Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    "You see it every day on TV; politicians will say: “We have to cut spending so we can pay down the national debt.” However, award-winning filmmaker, author and “back-door” economist Bill Still says:“You can’t pay down the National Debt under our current system without further deflating the money supply. The problem is that ALL our money is created out of this debt. To reduce the debt would be to reduce our money. We have to think outside the box – to a system the U.S. has employed at critical times in the past with success – exactly the same system which the nation’s leading economists implored FDR to implement during the Great Depression, but they were ignored.”And what about “austerity” measures? “Austerity” measures alone are doomed to failure,” say Still. “According to the CBO, by 2020 interest payments alone on the national debt will exceed $1 trillion – twice the current annual discretionary budget of the U.S. Congress. Only eliminating the “national debt” system entirely can fix our broken economy.”How could that be done? “Simple,” said Still. “Every nation needs to do two things:
    1. Forbid any more government borrowing. The national money would no longer be created out of debt. If Congress couldn’t borrow, they would have to feel the political heat of raising taxes immediately. This alone, would put the brakes to runaway government spending.
    2. Forbid banks from lending money they don’t actually have. This practice is called “fractional reserve lending”. In its place, banks would have to move to something called “full-reserve lending”. “This would make borrowing more expensive,” said Still, “but that’s a good thing. Consumer borrowing has to be slowed as well.”
    Another popular remedy discussed is a return to gold-backed (or any commodity-backed) money. The book shows why gold is not the solution. “We had gold backed money in the early 1930s. It did not prevent the Great Depression, nor the post-Civil War depression before that. Gold money is good for big bankers, but horrible for the middle class – or freedom in general,” says Still.“It’s not what backs our money which is important; it’s who controls the QUANTITY. Will it be we, the people, or will it be the biggest banks. Right now, commercial banks are in complete control of the quantity of money in every nation on earch. We have to take back the money power into the hands of we, the people. Money is THE defining power of a sovereign nation. Money must serve the public interest. Today, it serves only the interest of the biggest banks.”The argument against government-issued, debt-free money is that those rascals in Congress will print too much of it if they get the money power. “Well, of course,” said Still. “So don’t let them. Don’t you think that we can find in this nation a group of public-spirited, honest individuals who could form an independent Monetary Board to oversee the total quantity of money issued based on an honest assessment of inflation numbers instead of the cooked-up numbers the government currently puts out to serve its political purposes? Inflation is only a matter of controlling the quantity of money. We certainly cannot control the quantity if banks create all of it! If that’s all it takes to fix all these economic problems, don’t you think we can do that?”"

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/More-Nationa.../dp/B007X5PWZI
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    stop cutting and pasting from blogs and passing it off as your own thoughts. It just makes you a laughing stock. We all know you don't know what you're talking about.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calum.McManus)
    Not sure if someone has already said this before but anyway.

    1. Read a £10 note, it states that the queen owes the bearer the sum of £10 worth of gold, this is because in the UK money is regulated by the amount of gold held by the bank of england.
    No it doesn't.

    It says 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten pounds'

    The pound hasn't been pegged to gold since 1931.

    Nobody uses the gold standard anymore. It's too inflexible.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    You see it every day on TV; politicians will say: “We have to cut spending so we can pay down the national debt.” However, award-winning filmmaker, author and “back-door” economist Bill Still says:“You can’t pay down the National Debt under our current system without further deflating the money supply. The problem is that ALL our money is created out of this debt. To reduce the debt would be to reduce our money. We have to think outside the box – to a system the U.S. has employed at critical times in the past with success – exactly the same system which the nation’s leading economists implored FDR to implement during the Great Depression, but they were ignored.”And what about “austerity” measures? “Austerity” measures alone are doomed to failure,” say Still. “According to the CBO, by 2020 interest payments alone on the national debt will exceed $1 trillion – twice the current annual discretionary budget of the U.S. Congress. Only eliminating the “national debt” system entirely can fix our broken economy.”How could that be done? “Simple,” said Still. “Every nation needs to do two things:
    1. Forbid any more government borrowing. The national money would no longer be created out of debt. If Congress couldn’t borrow, they would have to feel the political heat of raising taxes immediately. This alone, would put the brakes to runaway government spending.
    2. Forbid banks from lending money they don’t actually have. This practice is called “fractional reserve lending”. In its place, banks would have to move to something called “full-reserve lending”. “This would make borrowing more expensive,” said Still, “but that’s a good thing. Consumer borrowing has to be slowed as well.”
    Another popular remedy discussed is a return to gold-backed (or any commodity-backed) money. The book shows why gold is not the solution. “We had gold backed money in the early 1930s. It did not prevent the Great Depression, nor the post-Civil War depression before that. Gold money is good for big bankers, but horrible for the middle class – or freedom in general,” says Still.“It’s not what backs our money which is important; it’s who controls the QUANTITY. Will it be we, the people, or will it be the biggest banks. Right now, commercial banks are in complete control of the quantity of money in every nation on earch. We have to take back the money power into the hands of we, the people. Money is THE defining power of a sovereign nation. Money must serve the public interest. Today, it serves only the interest of the biggest banks.”The argument against government-issued, debt-free money is that those rascals in Congress will print too much of it if they get the money power. “Well, of course,” said Still. “So don’t let them. Don’t you think that we can find in this nation a group of public-spirited, honest individuals who could form an independent Monetary Board to oversee the total quantity of money issued based on an honest assessment of inflation numbers instead of the cooked-up numbers the government currently puts out to serve its political purposes? Inflation is only a matter of controlling the quantity of money. We certainly cannot control the quantity if banks create all of it! If that’s all it takes to fix all these economic problems, don’t you think we can do that?”
    This will end up with a socialist revolution...so I back it LMAO
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    stop cutting and pasting from blogs and passing it off as your own thoughts. It just makes you a laughing stock. We all know you don't know what you're talking about.
    I've called him out on his plagiarism as well.

