a piece of land was awarded to and a clear way for a court to settle if there is more than one claim on the same piece. 

The invaders, having left their family land to seek more land will start a Business/Corporation around the use of the land to enrich themselves at the expense of the original inhabitants. The government would then make it their business to tax the profits gained by the Corporation in order to fund the entire system. A structure based on theft and greed. 


The capitalists ideology documented by men such as Adam Smith in his writings, The Wealth of Nations encourages each human to pursue their own self-interest because it will produce a more efficient society. Yet, all capitalism has produced is a monetary based economy that results in corruption, class separation, selfishness, and abuse of labor leaving us at the point where we are now, having nothing but our labor remaining which is what we started with a long time ago.

This type of society results in the majority of the best and brightest humans becoming trapped behind a cubicle wasting their intellect to make as much money as possible rather than for building and inventing creations that will assist with the evolution of society.

Very rarely do humans do bad things because they are bad humans. More often humans commit bad acts to fulfill what they believe is a need. It is human need and the necessity to pay for all survival needs with money that results in people doing things like cutting corners or taking the cheap way out when making a product. 

Poorly made products are a result of the human survival instinct that can only be satisfied with money. Many times cutting corners can result in damaging a person who buys the product.

 A businessman who cuts corners does so all in an effort to save a few dollars or squeeze out a little extra profit. The business man does not cut corners to cause injury to a customer yet, many times these types of actions will lead to an injury.

For example a thing such as good quality food and bad quality food should not exists all food should be the same, good quality.  However, a food company may decide to use pesticides to increase the amount of apples they harvest. Thereby, allowing them to sell more apple and lose less to insects. That pesticide may have harmful side effects. The company then offers an organic version of the apple that does not have harmful side effects and sells it for more than the one with the pesticides. Now, you have two different quality levels of the same product.

The customer is now forced to eat a crappy apple if they want to save money. Some customers may not be able to afford the organic version of the apple so they buy the regular apple as a result the customer develops allergies that increases their medical bills.

The customer then takes the cheapest version of an allergy medicine they could find and as a result the allergy medicine affects their hormones, the change in hormones causes a genetic defect in the customer's new born baby. This scenario can go on and on but at each turning point the choice was made based on the individual's survival being directly tied to how much money they have and as a result they tried to save a few or make a few bucks. 

Had the scenario been one in which the businessman's survival needs were not tied to money. There would be no need to try and make a few extra dollars, save a few bucks, cut corners or take the cheap way out. The only concern would be what is best for the end user of the product. Since the farmer won't have to pay for his family's food or shelter with money there would be no need to grow an apple that has harmful side effects in the first place. 

If you tell a human being that their very survival depends on them having a certain thing. It is the natural instinct of that human to accumulate as much of it as possible. They will not simply try to acquire the amount needed for the survival of his family. Instead they will try to get as much as humanly possible. 

The strength of the human survival instinct is not based in the practicality of having enough, but in the feeling of getting what it needs. It is this type of irrationality that a economic system should control not encourage. 



We humans have been on this planet for a long time and for as long as we have lived here, we have been working, laboring our life away and for what? We have nothing to collectively show for all this hard work over billions of live spans and when we look forward into the future, we see nothing but more work and more labor for future generations. What happened here? Where is our equity as Earthlings? It’s like paying a mortgage that never goes down, you never gain any value for yourself so the bank still owns 100% of the house even though you have been working and paying for years.

Why buy the house in the first place if that is what’s going to happen. A very depressing scenario when you look at it truthfully. This is the result of having the wealth of a few men surpass the combined monetary worth of entire countries.

Most people don't realize that if a man has billions or even many millions in his bank account just sitting there, that's not just money sitting in a bank that is the collective equity of millions of years in human labor that is not doing anything for humanity. 

Once a person has surpassed the amount of money necessary to sustain their life and the lives of their family for generations, then there is no use in having any more money just sitting in a bank somewhere collecting interest while not being put to work to relieve human strife.


This is the problem that keep earthlings trapped in the debt of their own birth, and debt is slavery, for the only way to relieve debt is to work it off.

Traditional slavery, was too expensive for the slave owner because they had to pay for the living expenses of the slave.  But in modern society, labor is controlled by wages, thus, creating the self-financed slave who is responsible for feeding, housing and securing themselves. 

This type of slavery does not discriminate by race but enslaves all people from birth, for the benefit of a few who manipulate wages from the top of the pyramid while storing the sweat equity of the majority as digits inside a computer network displayed on their bank account screens. 

My Strong Muscles

A Children's Book About Growing Big and Strong
Human Body For Kids Volume 1

Your kid's will thank you for bringing this book home. Guaranteed to delight and educate your young ones.

In this beautifully illustrated children's book kids learn all about their strong and amazing muscles. Featuring comical and adorable characters that explore the human body and discover how muscles work, what is the purpose of muscles are and how to make them grow big and strong.

Available in eBook and Paperback Editions
Get a copy today for your son, daughter, nieces, nephew or grandchild.





Why We Should Eliminate The National US Presidential Elections 

Presidential elections have become just a dog and pony show. As a result it is now just a destabilizing distraction for the country. The wild swings in presidential approach also causes instability internationally that benefits no one.
That is why I am proposing the idea to eliminate the US presidential elections in its current form while giving back proxy power to The People.
The idea:
  1. The people will only vote on the election of local Congressional Representatives.
  2. It will become Congress’s duty to vote for The President from among themselves (which is what they do anyways, most of the time).
  3. The people will have power to recall their Representatives.
  4. Congress and The Senate have power to recall The President.
  5. Eliminate corporate funding of elections completely.
  6. Eliminate corporate lobbying completely.
The benefits of this proposal includes:
  1. No need for the national election spectacle or the funding of it.
  2. People can concern themselves with local politics where they can see and touch their Representatives.
  3. Focuses power locally and in hands of The People instead of in the hands of the media and corporate interests.
The knee jerk reaction will come from the constitutional argument that this is not how the founding fathers set things up. This is technically correct however, we have also now had a couple hundred years to see this system in action and it needs some iteration based feedback to make things work smoother to say the least.

Would you support this proposal? Leave your thoughts.