It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wampum was defined by Roger Williams and other non-native historians as Indian money, but this definition seems inaccurate and incomplete.21 Wampum exchange embodied a medium of gift-giving whose value was widely accepted among Northeastern Indians, and had a certain value in both use and exchange.22
Daniel Gookin, a Massachusetts missionary of the Wamponoag stated, it answers all occasions, as gold and silver doth with us.24 It did that and much more.
In the 1630's, a large migration of English Puritans to Massachusetts Bay presented another complication. The colony interposed itself into the trade network creating increased competition, rivalry, and agitation. For the period between 1630 and 1660, wampum was a prized commodity in New England spurred on by the fur trade that compelled the struggle. What followed in the next several decades leading up to King Philip's War (1675-1676) was a complicated series of initiatives from the Bay Colony, whose ultimate goal was to control the region and resources. Ruth Thomas of the Mashantucket Pequot put it simply, they wanted to cut out the middleman, and so they did, isolating, then devastating first the powerful Pequot, then the dynamic Narragansett, and then appropriating both the land and control of the wampum trade.59 The Bay Colony, having found small beads more portable than corn for trade and saving coin for European markets, declared wampum legal tender in 1637 valued at six beads a penny.
In the 1750s, the Colonies were very prosperous. There was no income tax, no unemployment, and stable prices. When asked to explain this prosperity to the king's court, Benjamin Franklin replied;
“That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one”.
1764, the production of Colonial Script was made illegal by the Currency Act, passed into law in England (of course due to pressure from the Bank of England) prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, ordering them to use only the money that was provided (in insufficient quantities) by the English bankers. Benjamin Franklin said,
“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed”.
The effect that the English bankers were having on the Colonies was by far the most significant reason for the Revolutionary War in 1775, in contrast to what is taught in our history books. Benjamin Franklin was clear about this;
“The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been for the poverty caused by the bad influence of English bankers on the parliament which has caused, in the colonies, hatred of England and the revolutionary war”.
Although the Declaration of Independence was made in 1776, it wasn’t until the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that the new sovereign nation was recognized. The Colonies were once again free to control their own currency. In 1787, the founding fathers made certain that the control of currency was provided for in the United States Constitution. Article 1, section 8, paragraph 5, states;
“The Congress shall have the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof”.
Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Imagine for a moment how things would work without money. No one has anything to sell anyway, in fact, because no one can really own anything. All resources are of the Earth. No one owns Earth so her resources are ours by all rights.
Now extrapolate. You'll get there in the end.
Of course, that all takes a lot of time. IF my skills were especially valuable to you - like if i was a very good farm worker and you needed my quality of work - and the things you produced were very valuable to me - like pig's meat - then it would be an ideal situation.
Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Imagine for a moment how things would work without money. No one has anything to sell anyway, in fact, because no one can really own anything. All resources are of the Earth. No one owns Earth so her resources are ours by all rights.
Now extrapolate. You'll get there in the end.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
So you see, in sum total, we're in debt because we need energy to live and to get energy you have to work. Ultimately, this debt kills us as we're unable to meet its demands. This happens when we grow old and feeble and unable to pay the price.
That's how things work without our money. Do you see, it doesn't matter if we're without money since energy, something we require to live, is in essence money. And if you don't have it, you die.
Imagine if everything were available to everyone all the time. Where would crime go? Where would status-seeking go? Where would pain and suffering go? If we all had homes and health care and food and furniture and jobs that we loved doing - because everything is free anyway - we could live in a real world. Not one built on illusion. Money is an illusion.
Can you understand that now?
Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by frazzle
Well, do you think there would be more or less available if we lived by my posited scenario? Are there more resources or less resources with a money-based economy? What if things just were as they are now but minus the whole concept of money. Naturally things would be better, in fact, because we would all be happier, not having to thing of survival or "getting ahead in life". There would just always be everything we need and because people like different things, we could also seek out those things we like most rather than just because they're status symbols. We would exercise our true preferences.
Does that make it clearer?
Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by frazzle
Oh umm...why do you think technology has to be paid for?
Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by frazzle
I can't understand how you're still talking about costs. Forget costs. There are none. Nothing costs anything. You talk about free trade. Define "free". Now change that definition to mean "without cost or payment". No money exists in this world. It is no more. Now imagine free trade in a pure sense.
Is that even a little clearer? Because I'm not doing this again with you. Either you can wrap your head around "no money" or just don't respond to this exercise. You either can or can't get it. Don't disappoint me!