A public letter to a learned friend.

["Domainmail" <hank@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My learned Friend William B. Ryan,

 

By reading your below mentioned reaction to the writing of Geoffrey Gardiner it just hit me. Why are you talking about science related to money, while any decent economist has by now most certainly discovered that the last thing that is related to our money system and our economic way of thinking related to money is SCIENCE?  Where do you find that? We have become polished mathematicians who constantly use the wrong axioms to come to some ludicrous understanding.

We know bloody well what is wrong, but we constantly put our heads into the sand and continue to accept clear scientific rubbish to explain why we have again fallen on our faces. We have even allowed to create so-called Nobel Laureates in economics while Nobel never had thought about economics. We accepted that a bank created a fake Nobel Price to allow us to collect scientific glory without any science underneath of it. The only science in the banking environment is the certainty that we will be wiped out economically by their eternal production of ordinary debt that we have been forced to call MONEY. Even the simple believe of an actor called Greenspan that he can save the earth for God's America with creating more debt after reading the tea leaves, should make clear to any sophomore in economics that he or she is not getting any science delivered for his father's money.

 

Why are you talking about SCIENCE when there is not a trace of science in the fake basic economic element called : money. that we are using for dealings with economics.

Our existing money system has been developed by a crook, an adventurer who got a "brilliant?" idea by looking at the trade of Goldsmiths.

He created a money system without that the man had brains enough to think about only one level of consequences of his thinking.

Mr.. William Paterson created in 1690 a kind of banking idea. He needed four years to get his "invention" accepted by some of his political friends. He was lucky enough that the King of England needed money to fight a war and could not find the money. Paterson sold a money illusion to the Royal family and its vassals and the Bank of England became suddenly an institution that would rule our economic way of thinking for the next three hundred years. Building disaster on disaster. Look at the money history of the United States resulting from the British NON-SCIENTIFIC inheritance.

Since then we have only seen totally unscientific ramblings.

 

The first real scientist who started to give some thoughts about economics was born in Paris in the same year 1694 when the scientific disaster for the next three hundred years was created in London. This first real economic scientist became a physician and discovered economics when he was 62.

His name was Quesnay and dear Quesnay taught Adam Smith his first economic lessons, when Adam had passed his 42nd birthday. So nearly 80 years after the invention of creating money out of thin air, we created the rudimentary thoughts about a new science: economics. And we adopted a ridiculous invention as the axiom for our scientific thinking. That we were so dumb in the 18th century can be forgiven when the highest speed to spread any science was represented by a horse. However, today,we can not be that grateful. We have nano-means and a collection of nearly three hundred years of disaster lessons, to easily find out the truth about our not existing science. The lessons are too horrible.

 

Please do me one favor and discontinue talking about science when we talk about money. It is a disgrace for any educational institution to continue teaching the same rubbish about money that has been taught to me fifty years ago in a very prestigious institution called university. .

Our problem is that we have a profession where we are using a totally unscientifically developed tool, that we also began to call money, and since then we try constantly to make a science out of it.

I admire the observations and conclusions of the Debt Watching group, but when we would have developed a real economic science then we would never have developed the need for a Debt Watching elite.

 

When are we as economic professionals going to tell the truth and start to clean up the scientific Augean Stable named: Economic science.

Where is the science when I am reading the intellectual thoughts about money of one of the successors of dear William Paterson,  Deputy Governor Mervyn King of the Bank of England, when he explains: How to Reform the International Financial System, the Middle Way. during a Meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York in 1999.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speeches/speech52.pdf

Here we can read the results of a totally lack of any science in the product that the bank brought into being. He had at least the courage to mention the millions of victims that resulted from our lack of courage to make as responsible professionals an end to a scientific Farce.

Grateful for being able to read your intellectual writings, but let us stop as responsible professionals to call it a science. The science that brought the atomic bomb into being has done less harm to the world then the failure of our PROFESSION to stand up and to CREATE A REAL ECONOMIC SCIENCE and to make an end to the mockery.

At your service,

 

Hank Monrobey

Monrobey Capital Network Management Corporation

P.O.Box 2736

Ann Arbor, MI 48106-2736

 

hank@xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

http://monrobey.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: debt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:debt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of William B. Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 3:04 AM
To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Creditary Economics (CE)

...as far as the public is concerned their bank balances are "money." So let us define "money" as "assignable/transferable debt." Scientifically it works; other definitions do not seem to me to be any real use.

Geoffrey Gardiner

You have declined to answer this question before:  In the era of "free coinage" it was possible to take any quantity of bullion to the mint and it would be coined into money.  The mint would keep a percentage as its fee for the service rendered.  How can such coins be considered debt instruments?

This, I think, is but one specific example of money that is something other than debt.  There are several others I could list.

It is not scientific to let definitions confine our reasoning.  They are simply a category of tools utilized in the method of science, to be modified or discarding along the way if they become impediments rather than aids to understanding.  I think your arbitrary definition--which excludes ipso facto the existence or necessity of other forms of money--might be one such impediment.

---

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com