Keys Writings, Part 5

This entry is part 7 of 34 in the series 2011C

Friction Among Friends
Aug 15, 2011

When my friends have friction between themselves I attempt to not take sides unless someone’s does something quite egregious. My plan in this case was to just let the interplay do its job and work itself out while I concentrate on other things, but this last post by Ruth kind of forced my hand, as I believe some of her statements need some comment.

Ruth: I am going to get it all of my chest, once and for all.

Now I have tried to change my writing style many times over the past few years to suit those here who are easily offended, and still I am called a brow beater etc. no matter how I write. Please Note: I do not write things with the intention of brow beating.

JJ It appears to me that your approach and writing style in dealing with others has been pretty much the same over the years. You have always been oversensitive when the slightest criticism of you surfaces. This has not changed and because of this perhaps your efforts in between criticisms have not been noticed as you desire. When you talk of metaphysics, however, you have displayed an increase in knowledge and it is obvious that you have been doing a lot of thinking. You are to be commended on this.

Ruth: However, when I stuck up for JJ on the Sealed Portion group, he seemed to be okay about how forceful I was in my defense of him and his teachings?

JJ My approach here and on the Sealed Portion has been the same. Sometimes when you have stood up for me either here or there I think you are doing a great job and other times I feel a little uncomfortable with your zeal. Then there are times you make mistakes about my thinking and I will correct you.

I am criticized more on the Sealed Portion list so standing up for me there is probably more helpful.

Ruth So perhaps I have become confused over the years between the approach that I took there on how I initially attacked what I saw as illusion in people’s posts (I was not attacking the people personally), compared to how I attack illusion here, and because I could be that way on the SP group and it was okay with JJ, so when I write on here to some degree in the same way, then it is intimidating to some people who are his closest friends and that’s a No No.

JJ I don’t see much difference in your interactions between the posting here and on the Sealed Portion. You have had endless conflicts with John Crane there and some with a few others. That group is not nearly as active as this one so a comparison is a little like apples and oranges.

Ruth BTW, see how easy it is to defend JJ? When I defended him, I was called his clone and called a blind follower.

JJ Some called you this at the Sealed Portion. I do not recall it happening here.

Ruth Yet he allows men in this group to attack me in front of everyone else, and he says nothing. I have seen this happening for some time in this group. The men are allowed to be emotional or call people names etc, but the minute I do anything that even smacks of emotionalism, I am the one they come after.

JJ We have a thing here called freedom of speech. I do nor allow or not allow. Those who are not moderated can say what they want. You’ve done your share of attacking and others attack you. If I were to condemn all who are participating in the conflict I would have time for nothing else.

You started the ball of attack rolling when you said: “I would rather see the book a best seller instead of bickering over it’s cover. How can we as a group get this book out there into the public eye, rather than sit here and debate how the cover is too loud etc?”

Some interpreted this as an attack on the whole group for merely giving their opinion that I had asked for. They do not see themselves as “bickering” over the cover. This type of lecturing just rubs some people the wrong way.

To this Dan responded: “Maybe you should think about sitting down, shutting up and just letting others express themselves without all the browbeating ”

It is true he could have been more diplomatic, but he responded there in a similar manner as you probably would have if the shoe was on the other foot.

True I could have stepped in and done some scolding, but it would have just added fuel to the fire on both sides.

Ruth I truly understand that JJ has to distance himself from the inner conflicts of emotionalism here.

JJ I don’t think you do or you wouldn’t complain about me not stepping in.

Ruth: Playing favorites is not balancing the energies or dynamics of the group. I don’t think he is even aware that he does it. It’s called a blind spot, yes?

JJ You might ask yourself why you are the only one who thinks I am playing favorites – that I unjustly pat others on the back while ignoring you.

I do not believe this to be true and I would guess that most here feel the same way.

Have I not given you enough pats on the back? Is that the problem here?

I am always on the lookout for good things being said here and I know I’ve said numerous good things about you from time to time.

On the other hand, there are many good things said and done here that I just do not have time to comment on – like the group fast and Song that shows so much initiative. Often my positive comments to others come not because they had the best post but because their comments were going in the direction I was thinking.

Ruth I have poured my heart and soul into this group, regardless of how others have treated me over the years.

JJ I know you have and you are appreciated. Also your daily quotes are appreciated by many.

