BankNotes Feb 2012

www.infnitebanking.org david@infnitebanking.
org
Banknotes - neLson nasHs MontHLY neWsLetteR - FeBRuaRY 2012
Nelson Nash, Founder, nelson31@charter.net
David Stearns, Editor, david@infnitebanking.org
Infnite Banking Concepts, LLC
2957 Old Rocky Ridge Road,
Birmingham, Alabama 35243
BankNotes newsletter archives are located on our
website: www.infnitebanking.org/banknotes.php
The Perfect Investment
by L. Carlos Lara
This Lara-Murphy Report (LMR) article was
reprinted with permission. This and many more
articles related to IBC and Austrian Economics are
published monthly in the LMR. Subscriptions are
available at www.usatrustonline.com
There is no other way to put it. Americans have been
tricked! The hidden process of money creation that
artifcially manipulates interest rates and creates
economic booms has misguided societys views of
money and credit. This has been especially noticeable
in our modern view of savings. Once considered the
bedrock of a households fnancial strategy, traditional
savings plans lost favor with the public because they
were seen as too slow and boring in an economy that
was fush with money and low interest rates. The lure
of the stock market and the promises of quick money
through investing turned Americans into a nation of
speculators. Riding the wave of infation, the idea was
to buy low and sell high. The strategy was all about
making moneyfast!
The problem is that infation and credit expansion
always precipitates business maladjustments and
malinvestments that must be later liquidated. The
inevitable bust is always disastrous to the economy.
For society at large, the end results are massive
unemployment, recessions, and a possible collapse
of the monetary system. Only now, with the current
fnancial crises are individuals fnally starting to assess
how this all happens. What has surfaced as the primary
cause no one would have believed during the heyday
of easy credit and fast money. But slowly, over the
course of recent years, the general public has fnally
become aware that somehow the Federal Reserve was
directly responsible. And, of course, they are right.
After all, the Fed controls all of our money! The
Federal Reserve, though created by the government,
is nonetheless owned by private individuals and in
important ways operates independently from the
wishes of the government. As Austrian economist,
Murray Rothbard, stated:
The Federal Reserve, virtually in total control of
the nations monetary system, is accountable to no-
bodyand this strange situation, if acknowledged at
all, is invariably trumpeted as a virtue.
1
This startling realization, the fact that our money is
not fully in our control can be immensely depressing
once all of its moral and economic ramifcations are
fully understood. How in the world do you take away
the printing press from government and the Federal
Reserve once they have had full use of it all these
many years? In fact, just exactly how would one go
about changing such a monstrous problem?
How Privatized Banking Really Works
To answer these specifc questions Robert and I wrote
How Privatized Banking Really Works. It is a unique
book in that it both diagnoses our nations economic
problems, but then offers a realistic solution. Our
quandary has very specifc causes: fat money and
the practice of fractional reserve banking, coupled
with government interventions that perpetuate them.
All this we explained without the use of intimidating
jargon that too often defes comprehension. The
books overarching theme is that households do have
the ability to secede from this chaotic fnancial system
and ultimately force the upper echelons of government
2 www.infnitebanking.org david@infnitebanking.org
to make necessary monetary policy changes. In that
respect, this is a book that answers the question of
what one person can actually do that will make a
difference in an economic environment that has gone
terribly awry.
What we made clear was that the solution requires a
movement that will ultimately change public opinion.
However, the very frst step to getting the ball rolling
requires the implementation of the Infnite Banking
Concept (IBC). To do this successfully one must
fully grasp its meaning and see how it actually helps
the individual fnancially. Once fully understood,
this concept provides the basis for a formula with
powerful turn-around dynamics. The result is a private
economic enterprise that provides all of the fnancing
capabilities to acquire cars, childrens education,
retirement income and even house purchases. In an
economic environment such as what we have today
who would not want to know about such a concept?
However, making the case for IBC is easier said than
done. Todays investing public is extremely cynical
and skeptical, but there is yet another issue that
can sometimes prove insurmountable the closed
mind. Many people have diffculty seeing past their
preconceived ideas. Nevertheless, if we are to have
any hopes of returning to sound money and returning
money and banking to the competitive private sector,
out of the hands of politicians and bailed-out big
bankers, the public must be made to understand this
very important piece of the fnancial solution. Here
is where the fnancial professional who understands
Austrian economics must step forward to do his part
in properly explaining IBC.
One of the most compelling ways fnancial
professionals explain the IBC concept is to compare
it to ones own private bank as Nelson Nash has done
in his national best selling book, Become Your Own
Banker. This is important because IBC is all about
the banking business. But another way that is often
used to explain IBC is to compare it to the perfect
investment. Here the client is asked to list all of the
attributes of the ideal investment. This exercise alone
will do an incredible job of opening up the mind to
the infnite possibilities if such a product existed.
