Monetary Reform: Series 1

The titles ("Monetary Reformer Bill Still has put his hat in the presidential race as a Libertarian candidate. What are your thoughts? | LinkedIn") of the individual parts (1-11) in the series might lead one to assume the discussion is rather limited in scope. That would be a grave error. The discussion is far-reaching, cutting-edge, and is more than touching upon a variety of ideologies, economic schools of thought, financial arrangements, accounting understanding(s), and religious and other aspects: the whole of political economy, frankly.

Those subjects are being discussed not from one side but by individuals of various schools and who have been in disagreement as to whether the other "schools" are right at all and also whether and how to merge concerning those areas that are able to be worked out.

We are discussing the pros and cons concerning a complete overhaul of the global economy starting with the United States and the pros and cons of each portion of any reform.


Monetary Reform: (subject to change)

  1. Currency reforms
    1. United States Money
    2. Doing away with coins (metal) and paper money (governmental assistance in transitioning)
    3. United States Notes
    4. US Constitutional amendment to end governmental borrowing (to be done outside the NEED Act (H.R.2990: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011) or within it as a call) and to clear up all confusion regarding the meaning/scope of the expression "coin money" (the section of the bill would not take effect until ratification of the constitutional amendment)
  2. Fiscal policies and practices
    1. Immediately paying off/retiring the National Debt (in a non-inflationary manner); issuing credits with the US Treasury Dept.
  3. Banking reforms
    1. Ending fractional-reserve banking
    2. Publicly owned banking
    3. Banking as a public utility
    4. Single bank/single depository (US Treasury)
    5. Free Banking (not to be confused with laissez-faire): Charge no fees for "checking"
    6. Issue Treasury Cards (in lieu of private or publicly traded commercial banking debit cards)
    7. Ending debts (funding rather than lending)
    8. Ending usury (all interest)
  4. Tax reforms
    1. Zero taxes
  5. Infrastructure overhauls
    1. In addition to other things:
    2. Public housing (not warehousing the poor but developing high quality-of-life communities)
  6. Welfare-state reforms
    1. In addition to other things:
    2. Fully funding the educational system through the post-graduate level (no more college-loan debts)
    3. Free, public high-skills training
    4. Free, public continuing education structured to allow full-time and/or part-time work depending upon individual capabilities and desires
  7. Democratic reforms
    1. Bottom-up, pure democracy
    2. Local citizen-councils
    3. Democracy in the workplace
    4. Employee ownership
    5. Full, equal "profit"-sharing
    6. Fully shared citizen-owner-employee decision-making
  8. Regulatory reforms
    1. Open, transparent government
  9. Governmental computer-network reforms
    1. Real-time, opensource
    2. All-items PI (Price Index: consumer and industrial/commercial) measuring and regulating of the money supply and flow-rate(s) (velocity and directions) targeted to zero inflation/deflation at targeted productive (non-finance capitalism) growth and in lieu of the NEED Act MA (Monetary Authority)
  10. Full-employment via public employment (New, New Deal but without limitations placed on type of work, training, etc.)
  11. Prosecutions
    1. Address Wall Street abuses via investigation, full auditing (including of the Federal Reserve), and prosecution along the same lines as used in the Savings and Loan collapse; claw back ill-gotten gains
    2. Punishment versus reconciliation/rehabilitation (I strongly favor the latter)

We are not simply discussing theories but are working on amending actual legislation that has been introduced in the Congress of the United States: the NEED Act (H.R.2990: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011).

It is my contention that this conversation can be, should be, and will be the seedbed for fixing the global economy.

(My perspective/input: If you read my commentary and proposals, you should readily see that I am working to conflate around what is best for all.)

The full discussion: Monetary Reformer Bill Still has put his hat in the presidential race as a Libertarian candidate. What are your thoughts? | LinkedIn

Monetary Reform Series 1:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

Part 14

Part 15

Part 16

Part 17

Part 18

Part 19

Part 20

Part 21

Part 22

Part 23

Part 24

An open letter to The Honorable Dennis Kucinich: Re: H.R. 2990: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011 (NEED Act): Part 25: Monetary Reform: Series 1

Part 26: #ows Fed $7.77 Trillion Secret Bank Loans: Dennis Kucinich's NEED Act

Part 27: Pavlina Tcherneva - Bottom Up Fiscal Policy: Direct Employment of the Unemployed - YouTube

Part 28

"The ECB is Engaging in Massive QE," by Marshall Auerback: Part 29: Monetary Reform: Series 1

"Bank Credit/Debt Money and Check Clearing/Cashing": Part 30: Monetary Reform: Series 1

"No Gold; Britain's Positive Money Movement; NEED Act; and more": Part 31: Monetary Reform: Series 1

"No Gold; NEED Act; and more": Part 32: Monetary Reform: Series 1

"NEED Act Needs Internal Marketing, Clarifying": Part 33: Monetary Reform: Series 1

"Georgism (Henry George) Doesn't Go Far Enough": Part 34: Monetary Reform: Series 1

"NEED Act Revolving Fund 'Dead Money'": Part 35: Monetary Reform: Series 1

"Ellen Brown's Position on Public Banking and Fractional-Reserve Lending": Part 36: Monetary Reform: Series 1

Brief notes on Ben Bernanke's part 1 of 4 lecture to college students, Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.