JCT: Sarah Cornwall sure cheered me up today:

http://revolution2009uk.blogspot.com/2009/05/money-creation-and-banking-solution\
s_7504.html

Saturday, 9 May 2009
Money Creation and Banking Solutions

Countries are going bankrupt all around the globe. Orchestrated
of course. The International Banking Cartels are taking every
last penny, every last bit of property and finally they will own
you outright when you need to eat. Then we will truly be slaves,
when we graft for food. When we are forced to sell our souls for
a loaf of bread.

JCT: That's why I called my anti-usury party the Abolitionist
Party of Canada in honor of the Abolitionists of the metal chains
as we work on finishing the job of getting rid of the invisible
debt chains.

So we all know that the current Central Bank, IMF, World Bank,
privately run or owned corruption racket has to go. We've read
all the stuff and watched all the videos and have a pretty good
idea of what we don't want.

JCT: Actually, 99% of money reform videos have errors that steer
people away from the solution. There are those who believe
inflation is too much money chasing the goods, Shift A inflation,
so they'll never see that the solution to the same money chasing
less goods, Shift B inflation, is more money for the penniless
masses, not less money. Then there are those who believe that the
problem is that the money is based on debt but LETS timetrading
systems are based on debt of those who owe time to others who
worked first and cause no trouble. As the world's only banking
systems engineer, I've been trying to teach the banking system
blueprint for years but once a money reformer thinks he's got it
right, it's hard to get them to see another angle.

Or at least who we don't want to run the show. But what about a
system of transaction (money) that we do want? Who will create
it? How will it operate? How will it be backed? Do we even want
money?

One solution could be to simply outlaw usury?

JCT: Yes, that would make money work right and obey the
prohibitions against debt enslavement in all good religions.

This would solve nearly all the problems our current system
harbors. If no one could make money (interest) from lending and
creating money out of thin air (chuckles at the insanity) doesn't
that immediately cut off the head of the beast?

JCT: I don't mind the banker getting paid for creating and
running the chips. Again, bankers getting paid isn't the problem,
only the demand for more than was created, the usury, is.

It would not be profitable any longer to trade in money. This is
not a new idea at all. Central banks and interest payments are
what the banking elite are forcing on other countries as we
speak. The banking elite need new markets. Once you have
exorbitant loan interest for the property you buy or the business
you start you are vulnerable and at the mercy of those banks who
can call in that loan, sell it on or take your property from you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

JCT: I define interest as on something that has babies and can be
paid and usury as interest on something that has no babies and
causes a death-gamble mort-gage among its participant who all
borrowed P Principal and all owe Principal + Interest. P/(P+I)
survive while I/(P+I) fail and have their collateral confiscated
resulting in Shift B inflation, same money chasing less goods
after foreclosure.

It is this relatively new way of trading in money that makes it
far more important than it really has to be. This is how it
becomes a tool of power and control. Not money in itself but the
buying and selling of it at exorbitant and crippling interest
rates. If we are to succeed in bringing the banking elites to
their knees we need to back a solution or two. Taking back the
power to create our own money is the first step to rid these boys
of their power.

JCT: Bingo. Why represent our wealth with their chips for a fee
when we can represent our wealth with our chips for free?

Here are some ideas to think about. The current system is being
brought down only to be replaced by the same but now
international system which they will tell us its new, different,
a change! Our only 'hope'. Its not and we need to be thinking of
alternative solutions:

Monetary Reform Party
http://moneyreformparty.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-money-reformers-are-cranks.html

JCT: I checked and they make the mistake of wanting 100% money
backing up loans. LETS is a zero reserve system needing no old
money in order to issue new chips. Sad to see a flawed reform
being pushed. Plus, nothing about the positive feedback
instability on the debt.

Libertarian Party UK
http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/economy/monetary-reform.php

JCT: I was rejected by the Libertarian Party of Canada for
promoting the abolition of interest. They argued people should
have the freedom to lend at interest. No one should deter the
liberty to enslave their neighbors. Actually, I never said I'd
prevent the neighbors from lending their money at usury as long
as the borrower has the option to borrow interest-free from the
national bank. If the borrower prefers to pay interest, then he's
too stupid for us to protect and may the loanshark enjoy the
sucker's money.
Besides, they think banks keep a reserve ratio and "lend out the
remainder" which is completely wrong.

Local Exchange and Trading Systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems

JCT: As one of the two founding LETS engineers, I'm pleased to
see you pushing the ideal model. Now take a look at the UNILETS
resolution at the UN for the world-wide model.

