Tag Archives: Conservation

The Land Needs Rest or Conservation, what occurs when man attempts to control rather than build up the land – To Build up the Land part V

5/8/2013 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

We return today to complete our series entitled “To Build up the Land.”  It is an exploration of the co-dependence of man upon the land, and the land upon man to build it up.  While the former statement is obvious, what may be less clear in light of today’s political and environmental climate is the latter.

Does the land really need man to tend to it so that it, too, will prosper?  The clear answer is that the land not only needs the activity of man upon it to survive and thrive, but also that of animals.  However, the land does not simply require any type of activity, it requires human activity which helps the land to achieve balance.

Today, there are roughly 7.1 billion souls on the planet, more than at any other time in human history.  If one watches the numbers roll on the page linked above and then sees that the world’s net population is on track to grow by roughly 80 million souls this year alone, it would appear that this population growth is nothing short of exponential and that the world’s population is on something akin to a warp curve when plotted out graphically.

World Historical Population
World Historical Population courtesy of US Census Bureau

However, while 80 million souls per year seems a staggering amount, it is important to note that the actual growth rate, as a percentage of the current population, is on a gentle decline, currently at 1.1%, just half the growth rate experienced in the early 1960’s, which is the most recent peak in the growth rate based on United Nations estimates.  The United Nations further anticipates that by 2050, the growth rate will again be halved to just 0.5%, and that the world’s population will stabilize at around 10 billion persons after 2100..

As we have explored earlier, overpopulation is largely a myth constructed by persons who both live in crowded urban areas and assume that current statistical trends will invariably accelerate.

The myth is intensified by the fact that a majority of mankind has chosen to live in urban settings and has left large swaths of land to lie fallow, something that benefits neither man nor the land.  According to statistics in the 2013 edition of Demographia’s report on World Urban Areas, roughly three out of every ten, or 28.2% of the world’s population lives in an urban area of over 500,000 total inhabitants with an average density of 14,000 persons per square mile.

The current increase in urban populations and corresponding worldview has left an increasing burden on those who build up the land via agriculture to provide the food necessary for the 7.1 billion souls and counting to survive and be adequately nourished.

If one, for the sake of argument, were to make the broad assumption that those living in urban areas were completely reliant on their rural counterparts for their food supply in an equal proportion, this would mean that the rural population must produce, on average, 139.3% of their annual food consumption.  In other words, they must produce enough food for both 100% of their own consumption and an additional 39.3% to be consumed by the otherwise occupied urbanites.

However, this is an overly simplified view of the actual dynamics of food production, for while it is clear that while a small proportion of urbanites may collectively achieve communal or territorial self sufficiency when it comes to food production, it is also clear that 100% of the earth’s rural inhabitants are not dedicated to agricultural.

What, then, is the true ratio?  How many persons are spending their lives building up the land?

On average, each American farmer produces enough food to feed 155 people.  This is up from roughly 26 people in 1960 and, in terms of statistics, would mean that one person armed with the proper agricultural equipment, technology, and favorable climate patterns, can produce 15,500% of their own caloric requirements.

This staggering advance in American agricultural productivity is largely owed to the extended period of peace which has reigned in America which gave birth to, or at a minimum coincided with, rapid advances in agricultural science and industrial machinery.

It may be said, then, that these advances in agriculture have made possible the urban centric worldview that is widely espoused today.  This is not a bad thing, however, and the current awareness of climate change and its potential impact on the increasingly delicate food chain upon which an increasing majority of the world depends is rightly cause for alarm.

Agricultural Alarms

GMOs

While it is staggering that one American farmer can provide nourishment for up to 155 persons, the question that is at the heart of the present debate on the merits of using Genetically Modified Organisms in seeds and the modified seeds’ reliance upon pesticides to ensure adequate crop yields is the following:  At what long term cost does this productivity come?

