The title of each previous post in this series was essentially: "Monetary Reformer Bill Still has put his hat in the presidential race as a Libertarian candidate. What are your thoughts? | LinkedIn." As of this post and going forward only, I am changing that to: "Monetary Reform: Series 1."
Before I get into this, I have a small request. From here on out, will you please double space between paragraphs. I hope that's not offensive. I don't mean it to be. It would help these old eyes (trifocals) of mine. The brain is as old as the eyes too. It would aid me, and I suppose I'm not the only one. Thanks.
Yes, I realize you are a pessimist; but the reason you/we have such little influence is because you (and others on our side) think we do.
Things are getting worse. The powers that be do not have the answers other than what will "protect" them even if it means you are expendable. I say you are not expendable for their cause of selfish greed.
Tell me Scott; before OWS or right when it first started, did you think they had a snowball's chance in Hell of even making a tiny dent in the mass psychology? That's what this is, you know. Money is psychological. Monetary Reform is psychology. Who started OWS? Are they household names? I didn't see any billionaires in with them. All I've seen are multibillionaires (not all but most) dis OWS.
Do I really need to go on about "little" people who changed the world? I shouldn't have to here. You need to not be a downer, as my generation was fond of saying. It matters greatly!
Furthermore, the scope of the problem (A) is only as large as your B. If enough Americans simply choose the right things to do (lift the bottom), the rest will definitely take care of itself because there are great minds out there that can handle the "complexities," as you see them. The current complications are built in by design for the very reason that bought off academics and others can turn around to us to say: Economics is hard. Stay away. You're all too stupid.
It is not hard!
"...with the possible exception of Ellen, who has even the slightest chance to influence the true power-brokers of the 1%?" I don't know that Ellen is bringing any of the unrepentant around. Some 1%ers actually have some heart. Her name probably is known to many of them. If a public bank pops up, which I believe she will pull off, they will know her even better. However, she started as a so-called "nobody" and not that long ago. Further, Ellen has gotten as far as she has with a following of nobodies (I use the term in terms of how those of the 1% who are super-egotistical use it).
As for the names you mentioned, it's premature to count people out. We have barely started here. OWS barely started how long ago? Why kill the cause as an insider? Why kill the spirit?
I've already addressed the derivatives. The toxic derivatives are not our debts. Look, the American people aren't going to accept that they owe all of that (http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/global-derivatives-14-quadrillion-up-22.html) to anyone for anyone! It would mean total civil war (if "necessary") – I mean a hot, shooting war that would suck in Russia and others in direct ways aiding the total overthrow of the totally lawless at that point US government. The vast majority of military personnel would not back the plutocrats in that war – not at this point.
In addition, most people do not have the faintest idea of what a derivative is. Most of the derivatives are simply circular, and unless there's a crash, won't matter. With a crash, the backers should crash. There would be no assets to cover that universe of junk. We would have to write it all off and push the reset button on the economy without finance capitalism. That's doable. That's easy!
Look, Scott, you're wringing your hands. Why? You weren't wringing your hands before. When you talk up Georgism, do you say "but it doesn't have a snowballs chance it Hell" and expect anyone to jump on board? What is it with you, a mental exercise only? I don't think so. I think you want real action and change. You need to stop with the pessimism. What we are offering here is more than vague, Clintonesque, now Obama-like "hope and change." We are offering doable, sweeping reforms that will solve the huge problems and definitely save the world from a total global collapse. If we aren't well known (I'm not out for fame with humanity but salvation), we'll stay that way if others read that the core members of the monetary-reform dialogue don't think anyone should take note because none of the .001% is with them.
"...(long before that, of course, violent revolutions would have taken these obligations off the books, and the bankers' heads, off their shoulders. Take that for a Jubilee!)." No, I don't want to. It's not necessary at all! That would accomplish about what it did accomplish, and here we are. What, it wasn't global? Are you a Trotskyist? I'm not. I'm not a neocon either. This is about ending all such war forever, not starting one. Sure, I know about Christian prophecy, but I know which side I'm on.
"...So, Ellen is technically correct when she points out that Zarlenga and company are behind the times because the banks no longer have any true reserves...." Honestly, at this point, who cares? Bernanke wants the Fed to be as the Bank of London requiring no reserves. I don't think Steven Zarlenga is unaware of all of this anyway. He's known about the toxic sludge. We need a clean slate economically and financially, etc., and the NEED Act is a great vehicle (as much as any "legislation" can work). It has more right with it than wrong by far, and you know it.
"The solution I proposed: to simply zero out all derivative contracts where EITHER party cannot realistically be expected to pay,...." Of course! They are fraudulent. They've always been fraudulent. Alan Greenspan and crew were insane. People knew that when Clinton was backing them. I couldn't stand the DLC. I would have rather have lost to the Republicans sooner so we could have already gotten through all this after they failed miserably. Here we are with Barack Obama, who is not brighter than Clinton was. He's so flat and uninspiring. He has no vision, and can't sell the microscopic one he has. His only chance is to not look as bad as the pathetic austerity nuts.
So here I'm doing the pep rally with you when we should be talking nuts and bolts of the NEED Act already. I'm so used to this though. I have to do it in every walk of life. Where's your "salt of the Earth" flavor/zest?
I see you're maybe ready to be a zealot with Max Kaiser: sharpen the guillotines. The abused become abusers? No thanks. That crap never knows where to stop. It becomes completely mindless vengeance and an addiction to the intoxicating power of bloodlust. I'd rather overcome.
To Ellen and Joe:
Hi Ellen and Joe,
Ellen, you wrote to Joe, "If you make the banks turn these loan payments over to the government, you're making them pay twice and they will go bankrupt."
I started on specific language to handle that. With tweaks, my wording covers the contingencies.
All demand-deposit money (checkbook money) gets translated into United States Money. It goes into the Revolving Fund. If the banks are left naked because under the current NEED Act language, the checks won't be cleared and settled as always by the Fed, then simply say that all otherwise good checks will be cleared and settled as they were before the Act's enactment. All that money that was multiplied will be cleared and settled. How could it not be?
Joe, the language is missing for clearing and settling. I saw that the first time Ellen mentioned it. Why haven't you? Whether Ellen is right or wrong in her larger point, the language for clearing and settling needs to be there, in which case, her concerns will be addressed by definition.
What is the problem? I don't see it.
You two seem to be making a molehill into a mountain.
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)