Part 10: "Monetary Reformer Bill Still has put his hat in the presidential race as a Libertarian candidate. What are your thoughts? | LinkedIn"

To Scott:

Scott,

You wrote, "...with respect to the GIGO problem with any "master computer program" - sorry Tom, I wrote and managed some half million lines of database code in my heyday, I know what can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong."

Scott, I understand your reservations; however, you are precluding things based not upon the largest opensource efforts in history. Am I correct about that? It seems strange to me that you didn't at least say that you agree that we should put it to the opensource community. We already had one professional programmer on this thread say it's doable. I doubt Richard Ballantyne would be the only programmer who would say it can be done. How many lines of code is it going to take to get people to Mars and back? Is this something that is not going to even be attempted? I'm not saying here that we do not test the code but embark to Mars with untested code. As Richard Ballantyne suggested, we don't have to start with an all-item CPI. I wouldn't hold out for starting with an all-item PI but only want to see it stated in the bill that it's a goal and with a timeline. Afterall, we aren't going to be limited by funding constraints. It will be national, cyber infrastructure. The NEED Act pays for it all!

It doesn't matter what personalities in history had their ups and downs. We shot for the Moon, we got there. It's been done. So, now we shoot for the stars in economic and monetary reform. Going there starts with people saying, let's do it and not with people saying it's too much.

Hey, this thread is a pep rally. It's taxing to have to rally the troops. I'm smiling (not mad). I know that you, Scott, are for the people and not out for self, first and foremost, and always. Rah, rah!

I hope your cold/mold gets better soon. God bless!

Merry Christmas!

To Joe:

Joe,

Reg. Q will be moot, but there are Money Market Mutual funds by Brokerages that are parts of banks.

As for Shadow Banking disappearing, you really can't assume that from the NEED Act as-is. I can think of many ways to game it, and I'm not even trying. (I won't give anyone ideas, so don't ask).

You said to Ellen, "I know that you have been saying ALL ALONG in this thread (first time I EVER heard it) that banks have to BORROW every dollar they lend." What? She has been saying it quite a bit. The last time was not the first. I didn't go back to count, but you could and then apologize.

Peace!

To Ellen, Scott, and Joe:

Ellen, Scott, and Joe,

I posted so much yesterday, I didn't think I'd be posting today (Christmas Day), but blessed are the peace makers!

We can supply language in the bill that immediately moves us beyond the money-multiplier-only-sans-data issue: (http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/). We can render that part of the "debate" moot for purposes of the bill.

Plus, let's say in the bill that banks will not be held liable for clearing checks with money that has been moved into the Revolving Fund. The onus will be on the US government and whether real risk exists or not, Joe. It will be clarifying, fear reducing language, in case you don't see "unintended consequences." If you are right, the worst case is that the additional language will be harmless.

The exact language we use to do that and other things is at this point something we shouldn't care about {provided the final language will accomplish the various tasks with reasonable clarity of purpose and without introducing needless complications. This is an area where we can (and in my view, must) leave it to the system to discover any hiccups and then correct for same without having to go back to Congress}. Our conceptual, plain-language work will be a draft of the bill. We should then massage it to the point that others, such as Dennis Kucinich's staff, can easily understand it to polish it to meet federal standards.

Ellen, Scott, please specify what you see as ambiguities or other difficulties by taking the sections you believe are broken and supplying us in layperson-language with what would make them work. We can worry about "legislative" speak/formatting, etc., later. First, let's have the fixes supplied conceptually in plain language. That way, those who are not getting things based upon how you've approached the issues so far will (might) be able to walk backwards to see the problems. We need everyone to be able to see the problems before we all can determine whether each is real and whether and to what degree we may fix them.

Joe, is it really necessary that you drive Ellen to her knees? Credit money exists. We don't need to resolve your debate with Ellen here and now or even before this bill in a future iteration (under development here) becomes law. I'm positive Ellen would be satisfied by language that will handle her concerns but not upset your plan.

You aren't the only person able to take on driving people to their knees. It's not the spirit that's going to get the bill anywhere.

To John:

John,

Thanks!

"...retirees and pension/mutual funds would require an alternative form of low-risk investment to that provided by interest-bearing (term) deposits...."

Well, it won't be necessary, because not only will Social Security, etc., be easily fully funded, but we will be in a position to enhance benefits well beyond anything usury could afford via a governmental borrowing/bonds. I want to do away with government borrowing. Greenbacking requires no borrowing. The NEED Act is Greenbacking.

Monetary Reform: Series 1

  • 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 Monetary Reform. Bookmark the permalink.