WEB OF DEBT BLOG

MONETIZE THIS! A Better Way to Fund the Stimulus Package

116 Responses

1. 

   Jere Hough, on March 4, 2009 at 5:00 am said:

   Brock More quoted Ann:

   “The problem of ‘interest.’ As explained by Brown: ‘The problem is that banks create only the principal and not the interest necessary to pay back their loans.’”
   ——————————————————–
   ———————————————————

   Brock replied:

   This is really a trivially stupid fallacy. It is really stupid. Maintaining it does much to discredit the movement for reform, because it is so easy to demonstrate its fallaciousness to educated people. The analytically correct alternative is the A + B theorem of C. H. Douglas. It is harder to understand and explain, but because it is analytically correct, it is the only proper way forward.

   My comment:

   Who are you calling stupid, stupid? The comment by Ann and Ellen was entirely accurate, and the only discredit is to you, and those who try to pretend that it is possible to repay more money than is created, or in existence, except by a never ending exponential (and therefore unsustainable) growth of money and credit. Your pomposity really is quite remarkable. Most of those posting on this forum are “educated people”, yet you cannot “demonstrate its fallaciousness” to us at all. What you have done quite thoroughly, at least to me, is to demonstrate your dedication to the arts of verbal deception. Brock, you (and your precious A + B Theorem) epitomize Galbraith’s penetrating observation that “The study of money, above all other fields, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.”

   Jere

   Reply
2. 

   AnnT, on March 4, 2009 at 9:42 am said:

   Thanks, Jere.

   Reading “Web of Debt” was very enlightening for me. I get the basic idea of our monetary system but certainly not all the details. I will read Ellen’s book again and also the one you suggested (Zarlenga’s).

   I did read your review at Amazon and I will go ahead and add mine.

   It seems that we must spread the word!

   Reply
3. 

   Brock Moore, on March 4, 2009 at 11:35 am said:

   Perhaps you will explain how fractional reserve banking fits the following definition:

   Investopedia:

   The Ponzi scam is named after Charles Ponzi, a clerk in Boston who first orchestrated such a scheme in 1919.

   A Ponzi scheme is similar to a pyramid scheme in that both are based on using new investors’ funds to pay the earlier backers. One difference between the two schemes is that the Ponzi mastermind gathers all relevant funds from new investors and then distributes them. Pyramid schemes, on the other hand, allow each investor to directly benefit depending on how many new investors are recruited. In this case, the person on the top of the pyramid does not at any point have access to all the money in the system.

   For both schemes, however, eventually there isn’t enough money to go around and the schemes unravel.
   http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp
   ——————————————————–

   “Actually, this entire bit of slight-of-tongue has nothing at all to do with the accuracy or the intent of Ann’s (and Ellen’s) original statement, which was that the Fed creates money and loans it to the USG at interest.”
   ————————————————
   ————————————————-

   No, the statement that I was criticizing was not about “money” but specifically about “Dollar bills (Federal Reserve Notes).” This is not a “superficial technicality.”
   –

   “The comment by Ann and Ellen was entirely accurate…”
   ————————————————
   ————————————————-

   No, it’s as wrong as wrong can be, because everyone will admit that the banks spend at least some of the money into circulation that is used to pay interest back to the banks. In earlier discussions in this blog other discussants admitted that. There is no doubt whatsoever that banks spend MORE than the principal of loans. The question is: do the banks spend sufficient funds into circulation to pay interest back to the banks in its totality? The answer is that banks behave like other firms. During the period of normal growth banks spend MORE into circulation than refluxes back to them in interest payments, just like firms spend MORE into circulation than refluxes back to them through sales. There is negative cash flow to the banks and ordinary firms, yet through the rules and conventions of double entry accounting, they book a profit. During the period of contraction, which we are now in, banks and firms spend LESS into circulation than is refluxing back to them, and account balances throughout the economy are depleting. There is positive cash flow, yet banks and firms are booking a loss. It’s all very counter-intuitive, but that’s how double entry accounting works.
   –

   Brock

   Reply
4. 