Ruth: I don’t think it would make any difference now how I wrote. The thought form is there and people only see that, so it would not make any difference if I wrote fancy pancy or lovey dovey, they only see what they want to see.

JJ It always makes a difference how you write and speak. This has nothing to do with any thoughtform. I don’t think any individual in the group has much of a thoughtform built up on the Keys. If you return good for what you see as evil then soon good will return to you. Instead, at the slightest whiff of an attack you attack back.

When someone disagrees with you, you need to ask yourself how you can respond in such a way that you appear poised and unruffled and in control of your emotions.

Dan, you were disrespectful to me. Blayne you were disrespectful also to me earlier. Whatever you say about me is also in you. Mirror effect I think they call that.

JJ And Dan thought you were disrespectful to the effort of the group. I do not recall any problem with Blayne.

Ruth If I had dared to say to you “to think about sitting back and shutting up”, boy would I have copped flack. Funny how you seem to be able to be rude to me, but if the tables were turned I would get slammed for it.

JJ If you had used the same wording in the same circumstance I wouldn’t have scolded either of you.

Ruth I call a spade a spade and I am not going to change that or live a lie or in an illusion just for the sake of pleasing a few people here and catering to their whims because they do not like my personality.

JJ You can be polite and considerate without living a lie for crying out loud. This is what I try and do – just follow my example.

Ruth Isn’t that what you teach JJ. To live the Truth and stand up for what we believe in and dispel illusions? To have courage and balls and not fear to trespass where Angels tread.

JJ I teach that we should tell the truth and release our feelings in a harmless manner. We are among friends here. There is no reason to play the victim or see enemies. I can’t think of anyone here who would not respond well to kindness. They do not need or want harsh spades but a friendly queen instead.

Ruth So here’s to good group dynamics where there are no favorites and that every one of us gets a pat on the back from JJ when we make a good point or say something he approves of.

JJ There’s a lot of good things said and done here that receive no pats on the back. If I gave to everyone who deserved then I would be giving out so many they would be meaningless.

That said, let me end with this. You are among friends here and should see them as such. This is as nice of a bunch as you will find on the internet. Don’t worry so much about setting them on the straight and narrow but concentrate on giving your views without complaining or playing the victim or seeing others as being favorites while you are overlooked. Let go of all this astral stuff and come up higher and enjoy your time here.

Re: Fake Depressions?
Aug 15, 2011

Blayne: Bottom line is the GDP number along with all the other rosy numbers given out today are a joke and to put it mildly fuzzy math unless you believe government credit expansion, stimulus and make work programs with ever increasing unserviceable unsustainable debt is growth.

JJ Same type of joke as the GDP numbers during the depression of the 1890s if you read the except I gave. People really suffered. Part of the reason for the illusionary growth was the over extension of government projects taking away dollars to employ the common folk as illustrated in my last post.

The high unemployment with no safety net was not a myth by any means. The situation was much worse than what we are enduring now.

The trouble with Murray’s writings is he is selective in his facts leaving out anything that doesn’t fit his bias.

Aug 16, 2011

Seasteading has taken a step forward with Paypal founder putting up money to move the project ahead. Check out these links:\ artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html\ e-paypal-facebook-internet-success#ixzz1VCNep352

Re: Fake Depressions?
Aug 16, 2011

I was talking about the depression of the 1890s and you talk about the economy of the 1880s. Does not compute.


Re: Fake Depressions?
Aug 16, 2011

Blayne: Considering that it was mostly an agrarian society and 80% of people owned and lived on farms, unemployment rates were confined mostly to cities or high populations areas where most of the jobs where and the banks were also to run their fiat schemes and so only a small percentage of the population had jobs. In fact in those days it was considered an insult if you were asked who you worked for cause it meant you could not make your own way.

JJ This doesn’t make any sense. So if you were looking for a job in those days and you were not a landowner and you travel to a farm community looking for work and seek an honest job the people told you that you were pig vomit because you were not making your own way???

If this was the case (which I doubt) no wonder the unemployed went to the cities.

Whatever the case the depression of the 1990’s saw unemployment around 20% and a whole army of the unemployed marched across the United States from the West Coast to Washington DC seeking relief. This was no myth and the suffering was comparable to the Great Depression.

