Hello John Hermann:
"'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 ... '
"This is part of the MMT message. Perhaps you also meant to say governments don't need to borrow to fund (i.e., to spend)?"
Yes, but I was there first. I was born there. I came from there from before I was born. I'm just showing my roots. I have been quite clear where I agree and disagree with the MMT Movement. In my view, they are too little, as in "too little, too late." They stop way too short.
As for "Perhaps you also meant to say governments don't need to borrow to fund (i.e., to spend)?," it's implied and I've said it expressly before in this thread while you've been here reading.
"In regard to interest, do you not think a fee is appropriate for sevices rendered?"
No, I don't if the answer is within the full context of my whole program. If you limit things to commercial banking, then bankers and their employees do have to eat. In that case, I am not against fees. I work for a living under capitalism. It doesn't mean I like capitalism. It means I don't want to starve or others to starve, not that there aren't other ways even right now. I'm just going to translate the dreaded mammon into a system that will destroy mammon. It's Christian.
"...it has been argued that there exists a "natural rate of interest", which is identified with the rate of increase of real productivity." It's been argued, but it's a failed position. It's dead on arrival.
"I don't have a problem with interest, if all such economic rent is adequately taxed." I'm not prejudice. I hate everybody. No thanks!
As for your not recalling having said what I mentioned/paraphrased of course: "John Hermann • It seems that Tom is the only person on this list who has fully appreciated the truly radical nature of the proposal to replace fractional reserve banking with a full reserve system." Am I still too much the radical/"utopian"? Would you rather Mitt Romney were in charge?
I'm still waiting to here what's ultimately good about capitalism.
P.S. My memory isn't perfect either, but...
[To John Hermann:]
What's the matter John? Did you forget the questions, or are you just expert not only in the obvious but also in ducking?
"Care to flesh out this assertion Tom?" Care to answer the myriad questions that have been put to you?
Here's my low-brow answer to you, John:
"And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:23-27)
Get it? It's directly connected with my previous "low-brow" reply. You figure it out since you're so high-brow.
Prides himself? Your feelings are hurt. Speak for yourself. Would you like me better were I dumber? I'd like you better were you ... honest.
When one says he/she didn't say something and the other party quotes that one to that one having said it and if that one is a person of high character, that one will acknowledge the error.
You bear witness against me here that I engage in character assassination. However, you characterized perhaps my most important comment in this whole thread as being hand-waving. You went on to refer to my commentary as "low-brow." At the same time, however, you had credited me with being the one in this thread best able to see the radical implications of the NEED Act. (That last part you forgot.)
I reminded you. You denied having said it. I showed you that you did say it. You didn't as much as say, oops, or is "oops" too low-brow for you?
Not being perfect and admitting it is not low-brow. It's honest. That's a fact.
Now, if you don't like the truth and want to stop communicating with me over this, then go ahead and be a baby about it. I don't have time for it. I don't have time for people who duck and change the subject.
If you love being properly rebuked, you will repent.
Nevertheless, may God bless you.
Hi Mark Morehouse,
As you know, this thread was started to discuss Bill Still's candidacy for US President. We have engaged in a long discussion about Dennis Kucinich's NEED Act, which is similar to, but more extensive than, Bill Still's own "Monetary Reform Act" proposal.
As for the Gold Standard, you should listen to Bill's most recent video wherein he mentions that very issue and points out correctly that gold is no solution but rather a hindrance.
I agree with Bill on many things. However, I take exception to a number of things in that video, particularly as follows:
Bill Still has come out for the Israeli method of airport screening, which is profiling and grueling interrogations. I'm completely opposed to that.
I've noticed that he doesn't want to refer to consolidation of power as socialism, per se. That's good, but he needs to take it further. There is nothing wrong with grassroots controlled socialism and where the system is bottom-up and then top-across-and-down again. It's exactly what we need in large measure -- all local consensus building, real town-hall democracy (just what the banksters dread).
He emphasized "incentives" as being critically important to the American experiment. I beg to differ with the notion that incentives necessarily means selfish pursuits. One can be just as incentivized by love of family and neighbor and whole nation and, yes, even the whole world and beyond all the way to God without and within.
Bill thinks that if nations join together, "Nothing but an ironclad world dictatorship can result." I completely disagree. The idea behind the EU is a great one. The biggest mistake they made was not integrating enough, that and not being sufficiently democratic. Now they are paying the price for those things among others, literally.
Bill's new emphasis is on "separation of powers." He's asking for as much de-consolidation as practical. He's saying no to the Europeans uniting, as the US states are united (strange that we can do it but they can't), and he's saying no to the United Nations.
The United Nations isn't bad because it joins nations. It's bad because it doesn't join them enough and in the right way, for the right reasons. If Bill is right, then why shouldn't the US devolve into 50 nations? No, the answer isn't in splitting up. The answer is in what kind of unions we form. The answer lies in guiding principles. There is absolutely nothing preventing the US from altering its form enough to allow for bottom-up and top-cross-and-down again democracy. We have it now, but it's way too indirect. There's way too much dependency upon representatives, who have become a professional political class looking out for self first (being bought off by superrich individuals and corporations) rather than those who were supposed to be represented.
I don't know how much history Bill has studied aside from his study of fiat currencies, which has been both good and extensive. I'm afraid he doesn't appreciate the inherent dangers of decentralization to the extent that local officials become mini dictators. The history the US is replete with town bosses, many of whom were brutal and vicious.
I'm afraid that without a change of heart, Bill's call (unqualified) if followed, would lead to disastrous consequences not the least of which would be the resurgence of rabid, overt, active, aggressive, and deadly racism in some quarters.
I really like it though that Bill says "fair trade, not free trade." I've always been for that.
I was mortified, however, to hear Bill say that we can end foreign-energy dependency because "there's safe nuclear technology." Right now, there is no such safe way. I can dream of a safe way, but we must be practical too. We must dream up practical answers and now! If we convert to the NEED Act, funding of clean, sustainable energy would present zero obstacles.
Here's the URL to Bill's last video:
[I watched two of Bill's videos in a row. I hope I didn't combine my thoughts concerning both; but if I did, here's the URL to the previous video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gzbq-rZiIQ]
I take it back saying that you are not thin-skinned, John Hermann. You see, I was wrong and I freely admit it. I don't feel crushed doing that either.
It's your problem if you're keeping score about points. I was never interested in that level of discussion, and I haven't joined it. Speak for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, you are the one dragging it out.
Anyway, okay, you admitted forgetting. Good. Now can you do that without bitterness?
You can dish it out, John; but you can't take it even when it isn't intended to hurt your feelings but rather just open your eyes.
I'm not sitting here pouting about having been termed a hand-waver and "low-brow" by you. What are you doing, being honest? Sure, sure, John, just keep telling yourself that and you'll go nowhere: You know "utopia," as in how you referred to me: "unrealistically utopian." Now would that be you claiming I face things honestly? Ha!
Is it okay if I use the term honest that way, or must I say "liar"? No, I can use the language in more ways than you try to pigeon hole me into so you can score points. Oh, weren't you trying to do that? Shame on me.
Are we done yet? I am.
If you want to talk about monetary reform and banking reform and Bill Still's candidacy, etc., I'm fine with getting back to those things and more with you. If you want to be bitter, well, there's nothing I can do about that.
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)