Part 15: Monetary Reform: Series 1

John,

Thanks for supplying the link to the video.

I agree with your analysis with the exception that I believe more people here actually agree with Steve's "commercial banks fill a good and necessary role" idea. Haven't Scott and Joe more than hinted that they aren't for a socialist, single publicly owned depository for instance. Also, you're not quite as far to the left as I am on Monetary Reform/Publicly Owned Banking, right John? I'm really not sure just how socialistic you are, but I'm sure that will come out if you hang in here (or wherever we end up taking this: a new domain or maybe we occupy Occupy). Did you look at their NYC site? If so, what do you think?

What struck me most was how little Steve had thought it through. It's either that or her intensity was a bit much in person there. Wasn't there more hemming and hawing than there should have been for someone on camera so often concerning these matters? In reaction to being pressed about exactly which person (or group) would make the choices, he avoided being pinned down by falling back on that it won't be easy and must be systemic.

After a bit, he seemed to collect himself and began finding his words by way of describing that everyone would be funded directly by in, our case, United States Money. Those with debts would have to pay them off (not fair it there's no title chain). Those without debts could just be that much richer, less inflation that wasn't mentioned.

No, Steve is bright and does see plenty that the masses (that 90%) he mentioned don't yet see, but he's really wrong about not going right after the banks just because of pension funds and so forth.

Our systemic redesign could certainly protect the pensioners, etc., while we put the banksters (usurers) out of commission on a permanent basis. There's no sense in leaving things that will require yet another jubilee. Once-and-done is the proper way to go. The world's too populated for anything else. We need to fix it in this generation.

Steve Keen doesn't see usury as inherently parasitic. I do. What about you?

Hey Joe,

Yes, it's cumbersome to look through the comments and cross-reference to the Act and back. I don't have time right at the moment to fill your request but should find some time after my next work session.

I will want to do a better job of zeroing in and reducing the verbiage now that we all pretty much know each others' ideological/mechanical positions.

So, I'm still here and am thinking about this often throughout my workdays.

This topic is really going to take off it we continue raising it. There is a real "window of opportunity," if I may retread the old expression.

I'll tell you, if Ellen doesn't want to start the writing of the Banking Section, I may go at an outline. I think it's that important. I'm sure she could speed the process, but maybe she feels she needs to see genuine interest before she'd participate. Perhaps she thinks we're too radical though. How about it, Ellen? We could use your help and brains, etc.

We need to get at the root cause, and usury is a sign.

Happy New Year!

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.