You are either a weak agitator or a shill, in either case I can’t take you seriously.
Gunther Sonnenfeld
11

You telling me that you don’t understand the proposed rule?

You don’t understand the concept of borrowing money into existence?

You don’t understand that by rule we may standardize, limit, and restrict the fiat credit that is borrowed into existence as money, allow each to claim a Share contained in a trust fund at their bank when they accept a social contract?

The model is the existing socioeconomic system, you claim to have intimate knowledge of this existing system…

…so why can’t you provide justification for how you believe this simple structural change would effect any given subsystem or interaction within a system you are intimately familiar with?

…why can’t you imagine how this simple rule will effect any given subsystem or interaction within the existing system?..

…or challenge any assumption or logical construction that I have presented?

Isn’t that within the skill set needed to affect the accomplishments you present?

I was a bit agitated at being told that you are too busy and important to explain yourself to me, but that would make you the agitator

Who would I be shilling for? I just want to get everyone paid

I just asked you a question, and instead of answering it, you sent me off to look through a bunch of not answers, which had nothing to do with the question

I don’t much care how you take me, I was just asking for an informed opinion, which you clearly don’t have

So sorry

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.