Although the lists may vary from client to client, the
following qualities are the ones most often cited:
1. A consistent high rate of return
2. Liquidity
3. Guaranteed
4. Safe
5. Tax Free
6. No market volatility
7. Creditor Protected
8. Infation Proof
9. Control
10. Transferable
11. Easy to manage
12. No fees or penalties
13. Reputable
14. Private
Try this exercise yourself and you will see that these
are probably the top qualities you would select. In
fact, a product that would contain all of these features
would be too good to be true. But, when it is confrmed
that all of these features are found in Whole Life, the
client is stunned. It cant be! Yet its true. If you can
think of other qualities not listed here, the chances are
pretty high that whole life has them. Furthermore, this
is not an even an investment, its life insurance!
Just imagine having an infrastructure with all these
qualities and having full control of the asset. This is the
power of IBC. The most popular investment vehicles
are strong on some criteria but very weak on others.
For example, gold is an excellent infation hedge, but
it does not provide a fow of income, its appreciation
can be taxed as a capital gain, and the government
has confscated gold in the past. Real estate too can
be quite volatile. Stock market investments, though
promising a high rate of return, also come with the
risk of massive short-term losses.
The standard case for whole life insurance is that
it is remarkably reliable on several of the above
criteria. Even its weak points are not as bad as the
critics think. In reality there is no such thing as a
www.infnitebanking.org david@infnitebanking.org 3
perfect investment, but the case for middle-to upper-
income families including whole life, as part of their
conservative fnancial plan, is quite compelling.
When we supplement the standard case with Nelsons
Nashs insights, and in particular the relationship of
insurance and fractional reserve banking (as I will
explain later in this article), the case for practicing
IBC becomes stronger still.
In our experience, most people reject IBC out of hand
because they have one or two devastating objections
to the use of a whole life policy. The following example
may help in defusing these common objections.
Making Money
Richard Russell has published the Dow Theory
Letters since 1958. He gained wide recognition as a
stock market analyst and writer for Barrons from the
late 50s through the 90s. He has also written for Time,
Newsweek, Money Magazine, the New York Times
and the Wall Street Journal. Recently he republished
an article that he declares has been his most popular
piece in 40 years of writing. It was titled Rich Man,
Poor Man. In this article, Russell unveils the secret to
making money.
Before telling us the secret, Russell makes an astute
analysis that is worth repeating. He says that making
money involves much more than predicting what the
stock and bond markets will do or what fund will
double over the next few years.
For the majority of investors, making money requires
a plan, self discipline and desire. I say for the majority
of people because if you are Stephen Spielberg or
Bill Gates you dont have to know about the Dow or
the markets or about yields or price/earnings ratios.
Youre a phenomenon in your own feld, and you are
going to make big money as a by-product of your
talent and ability. But this kind of genius is rare.
2
Since we are not all geniuses, the rest of us need to
rely on what Russell calls the royal road to riches
which he defnes as the power of compounding.
To compound successfully you need time because
compounding only works through time. But he says
that the compounding process has two catches. The
frst is that it requires sacrifce, as Russell puts it, you
cant spend it and still save it. Second, compounding
is b-o-r-i-n-g. But Russell makes it a point to assure
us that it is slow and boring only for the frst seven or
eight years and then it becomes downright fascinating!
The money starts to pour in.
To emphasize the power of compounding Russell
shows an extraordinary study of two investors.
Investor (B) opens an IRA account at age 19. For
seven consecutive periods he puts in $2,000 in his
IRA at an average of 10% return (7% interest plus
growth). After seven years this individual makes NO
FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONShes fnished.
Investor (A) opens up an IRA at age 26 (this is the age
when Investor (B) was fnished with his contributions).
Then A continues faithfully to contribute $2,000 every
year until he is 65 (at the same theoretical 10% rate).
Now study the incredible results. Investor A has
893,704. Investor B has 930,641.
Investor B, who has made his contributions earlier
and who only made seven contributions in total, ends
up with MORE money than Investor A! But Investor
A, who made a total of 40 contributions, only LATER
in time, winds up with less money. How can that be?
The difference in the two, Russell tells us, is that B
had several more early years of compounding than A,
and those seven early years were worth more than all
of As 33 additional contributions.
Amazing! This is indeed the power of compounding.
Richard Russell has certainly gotten our attention and
made us realize how important it is to save money
and to start as soon as possible. However, a closer
examination of this example brings out several
problems that are worth noting.