It is an important question, for the long term security of the world’s food supply may hang in the balance.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, are a prime example of mankind’s attempt to control nature.  It is a form of conservation in that it attempts to conserve the current balance of food production by creating crop yields in excess of that which would occur under normal conditions.

It cannot be argued that GMOs have played a major role in human population growth.  However, it is also clear that there are many direct and indirect side effects to exerting this type of control over the food chain which have yet to fully manifest themselves.

First and foremost, the staggering crop yields that the combination of GMO seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides provide come at a high price for the land itself.  Rather than achieving a balance with the land, allowing it to produce and rest in natural occurring intervals with intermittent obligatory rests in the form of Sabbath years for agricultural land and herd rotations for pasturelands, mankind’s GMO induced yield highs convert the land into an addict, unable to function without regular shots of fertilizer and irrigation.

Again, fertilization and irrigation are important parts of farming and the building up of agricultural land when done in moderation.  However, when these tasks are taken to the extremes under which they are practiced today, they rob both the land and mankind of their most important survival mechanism; self sufficiency.

CAFOs

Another less known but equally widespread practice that may ultimately threaten the food supply is the increased reliance upon Confined Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs.  The proliferation of CAFOs, which are facilities where animals are raised in relatively cramped quarters and fed things that are not part of their natural diet (the equivalent of fertilizer in the GMO example above) and injected with antibiotics (the equivalent of pesticides in the above example) poses a twofold threat to the environment.

First, it produces animal based foodstuffs that have been proven to be harmful to humans over time.  Second, and perhaps more importantly for reasons that are obvious, it limits the animals’ natural and mutually beneficial interaction with the land which robs the land of an important means of natural fertilization and rejuvenation, urine and manure.

After a personal epiphany regarding the detriments of setting apart land for conservation, a practice that is widely thought to be beneficial, Ecologist Allan Savory has made it his life’s work to reverse what he now sees as a dangerous policy of conservation.

For over a century, well meaning ecologists like Mr. Savory have labored under the belief that desertification, the fate that awaits the land when mankind and animals cease or severely limit their intercourse with it, was the direct result of large herds of animals grazing upon it.  The initial conclusion of attributing desertification to large scale animal grazing is a logical one.  After all, if one has seen the relative devastation that large herds leave in their wake, one can only conclude that the animals alone are responsible for desertification, as they leave the land barren and trampled.

Yet Savory holds out that this first analysis is incomplete.  In fact, it is necessary for animals to consume, trample on, and leave their excretions on the land so that it may be left in peace to rejuvenate itself with the necessary fertilizer and just the amount of greenery necessary to thrive.

Part of the logic of Mr. Savory’s approach is that if the animals are left to graze freely, they will leave the land for greener pastures, as it were, once they have eaten the top layers of grass and shrubbery, the equivalent to pruning a plant.  Furthermore, the animals will quickly tire, as anyone would, of tromping through their own excrements in search of food, leaving the land both pruned and fertilized.  The land will then rejuvenate itself in time for the next grazing cycle.

While it has remained on the fringe of land management, Mr. Savory’s work has received the endorsement of royalty.  At the 2012 World Conservation Congress, none other than the Prince of Wales gave this endorsement of Savory’s methods:

“I have been particularly fascinated, for example, by the work of a remarkable man called Allan Savory, in Zimbabwe and other semiarid areas, who has argued for years against the prevailing expert view that it is the simple numbers of cattle that drive overgrazing and cause fertile land to become desert. On the contrary, as he has since shown so graphically, the land needs the presence of feeding animals and their droppings for the cycle to be complete, so that soils and grassland areas stay productive. Such that, if you take grazers off the land and lock them away in vast feedlots, the land dies.” {via wikipedia.org}

While GMOs and CAFOs may appear to be nothing short of modern miracles with respect to food supplies, they are a result of man attempting to control the land as opposed to working with the land for mutual benefit.  Left to its own devices, mankind will destroy the land to the extent that it wishes to unilaterally exert its will upon it.  What is needed, then, is an acute awareness that to destroy the land through an exertion of unnatural control over it, is to destroy ourselves.

