PDA

View Full Version : BJ on the Edge




Style
03-10-2010, 08:43 AM
Great interview:

http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2010/03/talk-along-edge-nathan-martin-and-bj.html

Lucille
03-10-2010, 11:50 AM
Oops! Missed this thread! I posted it too. Sorry.

Epic
03-10-2010, 12:23 PM
Arghhh... not another Bill Still promoter....

Style
03-10-2010, 08:27 PM
I thought it was a great interview. I really enjoyed it! Hopefully it will help to expose the campaign to a wider audience, and bring in some additional contributions. Perhaps we can get Nathan to use his "swarm" tactics to help with further promotion? Any ideas on that?

Concerning the discussion with Nathan, for what it's worth, I'm with BJ. I don't see how what he's proposing will not get corrupted. That is a tremendous amount of power centrally located. That power will be sought out, and in time it will be corrupted, guaranteed. (Most likely a very short time.)

Nathan talks about how money should belong to the people, via their elected representatives. If you really believe that money belongs to the people, then you leave it to the markets. The markets will decide what money is.

Markets represent the people's will much better then democracy. Democracy has many flaws. You might vote for one candidate only because you dislike him less than the other guy. You might vote for a candidate because you feel strongly about his stance on education, but don't agree with him about much of anything else. You may vote for a candidate who you agree with on many things, only to find out he was lying the whole time, and his promises go unfulfilled.

Everyone has their say in the markets though. You cut out the middle man, and the people get what they want. Remove the monopoly on money, give it to the market, and that will give money to the people. Centrally controlled money, elected representatives or not, is not giving money to the people.

Nathan mentions how money that was backed by gold in our history was still manipulated. However, that is only b/c it was not left to the free markets. Money was still legally tied to gold. If money is tight because there is not much gold, a free market will find something else to serve as money. In the late 19th century the people were screaming for silver to be monetized because of this. Well, if money was left to the free markets, you want silver as money? You've got silver as money! Manipulating gold isn't going to work, as the market will find something else as needed.

Nathan mentions the problem of having to exchange money when crossing state lines or when going to Mexico. First of all, there are many places where multiple forms of currency are accepted without having to exchange to the local currency. I went to Aruba in February, and they accepted dollars, euros, or the local currency, no matter where you went. It was not a problem. Heck, in Mexico they will gladly accept our current fiat dollars backed by air! You don't need to convert to pesos. They love dollars! With that in mind, I'm sure they would accept money commonly accepted in the states that was actually backed by an asset. If they'll takes ones backed by air, I'd think they'd be pretty happy to take ones backed by a commodity!

But besides all of that, markets give people what they want. If people want a currency that is accepted across state lines or in Mexico, the market will find one. We don't need to figure out how it will work. The market will take care of it, and the people will get what they want.

I like that Nathan wants to get rid of debt backed money. The debt serves no purpose but to make private bankers rich. So at least he has that part right. I also like his ideas about cleaning the balance sheets of companies and individuals. (Which was not discussed in the interview, but is detailed in Freedom's vision.)

Michigan11
03-11-2010, 01:17 AM
Listened to that interview, but "Nathan" the host was sort of an anal retentive ass, one of those types that are hard to like.. I thought Lawson's logic was well thought out, yet the host would debate every point it seemed. Either way, I'm sure it helped Lawson gain some supporter and donations.

Lawson is like a young Ron Paul, the more I listen to him, he has an honesty in his voice, he is willing to learn and listen even with his credentials... great guy, we need to see in office.

doctor jones
03-12-2010, 04:29 PM
Boy that Nathan guy loved to hear himself talk. I forgot for second it was an interview and thought it was just a big promo piece for his freedom visionary whatever.

Style
03-12-2010, 09:01 PM
In Nathan's defense, it was actually meant to be a discussion between BJ and Nathan comparing their views on monetary policy. It was not meant to be Nathan interviewing BJ. I know because I arranged it. Nathan does not have a regular show, and does not normally do interviews.

It did seem as if Nathan wanted to debate every point though....