First of all, we should keep in mind that Richard
Russell wrote this article years ago and his use of a
10% return would certainly be considered an above
average rate of return today. But there is also the
unmistakable consistency in the growth of this fund,
a fact that would never happen in the real world.
Russell even admonishes his readers that one of the
cardinal rules to compounding success is to NEVER
LOSE MONEY and most fnancial products do lose
money. Even diversifed mutual funds took a brutal
beating in the 2000s. Depending on the composition
of their funds, many households were lucky if they
broke even during the entire decade. It is all well
and good to tell someone, Buy and hold, but many
breadwinners with 401(k)s and other comparable
plans had to delay their retirement after the bloodbath
in 2008. As of this writing and because Bernanke has
halted QE, we are presently in store for another stock
market crash.
Second, there is the factor of infation that is not
calculated into this equation. Infation, although not
visible, is real. Whether you use 3%, 5% or whatever
factor you choose for infation, the accumulated
numbers will certainly change once its applied. But
what is really missing is TAX. Russell has this money
inside of an IRA. This means that the tax due on this
pile of money is calculated at income tax rates, which
can be as high as 35%! If you do the math the pile of
money gets drastically small. The fascinating results
we frst observed with investors A&B suddenly
diminish.
It is worth the time to stand back and look at this
example from both the positive and negative sides
of this equation if for no other reason than to realize
just how diffcult it is for Americans to pile up money
over a long period of time and get to keep any of it at
the end. The volatility of the bond and stock market,
which keeps us from earning a consistent rate of return,
is prompted by outside forces, which we know to be
artifcial bubbles in the economy, caused by monetary
policy. The indirect and hidden tax of infation and
the direct tax we have to pay on the accumulation all
serve to reminds us of the iron grip government has
on our money.
Then there is the problem of control. Do we actually
have control over the money we try and save?
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), the 401(k), the
403(b), and other tax-qualifed government sponsored
plans for the most part have their underlying assets
invested in the stock market through mutual funds.
As we have already mentioned, this is not exactly a
safe place for our lifes savings. Furthermore, these
allocated funds are virtually untouchable till age
59 unless one is willing to incur a 10% penalty,
plus pay the federal income tax, which has only been
deferred. After age 70 you must pay the tax. But more
importantly, without the ability to tap into your pool
of savings in case of emergencies or for large-scale
purchases, Americans have very little recourse but to
suffer great hardship or be forced to borrow and go
into debt.
Astonishingly, the power of compounding that
Richard Russell describes in his example can still
be achieved if your money is stored inside a whole
life policy. The rates of return in a whole life policy
are guaranteed never to go below the rates quoted
at the time a policy is underwritten. Consequently,
a foor is immediately established that assures you
of the consistency required to make compounding
successful. If interest rates go up then the cash values
in your policy will also appreciate.
In case the insured becomes disabled the Waiver of
Premium rider (not available to those over age 55)
guarantees the payment of all premiums at no out
of pocket cost to the insured. Just another way the
compounding process can be protected.
If the dividends, which are paid annually, are
reinvested back into the purchase of additional life
insurance, two important things happen. First, the
increasing death beneft becomes the hedge against
infation. Second, the accumulating cash values are
not subject to tax. Later on, if the policyholder elects
to withdraw the dividend payments as income, these
too are tax-free up to the point the dollars taken out
are above the ones initially put in.
In case of untimely death the entire compounding
process self completes immediately by the death
beneft and the proceeds are passed on to the
benefciaries income tax-free.
By having ones money inside a private contractual
arrangement with an Insurance company instead
of a tax qualifed government plan such as an IRA,
401(K), or other similar vehicles, there is real control
over your money without the typical restrictions
and penalties. You have access to the cash values
inside your policy whenever you need them through
policy loans. Additionally, all of the other desired
investment qualities already mentioned are present.
Most importantly, you can spend it and still save it, so
long as you replace it. If done properly, using a whole
life policy as a fnancing enterprise makes complete
sense.
Whole Life Policy Loans Are Not Infationary
Nelson Nash has discovered that a traditional fnancial
productdividend-paying whole life insurance
can be used to immediately implement a form of
privatized banking, one household at a time. But
equally important, when major purchases are fnanced
through whole life policy loans, the money supply
is not expanded and there is no contribution to the
boom-bust cycle.
Unlike a commercial bank, the insurance company
cant simply increase the numbers on its ledger,
showing how much money the customer has on
deposit. No, the insurance company itself must frst
raise the funds (from incoming premium payments,
income earned on its assets, or through selling some of
its assets) before transferring them to the policyholder
as a loan. Percy Greaves, in his introduction to a book
by Ludwig von Mises, drives home the central point.
The cash surrender values of life insurance policies
are not funds that depositors and policyholders can
obtain and spend without reducing the cash of others.