By the way you, still haven’t given any historical examples of a free-for-all currency that worked to support your money plan. What makes you think it would work when the closest example we have was the dark ages of England after the fall of Rome?

Re: Fake Depressions?
Aug 17, 2011

You (Blayne) give nothing to contradict anything I have said about the depression of the 1890s and as you can see below your data refers to the 1870s and 1880s when we were talking about the 1890’s. Throughout our history we have had cycles of growth overall. That is not in question. Even within cycles of growth there are a lot of problems with the economy and distribution and flow of money etc.

Re: Fake Depressions?
Aug 17, 2011

Blayne Of course I have but you continue to ignore them. We had them up till 1913. You yourself referred to them in message #52924. And I have shown that despite our problems we were prosperous and that period contained the two decades of the greatest growth and in American history! All during a time of competing free market currencies.

JJ Our money system before 1913 was not like the system you advocate. The government set the price of gold and silver and coined it and that is not in your plan and is anathema to your plan. From 1860-1913 the government had a universal currency which had to be accepted. This is in total opposition to your plan. During these golden years most of the money was created by fractional banking and this was the main currency – totally different than the results you expect from your plan. You can’t even give one decade anywhere in the world where your system was successfully in play yet you expect us to believe you are presenting something workable.

On the other hand, I have numerous given examples covering many centuries where there was successful debt free fiat money which gives evidence a successful fiat money can be created today.

Re: Fake Depressions?
Aug 17, 2011

Blayne: We have been talking about the 1870’s through the 1890s

JJ We’ll I’ve been talking about the 1890s so any disagreement you have with me in this discussion should cover that period. I try and cover one thing at a time for the sake of clarity.

Blayne: I have given several references covering the 1890s recently and before.

JJ You didn’t give any information supporting your case about the 1890s in your last post.

Blayne Of the two Rothbard quotes I gave in this new thread one of them covers that period. You have continued to ignore them and make statements of denial and claim Murray is selective but never specifically showing where he is selective.

JJ Yes, he is selective. He paints with a broad brush and ignores the depression that occurred which was most severe from 1893-1897. The money stock declined 5% from 1892-1896. “From 1891 to 1896 net national product in current prices fell at an average rate of roughly 1 per cent per year.” Freidman Monetary History, Page 97

In addition to this Rothbard ignores the money velocity of this period. This is the speed with which money changes hands. You can have a large money supply but if it does not change hands then it is as if it does not exist. On page 94 of Friedman’s book he gives a chart illustrating a large drop in the velocity of money during your mythical depression. This by itself could have created a depression. This low velocity is cause by a number of things. High unemployment, restrictions on loans, lack of faith by the people in the system etc.

Blayne: So now you are finally admitting it was a time of growth and not a depression. Well I guess we are making some progress…

JJ You need to read materials that present the full data rather than part, because they are trying to prove a point. Friedman is one of t he fairer ones. The data and historical accounts reveal that there was indeed a depression with the unemployment reaching 20%.

And by the way, during the 1890’s only half the population did farm related work.

Re: Fake Depressions?
Aug 17, 2001

Blayne People were NOT forced to use government currency. Most of the money was fiat because they could print and that is what caused the problems. They were free to use any currency they pleased and you yourself have admitted there were hundreds of currencies. That is a free market and pretty close to what I advocate.

JJ First let me say that I’ve always agreed that people had more monetary freedom in the old days.

Secondly, it may be close to what you advocate than the current system, but it is still not what you advocate.

You claim that if your system were to prevail that fiat money would fall by the wayside, but in this golden era it prevailed. Why did this happen if it was so close to your system?

Blayne Amazing… I just gave you 4 decades and you continue to be in denial…

JJ Which four decades? I do not know of one where we had a totally free money system with the government not being involved. According to Rothbard the last private gold that was allowed to be minted was 1848 so the latter half of the century did not meet your minting standard.

Quoting JJ On the other hand, I have numerous given examples covering many centuries where there was successful debt free fiat money which gives evidence a successful fiat money can be created today

Blayne And I have contradicted them with historical references that you deny and will I am sure deny again in response to this post…

JJ You made an effort, but I countered them all and I don’t think you convinced anyone. If you really effectively proved me wrong you would think I would have heard from some reader on the matter.

Re: The word Father in the song.