Conservation dooms the land to desertification

It is clear that the land, mankind, and animals live together in a delicate balance.  Maintenance of this balance requires both constant interaction between mankind and nature and a measure of restraint, a general recognition that nature cannot be controlled in a healthy manner.

The opposite of the action of building up the land is a term that implies something that could not be farther from the truth:  Conservation.

The term conservation implies the maintenance and upkeep of something.  In terms of land management, it may be mistaken for actions taken or not taken to build up the land.  However, in practice, conservation has come to embody a form of forced abstinence on the part of man with regards to the land.

There is much debate and scientific evidence which points to the activities of mankind being the ultimate cause of climate change and desertification.  These findings are true to the extent that mankind’s activities are not aimed at building up the land.  However, the only thing worse than mankind working to throw nature further out of balance by chasing a misplaced monetary premium is for mankind to abstain from interacting with the land altogether in a vain hope that the land would be better of without us.

The land needs mankind, and mankind needs the land.  Both the land and mankind need animals to freely roam over the land rather than suffer in the constraints of a CAFO, the equivalent of prison in the animal world.  All efforts to halt this natural interaction are an unwitting step towards squandering what arable land remains on the planet.

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

Key Indicators for May 8, 2013

Copper Price per Lb: $3.34
Oil Price per Barrel:  $96.53
Corn Price per Bushel:  $6.75
10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  1.76%
Mt Gox Bitcoin price in US:  $113.38
FED Target Rate:  0.12%  ON AUTOPILOT, THE FED IS DEAD!
Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,472 THE GOLD RUSH IS STILL ON!
MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25%
Unemployment Rate:  7.5%
Inflation Rate (CPI):  -0.2%
Dow Jones Industrial Average:  15,105
M1 Monetary Base:  $2,565,500,000,000 LOTS OF DOUGH ON THE STREET!
M2 Monetary Base:  $10,571,400,000,000

To Build up the Land part III – The Myth of Overpopulation

3/4/2013 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

We return to the series that started earlier this month, “To Build up the Land.”  If you need to refresh yourself, please take time to read the first two segments by clicking the links below:

To Build up the Land – part I

To Build up the Land part II – Maintaining the Peace

It has been so long even your easily distracted author had to do a bit of review!

It is common in modern day urban environments to lament the lack of open spaces.  Living in structures that are surrounded by other structures and spending time overcrowded streets or public transportation systems tends to solidify the perception that there are too many people in one’s immediate environment.  The feeling is completely normal and understandable.  What is not normal is to wish evil or impose limitations on others because of this perception, for a sober look at the data suggests that, while one’s immediate surroundings may appear to be hopelessly overpopulated, the earth continues to suffer from chronic under population, or a lack of people willing to build up the land, in the parlance of Old Jules.

The answer, then, to a personal state of dissatisfaction with a perceived state of local overpopulation is to remove oneself from the overpopulated environment to a lower density locale.

There is no doubt that the world today is more populated than at any other time in its brief history.  There is also no doubt that increasingly, mankind struggles to adequately nourish itself.  It is an error, however, to blindly assume that an increased population is the root cause of relative shortages of food and potable water.  It is equally erroneous to assume that there are limits to what the land can produce.

In Old Jules’ day, the Sandhills of Northwestern Nebraska were harsh and relatively uninhabited.  Old Jules recognized this as a problem.  Untamed land is largely unproductive land.  The land requires men and women to interact with it so that it will produce fruit and, in turn, allow the men and women to produce their own fruit, so to speak, and so on.

Old Jules, like many inhabitants of what Nabokov called the “Rotting old world,” or Europe, had come to America either in pursuit of greater opportunities or in flight from what was decrease of opportunities in Europe.  This phenomenon was most notable in England, as the Industrial Revolution brought about an exponential improvement in general living conditions and life expectancies, it also brought a population boom which overwhelmed the British Isle.  It was there that the idea of overpopulation bloomed.