These funds are in large part invested and thus not
held in a monetary form. That part which is in banks
or in cash is, of course, included in the quantity of
money which is either in or out of banks and should
not be counted a second time. Under present laws,
such institutions cannot extend credit beyond sums
received. If they need to raise more cash than they
have on hand to meet customer withdrawals, they must
sell some of their investments and reduce the bank
accounts or cash holdings of those who buy them.
Accordingly, they (the insurance companies) are in
no position to expand credit or increase the nations
quantity of money as can commercial and central
banks, all of which operate on a fractional reserve
basis and can lend more money than is entrusted to
them.
3
So we see that not only does IBC make sense on
an individual level, but it also limits the ability of
commercial banks to expand and contract the total
amount of money in the economy. With each new
household that embraces the IBC philosophy, another
portion of the nations fnancial resources will be
transferred out of the volatile commercial banking
sector and into the conservative, solid insurance
sector. As more people embrace IBC, the amplitude
of the boom-bust cycle itself will be dampened. The
social benefts of muting infationary credit expansion
are achieved.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, there are powerful forces at work to
disrupt our market economy. The student of history
knows all too well that the rich and powerful turn to
government for special privileges and handouts, and
sabotage the peaceful operations of the market. This
government interference leads to the fnancial crises
that seem to inexplicably plague our country.
The beauty of Nelson Nashs Infnite Banking
Conceptand the crux of this articleis that IBC is
effective both individually and collectively. Financial
professionals should devote their efforts to showing
households that they can provide themselves with
a much more secure future. By accumulating their
savings in whole life policies to fnance their major
purchases, families and individuals can contribute to
the soundness of the dollar and dampen the boom-
bust cycle.
The proponents of IBC and the scholars in the
Austrian tradition can learn from each other, and in
doing so can make their messages more attractive to
their respective audiences. Financial professionals
trying to show others the benefts of IBC can add a
new point in its favor: its widespread practice would
preserve the currency and strengthen the economy!
These efforts can build the 10%. The movement we
seek can actually happen. Public opinion can change.
Monetary policy can be re-written.
Bibliography
1. Murray Rothbard, The Case Against The Fed (Auburn,
AL: The Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1994), p.3.
Available at http://mises.org/books/fed.pdf.
2. Richard Russell, Article: Rich Man, Poor Man
Available at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/russell-r4.1.1.html,
February 2, 2011
3. Percy Graves, quoted in Huerta de Soto, footnote 106,
p. 592.
This Lara-Murphy Report (LMR) article was reprinted
with permission. This and many more articles related
to IBC and Austrian Economics are published monthly
in the LMR. Subscriptions are available at www.
usatrustonline.com
WHEN WISHES BECOME RIGHTS
By Leonard E. Read
Federal defcits mount as the consequence of
increasing claims against welfare programs of all
kinds. This growth of government spending and
intervention in 1983 leads me to review and repeat
some ideas I offered on the subject in The Freeman
of 1964
Refect on the backward countries in the world; the
distressed areas in the USA; the many individuals
who are poverty stricken, lame, blind. Then add all
the unfulflled desires and yearnings of 235 million
Americans, ranging from better food, housing,
clothing, medicine, hospitals, mink coats, and
automobiles to colonizing outer space. What a feld
for the would-be philanthropist if all these wants were
within his power to fulfll!
Let us imagine that you have been offered a magic
power to satisfy everyones material wishes with no
effort on your part. Suppose, for instance, that you
had Aladdins lamp and could call up a genie that
would confer any good or service on anyone you
might choose to help. If you could thus satisfy desires
for material things with neither cost nor effort on the
part of anyone, would you be willing to assume the
role of Aladdin and bestow benefactions like manna
from heaven?
Perhaps you are among the very few whose answer
would be an emphatic No! There are those few
who would immediately sense the consequences of
such reckless humanitarianism: no more farming;
the closing of all factories and stores; trains and
planes coming to a stop; students no longer studying;
a heaven-on-earth a veritable Shangri-La! No more
problems; all obstacles overcome for mankind! These
few know that when there is no exercise and fexing
of the faculties, atrophy follows as a matter of course
and our species disappears all because everyone is
granted riches for nothing more than the wishing!
If this sort of magic were only half practiced, would the
result be bad? Yes! answered Benjamin Franklin.
If man could have Half his Wishes, he would double
his Troubles. We may infer from this that if a mans
objectives could be achieved for nothing more than
wishes, no good would be served, deterioration would
ensue. Struggle, earning ones spurs, conscious effort
, calling on ones potentialities and bringing them
into use are essential to survival to say nothing of
progress. This is crystal clear to a few. But not to the
many.
