Wrong But Definitely Worth Discussing: "WORLD without BANKS," by J.D. Alt

...whereas democratic processes (when properly working) can reasonably direct the production of collective goods, it seems evident that these same processes (even if they are properly working) are not well suited to deciding what and how many private goods and services should be created.

Source: WORLD without BANKS - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives.

The problem with J.D. Alt's assumption is that it is based upon central planning. Central planning is not the way for a democracy to even attempt to regulate the majority of production of goods and services that the people need and want. The local citizenry can decide. The various communities would find their niches and fulfill demand/orders. The communities would replace the so-called private enterprises. In other words, the citizens would own the entities that employ them. It would be privatization in reverse but not consolidated.

It's really that simple.

That's how it used to be before the "lords" showed up to lord it over others, take their commons under pain of death because those lords were simply evil/criminal enough to inflict violence and death on others who weren't willing, or able, to fall to sufficient countervailing evil to kill the would-be lords instead.

Why did J.D. introduce bonds, and what about the many examples of public banks that work as well or better than the private system? See: Argentina and "We Don't Need No Stinking" Interest.

Is J.D.'s post a satire? It describes much of what we have. Is it simply a call for greater, stronger regulation? It sounds it, but I definitely don't think greater, stronger regulation of the type that's been tried before will ever be good enough.

So, unless J.D. can show me how employee/community ownership of the banking system isn't better, I'm sticking to my plan.