John Mauldin recently wrote, "...there are no easy answers when you have to move out of the realm of theory and into the messy real world." (http://www.mauldineconomics.com/outsidethebox/random-europe) However, what thought has he bothered to give to a debt-free currency for the United States and elsewhere? To my knowledge, none, publicly anyway. I should think that the one and only reason for that is because he would be afraid to touch it because he would lose much of his following/paying customers who are vested in the exact opposite: debt-based money from one end to the other.
What this country needs is Monetary Reform of the most radical type: United States Notes and Public Banking that is usury-free; real time (hi-tech), opensource regulation of the money supply to avoid all inflation/deflation; and elimination of the national debt in one fell swoop.
The worst thing is the ignorance of people who do not realize that money can be and should be created by the people's government in the exact amount needed to accomplish only what the people want and need and not for the private, special privilege and advantage of debt-money banksters and their mega-corporation hangers-on.
The question from the fiscal hawks (Tea Partiers; the Paul Ryan's of the country) of "Who's going to pay for it" shows their profound ignorance. What is the "it" there? Is it a bridge, a road, a school, a house, a water works, a solar panel array to produce enough electricity for a nation, or perhaps a combination of geothermal, wind, tidal, and solar? Where would the money come from, taxes? Who would own the results? Who would charge whom for use? Who would profit at the negative expense of others?
The money would come from governmental creation of the money, just as it used to be done before the banksters took over and scammed the planet and designed the economics courses to preclude any discussion of better and best alternatives to the banksters' system. The people would own the results and share it as they decide in a fully open, fully informed democratic society. No one would charge anyone. No one would profit at anyone's negative expense. Everyone would cooperate and work to bring this all forth.
How would inflation and deflation be avoided?
A network of publicly owned and manufactured super computers would be publicly programmed in an opensource fashion (some of the best software on the planet is open source). Transactional, account, and productivity feedback would be monitored; and accounts would be raised or lowered in real time as needed to avoid inflation and deflation.
If the people wanted all of their basic necessities met such that not one person would be living in poverty or would go without, then the funds to accomplish that would be created as needed and the production/work/service necessary to accomplish it would commence per the peoples' decided-upon methods.
When the issuance of money matches real productivity (not speculation; not finance capitalism), there is no price inflation or deflation. If productivity were going to otherwise slow going forward, the money supply could be reduced across-the-board or projects brought forward to maintain or increase productivity.
The one and only bank would be the nations treasury. The one and only currency would be the unit of United States Money that would reside in the system only. The only decision makers would be each citizen having a full and equal say at the grassroots where decisions would be taken locally and nationally and internationally. This would not be a competitive system but a cooperative system. Unselfishness would be the word rather than selfishness and greed.
It would go a long way toward healing everyone.
When it came time to build a superhighway system, the people, through their elected officials, decided to do it. The government borrowed the money (issued bonds rather than debt-free currency) when it didn't have to. The money was paid back with interest for no reason. The government hired private contractors when it didn't have to but rather should have publicly employed people for the public-works project (part of completely eliminating unemployment). Nevertheless, the result though was a highway system that was toll free (freeways not tollways).
There is not much difference in the level of difficulty in building the road system via debt and private contracting versus deft-free financing and publicly owned and operated road construction. In fact, I would argue that the latter method would be less difficult.
Eventually, this would lead to a moneyless society — a great goal! "Money is the root of all evil." Actually, selfishness is, and the selfish love money.
The more selfish, greedy, and basically evil/hard-hearted the person, the more he or she will claim I'm not right. Consider it. Stop being on the side of evil.
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)