As war seemed to grip Europe from time to time, it seemed that the continent was suffering from an overpopulation as well.  However, this feeling had nothing to do with actual scarcity of land.  It was, rather, a result of the various wars, socialist policies, and other acts of aggression which hindered man’s ability to build up the land to its full potential in Europe.

For this reason, during the 1800’s and continuing, in many respects, through today, the greatest immigration known to man has been taking place on both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere of the Americas.

The land was harsh and virgin yet, with a bit of luck and help from neighbors such as Old Jules, those who braved the frontier found an abundance of both resources and freedom beyond their wildest dreams.

What is surprising, or perhaps not, is that this untamed frontier produced not a chaos of fiefdoms waging war against one another, but rather gave birth to perhaps the most honest and upstanding society that exists on the face of the earth.  It is a society largely untainted by the banes of urban existence.  It is a society that understands that the planet, far from having an overpopulation problem, suffers from a lack of people willing to roll up their sleeves and build up the land.

To encourage and help people to choose to build up the land has proven difficult, especially in the aftermath of the farm crisis of the 1970s and 80s in America.  The crisis, which was largely the result of the sinkhole left in the money supply by erratic Federal Reserve policy, left thousands of family farms in ruin.

Even in Old Jules’ day, it was difficult.  It required someone who had a vision for the land and could see past the allure of temporary personal gain so that both the people and the land could carry on their productive intercourse.

Again, we pick up with Mari Sandoz in Old Jules describing Jules’ efforts to assist homesteaders to take advantage of the Kinkaid Act of 1904, an amendment to the original Homesteaders act passed in the 1860’s.  Jules had hoped that the act would reign in the cattlemen and bring in the people that the land so desperately needed to build it up:

“In the evening Jules, rifle across his arm, limped about among the newcomers and felt young again.  It was like Valentine {Nebraska} in the eighties, but different too – many more people and not so young, not nearly so young   Many of these were old – defeated men…

“…The day of the opening long queues of homeseekers waited for hours, only to find that even the sad choice of land that was free had been filed earlier in the day.  There was talk of cattleman agents who made up baskets full of filing papers beforehand and ran them through the first thing.  One woman was said to have filed on forty sections, under forty names, at five dollars a shot.  The land was covered by filings that would never turn into farms.  Yes, the Kinkaid Act as a cattleman law, as it was intended to be……

“Nevertheless Jules was busy.  His buckskin team, colts of Old Daisy, threaded in and out between the hills.  In six months, all unoccupied filings would be subject to contest.  For twenty-five dollars Jules showed the land, ascertained the numbers, took the settler to Alliance to the land office, helped him make his filings, and later, when he was ready to fence, surveyed the homestead completely.  If the homeseeker found nothing to please him, there was no charge.  Otherwise, Jules pocketed the twenty-five dollar fee……

“And every few days some land agent or attorney from, say, Chicago suggested that Jules charge fifty or a hundred dollars and give him a fourth or half of the fee for steering prospects to him.  Jules stuck his cob pipe between his bearded lips and threw the letters into the wood box.

“I am not in this business for the money.  I’m trying to build up the country.”

At the end of this discourse, Old Jules pins down the crux of the matter.  If one is in pursuit of money, overpopulation will always be a problem.  Money, as the good of highest order, is indirectly sought but all, and each additional person on the planet represents another competitor. This is an inescapable fact of the rigid debt based money supply of today.

However, if one’s aim is to build up the land, as was the case with Old Jules, they will quickly see that the truth of the matter, which the failure of the debt based money supply, as do all socialist machinations, serves to mask, is that money really does grow on well tended trees, and what is truly lacking are men and women brave enough to perform their conjugal duty to the land.