Art: I personally think the word “father” in the song has the potential to limit the power of this song. It sets up an incorrect assumption and brings up the wrong images in peoples mind who get stuck in the idea that God is some sort of Father(male) figure.

JJ I think I said this years ago but you can use either “Father” (comfortable for most people) or “Father-Mother” (more acceptable to others.) The important thing is that your thought is directed toward God, the Source of all.

Tally Sticks
Aug 18, 2011

Blayne, Tally sticks were more of an accounting or recording system for the most part. And I already posted how as soon as the King started using them like fiat money they suffered the same fate all fiat systems in history have. But nice try…

JJ First let me point out that what King Charles II did was a Ponzi scheme, which was a totally different animal than the tally stick program that had been successfully in place and financed the kingdom for over 500 years. To take a handful of years of recklessness by a king and discount a total of seven centuries of success is not a logical approach.

King Charles made the same mistake that our leaders do today. To borrow money he promised future tax revenues to investors. He then borrowed more and more until he essentially went broke.

Meanwhile, the tally sticks held by the people themselves never went out of use and the program continued after his death.

A Ponzi scheme can develop within any money system whether it be gold silver or fiat. The fact that Bernie Madoff abused the money system under his control did not make the dollar worthless, only his investment scheme was worthless. Neither did it negate the debts or credits of the investors in other areas.

Even so, the tally stick program still continued among the people during and after Charles and even helped to finance the Bank of England later on. Charles’ Ponzi scheme collapsed, but the tally sticks of the people held.

This fiat system was one of the most stable and successful money systems in the history of the world.

Re: Tally Sticks
Aug 18, 2011

Blayne: All fiat systems in history have ended badly.

JJ This is simply false. The Greek system lasted successfully for five hundred years and did not end badly but merely transitioned into a different system. The same with early Rome which had a very successful fiat system for another 500 years and was dropped for an inferior system.

The only bad thing about the end of the tally system was that the tally were used to finance an inferior system which became the Bank of England.

The American Greenback did not end badly for in addition to help end slavery and save the union, in the end each dollar in Greenbacks was worth a dollar in gold.

Blayne: Even if money managers are honest they cannot predict what the economy will do in the future even based on the past and it is always down hill from there!

JJ Under the debt free fiat system you do not have to predict the economy with any degree of exactness. Where do you get such an idea? Correction is built into the system so you adjust as you go. A simple computer program could manage it.

Even to today with an inferior fiat system figuring out how much money to issue is not much of a problem. The problem, which is ever present, is that Congress wants to borrow money like crazy making the idea of controlling the money supply moot for there is no control.

Blayne on the Tally Sticks I’d say it was more of an accounting system for goods and services for most of that time rather then a fiat system.

JJ You can’t have any fiat system without some type of accounting system built into it. But it was much more than just accounting. A tally stick was like a promissory note, not much different than a Federal Reserve Note, except there was no interest involved and anyone could issue one.

Blayne; When used like money it was more of a commodities backed currency then a fiat system.

JJ Not true.. There was no existing commodity backing the tally stick. It represented a promise to pay from commodities that did not yet exist making it a fiat currency.

Blayne: However when the people that used it in private it acted more like a free market which is why it probably lasted as long as it did.

JJ You are right. It acted a little like the system I recommend where both the government and the people have freedom to create currency. Even when Charles II created a Ponzi scheme that hurt the economy the people themselves could continue with their own tally sticks and still keep essentials going.

Too bad we do not have something that flexible today.

Blayne It was used to finance part of the bank of England cause it could be traded for commodities and gold

JJ Of course. It was their for of money and could be used to purchase most anything within the country. The only need for gold was for purchases made outside the country.

Blayne: More like receipts then fiat money.

JJ Receipts were recorded in the tally sticks but when the receipt of payment was acknowledged the value was then zero. When the tallies had a promise to pay they then had value and were traded as fiat money.


Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

Fiat Money of the Past, Part 3

This entry is part 17 of 31 in the series 2011B


The tally stick was a unique form of money that seemingly existed on the power of thin air through the fiat principle.  They were most prominent in medieval England and also used to a lesser degree in France, Germany and numerous other nations and settlements of ancient times.

Tallies in one form or another have existed from prehistoric times but the most significant use of them was began by King Henry I in England in 1100 AD and were in use for an amazing 726 years. The split tally was accepted as legal proof in medieval courts and the Napoleonic Code of 1804 still makes reference to the tally stick in Article 1333.

