Tom Usher •Â 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.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)