   Jere Hough, on March 5, 2009 at 12:56 am said:

   AnnT, on March 4th, 2009 at 9:42 am Said:

   “Thanks, Jere. Reading “Web of Debt” was very enlightening for me. I get the basic idea of our monetary system but certainly not all the details. I will read Ellen’s book again and also the one you suggested (Zarlenga’s). I did read your review at Amazon and I will go ahead and add mine. It seems that we must spread the word!”
   _____________

   You’re welcome Ann. Just reading your review was a treat. It sums up the situation so plainly. It especially stands in stark contrast to Brock Moore’s pathetic attempts to confuse and choke the truth on his word salads.

   I had read Zarlenga’s book, more than once actually, before I found Ellen’s. I had already been to one of Zarlenga’s AMI Conferences in Chicago and expressed my thoughts to Steve Z about writing a simpler version of his message. Don’t get me wrong, he is very logical and detailed in his history of money. The problem is that he buries his main points under mountains of text. (Kind of the same way the opponents of money reform do. 😉 So the main points tend to get lost amid the complexities involved with money.

   What is really needed are more good thinkers who can summarize the highlights and important points without loosing the essential truth of the message. As long as the people can’t understand the issue we will never be able to change it, as least in any meaningful way. I really do appreciate that review of yours. J

   Reply
5. 

   Michael, on March 5, 2009 at 4:14 pm said:

   Jere Hough
   Great work! You are doing the right thing, ignoring Brocks nonsense. Brocks only porpuse is to block any logical and serious debate. I shouldn’t have jumped on his nonsense-train – taking him seriously is a very big mistake. I seem to have a lot to learn about deceivers like him -enjoining reading you!

   Reply
6. 

   Brock Moore, on March 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm said:

   My personal contact information is:

   brock_moore@accountant.com

   The list moderator has deleted a number of my postings. Please contact me directly for my replies.

   Reply
   • 

     Ellen Brown, on March 5, 2009 at 4:45 pm said:

     I’ve deleted 2 new ones as well, as they are just too long. If you can boil your argument down to a manageable paragraph or two and provide links for the rest, I’ll post them. A dialog should be short crisp entries and replies. No treatises please; you can start your own website for that. I want to provide useful information for people with genuine questions and a forum for new insights and ideas.

     Reply
7. 

   Brock Moore, on March 5, 2009 at 5:28 pm said:

   Ellen Brown, on March 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm Said:

   I’ve deleted 2 new ones as well, as they are just too long. If you can boil your argument down to a manageable paragraph or two and provide links for the rest, I’ll post them. A dialog should be short crisp entries and replies. No treatises please; you can start your own website for that. I want to provide useful information for people with genuine questions and a forum for new insights and ideas.
   —————————————————
   —————————————————-

   Alright, Ellen, if the criterion is “length,” let me try this. On February 26, Warren Raftshol posted this to the “Standing up to the banks: how to challenge your foreclosure” thread:

   “WarrenRaftshol, on February 26th, 2009 at 6:49 pm Said:

   “Ellen,

   “What about a rash of Jerome Daly defenses?

   “Maybe the banks would actually have to appeal this time.”

   Which implied that the Credit River decision was not appealed.

   The same day (the 26th, not the 28th) I posted information copied from two websites that the case was indeed appealed, and was overturned. Moreover, the litigant, Daly, was an attorney who was eventually disbarred over the matter.

   That information was from
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Mahoney
   and also from the Minnesota Law Library website
   http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/askfaq.html#credit

   If you go to that second link, the information that I excerpted begins with this question: “I am looking for information about: First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly/The Credit River Case/Martin V. Mahoney.”

   Today, in the “Standing up to the banks” thread, “michelle” asked:

   “As I understand it in order for a contract to be legal 3 elements must exist:
   1) Offer
   2) Acceptance
   3) Consideration

   “What was the ‘something of value’ or ‘Consideration’ the bank exchanged for Mr. Daly’s Promissory Note?”

   Here was my answer, or words to that effect, since you’ve already deleted my reply:

   The consideration was the bank’s generally recognized and accepted promissory notes in the form of deposits, which the bank exchanged for Daly’s promissory note, which was not generally recognized or accepted in trade and commerce.

   I am also posting this reply to the more relevant “Standing up to the banks” thread.

