Mr. North: This is in response to your post suggesting that I do not understand monetary theory. I would suggest that I have gone beyond conventional monetary theory. I got so interested in this response that I decided to turn it into an article, which has now been posted on the Yes! Magazine site, here –
TIME FOR A NEW THEORY OF MONEY
Yes! Magazine focuses on solutions and is visionary and forward-looking, something I also strive for.
To conclude, I can’t do better than to post a review I got recently from a reader named R. L. Lehrman. He writes:
Web of Debt and Ellen Brown have surpassed all prior contenders as the lightning rod for serious discussion regarding the nature of and solution to the money problem. This may also be due to Ellen’s incredible capacity to continue the discussion – responding directly to both phone calls and emails – into current events at her blog and on the Huffington Post:
Just look at two of her recent entries if you doubt that she is anything less than an ongoing force of nature:
North’s review is hilarious in its bias, although some of his data points and opinions are interesting. As if being a conservative was de facto equal to being good, and that just calling someone anti-Semitic was enough to discredit them, North’s review fails to provide a strong counter argument, especially given that it completely fails to credit Brown at all for anything.
This type of all or nothing, with us or against us divisiveness is so much less interesting than Ellen’s spirited and gallant attempt to highlight the facts of the matter. This is especially the case with the modern Basel-based system which is so much more refined and dangerous even than the historical 1913 Federal Reserve with which we are all already familiar. Debate the finer points of fact, policy and solution.
May the best, most loving and fair solutions win, but please spare me the categorical ad hominem and ad partyem. Read http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/in-defense-of-ellen-brown/
for additional economics details and the best on the merits defense of Ellen’s policy prescriptions yet.
Monetary theory is like religion, based in the human condition and its abstract capacity, and like religion, it is wise to avoid overly objectifying it, especially given the modern understanding of quantum physics and its conclusive refutation of the singular, static, objective universe. Sure there are natural laws, but one of those laws is that money, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Money is one of those things which can morph like a magic spell, changing from one thing into the other simply by the force of the human gaze, known as “the observer” in physics. In Ellen’s book, her kind eye pierces the darkness around this subject and penetrates to the bubbling core of the fusion reactor sometimes called the Godhead or Heaven, where the debate emerges endlessly from the void, swarming and swirling with the alternating anxious and hopeful visions of our troubled Gods and Worlds. I don’t mind if the Wizard of Oz wants a seat at the table, but unless the table is round and all are invited, said Wizard can’t be trusted, and nor can anyone else who shows up intending to dominate.