For without it, both the land and mankind will grow frigid, and the earth will become a cold and desolate place indeed.

more to come…

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

Key Indicators for March 4, 2013

Copper Price per Lb: $3.50
Oil Price per Barrel:  $90.24
Corn Price per Bushel:  $7.23
10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  1.88%
FED Target Rate:  0.14%  ON AUTOPILOT, THE FED IS DEAD!
Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,575 THE GOLD RUSH IS STILL ON!
MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25%
Unemployment Rate:  7.9%
Inflation Rate (CPI):  0.0%
Dow Jones Industrial Average:  14,128
M1 Monetary Base:  $2,421,800,000,000 LOTS OF DOUGH ON THE STREET!
M2 Monetary Base:  $10,412,400,000,000

To Build up the Land part II – God Made a Farmer

2/5/2013 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

Today we continue with our exploration of the concept of building up the land.  We are using, as our living example of someone who dedicated their life to building up a harsh land, a Swiss settler of the sandhills of western Nebraska, Old Jules.

Yesterday, before we deviated into our normal rant about the monetary premium being attached to debt instruments being the root cause of widespread resource misallocation and, by extension, what today is called “climate change,” we explored the idea that mankind was created to live in balance with the earth.

He was neither to overly molest it via excessive development nor ignore it via draconian conservation methods.  Rather, he was to build up the earth, and in turn allow himself to be built up by it.

There are preconditions for man to be able to live in balance with the land.  First and foremost, he must live in relative peace.  If one is to invest adequate time in building up the land, he or she cannot spend an inordinate amount of time preoccupied for and tending to their personal safety.  This is why war, far from being an economic boon, is ultimately fatal to man’s efforts to build up the land.

How, then, can peace be encouraged?  By allowing uninhibited trade between communist style communities, such as families or tribes.  As we explored yesterday, the link between free trade and peace is so strong that it can be said that if goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.

It all seems ideal, doesn’t it?  Living in peace, in perfect balance with nature and our fellow man.  It doesn’t sound like much to ask of everyone.  Yet in practice, building up the land is a difficult endeavor.  It is so difficult, that most people, when given the choice between working to build up the land and enjoying the fruits of the land, naturally choose the latter.  The debt based money supply has allowed an unprecedented number of humans to spend more of their time enjoying the fruits than building up the land, and every day that this situation persists brings the actions of mankind further out of balance with the need to “build up the land.”

What type of person chooses to build up the land?  In gentle climates, like the one we currently enjoy in Oregon, where a minimal effort in planting often leads to an above average yield, gentle persons can build up the land.  As the land is strong, the people don’t have to be.

This has been true of the indigenous groups who inhabited the territories and, at the risk of offending our fellow Portlanders, we dare say that it is true of the population today.  If one can stand the rain, life is relatively easy.  A gentle, forgiving land will produce a gentle and forgiving people.

The corollary to this, naturally, is that a hard and unforgiving land will initially yield a hard and unforgiving people.  Or, as Sunday’s Dodge Ram truck Super Bowl spot reminds us, on the eighth day, God made a Farmer:

Again for proof of this, we turn to Mari Sandoz’s account of her father, Old Jules.  Jules Sandoz, our settler of 100 years ago, lived in a harsh land.  He lived peacefully with the indigenous peoples there, who were being forced away by the Federal Army.  He lived less peacefully with the bankers and cattlemen, who attempted to claim the land he was trying to build up by force.

Sandoz give us a glimpse into her rough, determined, and surprisingly refined father:

“Jules Sandoz was not a nice man, but he was smart and tough and talented, and he was a survivor.”

“Old Jules was always ready to serve as a “locator,” to help a new arrival stake out a claim and “find his corners,” locate the precise boundaries of his land.  For this, he charged little or nothing, as he wanted so badly to “build up, build up” the community.”

“His (Old Jules’) house was briefly the local post office, until he feuded with the officials and they took it away.  His place was the unofficial storytelling center of the community.  His skinny daughter, Marie (later Mari {the author}), would hang back in the darkness to stay up and listen to the immigrants and Indians {Indigenous peoples} and, less frequently, the cowboys tell their tales.