   Brock Moore
   brock_moore@accountant.com

   Reply
   • 

     Ellen Brown, on March 7, 2009 at 3:19 am said:

     That’s still too long, and I don’t usually have time to read your emails, but I can’t resist responding to this one because you simply make no sense. Promissory notes in the form of deposits? What are you talking about? How do you mean Daly’s promissory note is not recognized in trade? A mortgage is a negotiable instrument with a present value. Mortgages are sold all the time. Mortgage companies sell them to investors. Your emails do not further the discussion of what we should do about our current monetary crisis. Bye Brock!

     Reply
8. 

   Brian, on March 5, 2009 at 6:10 pm said:

   Speaking of Stephen Zarlenga’s book (The Lost Science of Money), one nice thing about it is there is a summary at end of each chapter.

   Reply
9. 

   AnnT, on March 5, 2009 at 9:04 pm said:

   I’m having a tough time explaining to my friend that the gold standard is not the answer. I’ve been explaining that the banks would eventually own all the gold if loans were to be repaid with interest. I don’t have the fundamentals down enough to explain further. Any suggestions on explaining why the gold standard is not the answer?
   Thanks,
   Ann

   Reply
10. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 5, 2009 at 10:28 pm said:

    Ann, Explaining why Gold, silver, precious metals, or even baskets of commodities like wheat, corn, beans, etc ARE NOT the answer is very difficult. Ellen’s Chapter 37 does pretty good, but the problem is 300 years of intensive worldwide propaganda and PR on behalf of the international central bankers, goldsmiths, goldbugs, and hard money advocates.

    It’s just as tough to overcome that onslaught as it was for Neo to step outside the “Matrix” and “see how deep the rabbit hole goes”, or for Dorothy to get to Oz and see what was really behind the curtain that controlled everything.

    There are several approaches you can take to the “goldbug solutions”, but they all come down to learning how the goldsmiths and early bankers got started controlling money by using temples and strongholds to store gold and other valuables, and then seeing the receipts for these goods, mainly gold, being exchanged in the marketplace for goods and services. These receipts got converted over time into bills of credit, and other kinds of debt instruments, and the fractional reserve system of interest-bearing money was evolved.

    The simple video Money as Debt – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8 – is one of the more effective quick learning tools I’ve found. It is to videos what Ellen’s Web of Debt is to books on the subject. Here it is broken down into five 10 minute segments for easy digestion.

    The point is that the gold standard is the starting place for the fraudulent system we have now. If we want to go back and repeat the process again we could indeed return to a gold standard. Not my idea of smart.

    That’s a short start to a very tough an complex issue.

    Reply
11. 

    AnnT, on March 5, 2009 at 10:49 pm said:

    Thanks, Jere.
    I just think that we need a good argument to convince Ron Paul and his supporters.
    Ann

    Reply
12. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 5, 2009 at 10:52 pm said:

    Ann, An additional thought on refuting the gold standard, especially any thought of returning to it, is to ask those advocating it exactly how it would work. They can not tell you, without using gross logical fallacies that are easily exposed, depending on the intelligence of the listener.

    The first issue, right away, is who is going to supply the gold? Then… How is it going to be paid for? Who is going to issue the money that the gold backs? What is the cost of that money to the public or our government?

    It’s pretty easy to understand that nearly all the gold is now in private hands. The price of gold would have to go up by multiples of 20, 30 or 40 in order to replace today’s money supplies with gold backed certificates.

    The obvious beneficiaries would be those who own all the gold, and the gold mines, or mine rich land. It would only continue widening the already enormous and growing gap between rich and poor.

    The issue is that no one can satisfactorily describe how it could be done without further sacrificing the public interest to those who already own nearly everything, and control most of the rest that they don’t now own outright.

    Most people fail to realize that a corporation like GM can be controlled with only a few percent of the common or voting stock.

    But the wave of centuries of propaganda for the bankers and against the government is hard to overcome. In the end, we will win because we are right.

    Reply
13. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 5, 2009 at 11:05 pm said:

    Yes, the Ron Paul crowd is really tough. I spent over 6 months posting on gold and silver forums trying to reach that bunch. With few exceptions their minds and ears are closed to anything but gold and silver money.

    It’s hard to believe that someone with RP’s credibility would be so wrong about the solution. He is right about so much of the problem, just so wrong about the solutions.