A majority of Americans, today, would accept the
magic lamp. For it is obvious that most persons who
would gratify a wish at the expense to others would
readily do so at no expense to others. Such wishers are
among us by the millions, all in pursuit of something
for nothing effortless wish gratifcation.
These many Americans have found their magic lamp
in the Federal political apparatus, and what a genie!
Aladdins lamp evoked a genie of supernatural powers;
but this modern genie is a composite of quite ordinary
human beings and, as a consequence, it relies on the
earthly ways of humans. Even so, we must never sell
it short; it is unbelievably clever.
Aladdins genie performed only on call; it responded
to wishes when requested. This modern American
version, on the other hand, displays zealous initiative
in that it:
1. Invents wishes for people.
2. Persuades people that these wishes are their own
and, then, actively solicits their gratifcation;
3. convinces people that these wishes are among
their natural rights, and
4. casts itself in the role of helper.
Mythology in its heyday never came up with a genie
equal to this. Golden goals for people to adopt? It
was this genie, not the people of the Tennessee Valley,
that initiated the TVA with its below-cost pricing. It
was this genie that conceived social security, the
Peace Corps, and so on.
Further, the genie insinuates its golden goals into the
minds of people as wishes capable of fulfllment. The
genie appears in nearly every community of the nation
and in many countries of the world selling its wishing
wares Federal urban renewal projects are promoted
far more by the bureaucracy in Washington than by
local citizens. Federal largesse is urged upon the
citizenry. Of course, the reason is clear enough: urban
renewal is an integral part of the numerous Federal
full employment projects required as cover-ups of
the unemployment caused by other Federal policies.
But it would hardly do for this genie to gratify wishes
were the performance attended by any sense of
guilt on the peoples part. So, how does the genie
dispose of this hazard? Simple! It transmutes wishes
into rights, and remains above suspicion in this
legerdemain. Do you wish a restoration of your
decaying downtown? Very well; that wish is a right.
Do you wish lower rates for power and light? Presto!
The wish is a right. Do you wish a better price for
your tobacco, a better job, a better education that
can be had by your own efforts in willing exchange?
These wishes are now your rights.
Labor unions with their right-to-a-job concept
and businessmen with their right-to-a-market idea
(outlawing competition) are dealing in the same
category of false rights. Indeed, this can be said for
all of socialism without exception!
When people say they have a right to a job or to lower
power and light rates or to an education or to a decent
standard of living, they are staking out a claim to the
fruits of the labor of others. Where rests the sanction
for this claim? It simply comes from the notion that
a wish is a right.
The absurdity of this wish-is-a-right sanction comes
clear if we reduce the problem to manageable
proportions: a you-and-me situation. Do have a
just or rational or moral or ethical claim to use your
income to provide a living wage for me? Do I have
a valid claim to use your erect my school and staff
it with teachers, or fnance my church and supply
clergymen?
Most people victimized by the magic transmutation of
wishes into rights will, in this you-and-me situation,
answer the above question in the negative. What
escapes them is that the problem is not altered one
whit by adding one person or a hundred or a million
of them. And, if it be contended that numbers do
matter, then, pray tell, what is the magic number? A
majority? Must we not infer from this majoritarian
clich the indefensible proposition that might makes
right?
In any community in the land may be found people
pointing with pride to some necessity the local
citizens could not or would not fnance, explaining
that it was made possible with the help of the Federal
government.
The modern American genie, lacking super-natural
powers, cannot bring down manna from heaven.
Being earthly, its manna is earthly in origin. Having
nothing whatsoever of its own, its gifts must,
perforce, stem from what is taken by coercion from
others. It cannot be otherwise.
The questions posed are: Do these gifts qualify
as help? Is this genie, in fact, a helper? Are the
benefciaries really helped? If we can answer these
questions in the negative, we come out from under the
genies spell.
Help is a social term. At least two persons the helper
and the helped are implicit in its meaning. There
cannot be one without the other. The extent to which
one is helped is measured precisely by the nature and
amount of the helpers contribution. What is received
by the one is what comes from the other.
Property taken without consent is correctly branded as
ill-gotten property. Nothing is altered by the transfer.
According to moral law, as well as the law of the land,
one who takes property without the owners consent
commits a crime. When such property is passed on
to and accepted by another, the other is adjudged an
accomplice to the crime.
Property taken without consent cannot be given, for
to give is conditioned on and presupposes ownership
by the giver. I cannot give that which is not mine.
Thus, the genies largesse cannot qualify as gifts but
only as loot.
Loot is not help, one who loots is not a helper, and one
who accepts the loot is not really helped.