Old Jules maintained a well-stocked medical kit and was the unofficial frontier doctor to one and all.  He befriended the local Indians, some of the last Lakotas to live free in lodges, tipis, near his home.  They called him “Straight Eye,” honoring his shooting skill.  He spent windfall money he could ill afford on a Victrola {record player} and phonograph records, because he liked good music and thought he and his family should have it.  They loved it.”

“Old Jules became a nationally known fruit breeder and grower, a correspondent of Luther Burbank.  He was sure that this land was ideal for raising cherries.  He was wrong.  It wasn’t.”

Excerpts from “Old Jules” by Mari Sandoz

It took hard people, like Old Jules and the nomadic indigenous people who passed through the Sandhills following the ratings {bison}, to slowly build up a hard land.  As the land became softer, Old Jules became softer.  For this reason, Old Jules was passionate about bringing settlers to the Sandhills to build up the land.

Today, the sandhills of Western Nebraska are inhabited by kinder persons who have reaped the benefits of the efforts of pioneers like Old Jules.  He and countless others whom he encouraged have worked to build up the land to a point where the effort to build it up is falling into balance with the time spent enjoying its fruits.

In Oregon and the Pacific Northwest, the opposite may be happening.  Attempts to minimize man’s interaction with the land via conservation, essentially declaring the land off limits for development, is conserving countless acres of land as wilderness.  While the efforts are noble and well intentioned, this too will, over time, throw the efforts of man to build up the land out of balance with the time spend enjoying the fruits of the land.

For it is true that the land needs rest, just as man needs rest.  But rest must come in the right proportion for both man and the land to maintain their edge and to keep the dynamic between mankind and the land in a healthy balance, allow both to rest and production in a perfect proportion, providing for the future without robbing the next generation of the tools needed to continue building up the land.

More to come…

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

Key Indicators for February 5, 2013

Copper Price per Lb: $3.74
Oil Price per Barrel:  $96.64
Corn Price per Bushel:  $7.29
10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  2.02%
FED Target Rate:  0.13%  ON AUTOPILOT, THE FED IS DEAD!
Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,673 THE GOLD RUSH IS ON!
MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25%
Unemployment Rate:  7.9%
Inflation Rate (CPI):  0.0%
Dow Jones Industrial Average:  13,979
M1 Monetary Base:  $2,455,100,000,000 LOTS OF DOUGH ON THE STREET!
M2 Monetary Base:  $10,412,500,000,000

To Build up the Land – part I

2/4/2013 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

“Then once more he raised his head, his face alive, his eyes far-focused, burning.  He began to talk slowly, as though his lips were metal, stiffening.  “The whole damn sandhills is deserted.  The cattlemen are broke, the settlers about gone.  I got to start all over-ship in a lot of good farmers in the spring, build up–build–build–“

Old Jules’ dying words from the biography entitled “Old Jules” by Mari Sandoz

Today at The Mint, we continue our journey, and we are glad that you are along with us.  With the inflationary fruits of five, nay, 100 years of loose monetary policy beginning to destroy the very currencies which gave birth to them, the world will all too soon be left to pick up the pieces and boldly move forward when all hope is lost.

When there is no hope, one must fight to become hope.  This is our charge to you, fellow taxpayer.  Fortunately, this is far from the first time that mankind has found itself in this situation.  For inspiration, we look back roughly 100 years to a man who had a vision for a place that was then, as now, a place that is difficult to inhabit, the sandhills region of Northwestern Nebraska.  (The sandhills have appeared in the news as a possible route for the long delayed Keystone pipeline.)

That man is Old Jules.

Old Jules was a Swiss immigrant who settled in the sandhills and, as our title implies, devoted much of his interesting life to “building up the land.”  What does it mean to build up the land?  Your idea of building up the land probably means something quite different than my idea of building up the land, and we would both probably have visions quite different for building up the land than someone living 100 years ago, like Old Jules.