    At least he has it right up to and including rescinding the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. But he would take us back to that point and let it all recycle, and the rich would still get richer and the rest would be worse off. What we need is to free our society from deadly parasites, but he (Paul) would just renew the tapeworm cycle, and reinfect the host.

    Reply
14. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 5, 2009 at 11:13 pm said:

    Ann, You might just have the kind of analytical mind to come up with a better argument for the Ron Paul supporters.

    The problem is they are all invested to a greater or lesser extent in gold & silver assets, or other similar commodities. The problem is that deflation and depression will take them down in price as well, UNLESS gold or silver get adopted as money again.

    So that’s why their minds are closed.

    BTW, Ron Paul’s entire net worth, over $7 million disclosed, is in gold and moning stocks. Not hard to see why he’s a gold bug. 😉

    Reply
15. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 6, 2009 at 12:30 am said:

    Brian, Yes, the summaries at the end of each chapter of AMI’s Zarlenga’s “The Lost Science of Money” is a big bonus, once you find out its always there. Still, it is hard to locate, not headlined or captioned, or set apart in any way by a heading or bold type. I found it really annoying that it is so difficult to locate the real definitions and higher concepts of money, even that is supposed to be what the book is all about. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a great book on money; it’s just difficult to get the meat off the bone, so to speak. 😉

    Reply
16. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 6, 2009 at 12:39 am said:

    Thanks, Michael. Brock’s purpose here is essentially the same as a filibuster in the Senate. You can drown out meaningful discussion on any topic if you throw enough words at it. Especially when the words are intended to confuse and obfuscate, rather than to illuminate, as Galbraith noted. If we ever hope to have meaningful change, we have to learn to deal with it, and keep to a positive message of what changes are needed and why.

    The most beautiful symphony can be ruined by static or white noise, or even howling dogs or crying babies. Our opponents know that. We have to be aware of what’s on their agenda.

    Reply
17. 

    Alwie, on March 6, 2009 at 6:49 am said:

    Hi All… Is this monetary system the same worldwide? I am from Indonesia.

    Can somebody tell me, if my government issue money (fresh new printed money), is that money also a debt to central bank?

    If so, isn’t all money are originated as debt? The so called “reserve” in commercial banks are actually debt of somebody else in the system before. Is this correct?

    By the way, newspaper seems reporting very much US government may have a huge defisit. They say it’s a big trouble, very hard to borrow now, and other bla bla bla… Won’t this problem be solved by just ask your central bank to print money? Why bother to borrow from others? What exactly is the problem??

    Reply
    • 

      Ellen Brown, on March 7, 2009 at 3:12 am said:

      Hi Alwie — that’s exactly what I’m saying: the federal government SHOULD borrow to meet its budget from its own central bank! But it doesn’t. The Federal Reserve just CREATED $1.2 TRILLION on its books and lent the money to PRIVATE banks, credit card companies and corporations. So why not fund Obama’s $900 billion stimulus package in the same way? Why go begging to foreign creditors, while our own private banks get to borrow money created by our own central bank? The Federal Reserve rebates any interest paid by the U.S. govt after deducting its costs, so the money is virtually interest free; in fact, it’s free altogether, because the federal debt is never paid off but is just rolled over from year to year.

      Reply
18. 

    AnnT, on March 6, 2009 at 9:15 pm said:

    Regarding making the case of changing the system with my libertarian-type friend, we can agree on two points without a doubt:
    (1) Private banks should not be allowed to created US-backed money out of thin air.
    (2) The government should not be in debt to private banks.

    Reply
19. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 6, 2009 at 10:46 pm said:

    Ann, Those are solid foundations upon which to build a solid case for publicly created and controlled money. Then you have to convince them that its not the gold, but the full faith and credit of the USA (all the people) that gives value to money. Money should be spent into circulation, as well as lent, but only the public should have that ability to create (spend or lend) money into existence. The role of banks should be to warehouse existing money and lend existing money (capital) out to others, not to create it.

    You keep finding good comments, so I’ll keep encouraging you. 🙂

    Reply
20. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 6, 2009 at 10:59 pm said:

    Alwie, Ellen was just in Malaysia speaking about the money issues. She’d be more familiar than I with your system. Governments money systems around the world are generally patterned after the US system, and ours was patterned after the Bank of England’s. That’s all in Ellen’s book. You should probably read it. Everyone should read it.

