"Lending is part of commercial banking, as the term is commonly understood." John, that's fine. No one said otherwise. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. My entire thrust has been toward uncommon thinking to address the huge issues facing the whole of humanity. There are non-lending commercial banks. It doesn't matter if you say there aren't. You were speaking in all-encompassing terms. I simply said there are exceptions. You reconstructed "banks" to mean "commercial" to mean other than "depository" to mean other than "banks." The simple truth is that, that chain is broken. That's all. I'm done on this issue of what's a bank. I don't limit my notion of "bank" to what you do, and that doesn't make me wrong. It's a dead horse, John. Don't beat it.
"And "banks" which are not in the business of lending are not commercial banks." That's a purely arbitrary and incorrect definition of the combination of the terms "commercial" and "bank." That said, I'm not interested in pursuing this non-issue.
"Moreover, it has come as a surprise to discover that you appear to be opposed to borrowing and lending per se - as well as to the imposition of any form of interest...." Have you not been reading my comments? I was under the impression that you had read them all. I've been very clearly advocating decentralized funding rather than loans with or without usury/interest.
"...(which, incidentally, is not synonymous with usury)." In your imagination it isn't. You've probably swallowed the "high interest" is usury canard, as in the euphemistic "usurious." That invention came along after usury was any interest. You may continue thinking what you want on it or research the etymology. As a Christian whose religious tenets include anti-usury, I can assure you I've studied the matter.
"If this is indeed your position, then it labels you as unrealistically utopian." Well, since utopia means nowhere, unrealistic is redundant. Regardless, "it" doesn't label me unrealistic or a utopian. You do. It's your opinion.
Loans are unnecessary. I'm not unrealistic. I'm still ahead of the times. My views will win out. Of that, I'm certain.
Plenty of people in the world don't like capitalism and for good cause. It will become common knowledge that governments don't have to borrow to build. It will become common knowledge that governments don't have to lend to fund and that no interest need be obtained from anyone for any reason. It will become common knowledge that there need be no inflation or deflation or taxes of any kind. When that happens and the people look back on what you wrote here as opposed to what I wrote, they will know which one of us was realistic.
"To my mind, the issue of the most appropriate mix of the public and private sectors has no bearing on the need for monetary and banking reform. As mentioned previously, from the standpoint of abolishing fractional reserve banking, it matters not whether financial institutions are privately or publicly owned." You say the mix doesn't matter. Then you limit the discussion to abolishing fractional reserve banking. I'm not limiting myself to that discussion. How long will it take before you realize that? The NEED Act is about a whole lot more than abolishing fractional reserve banking. Have you read it? Do you understand what Dennis Kucinich wants via-a-vis infrastructure? If you go back to my earlier comments, you'll be reminded of why you said that I seem to be the only one here who grasps the truly radical possibilities. That was you who wrote that, wasn't it? I didn't go back to verify. Was there another John? I know Joe didn't write it.
Anyway, there is a great deal of speaking at cross purposes that has gone on in this discussion. I can see some new effort though to try to settle things down and to work harder at making each other understood. For that, I'm thankful.
I want to add that of course in my view, anyone may come and go in this discussion as he or she sees fit. I simply don't want anyone to feel driven out, shunned, marginalized, disenfranchised, or what have you when that one is serious and thoughtful about the issues.
The topic of this thread was Bill Still. Bill penned his own Monetary Reform Act, which has undergone revisions to reflect newer thinking about paying off the National Debt in one fell swoop, as I had been advocating and still am. This thread is not limited to the NEED Act.
I am for a publicly owned banking section being added to the NEED Act because it's needed. I'm for a number of other things too, such as fixing the missing designator (if we don't want such deposits being treated as such for insurance purposes). Scott seemed to be concerned that a lack of deposit insurance is scary. I dare say he isn't alone and that many more people would join him once they were to find out about it were the Act to start to grow real legs.
Lastly, I don't want you to think, John, that I don't appreciate just how progressive you are in the common usage of that label over here. I know you are not some Mitt Romney, pro-corporate raider type. I'm quite sure the world would be much better off taking advice from you on monetary and banking reform than capitalist advice from Mitt Romney and his ilk. Unfortunately, it appears the feeling isn't mutual, perhaps because you may think Mitt Romney is a greedy pig by nature rather than nurture. I don't fall for that "conservative" farce. I believe in repentance and change.
Land & Building Fund Donations
Less Applicable Transaction Fees
reflects cleared transactions
& donations before expenses
to the Christian Commons Project™