Thanks for replying.
You responded above:
"...on Tom's points for clarifying the conversion process to a permanent money system, and including the ending of fractional-reserves and bank-credit money.
"The existing language provides the same results - the bank credits that are converted to real US Money must be borrower-returned to the government's fund in order to keep the same quantity of money in existence when the loan is repaid."
That said, I understand that the issue is whether the banks are stripped of funds needed to carry on and more so, whether they are hit twice for the same dollars. This is a two-fold issue of ambiguity, which I will attempt to express below.
In addition to needing clarifying language in the bill concerning Ellen's concern, which I believe I see, there is also the original problem of ambiguity I pointed out to you, Joe, in particular concerning the actual definition of Transaction Accounts. Transaction Accounts are defined twice, differently in each place. The first concerns all money. Concerning that first bit of Ambiguity, I did not attempt to supply even the beginnings of edited language. The second, which you mentioned above, concerns only the sweep apparently of demand-money and into the Revolving Fund. I made some hand notes on the subject, which notes I may yet post to this thread (probably), and am convinced that the first ambiguity and the ambiguity Ellen (and I?) sees can be cleared up rather easily.
The worst thing that can happen to such legislation is that any "pride of authorship" enter in. If it is going to have any possibility of success, it will be modified (and hopefully improved). If the language is at all unclear to reasonably intelligent people, Joe, you should be the first person championing revisions for clarity sake. Clarity will make selling the whole thing to the people that much easier, and this sort of reform is not going to come from the top down.
Of course, I'd like to see the whole MA simply be the Treasury (and excellent computer network and opensource software). I really don't want to use a 1933-9 buggy whip or souped-up Model A to attempt to accelerate and regulate engines to go to Mars and well beyond. (In addition, I believe Scott and I have expressed well enough in this thread why we have strong reservations about the people who would be the Kucinich MA.) The bill reflects 1930's technological thinking. It is ahead of mainstream economic thinking but not cutting-edge economic and/or technological thinking, far from it. Let's accomplish what the bill wants in spirit but well exceed it.
You know, I'm moving to a new rack of servers running Debian. I use Ubuntu a bit and have had experience with other Linux installs, plus I go all the way back to 1980's Unix. Well, I wanted get a quick overview of Debian, and believe it or not, I always find Wikipedia helpful in addition to looking at the main site for any software package. On the Wikipedia, it said something that all the more convinces me that the opensource community could write the software for the people. If you will recall, that concept was to sum all of the transactions and values from day-to-day or hour-to-hour or even instantly to minimize the oscillations and to bring the economy under control and humming exactly to feed the targeted real (not finance but industrial) productivity goals of the people.
"The cost of developing all the packages included in Debian 5.0 lenny (323 million lines of code), using the COCOMO model, has been estimated to be about US$ 8 billion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian
Debian is just a part of the opensource-community effort. I have complete faith in American and even non-American programmers (plenty of them volunteering openly for opensource/free software) in being able to develop the programs needed and simply for the love of it – all open and transparent.
1) The Kucinich bill (it has lots of very good infrastructure language)
2) Language tweaks to remove all, or at least the most egregious (afterall, Ellen's no slouch in the brains department, and if she's not convinced by a straight reading of the bill, I say it needs tweaking), difficulty in interpretation
3) A public banking section
4) Real-time fund-and-flow control pegged to real productivity in lieu of the Kucinich MA
5) Ground-up decision making with feedback loops at the top, across, and down again (the area that would require the most work; vastly increasing local and overall democracy)
6) Paying off the National Debt with United States Money as United States Notes and/or cyber dollars (USD) credits with the Treasury, and
7) A Call for a Constitutional Amendment to end governmental borrowing (outside the Kucinich bill)
Then I think we'd have the makings for not only saving the US and global economy but making it the tool for eliminating poverty and for raising the standard of living and quality of life to yet unimaginable levels of bounty for all.
Oh, and I think Bill Still can only benefit by all the comments on this discussion and the whole Monetary Reform Movement benefit by it too – cross pollination, you know.
Are you concerned that I'm diluting your bill? I hope not.
My understanding is that reserves swell in direct proportion to that of which they are a fraction. The reserves are supposed to be 10%, as I cited/quoted in this discussion thread and directly from the Fed. It is true that the ratio has fallen in some cases to over 60:1 that I've seen. However, the Fed is not being transparent about it, so we're deliberately kept in the dark (ostensibly to avoid runs and panic). It's my thinking that the 1 in that 60:1 was/is also inflated by toxic "money." The reserves were, and still are, holding toxic so-called assets. Bernanke has been trying to keep the junk CDS's, etc., from having to be completely written off or marked to market. He claims that real estate is really under valued, but it's wishful thinking and I believe at least more than a bit disingenuous. The market was grossly inflated via junk securities. It has not seen bottom yet in my estimation.
When a bank takes in a demand deposit, it can lend against it as reserves. It must (supposed to) hold back the reserve at the Fed. But, it creates new debt-money whether there are other sources of new money or not and whether those other sources come after deposits or not (answering Steve Keen; although I know he knows more than I do on that non-fractional-reserve money). There is no way though that fractional-reserve debt-money does not exist at all. It's only a question of how much; and what with how stealthy the Fed is, I doubt if more than a small handful of people know even a reasonable estimate. I don't believe the Fed knows all the money-laundered and other dollars.
I remember when it was exposed that bankers in Europe can create money that is incapable of being audited. They had private banking with the banks where departments within did not know and could not know who had what money. I also know that the story was flushed down the memory hole after one news cycle. I have a reference to it somewhere on my blog. Of course, what they were able to do in Europe to hide money isn't anything that can't be done in the US.
They now have air gaps and other measures in their own systems such that money can be hidden right in the bank on bank computers in totally encrypted, invisible virtual disks. Even the NSA wouldn't be able to see them if given direct access. I know firsthand that it can be done.
So, that's why we need to shoot for complete daylight in banking and the whole economy.
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)