    The “problem” is ignorance about money, and where it comes from, and how it gets into circulation, and who controls it. The govt doesn’t control it now because it gave that power away to the bankers in 1913, and the FRA. The English government gave it away in 1694 to the Bank of England.

    However, the central banks are in a kind of vampirish partnership with the govt because they exchange govt notes (IOUs) for their currency and computer keystrokes. Nice work if you can get it, and have the stomach for massive theft against an entire nation.

    😦

    Reply
21. 

    Joseph Danison, on March 7, 2009 at 4:25 am said:

    Jere,

    a little earlier in this thread you were encouraging me to jump in and and throttle Brock, and I’d really like to accommodate you, supposing I could, but it’s not worth the effort.

    I’d like to say, though, that he’s not the “enemy”, even though he is intent on criticizing our Ms. Brown, because he is asserting the superiority of the Social Credit solution, the form of populist monetary reform described by CH Douglass in his 1920 book, “Economic Democracy”. That’s too bad, really, but some of us seem to be genetically partisan. Read “egotistical”.

    EHB is a pioneering voice in the emerging school of populist monetary theory. All of us who believe in money & credit as a public utility are part of the populist economics movement that is native to our own unique history. It achieved its first political expression in the 19th Century Populist Party which itself grew out of the greenback movement inspired by the momentous Treasury issue of debt-free greenbacks. There was a Greenback Party in those days that morphed into the Populist Party. By means of the “fusion” politics of the time, the Populists were absorbed into the Democratic Party and their platform of monetary reform was trivialized by William Jennings Bryant and swept under the rug.

    My point is this: a movement for populist monetary reform has to take on a political definition and all the voices for monetary reform have to ultimately become one voice if the power of private capital is to be defeated. THEY manage to speak with one voice. THEY have always been organized. THEY defeated the populist groundswell in this country and engineered their Federal Reserve System. THEY, in the person of Alexander Hamilton, seized control of the nation’s money & credit from day one!

    So, I’m saying we can’t be partisan in our drive to reform the monetary system. We can’t argue Social Credit over the American Monetary Act, or Ellen’s proposals over all the others. All of us who believe in popular control of the monetary system must coalesce into a new Populist movement, a focused political voice.

    EHB isn’t going to do it herself. Stephen Zarlenga and his AMI isn’t going to do it alone. Richard C. Cook isn’t going to single-handedly initiate his version of Social Credit in his “Cook Plan”. Was it Franklin who made the remark about hanging separately or altogether?

    This is a revolutionary moment, a time when big things can happen. How can we all come together and really do something?

    Reply
22. 

    Brock Moore, on March 7, 2009 at 4:26 am said:

    To accommodate you, Ellen, I’ll make this reply as short as possible.

    “Promissory notes in the form of deposits? What are you talking about?”

    Deposits are of course not notes, but they are effectively the promissory notes of the banks. They are the successors of banknotes.

    “How do you mean Daly’s promissory note is not recognized in trade?”

    I used the qualifier, “generally recognized and accepted.”

    “A mortgage is a negotiable instrument with a present value. Mortgages are sold all the time. Mortgage companies sell them to investors.”

    This is of course true, but they are recognized and accepted only in specialized markets. They are not generally recognized and accepted in trade and commerce, as are bank deposits.

    “Your emails do not further the discussion of what we should do about our current monetary crisis. Bye Brock!”

    Does this remark mean that you’re not going to accept this reply?

    Brock

    Reply
    • 

      Ellen Brown, on March 7, 2009 at 5:36 am said:

      You can’t spend a “deposit.” It’s no more recognized in trade than a mortgage. You spend dollars, and the bank is prevaricating when it purports to have them in its deposit accounts. That is where the fraud lies. I could write a good deal more, but MY point is that this doesn’t further the real issues: What is the cause of our current economic ailment and how do we cure it? Long emails not directed to those issues will get the delete button. It’s a form of editing; I pare and trim my own writing until it is to the point and readable, and I’m assuming the power of the delete over my blog in the same way. I’m sorry I haven’t had the time to be more involved, but I’m spread like butter on bread, way too thin.

      Reply
23. 

    Alwie, on March 7, 2009 at 4:38 am said:

    Dear Ellen / Jere / Alls,

    Actually I have read your book, but there is some part that I still hope to get confirmation.

