WEB OF DEBT BLOG

MONETIZE THIS! A Better Way to Fund the Stimulus Package

116 Responses

1. 

   Joseph Danison, on March 8, 2009 at 6:32 pm said:

   Yes, a band of lobbyists in jeans and tennis shoes who stash their placards in the hallway and finger comb their hair before entering the offices of the people’s representatives.

   But who makes up the talking points? Who supplies the brown bag lunches?

   Seems like a party infrastructure is necessary, or some kind of organization, like the AMI, maybe, to recruit lecturers, like the old time populists did, to go out in the field and educate. Talk to the existing parties, maybe, and the Elks Club, and the IOOF, and so forth.

   Reply
2. 

   Jere L Hough, on March 8, 2009 at 8:11 pm said:

   Joseph, That was a great rant, and I agree with every word of it, and every sentiment as well.

   But personally, I think we need more than just a new political party, or a new lobby. I think we need a new constitutional convention, or at least a new amendment about money creation, and how it should be a sovereign right that can be partially delegated to communities (governments). And we need to find workable ways to de-monetize and decentralize the political process.

   If I had my way we would eliminate political parties altogether, or have some kind of proportional representation among various groups. Instant runoff ballots are a no-brainer, so why haven’t we gotten them yet? “Representation” is a KEY word here, because today few people are truly “represented” who are not wealthy and powerful. What we really need to do is find ways to extend the concept of representation, and it has to start on local and community levels.

   I think we should have another congressional body of economic representation and legislation, and economic courts to see that economic justice is done.

   And we need to break up monopolies, syndicates and cartels of all kinds, especially ones involving news, information and education sources and media.

   All this could and should be done via free representation and legislation, but I’m afraid the bankers aren’t having any of that. So they will probably choose to take the entire system down with all their ill-gotten gains once they have plundered all they can from it. The silver lining in all of that is that it will lead to rebuilding a better, more ethical system predicated on the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God.

   Ultimately, only spiritual advancement is going to get us out of this mess, and I am not talking about any visible or material churches, temples, or institutions. I’m simply talking about the choices each of us has to make about following a path of light or darkness.

   It is going to be an interesting time to be alive. So much to do.

   Reply
3. 

   Joseph Danison, on March 8, 2009 at 10:54 pm said:

   jere,

   if you got all you wanted, what a lovely world this would be!

   Are you aware of, or have you read, “Fixing the System” by Adrian Kuzminski? Kuzminski, like you, is interested in real democracy, and he dredges up some of Jefferson’s late ideas on real participatory, decentralized democracy.

   Subtitle of the book is “A History of Populism, Ancient & Modern”. I consider it the best and probably only book on populist political theory available.

   Reply
4. 

   Jere L Hough, on March 8, 2009 at 11:33 pm said:

   Thanks Joseph. I haven’t read that book yet, but Jefferson is one of the people I most admire when it comes to political philosophy.

   I’ve never hoped to get what I want… only what I need. And more justice for the people is one of those “needs”. 🙂

   Reply
5. 

   AnnT, on March 13, 2009 at 6:49 am said:

   I’m going to ask this quesition again. It’s happened twice now when I try to convince someone that the private banks are the problem and that the USG in debt to them for no good reason, I get the same response. “I thought we were in debt to other countries.” “I’m really concerned about our debt to China.”

   If the USG is in debt to the Federal Reserve, a debt that we don’t have to pay the principal on, why are we in debt to China?

   Any help would be appreciated.
   Thanks,
   AnnT

   Reply
6. 

   AnnT, on March 13, 2009 at 6:58 am said:

   Jere et al.,
   Are there any significant differences between Ellen Brown’s proposals and those of the AMI?
   Thanks again!
   Ann

   Reply
7. 

   Allen Charles, on March 13, 2009 at 3:58 pm said:

   I make this comment as a question to see if anyone else has read or heard this reported.?

   I was on a forum site reading comments by a bunch of PHDs and read on one post that when we buy goods from China it is always done in US dollars, but when the Central bank of China pays the manufactures that it is in the Chinese currency and the Central Bank of China just creates the payment making a credit to the manufacturers bank account. Then the Chinese government or Central Bank takes the US Dollars that they just got for their newly created fiat Chinese money and buy American debt sending the dollars back to the USA. So we buy with our fiat dollars , they create new fiat money and send our money (and the new debt we have owing them)back to us to spend again over and over..