Community Banking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Union

JCT: Since credit unions are piggy banks, needing old money in
order to lend, I can't see them as a solution to not enough
money.

The problem is not money itself but who has the power to create
it, how that is managed, what it is backed by and whether what it
is backed by, is something that can be hoarded, manipulated and
used as ransom over people. So even if we are to take back the
control of the money supply we still have to think carefully
about how we are going to run the system and what is going to
back it.

JCT: Been there, done that.

Please bear in mind, gold, resources, goods in general
can all be controlled. Food, technology, you name it. Even
without cash these things can be hoarded for their own power and
used against us. That is why I am not in favor of a gold backed
currency. Who owns the gold?

JCT: Agreed. Only gold bullion brokers profit from the Gold
Standard.

So can a currency be backed by value added to a community?
Whether that is by injecting additional money into the system
when new individuals are born, or when infrastructure is added to
the community, roads, bridges etc, or when economic migrants come
here, or anything that adds VALUE. For that we need to see that
human beings are more valuable than precious metals. If we back a
currency by how many people there are in society, instead of how
much gold we have, the measure of success is by how many people
want to live here, we transfer value from money to the
individual.

JCT: Not by how many people in the community but by how much time
at work can be pledged.

Take a look at LETS scheme, with a made-up currency that is used
to trade goods. Sound familiar? Only there is no system of debt
and interest.

JCT: Yes there is no interest but no, there is debt. The hour you
work for me is owed back to you. It's called a commitment but
it's a debt, a social debt, not the anti-social bank debt that
grows by itself.

You can only keep the people in the system if the system is
useful to them, if it is not they will join another system. Get
my drift? A small amount of extra money is added to the pot each
time a new member joins, to get them started and trading and thus
injecting new life into the society.

JCT: These dinky toy models where everyone starts with 4 Hours
($40 US) worth of money have almost no effect. There's too little
currency to do any big deals. People should be trusted with a
couple of month's worth of work, $4000 US, not a few hours.

It invigorates it and the value is placed on the new member not
just on the cash they have. By putting value on the individual it
allows for a corresponding growth in the economy.

JCT: But far too little to have much effect. I can imagine many
people spending their few Hours then having to wait to find
someone to earn some from before being able to invigorate the
local economy some more.

So money is not evil, evil banking interest-charging elites are.
Money is simply a form of transaction, which could be based on a
system of trust, recognizing the value of people over resources
and one where usury has no place. Why would we need to borrow
money anyway? In a LETS system we just go into the red but with
no harsh penalties just some gentle encouragement to balance it
out. It seems to work. Trust the individual. We love it and
generally we come shining through. If not who cares, its no
longer such an issue. Its just numbers on a transaction sheet!

Otherwise Credit Union banking can provide low interest loans for
individuals. A local system that works well. We already have
working solutions that could be taken up by our government
instead of them trying to constantly hide the fact that we were
sold out a long time ago and have become slaves to the
bankers/debt/interest merry go round. Credit Unions work on a
system of trust rather than a credit check or ability to pay
scenario. Loans can get bigger in size as the smaller ones get
paid off. We earn trust from the lender.

JCT: But piggy bank models need cash to start. LETS-style poker
chip models do not.

Banking practices are the problem not individuals, not money
itself. The people who own the system make the rules. Isn't it
time we changed those people and those rules?

Lets, no pun intended, reclaim control of the monetary system and
replace it with something a lot more user friendly instead.

The answers to this life are more simple than we think.
Hopefully some food for thought.
Posted by goldylocksuk at 06:55

1 comments:
goldylocksuk said...
I am not advocating some hippy kind of LETS scheme but rather
showing that our current monetary system could be reclaimed and
run on the same lines.

JCT: Thanks for that.

I have also recently been informed that potentially Credit Unions
have been infiltrated by the group Common Purpose and aren't
perhaps as trustworthy as they appear on the surface. Again I am
not advocating Credit Unions but rather the system of trust and
the nominal interest charges on loans. As for the Monetary Reform
Party, I do not advocate a single issue party, I am merely
highlighting the debate with this link. Ultimately there is in my
mind nothing that the LPUK does not tackle on the issue of
governmental responsibilities and I will be backing them all the
way to Parliament. 09 May 2009 08:56

JCT: I always found that the leaders of the no-answer parties are
bankster moles keeping their party on the wrong track. I doubt
you'll have much more success in getting the Libertarians to stop
supporting the liberty to enslave with debt than I did.

But I'm still pleased to see you on the job. Keep pushing.