Power to tamper with the volitional faculties of other
is, in fact, a dangerous possession. Nor does it matter
whether this power be used to restrain these faculties,
as in private or political dictatorship, or exerted to
relieve the need for the exercise of these faculties,
as in private or political welfarism. However strong
the compulsion in most of us to modify or improve
the lot of other people, if we would avoid causing
more harm than good, we must confne ourselves to
those aids that stimulate the renewed exercise of the
volitional faculties in others. This suggests a rejection
of all power to impose, leaving instead a reliance
upon ingathering or drawing power that magnetic,
attracting, emulating force, the power that derives
from such self-perfection as one may achieve.
I must not, in picking to pieces the notion that wishes
are rights, leave the impression that wishes, of and
by themselves, are proper objects of scorn. On the
contrary, wishes, hopes, aspirations are among the
most important forces motivating human progress,
evolution, emergence. At issue here is only the means
of their gratifcation.
We who reject illusory schemes are not denying
the good life to others but merely pointing out that
political nostrums can lead only to desolatory dead
ends. No good end can be reached by can be reached
by choosing a wrong way.
As we uncover more and more wrong ways, the right
way begins to take form. It is the greatest gratifer
of human wishes ever come upon when allowed to
operate. It is a morally sound as the Golden Rule. It
is the way of willing exchange, of common consent,
of self-responsibility , of open opportunity. It respects
the right of each to the product of his own labor. It
limits the police force to keeping the peace. It is
the way of the free market, private property, limited
government. Our banner is emblazoned Individual
Liberty.
Investment or Malinvestment?
by Igor Karbinovskiy
Every administration wants to create jobs. There can
never be too many jobs, if you ask them, so they're
always interested in making more, even in times of
low unemployment. Every administration, therefore,
proposes its own jobs bill. Last year, for example,
President Obama spent some time touring the coun-
try to promote his own jobs bill as a way to address
the deepening economic crisis. This seems like a no-
brainer. After all, jobs are clearly and unambiguously
a good thing, right?
Suppose I write an article on the economy that no one
wants to read, much less pay me for. Now suppose
that the government pays me for it anyway as part
of a jobs bill. Presto! A new job has been created; a
person who was previously unemployed is now work-
ing. Better yet, that person is me! This job certainly
increased my standard of living. But what have I pro-
duced? What have I contributed to the economy? Be-
cause no one wants my article, the value of my con-
tribution to the economy is zero. The time I've spent
in writing, and the money the government paid me,
have been wasted. Worse, because this money allows
me to consume things that I (and other people) want
Have an interesting article or quote related to IBC?
We gladly accept article submissions as long as
premission to reprint is provided. Send submissions
for review and possible inclusion in BankNotes to
david@infnitebanking.org.
things like food and shelter the net effect on
the economy is negative: zero value in, positive value
out. This, then, is an example of a "bad" job.
On the other hand, if someone wanted the article I'd
written, at the price I was charging for it, then the situ-
ation would be quite different. My contribution to the
economy would be positive; its value is determined
by my customers, who prefer my work to the money
they paid for it. I obviously gain the money, which I
value higher than my labor. In this latter example, I
was productive. In the former, I was not. This, then, is
the difference between a productive job and an unpro-
ductive one: whether or not someone freely decides
that its output is worth buying.
Everyone makes decisions based on an ever-shifting
scale of personal preferences a kind of mental
shopping list on which we list all options available to
us that we're aware of, in order from most desirable
to least desirable. Economists call this the "law of
marginal utility." We choose that option we fnd most
desirable why would we ever pick an option that
is less desirable than another (whatever "desirable"
means to us)? I am not suggesting that every choice
we make is made with our personal, selfsh beneft in
mind, at least not material beneft. I am simply point-
ing out that anything we do in the absence of coercion
even giving gifts we do because we want to
do it. So if we go into a store and choose one prod-
uct over another, it is because we valued that product
more than the other.
If we accept that some products are desirable and oth-
ers aren't, then it follows logically that the real estate,
equipment, labor, raw materials, and money involved
in their creation are also either desirably employed
or not. Anything invested in creation of goods that
no one wants ("bads," really) is wasted as was my
time in writing the unwanted article and should
be reallocated toward creation of goods people actu-
ally want. On the other hand, assets invested in the
creation of goods that everyone wants most urgently
are clearly put to best possible use, and any effort to
reallocate them toward any other use would result in
a reduction in everyone's standard of living.
It's not enough, then, to know how much money,
equipment, time, etc. there is; you also need to know
how much the end result is valued on the free market.
Investors know this from experience, after watching
the values of their investments fuctuate on the mar-
ket. And how can we know ahead of time how much
the fnal product or service will be valued on the free
market? We cannot. There is only one way to test the
quality of any investment by putting it to the free
market test: produce the goods or services; offer those
goods or services for sale on the free market; if you
make a proft, then your investment was productive.