   Does anyone know if this is really true?

   Reply
8. 

   Brock Moore, on March 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm said:

   Allen Charles, on March 13th, 2009 at 3:58 pm Said:

   I make this comment as a question to see if anyone else has read or heard this reported.?

   I was on a forum site reading comments by a bunch of PHDs and read on one post that when we buy goods from China it is always done in US dollars, but when the Central bank of China pays the manufactures that it is in the Chinese currency and the Central Bank of China just creates the payment making a credit to the manufacturers bank account. Then the Chinese government or Central Bank takes the US Dollars that they just got for their newly created fiat Chinese money and buy American debt sending the dollars back to the USA. So we buy with our fiat dollars, they create new fiat money and send our money (and the new debt we have owing them) back to us to spend again over and over..

   Does anyone know if this is really true?
   ——————————————————–
   ———————————————————

   This is essentially correct. Chinese exporters receive dollars for their exports. They are not allowed to hold dollar denominated accounts, so when they deposit the dollars into Chinese banks, they are credited in Chinese currency at the official exchange rate. When the dollars are deposited by the Chinese banks into the Chinese central bank, the banks are credited in Chinese currency, which is Chinese central bank credit.

   In Social Credit theory, this is an effective infusion of credit into the Chinese domestic economy that helps to close the “gap” between “prices” and “purchasing power” within the Chinese economy.

   The same effect can be achieved if the central bank pays dividends and retail discounts to Chinese citizens, without the necessity of exporting real goods and services. The productive capacity that produces the exported goods and services can then produce goods and services that can be consumed in the domestic economy.

   Brock

   Reply
9. 

   Allen Charles, on March 13, 2009 at 6:11 pm said:

   My main point is that the money supply (in China) is increased and this could (?) have the effect of keeping the value of Chinese money lower thus preserving their compatative advantage (lower cost) in manufacturing and exports.

   Reply
10. 

    Brock Moore, on March 13, 2009 at 6:32 pm said:

    Allen Charles, on March 13th, 2009 at 6:11 pm Said:

    My main point is that the money supply (in China) is increased and this could (?) have the effect of keeping the value of Chinese money lower thus preserving their compatative advantage (lower cost) in manufacturing and exports.
    ——————————————————-
    ——————————————————–

    The exchange rate between Chinese currency and the dollar has nothing to do with the quantity of money in China. It is an entirely arbitrary number set by the Bank of China designed to keep the price of Chinese exports low to the United States.

    Brock

    Reply
11. 

    Jere Hough, on March 13, 2009 at 7:44 pm said:

    AnnT, on March 13th, 2009 at 6:49 am Said:
    I’m going to ask this quesition again. It’s happened twice now when I try to convince someone that the private banks are the problem and that the USG in debt to them for no good reason, I get the same response. “I thought we were in debt to other countries.” “I’m really concerned about our debt to China.”
    If the USG is in debt to the Federal Reserve, a debt that we don’t have to pay the principal on, why are we in debt to China? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks,
    AnnT

    Hi Ann. Great questions, as usual. I only have time for a brief response, and have little expertise in foreign trade.

    First, we are in debt to china for some of the same reasons we are in debt to the Federal Reserve System, or FRS. Our USG issues bonds, or Treasuries for the money it buys from the FRS. Some of the treasuries are bought by the Fed and some are bought by large corporations, banks, and other nations. China and Japan are big investors in these bonds.

    The tremendous imbalance in trade between the US and other “cheap-labor” nations is another big reason. Far more US$ are going out to other nations for their goods and services than their currencies are coming in to us for ours. In general our money can not be spent in these nations, so it winds up being invested in our bonds. This imbalance of trade is a huge and very serious problem for our national well-being. It is not going to end well unless the balances of trade can be regained.

    No nation (or no economy) can long import more than it exports without becoming a debtor economy, owned and controlled by its creditors. That is what is happening to the US, and has been a growing avalanche ever since 1971, when Nixon cut the dollar loose from gold and tied it to OPEC oil. That gave birth to “Petrodollars” and has made oil the unofficial international US currency peg for the past 36 years.