Yet all of our visions have merit, for the idea of building up the land, while it may manifest itself in any number of different ways, implies working with the land to help it produce.

The whole idea of man being able to help the land to increase its production and that production helping mankind, in turn, to increase their own production (or reproduction, to be precise), is a miracle.  For those who inhabit urban settings, it may seem a mystery from a far off place.

Yet it is the command received by Adam and Eve at the dawn of creation.

Man was never meant to sit back and simply eat the fruits passively produced by the land, rather, the creation and mankind were created to have an intercourse, if you will, with the fruit of one producing fruit in the other, and vice versa.  Mankind’s activities were meant to be intimately connected to the land.  Mankind is to build up the land, and, in return, the land will build up mankind.

While the Victorian Yeoman farmer ideal may immediately spring to mind when one thinks of building up the land, it should be clear to any thinking person that the division of labor is a far more productive and resilient system by which to build up the land and to reap the benefits of such building.

Even in the Yeoman model, the division of labor existed.  One fetched wood, another dug and plowed, another prepared food, still another shelter, and another fetched water, and so on.

The division of labor could flourish beyond close knit communal groups, such as families or tribes, only via a system of trade.  The concept of trade, which further enables the division of labor to operate, is important not only for the concept of building up the land, but also for the maintenance of peaceful relations amongst communal groups.

The link between mutual trade and maintaining peace between groups is inseparable.  In the words of Frederic Bastait:

“If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”

If all of these things, building up the land, the division of labor, and the necessity of trade, are to operate, the concept of money, or what is better described as the emergence of a good of the highest order which carries a monetary premium, must be tacitly agreed upon by all groups that engage in trade.

Today, circa 2013, there is something desperately wrong with where the monetary premium is placed today:  Central bank credits, or what most of us know as currency, or money.  The problem is that they are debt, and not part of the natural world.

Because the monetary premium has been tied to debt, the operation of money, which should serve to build up the land, instead operates to tear it down.  The obvious effects of this purely monetary problem have led man, a la Al Gore, to react to effects the environment by treating a limitless myriad of symptoms.  The most extreme of which is the cry for conservation.  At its extreme, conservation seeks to cut off the intercourse of man and the land, ensuring the ultimate death of both.

What the land needs, however, is neither the over zealous building up which takes place in the debt based monetary system, nor the sterile, hands off idleness called for by extreme conservation agendas.

What both the land and mankind desperately need, is balance.  The only way to achieve this balance, is to return the monetary premium to things in the natural realm.

One of our many “inquietudes” (a Spanish word for which a rough English translation would be agitation) here at The Mint is that the concept of money has been removed from the natural realm of coin, currency, or anything physical and naturally occurring (at least at a base level), and has been elevated and attached to the enigma of a debt, which exists purely in the imagination, if not aspirations, of men and women.

The disconnection, while giving rise to advances beyond our imagination, has thrown the earth’s resources wildly out of balance, via the unnatural transfer of control into few hands.

What many Keynesian trained economists praise as a triumph over the shackles of specie money, we lament as perhaps the ultimate delusion of our time.  Such is the delusion that nary one in a million men will understand these words.

More tomorrow…

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

Key Indicators for February 4, 2013

Copper Price per Lb: $3.74
Oil Price per Barrel:  $96.17
Corn Price per Bushel:  $7.34
10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  1.97%
FED Target Rate:  0.15%  ON AUTOPILOT, THE FED IS DEAD!
Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,667 THE GOLD RUSH IS ON!
MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25%
Unemployment Rate:  7.9%
Inflation Rate (CPI):  0.0%
Dow Jones Industrial Average:  13,880
M1 Monetary Base:  $2,455,100,000,000 LOTS OF DOUGH ON THE STREET!
M2 Monetary Base:  $10,412,500,000,000