All this is in complete contradiction to the commonly
(though not universally) accepted economic theory
that treats all investments the same, without regard to
how desirable its end product is. Everything is lumped
together blindly into a single aggregate. According to
this theory, if you increase the aggregate, you increase
the total level of wealth and hence the standard of liv-
ing. Not surprisingly, economists who think this way
are always calling for more infation.
But if you increase the supply of money (infation),
and it is allocated into uses that are wasteful, then you
don't create any wealth, and you don't increase the
standard of living even if you use the new money
to create new jobs. When mainstream economists say
that the economy has expanded, therefore, this should
be taken with a grain of salt. A skeptical person should
ask which part of the economy has expanded the
productive part? Or waste?
In the same way economic contraction is not necessar-
ily a bad thing. Which part of the economy has con-
tracted? The productive part or waste? When invest-
ments are misallocated into wasteful confgurations
("malinvestments"), the result is losses to its owners
(barring government bailout). The owners, then, are
faced with the pressure to reallocate their wealth if
they don't want to continue to hemorrhage cash. This
usually involves cutting back on spending, letting
employees go, selling property, etc. In other words,
economic contraction. At the end of this process, the
money is released to be reallocated, potentially into
productive, wealth-building uses. The sum total of the
economy may have shrunk, but the productive part of
it has grown at the expense of the wasted part.
There is no way to know if a particular sum of money,
machine, building, or worker is put to a valuable, pro-
ductive use, other than to put them to the test of the
free market. Outside the free market, investing capital
is like throwing darts blindfolded when you don't even
know which direction the dartboard is. What does that
mean for a jobs bill? Far from rescuing the economy
from crisis, it would only make it worse. Consum-
ers, being the rulers of the free marketplace, must be
free to decide to buy or not to buy. To maximize
productive capital therefore requires that consumers
are free from any constraints on their decision making
and especially that nothing should interfere with
the proft-and-loss signals sent out by these decisions.
The sooner capital owners learn that their capital is
allocated into wasteful uses, the better.
Igor Karbinovskiy is a self-taught investor and
economics student. He studied business management and
computer science at SUNY Stony Brook. He works as
an accountant at a real-estate holding company in New
Jersey. Send him mail. See Igor Karbinovskiy's article
archives.
Number Twenty One in a monthly series of Nelsons
lessons, right out of Becoming Your Own Banker
.
We will continue until we have gone through the
entire book.
Lesson 21: Creating The Entity (cont)
Content: Page 36, Becoming Your Own Banker
The Infnite Banking Concept Fifth Edition, Fifth
Printing.
As we discussed earlier, most all products begin
with engineering. In the life insurance business the
engineers are actuaries. They are dealing with a
feld of ten million selected lives persons that have
been through a selection process. I would not be one
included in this feld since Ive been through heart by-
pass surgery. And they are dealing with a theoretical
life span of one hundred years.
The graphical illustration of the 1958 Commissioners
Standard Ordinary Mortality Table is illustrated here.
A word of caution is necessary here most people
will react with a question like, Why are you showing
me a table from 1958 thats ancient history! You
need to understand that it really doesnt matter all
that much when you are dealing with a mutual life
insurance company. All you need is a starting point.
If mortality experience has improved, then dividends
will go up, giving you the effect of a current mortality
table at all times.
Even in 1958 you will notice that, out of 1,000 born,
only 100 had died before age 45. I went to my 50th
high school reunion four years ago and our experience
was much better than that. Out of a class of 230, only
16 had died and two of them were in a car wreck
when we were still in school. Life expectancy has
improved dramatically in the past 60 years.
This should be a good place to ask a question where
did this idea of retiring at age 65 come from? From
all that I can gather it all started with the Germans
during the time of Bismarck. These were the folks
Nelsons Favorite Quotes
II Timothy 4:1-4
Before God and Christ Jesus, who is going to judge
the living and the dead, and by His appearing and
His kingdom, I solemnly charge you: proclaim the
message; persist in it whether convenient or not;
rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience
and teaching. The time will come when they will
not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their
desires, will accumulate teachers for themselves
because they have an itch to hear something new.
They will turn away from hearing the truth and will
turn aside to myths.
that gave the world the idea of Social Security. This
is where President Franklin D. Roosevelt got age 65
for retirement purposes. I believe that life expectancy
for American males in 1937 was in the neighborhood
of age 61. Now, expectancy for males is past age
75. And we are currently using age 67 as retirement
time!? It will never work! With increasing longevity,
can you picture a situation where one plans to work
for 40 years and retires for 45 years? Get real! There
is no way that this
can happen!