    That’s the best I can do for now.

    Jere

    Reply
12. 

    Jere Hough, on March 13, 2009 at 8:27 pm said:

    AnnT, on March 13th, 2009 at 6:58 am Said:
    Jere et al.,
    Are there any significant differences between Ellen Brown’s proposals and those of the AMI? Thanks again! Ann
    __________________

    Depends on what you call significant. 😉 I think!… Ellen doesn’t like the idea of doing away with fractional reserve banking, and thinks that would be a huge stumbling block for achieving banking and money reforms.

    Steve Z (AMI) thinks it could be done in easy stages, over time, replacing fractional reserve dollars with publicly created dollars to maintain the inflation/deflation balance. This would mean raising the reserve requirement to 10, 25, 50, 75 percent and so on until it is 100 percent for private banks.

    I don’t see that it is as important to maintain those reserves for public banks. Why? Because that is one way money is created, and money creation should be a sovereign public
    right, delegated by the private right of persons to enter into contracts.

    There may be other differences. I’m sure there are, and this is always the problem with reforms…. getting enough people to agree on a plan or proposal, and everyone arguing over which plan is best. Meanwhile the status quo prevails, or else those with the best propaganda machine will. The latter would not be us, BTW.

    This is one of the main reasons I’m pessimistic about the short range prospects. The money-monsters have us in their grip, and they are going to resist change even if it kills them, and us. JFK was totally right when he said “those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.” (paraphrased) That seems to have been the unfortunate reality throughout most of mankind’s tragic history.

    Sadly, I think there is going to be a financial collapse of unimaginable proportions, and that the economic system will have to be rebuilt from what can be salvaged from the wreckage. Ultimately, a corrupt system will self-destruct, as all things evil eventually self-destruct. This is universal law, and cannot be changed or altered, except by the supreme lawmaker.

    But my long-term outlook is very bright! 🙂 Man can and will learn from his mistakes, both as individuals and as societies and civilizations.

    Uh… the last couple of paragraphs were not really on your question, but getting into all the differences between money reformers is a long, tough assignment.

    Better to focus on what they agree on. And that is what I’m all about here… gaining consensus and agreement. We should all be able to agree on the essentials on money reform; public money creation is the main thing for me. All else is secondary, including reserves and interest. Interest, if it was going into a public treasury, could replace taxation, and indeed would be one of the fairest forms of taxation I can think of.

    Enough for now….

    Reply
13. 

    Michael, on March 15, 2009 at 9:11 pm said:

    Jere
    I agree with with Zerlenga. I think the goverment should create the money as permanent money. I can’t see how a debt based system can’t lead to anything else then the creation of people stuck in a permanent debt prison while others will have the corresponding surplus and able to live on money “working” for them. Thats an unavoidable consequence since every created dollar will lead to an equal amount of debt. I can’t see that it would be so much better if the government created the debt. The inequality is built into a debt based system since the only way to keep a permanent debt based amount of money is by creating a permanent base of debt slaves. An increase of the money supply also mean that more people need to go either deeper into debt or become new debt slaves – making the inequalities larger and larger. I haven’t heard anyone in a reasonable way explain how an equilibrium in a debt based monetary system can be possible, either by the right wings “trickle-down” or the left wings “take from the rich and give to the poor”. In either case the poor people will be able to pay of their their debt and erode the base for the debt based money – destroying it. So the debt based monetary system is bound to have permanent debt and permanent debt slaves.

    One consequence of the fact that many people are trapped with debt and put into a debt prison in poverty for the rest of their life is rather absurd. Let say this person robs a bank and gets away with it – he can then hide for some years and the crime will be barred under the statute of limitations after a certain amount of time. He can then pay of his debt and escape the debt prison. Lets say he is caught but are able to hide the money in a safe place – he can then take his sentence ( a couple of years in Sweden) and pay pack the debt and break out of his eternal debt prison when he is released by paying it. So crimes might pay even if the robber i caught.

    Release all debt prisoners by write downs and let them with surpluses in money, up to a perhaps 1 million dollar, keep their money as permanent money. The debt ought to be barred under the statute of limitations as well, especially since the real criminals are the parasites who put them into the debt prison.

