How to Fix the Economy

A major problem with the Republican Party (and much of the Democratic Party) is that the vast majority of its members actually believe that the macro US economy has a budget like a typical American household that cannot create its own money.

I have been hammering and hammering away that if the money supply were pegged exactly to real productivity, then there would be zero inflation or deflation and no shortage of funds for real growth. I am amazed at the eyes that glaze over. It's as if everyone is in a trance.

Please note that real productivity does not include usury. Therefore, bank lending at interest ruins the system and should not exist.

We could pay off the National Debt via Constitutional money in the form of debt- and interest-free United States Money or United States Notes. See the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. We could do it instantly. We could completely eliminate poverty and do it within a matter of weeks, not even months.

We could completely "de-politicize" money creation by swapping out the monetary authority (Federal Reserve) with an opensource developed and managed computer software and hardware system.

The decisions for public-enterprise development and funding would be directly democratized so that the local citizenry would own and operate their employee/community-owned projects. That same thing can scale up to any level we would want.

Existing businesses would still factor into the money-supply calculations so they could keep right on competing. However, when businesses fail, its employees would not be dropped into some tentative safety net but would be absorbed into other businesses or public projects for full employment. Those who cannot work would be taken care of, no exceptions.

Best practices at local levels would be openly shared via the network.

The above is based upon comments I posted on my Facebook timeline.

See also:

Libor Impunity: Global Kleptocracy/Plutocracy; From: "Stephen Hester: The great escape artist" | Ian Fraser

From "US can fix budget woes," by Ellen Brown

Lecture Concluding-Statement: "Debt, Money and Mephistopheles: How Do We Get Out Of This Mess?" by Adair Turner. Cass Business School. 6th February 2013

Gross Ignorance! Fox News Poll: Voters Back Spending Cuts

Not the Solution: Currency War, Starving Labor, Robotics


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)

  • 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, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Gavin

      God is watching you !! ;-)

      Hope your not "stealing" monetary ideas, and not giving proper credit to the original sources now.

      Of course, I know that you're hardly likely to admit to this, in public, and really, that's not even the purpose of this comment.

      Just call it a little prod from universal "conscience". it's sent in the hope, that you actually do have the humility to honestly share, as freely as you have your post, just precisely which sites and people were your "inspiration" for "your" idea.

      We all "Stand on the Shoulders of Giants", it's just that there are some, let's call them the the meek and humble ones, who give credit to the "giants" ... and yet there are also some, who choose the "path of the plagiarist" (which of course doesn't need to be a word for word copying as you know), and they instead, prefer to try to have people believe, that they have somehow been solely and exclusively inspired by God. A tad on the selfish and deceptive side that one.

      Anyway, it's you're call my friend, but your reply or response will at least be revealing and interesting. Especially so, because, as a Christian, no doubt you would never choose to either lie, mislead, or even engage in any activity that misdirected anyone.

      Thank you, in advance then, for giving this matter your prayerful consideration. I leave it fully in the realm of your own conscience.



      • Gavin,

        If I say that people should love God, do I need always to also say that the thought is not original with me? The answer is that I do not.

        Jesus quoted scripture and did not always name the prophet. Would you stand before him and say the same things about his doing that, that you've commented here concerning my statements? Would you do so in a way to cast the worst possible light while retaining preplanned escapes were you to be called out for doing exactly what you'd be doing?

        Will you say that you've not accused just because it is all implied?

        Your comment is obviously written in an ostensibly cunning (rather transparent) manner to prejudice readers with false thoughts that I hide giving credit to others, I steal ideas, an I'm deceptive and selfish, etc. It is an extremely un-Christian approach and reflects very negatively upon the character of your soul.

        A number of aspects in my post above are an amalgamation of years, even decades, of reading others. I also included links to other posts of mine where the work of others is clearly discussed showing that I've read them, not that every idea they put forth is original with them or that they necessarily had their ideas before I had them. Neither have I said that God never used other human beings to impart righteous ideas to me. Jesus, for one, was a human being, and I've gained plenty from his words over and above any original thoughts of my own to the extent any idea can be one's own, for there is God.

        As for the original source for my every thought that went into my post above, a number of the aspects are completely original with me and such that I have never come across any others putting forth the steps before me. Some of those original ideas have swayed those from whom I learned other things that I have chosen conditionally to espouse. If you don't like that, it's not my problem but yours.

        If you know of sources I have not shown I've read and what I've gained or not from them, be specific. Before you accuse me or work further to cast an even darker pall over my efforts in the eyes of the easily tempted, search the site for their names to see if I've hidden them.

        God is fully aware of both of us and everything we feel, think, say, and do; and I'm not hiding or even trying to. Are you able to say the same? I think not, but I'm open to the idea of you repenting for your slimy comment – yes, slimy.

        You joined DISQUS using only a first name, indicating no website of your own, and made your first comment here.

      • There's nothing wrong with suggesting to someone to name names for the sake of spreading a good word in general. I've made that suggestion myself. There's nothing wrong with questioning whether someone is taking credit when he or she knows the idea didn't originate with him or her. There's also nothing wrong with admitting an honest mistake, such as insinuating something, or just giving the appearance, intentionally or not, where that something turns out to have been a wrong conclusion. I've done that -- been mistaken that way. What isn't okay is to be wrong, know it, and not apologize, not admit the error. What is also wrong is to hold a grudge, especially covertly. It is better to forgive, even to forgive the unrepentant but especially the ignorant. Does any of that apply to you? Did I harm you? Is it "personal" with you?

      • You asked about my inspiration while at the same time mentioning the plagiarist hoping to fool others into believing the plagiarist has been exclusively inspired by God. That's reading quite a bit into my post that isn't there.

        Nevertheless, my inspiration is fully explained on this site. Of course, only a fool would believe that he alone has been inspired by God. God has been, and continues to be, the inspiration of many people and many a good deed.