The tally sticks owed their prominent financial use to King Henry’s response to a dire economic situation when he assumed the throne.  He discovered that the Crusades had siphoned off most of the gold and silver that could be used as money. He found himself in a similar situation to Lincoln before the Civil War. He either had to borrow at excessive interest from the money lenders of the day or improvise with a system of his own.

Just as Lincoln chose to create a fiat money that did not borrow from any lender even so did Henry create a tally system that was backed by no commodity and was interest free.  There was a huge difference on how the two financial instruments were used.  The greenbacks bought war materials that were either destroyed or of little use after the war.  These added little or nothing to the nation’s actual wealth.

On the other hand, many of the tallies were used to finance agriculture, construction and essential trades that helped the people live more abundant lives.

Some critics of fiat money have claimed that the tally stick was not fiat, or even money but merely IOUs that had to be paid off in gold or silver coin.

This presentation is extremely misleading and distorted.  First there was very little gold and silver in the kingdom as most of it was shipped out of the country for the Crusades.  Many of the tallies were redeemed for commodities instead.

As for whether they were fiat or not – let us examine how they worked and see.

“A tally was a stock about nine inches or so long with each of the four sides about ½ inch wide. On two of the sides, the value of the “tally” was carved into the wood. On the other two sides, the amount was printed in ink.
“The tally was then split in half lengthwise. One half remained in the treasury and the other half was given to soldiers for their pay, to farmers for wheat, to armorers for armor, and to laborers for their labor.
From War Cycles – Peace Cycles by Richard Hoskins, Virginia Publishing (2000)

There were a number of advantages for using the tally sticks.

(1) They could be used like money, but they were interest free.

(2) They were virtually impossible to counterfeit.  Each tally had different grains in the wood and different records and notches engraved that appeared on both halves. To be legal you had to match your half with the King’s half.

(3) They did not need any gold or silver to back them but were backed by commodities that did not even exist at the time of issue.  These commodities could be future produce, something manufactured or even gold or silver that the person hoped to acquire.

(4) They were basically inflation proof.  Unlike money in our current system they could not be produced in unlimited amounts.  The number of tallies made would be limited by the estimated production or wealth of the people.  Then when the tallies were turned in for taxes or payment during Michaelmas (the harvest time) they no longer existed within the system and new ones had to be created. There could only be an increase in tally sticks if there was a corresponding increase of anticipated production and since each person was responsible for the value of his tally stick there was little desire to inflate its value.

(5) Tally sticks were widely accepted by the people for two reasons.  First, tally sticks of some kind have been used for elementary record keeping since civilization began and people trusted them.  Secondly, the king insured its equivalency to money by issuing a fiat that they can be used to pay taxes.  In addition the various kings used tally sticks for money themselves.

It wasn’t long before the value of tally sticks in circulation far exceeded gold and silver money. Richard Hoskins (cited earlier) estimates that by the end of the seventeenth century the tallies in circulation had a value of about fourteen million pounds yet the coined metals at the time never exceeded a half million pounds in value.

By 1694 the tally sticks evolved into being represented by paper bills and by 1697 they circulated interchangeably as money with banknotes and bankbills.

The amazing thing is that life was a good during the height of the tally system.  Contrary to popular belief the people prospered and had to work much fewer hours to make a living than they do today.

Monetary author Ellen Brown makes this interesting observation:
“Modern schoolbooks generally portray the Middle Ages as a time of poverty, backwardness, and economic slavery, from which the people were freed only by the Industrial Revolution; but reliable early historians painted a quite different picture. Thorold Rogers, a nineteenth century Oxford historian, wrote that in the Middle Ages, “a labourer could provide all the necessities for his family for a year by working 14 weeks.” Fourteen weeks is only a quarter of a year! The rest of the time, some men worked for themselves; some studied; some fished. Some helped to build the cathedrals.
Web of Debt by Ellen H. Brown, 2008, Page 60

She continues:
“Economic historians like Rogers and Gibbins declare that during the best period of the Middle Ages – say, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, inclusive – there was no such grinding and hopeless poverty, no such chronic semi-starvation in any class, as exists to-day among large classes in the great cities . . . . In the Middle Ages there was no class resembling our proletariat, which has no security, no definite place, no certain claim upon any organization or institution in the socio-economic organism. Page 61

The great cathedrals were not only built with mostly unpaid voluntary labor but they were also maintained by volunteers. The people had free time and used it to increase the wealth of the kingdom and took pride in keeping public buildings and works of art in good shape.