    Reply
14. 

    Jere Hough, on March 15, 2009 at 10:45 pm said:

    Micahel, The interest issue is larger than I have time to go into now. Ellen covers it well in her book, I think. The important thing is to get money under public control. Interest, IF charged, could replace or reduce taxes, and should be determined by the level of risk involved.

    More later. Dinner is served.

    Jere

    Reply
15. 

    Jere Hough, on March 16, 2009 at 2:58 am said:

    BTW, “Fixing the System” by Kuzminski came a couple days ago. Looks interesting. I hope to learn something. 🙂

    Thanks for the tip, Joseph.

    Jere

    Reply
16. 

    Michael, on March 16, 2009 at 7:17 am said:

    I agree, the interest is a big issue. Margrith Kennedy use to stress that as well – she hardly touch the issue that money equals debt in this system. And they are right in pointing this out. The usury problem is and will always be a problem.

    But for me the fact that money is created out of debt is just as large problem. Because in order to have a “permanent” money supply you need to have permanent debt slaves. It’s impossible to have a fair distribution since this would give the poor a chance to pay of their debt and destroy part of the money supply.

    With a permanent money system a distribution (either in the right wing form of “trickle down” or the left wing form of “taking from the rich, giving to the poor”) is possible. I haven’t heard any good arguments for how this would be possible in a debt based non permanent money system.

    I actually think most people think that money is permanent, that it’s sort of a pool where everybody has an equal opportunity to grab his/her part based on their skill or and ability. But I don’t think most people know that if they have a money surplus this always equals someones debt – that Warren Buffets billion dollars condemn some others to be debt slaves having an equal amount as debt.

    The money power has concealed this debt peonage in the west largely by exporting the debt to third world countries, enslaving them instead, and dumb down the west population with the belief that money creation in the form of credit is something good. But in reality the wealth of the west is largely built on colonialism (just as Bank of England sucked out the wealth out of the colonies before the revolution by exporting debt).

    I found this:
    “Washington has fomented not only military conflict in Africa but also an economic war through its agents the World Bank and the IMF. The Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) imposed by these institutions on 36 African countries since 1980 have devastated the continent, decimating national economies and health and education systems. SAPs offer loans on condition that governments drastically reduce public spending (especially on health, education and food subsidies) in favor of repayment of debt owed to Western banks, increase exports of raw materials to the West, encourage foreign investment and privatize state enterprises; the last two steps mean selling whatever national assets a poor country may have to Western multinational corporations. Under SAPs, Sub-Saharan Africa’s external debt has actually increased by more than 500% since 1980, to $300 billion today. In 1997, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) stated that in the absence of debt payments, severely indebted African countries could have saved the lives of 21 million people and given 90 million girls and women access to basic education by the year 2000. The All-African Conference of Churches has called the debt “a new form of slavery, as vicious as the slave trade.”

    21 millions dead only i Africa during 3 years! How many millions upon millions haven’t been killed by this debt system in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Russia and so on, during all centuries?

    http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=1680

    The writer wrote Washington but he should have wrote the money power, because it’s they who are behind all this.

    Reply
17. 

    Michael, on March 16, 2009 at 7:39 am said:

    I forgot to clarify that I’m not in favor of a gold standard as a form of permanent money . The money should be fiat just as Zerlenga points out.

    Reply
18. 

    Jere Hough, on March 16, 2009 at 6:11 pm said:

    Glad to hear it Michael. There were reasons the gold standard was abandoned, both domestically and then in 1971, internationally. It’s important to fully understand them, in order to know how a return to the gold standard would only further enslave and impoverish those who do not own gold, while completing outrageous the transfer of wealth to those who do own the gold, and nearly everything else that is valuable.

    The touting of returning to gold is a ruse to put the icing on the money scam cake. They really believe the people are silly enough to let them go back to square one and begin the ponzi scheme all over again. Nobody could be that dumb, could they? 😉

    Jere

    Reply
19. 

    AnnT, on March 25, 2009 at 7:11 am said:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/

    The White House is inviting you to post your questions on the economy and vote on submissions from others. The President will answer some of the most popular in an online town hall on Thursday.

    Sounds like an opportunity to get some good questions in regarding monetary reform!

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