Tom Usher • I have mixed emotions because we have a mixed economy and Bill has taken to repeating that he's not a socialist or for socialism.
United States Notes (USN), which he and I advocate, is socialist money in a sense (when taken in and of itself). Using USN to the complete exclusion of Federal Reserve Notes, which exclusion I whole-heartedly endorse, would not render the US a socialist state, per se, but still mixed.
Also, Bill Still says he's for a Bank of CA along the lines of the Bank of North Dakota, which is decidedly socialistic (albeit within a still mixed-economy). It's a matter of degree, not either/or.
Further, Bill is for as much decentralization as practicable. What is the difference between a highly decentralized capitalism versus a highly decentralized socialism? It doesn't take much to blur the lines. A small town could easily be a one-company town that is employee/citizen-owned. I see nothing wrong with that at all.
As far as decentralizing, I see no advantage to doing that to the exclusion of retaining, or even enhancing, hubs of information. A central government (the US federal government in this case) could, and should, act as a disseminator of best practices. This would be bottom-up and top-across-and-down at the same time, so to speak.
There's plenty more I could say on this, but I think that's enough for now.
"The taxpayer does not fund federal public debt interest payments." Who does, more debt? Explain.
Your first paragraph above is right on. As for the issues raised by your second, there is a solution vastly superior to the Federal Reserve (which I believe I can say, based upon your views expressed here, with which you do not agree) and also vastly superior to Dennis Kucinich's and Bill Still's respective plans. That is to peg the money supply in real time to inflationary (price) and deflationary signals and to reduce and/or increase (government spending on real productivity projects wanted and needed by the whole people) supply/price accordingly.
Eventually (hopefully in short order), the basket of goods used as a gauge could be expanded to include all transactions.
This would all be accompanied by as much democracy in the workplace and employee/citizen ownership as possible.
You wrote, "The basket of goods idea has been promoted by many thoughtful analysts. The problem though, as I see it, is that the composition can change, and those who are responsible for deciding what's in the basket, can be influenced, and in ways that are injurious to the economy." I totally agree. That's what I anticipated via ultimately including all transactions.
The practical issue is with modeling the software and then ramping up the networking.
As for the free market, that's better reflected in democracy at the lowest level. It removes the larger say for those with more dollars (often, perhaps nearly always to some degree, ill-gotten, as you know).
You also mentioned the idea of "honest and regulated assessors." That could be, and should be, a decision taken by the decision makers at the most decentralize units and then acted upon both locally and on up to the highest overarching government, even supranational.
This is as purely pure democracy as I can think of without running into the "tyranny of the majority" debate (in my view, the result of censorship by elitists in the first place). The common people overreact when pushed. We need to relieve the pressure now before things get completely out of control and they too want to censor ideas and start clamoring "off with their heads."
Bill Still is well aware of issuing all money as a sovereign government, but Bill can speak for himself on it.
Now, as for there being no possibility of bankruptcy, that depends upon whether one believes hyperinflation constitutes a decided form of bankruptcy. I suggest that it most certainly does. It appears obvious. A thoroughly hyper-inflated currency ends up being able to pay for nothing.
As for the notion that taxes and bonds are solely for monetarism, that would suggest that taxes and government borrowing didn't exist before such monetarism, which is also clearly not the case.