They also had free time for learning, which explains why many great universities, libraries and centers of learning were established during that time.

There is an interesting book in the public domain by James J. Walsh called “The Thirteenth, Greatest Of Centuries” detailing how this was actually the most wonderful century in which to live that set the foundations to many of the amenities we value today. This was also the century when the use of the tally stick matured and came into almost universal use and acceptance in England.

The tally stick worked great and everyone was happy except the bankers.  They were not getting their cut in interest from the tallies and decided to act as soon as they had the opportunity.

That opportunity came near the end of the seventeenth century after lengthy and costly wars with France and the Netherlands. The tally sticks did a great job of keeping the internal economy functioning, but external wars demanded large expenditures of gold and silver which were accepted outside the country. Goldsmiths were charging 30-80% interest on small loans and what coinage was left was clipped about 50%. The public lost millions of pounds because of goldsmiths going bankrupt.

Bankers proposed creating a Bank of England to solve the money problems. With a name like this it sounded like a government bank but in reality it was a private bank composed of private investors. The bank practiced fractional reserve banking and loaned the government money that it could have created for itself.  Government debt went from 1.4 million pounds in 1694 to 16 million in 1698. The prices of most things doubled.

It is interesting that tallies were one of the sources used to finance this bank yet after it became established the bank saw the tallies as competition and from that point on sought to destroy them.  Even so, some continued to be used until 1826 when they were removed from circulation and stored in the houses of Parliament.

In 1834 the tallies were ordered to be burned in the two furnaces in the House of Lords. This wound up starting a fire that got out of control and burned down both Houses of Parliament. It almost seemed like divine retribution for trashing a money system that worked so well.

Those with a negative view of fiat money cannot deny that the tally system was successful so they save face by saying that it was not fiat money at all, or not even money but merely like a promissory note.  Others have said they were used like a modern day credit card.

No matter how you look at it the fiat principle was behind the use of the tally stick.  Yes, the tally stick was like a promissory note, but a note authorized to be used as money. Many promissory notes of today or yesterday are not backed by gold, silver or any commodity. They are a promise to pay only backed by fiats of the issuers and the power of their good names.  Just like our fiat dollars today are promissory notes from the Federal Reserve and are used as money even so were the tally sticks individual promissory notes also used as money.

There was a huge difference however.  The tally sticks did not involve interest and never drove the government deeper into debt and did not contribute to inflation. This was why they were successful for numerous centuries.

Then the tallies had the fiat of the King authorizing  them to be used as money to pay taxes. It’s difficult to see the reasoning as to why some critics do not see the Tallies as fiat money when two different fiats were involved and they were virtually backed by thin air. Just because they do not exactly fit the parameters of fiat money of today does not mean they were not based on the fiat principle.

Another criticism is the tallies were not even money because they were sometimes discounted or that discounting them was as bad as paying interest.

If an owner waited for the tally to mature then he received the full value but if he needed the value early in or if he had to use it in another country he had to trade them at a discount for commodities or coins. For internal use they were traded as money at a standard value just as money is today.

The occasional discounting does not alter the fact that they were used as money and had a more consistent value than does the fiat money of our age. Even in our time promissory notes and contracts are used as money on a number of levels, but the tally had the additional legal monetary authorization of the King.

The tallies were not in the same category money loaned at interest today for they drew no interest. First, only a small number were discounted whereas all new money today is created through loans at interest. Secondly, the tallies did not add to the public debt as is the case with today’s money.

Unless one takes the path of splitting hairs there is no other way to view the era of the tally sticks then as one of a successful fiat money.

War Cycles – Peace Cycles by Richard Hoskins, Virginia Publishing (2000)

Web of Debt by Ellen H. Brown, 2008

The Thirteenth, Greatest Of Centuries, James J. Walsh

The Secret World of Money by Andrew M. Gause, 1996

The Lost Science of Money By Stephen Zarlenga

The Tally Stick: The First Internal Control? by Nicholas Apostolou and D. Larry Crumbley

Money Masters Video. Transcript at:


Read This entire series. Here are the links.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE