"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.
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)