The coming collapse
of Social Security
is the natural result
of operating from
a faulty premise.
There is no legitimate
reason for using such
fallacious thinking to
plan your fnancial
future. I once read
a story about John
Templeton, creator of
The Templeton Fund,
who retired at age
80 and is now doing
only charitable work
(and working harder
than ever). He made
the observation that
all should plan on
working to at least 70
before considering
retirement that
under our current
thinking the most
productive years of life are being wasted.
Furthermore, it is easily demonstrable that all Socialist
schemes eventually fall apart. There has ever been
an exception. Just a thought to consider the Soviet
Union lasted about 70 years and it became unraveled.
The great Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises,
explained over 50 years ago that this would happen.
And now, remember that the U.S. Social Security
program started in 1937. Add about 70 years to that
date and watch that thing come apart!
There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund.
That money has already been spent and replaced
with worthless IOUs. Everything is predicated
on the governments ability to extract money from
future generations. According to an article in the
May 1997 issue of Nations Business, in 1945, there
were 42 workers
supporting each
recipient of Social
Security. In 1996,
only 3.3 workers
were supporting
each recipient. By
the year 2025 the
ratio is predicted to
be 2.2 workers per
recipient.
Here is a scenario
that I conceived a
few years ago that
no one will talk
about: There are
three men, all born
on the same day
one was Caucasian,
one was Black, and
one was Hispanic.
During their
working lives they
all had similar jobs
and paid maximum
into Social Security.
They all lived until
Social Security retirement age. It is a statistical fact
that Caucasians live longer than Blacks and Hispanics.
You can pass all the laws that you want to and you
cant change that fact.
They all drew their frst monthly check. The next
month the Black man died and the following month his
widow died from heart break of losing her husband.
The following month the Hispanic man died and the
month after that his widow died, too.
Nelsons Live Seminars
for February and March 2012
http://infnitebanking.org/seminars/
Our comprehensive Becoming Your Own Banker
seminar
is organized into a fve-part, ten-hour consumer-oriented
study of The Infnite Banking Concept
and uses our book

Becoming Your Own Banker
as the guide. Nelson covers

the concepts fundamentals in a two-hour introductory block
the frst day. He then covers the how to over an eight-
hour block the fnal day. These seminars are sponsored by
IBC Think Tank Members, therefore attendance is dictated
by the seminar sponsor. If you are interested in attending
one of these events, please call or email the contact person
listed with the seminar.
Nelson Live in Birmingham, AL, Tuesday-
Wednesday, 7-8 February, contact David Stearns at
205-276-2977, david@infnitebanking.org
IBC Think Tank Symposium, Thursday-Friday, 9-10
February, contact David Stearns at 205-276-2977,
david@infnitebanking.org
Nelson Speaking in Houston, TX, Wednesday, 22
February, in Cleburne, TX, Thursday, 23 February,
in Arlington, TX, Friday, 24 February, contact James
Neathery 817-790-0405, jcneat@gmail.com
Nelson Live in Ft Worth, TX, Friday, 25
February, contact James Neathery 817-790-0405,
jcneat@gmail.com
Nelson Live in Lancaster County, PA, Friday-
Saturday, 2-3 March, contact Jo Scheidt 717-626-
4072, jo@familywealthandwisdom.com
Nelson Live in Houston, TX, Friday-Saturday,
23-24 March, contact Peoples Choice Insurance
Solutions & Investments, Inc., 281-852-9396,
peoples.choice@comcast.net
Nelson Live in Baldwin City, KS, Thursday, 29
March, contact Mike Everett 785-760-3189 or 800-
953-9926, michaelkeverett@gmail.com
Question: What happened to all the money the Black
and the Hispanic paid into Social Security?
Answer: In the frst place, it doesnt exist. The
money has already been spent. But the net effect of
the program is that it extends the system longer into
the future for the beneft of the Caucasians widow!!
You see, the Caucasian women live longer than their
husbands!
In addition to all the other warnings about the coming
implosion of that abominable Social Security idea,
please tell me how anyone can expect my last example
to exist in 21st Century America! There is no way
that it can happen!! You can take steps to avoid all
this by contracting with other like minded people to
solve the problem. It is called Whole Life Insurance!
Nelsons Newly Added Book
Recommendations
http://infnitebanking.org/reading-list/
Gents with No Cents by Ron DeLegge
All the Trouble in the World by P. J. ORourke
The Income Tax: Root of all Evil by Frank Chodorov

BankNotes Feb 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BankNotes Feb 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BankNotes Feb 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.infnitebanking.org david@infnitebanking.

and uses our book

as the guide. Nelson covers

You might also like