    Here are some of what I learned, please kindly correct me if I am wrong…

    Under current system:
    1. If government need money and can’t get other sources of financing, they ask their central bank to print money. That money goes into government as liabilities (DEBT of government to central bank). Even if that money doesn’t have to be repaid (only interest in needed).

    2. Some of government spending circulate in society and becoming somebody’s saving. These money then circulated in commercial banks and lent and re-lent in fractional reserved system as DEBT to people.

    3. Commercial banks may also borrow from central bank money to become their “reserve”. These money then can be lent and re-lent again in fractional reserve system as DEBT to people.

    So basically all money is originated as DEBT by somebody before it can circulates in society. Am I correct?

    Reply
24. 

    AnnT, on March 7, 2009 at 9:34 am said:

    Ellen,

    “Why go begging to foreign creditors, while our own private banks get to borrow money created by our own central bank?”

    Yeah, why do we? It seems that people are more concerned about us being in debt to China than Federalizing the Fed, etc. What does it mean to be in debt to China? Don’t you suggest that we just exchange the Treasuries they hold for dollars?

    Reply
    • 

      Ellen Brown, on March 7, 2009 at 5:04 pm said:

      Yes. So simple, as Galbraith said, that the mind is repelled.

      Reply
25. 

    Brock Moore, on March 7, 2009 at 2:35 pm said:

    “You can’t spend a ‘deposit.’ It’s no more recognized in trade than a mortgage.”
    ———————————————————
    ———————————————————-

    They are both “negotiable.” But the simple fact is that the vast majority of transactions are conducted through the transfer of bank deposits, from one bank account to another. Only a small minority of transactions are conducted through the tendering and receipt of mortgages.
    –

    “You spend dollars, and the bank is prevaricating when it purports to have them in its deposit accounts. That is where the fraud lies.”
    ———————————————————
    ———————————————————-

    But the simple fact is that banks DON’T purport to have dollars, meaning legal tender, in their deposit accounts. They, through their deposit contracts, promise to REDEEM deposits in legal tender, or its equivalent in the transfer of central bank deposits from one bank to another, on demand, when and if demanded. That is why they are called DEMAND deposits. There is no fraud whatsoever.

    Brock

    Reply
26. 

    Brock Moore, on March 7, 2009 at 5:40 pm said:

    Ellen Brown, on March 7th, 2009 at 5:04 pm Said:

    Yes. So simple, as Galbraith said, that the mind is repelled.
    ————————————————————-
    ————————————————————–

    It is simple enough, Ellen, that if you are correct as to what banks purport, you should be able to provide evidence from the banks. In counter evidence, I would submit any deposit contract signed with any bank.

    Brock

    Reply
27. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 7, 2009 at 9:52 pm said:

    Hi Joseph,

    I could not agree more with most of your last post. Of course we all need to come together and “do something” about money reform. I think money should be created publicly, rather than privately, and that government should not be borrowing money that it has every right to create itself. I’ve made these points absolutely clear throughout this forum. They are the same major tenets that are held by EHB, Zarlenga, Cook, Soddy, Douglas, George, et al.

    So why the lecture? Where we seem to disagree is what Mr. Moore is all about.

    If all Brock was doing was “asserting the superiority” of Douglas’ Social Credit philosophy we would have no problem at all. My displeasure with Brock has absolutely nothing at all to do with disagreements over partisan reform positions, either his or mine. IMO, everything Brock Moore has said anywhere on this website has been to defeat any kind of dialogue on money reforms of any and all kinds. I don’t think I’ve I ever heard him advocate for any part of Social Credit, except perhaps Douglas’ A+B Theorem, which has nothing at all to do with Social Credit reforms and philosophy. It is strictly a mechanical accounting theorem, and probably was the least noteworthy thing Douglas wrote.

    You asked how we can all come together and “do something”. What you seem intent on ignoring is those who don’t want us to “do something”. They are about preventing anything from ever getting done in the way of money reforms. They are about joining groups and discussions like ours and sowing “di”s… dissension, disinformation, distraction, disaffection, and division.

    If people like Brock were just discussing the case against reforms their intent would be clear, and the dialogue would be plain. That would make our arguments crystal clear, and that is why they choose another path, sophistry and deceit.

    No populist reform movement will ever succeed until after enough of those within it have learned to spot the distracting and deceitful games played by the opposition, and how to handle those games successfully.

    Reply
28. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 7, 2009 at 10:11 pm said:

    AnnT, on March 7th, 2009 at 9:34 am Said:

    Ellen,

    “Why go begging to foreign creditors, while our own private banks get to borrow money created by our own central bank?”

    Yeah, why do we? It seems that people are more concerned about us being in debt to China than Federalizing the Fed, etc. What does it mean to be in debt to China? Don’t you suggest that we just exchange the Treasuries they hold for dollars?

    Hi Ann,

    It’s much more complicated than that, and it always gets that way when the element of foreign trade or international finance is involved. First, who are the “we” and the “they” in your question? Second, where are the dollars going to come from? Third, how are you going to create enough dollars to buy back all those treasuries without causing inflationary economic chaos once those dollars start getting spent into circulation?

    I think the first order of business is to get “our own house in order” and fix our own economic and financial mess, and then we can sort out the outstanding notes and T-bills with other nations.

    IMO, What Ellen’s article is addressing is the way our govt now has to trade T-Notes for dollars to a privately owned Fed, and pay interest on those notes, rather than just borrow it at the Fed discount window like other Federal Banks. Just lining up at the discount window would be cheaper, and save taxpayers money and indebtedness.

    Reply
29. 

    Jere L Hough, on March 7, 2009 at 10:19 pm said:

    Hi Ellen, You wrote, in reply to Brock:

    “Long emails not directed to those issues will get the delete button. It’s a form of editing; I pare and trim my own writing until it is to the point and readable, and I’m assuming the power of the delete over my blog in the same way. I’m sorry I haven’t had the time to be more involved, but I’m spread like butter on bread, way too thin.”

    Which is why I encourage you to just ignore even the shorter comments from Brock, unless they are directed at *real* issues. You have already written the book, and it stands on its own legs. 😉 – Jere

    Reply
30. 

    Joseph Danison, on March 8, 2009 at 4:22 pm said:

    Jere
    “So why the lecture? Where we seem to disagree is what Mr. Moore is all about. ”

    Duly noted. This Brock Moore chap seems more intent on defending his own investment in the established system than in reform.

    To tell the truth money and accounting bore me to tears. I hate record keeping and receipt hoarding. The whole idea of “monetizing” life fills me with righteous indignation. Even so, money is “the story of power”. Zarlenga subtitles his book in this way to underscore the essential nature of money as the primary lever of social control. And you have dweebs like Mr. Brock Moore pulling those levers with their petty little abstractions, and bigger dweebs in Basel, Switzerland, pulling even bigger levers and cackling like melodrama villains while the great masses of people go into convulsions.

    It’s sick. The whole world is sick under the rule of money. Did you see “Slumdog Millionaire”? Have you ever read Horatio Alger’s smarmy tales of moral capitalism? If you try to tell the sniffling movie-goer that this rags-to-riches tear jerker that gets all the Oscars is pure mindfuck, (propaganda, this is) you won’t make any sense at all.

    I could jump into a rant here and go on for a few thousand words, but the point is that the rule of private capital has a psychological dimension made up of generations of suffering people all believing in a lot of moral horse shit that all boils down to this: the rich deserve to be rich because they are better than you and more deserving of divine favor.

    How do you change this? By arguing the fine points of monetary policy? What is needed is political leadership within an organized political party that can teach a new morality of cooperative interaction. Private capital is the most destructive, amoral force on the planet concealing itself in the sheep’s clothing of bogus moral fables of personal and social redemption through the accumulation of money. The gods of private capital will bless you. You cannot bless yourself.

    We can bless ourselves, however. That is the cruelest hoax of all. But we need a self-reinforcing political vehicle, a party, to teach this message like the populists of yore who built their movement on a new ethic of cooperation and evolved their monetary proposals to make this cooperation possible.

    Reply
    • 

      Ellen Brown, on March 8, 2009 at 5:53 pm said:

      Right! We need a populist movement. A lobby might be even better than a political party, since when the election is over the party is forgotten, but a lobby could be in there all the time campaigning, like the bankers’ lobby.

      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 Twitter 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