    Mods, surely that's a ban-able offence?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    I've called him out on his plagiarism as well.

    Mods, surely that's a ban-able offence?
    He is literally incapable of debating. No matter how many times we explain things to him, he just repeats the same confused gibberish about debt-free money back at us. Such is the incomprehensibility of his posts, I'm suspicious he might actually be a spam-bot masquerading as a poster.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    stop cutting and pasting from blogs and passing it off as your own thoughts. It just makes you a laughing stock. We all know you don't know what you're talking about.
    I forgot to paste the link for the quote. I won't hold my breath for you to logically prove that to copy and paste a piece of information necessarily means that one does not understand it, ipso facto. That is a non-sequitur.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    He is literally incapable of debating. No matter how many times we explain things to him,
    But you did not explain anything. To insult someone is not the same as explaining something.

    I'm suspicious he might actually be a spam-bot masquerading as a poster.
    I'm suspicious you might be a forum troll masquerading as a genuine participant of the discussion, and that I am wasting my time even bothering to make a response to you. If only I could somehow banish your existence from this thread...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    I've called him out on his plagiarism as well.

    Mods, surely that's a ban-able offence?
    It would very odd if that were an offence, especially as it isn't off-topic. In any case, I've added a reference to the link for the quote.

    I don't know why you folk have come here to troll. There are plenty of other threads. You can carry on with the accusations, insults and irrelevancies, but I will ignore your type henceforth. Try to engage with the arguments, per se.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    This will end up with a socialist revolution...so I back it LMAO
    Why is the politics forum infested with puerile folk and trolls? In order to redeem yourself, can you explain how the Sovereign Money proposal for monetary reform has any relation to Socialism?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    Why is the politics forum infested with puerile folk and trolls? In order to redeem yourself, can you explain how the Sovereign Money proposal for monetary reform has any relation to Socialism?
    It will lead to socialism...

    These reforms just prevent private individuals creating debt based money.

    That's all. Wealth accumulation will still exist. Inflation and deflation due to an expansion or restriction of money supply will still exist. Capitalism will still exist. The so called middle class and lower class will still face major issues.

    Money supply is one issue. It isn't the only issue. It compounds the problems created by capitalism.

    Also, the ideological contradictions will prevent people wanting this to happen. If you're pro Laissez-faire capitalism, you cannot allow the government to control money supply. The market should do it. Everyone should be allowed to print money based on whatever and it's up to the consumer to choose which one they will use. This way the best banks will survive. blah blah blah...lunatic justification etc etc

    If you want to control all these variables and focus them to make more goods and provide more services then you need socialism. You need to change the whole structure of the economy. The relationships the principles. Everything.

    And don't come at my with Soviet Union, North Korea crapola.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    That's all. Wealth accumulation will still exist. Inflation and deflation due to an expansion or restriction of money supply will still exist. Capitalism will still exist. The so called middle class and lower class will still face major issues.Money supply is one issue. It isn't the only issue. It compounds the problems created by capitalism.
    The parts I have highlighted in the quote above are incorrect. The Sovereign Money system would stabilise the business cycle, keeping it on an even keel.
    Social class distinctions would still exist, but it would not pose a significant issue as the basic needs of all can easily be met under a monetary system that restores the power of money creation to the government to be spent, rather than lent, free of debt for the welfare of the nation, and in the absence of taxation or borrowing.

    Also, the ideological contradictions will prevent people wanting this to happen. If you're pro Laissez-faire capitalism, you cannot allow the government to control money supply. The market should do it. Everyone should be allowed to print money based on whatever and it's up to the consumer to choose which one they will use. This way the best banks will survive. blah blah blah...lunatic justification etc etc
    Free market advocates violate their own principles if they support the current monetary setup, since it's a system that socialises the losses for the financial elite who have a neo-feudal control over the national supply of money. Moreover, such free market advocates are institutionalising a private monopoly that causes distributional effects in society through its ability to create purchasing power; this is neither "free" nor democratic.

    The general populace are legally proscribed creating money for themselves.

    If you want to control all these variables and focus them to make more goods and provide more services then you need socialism. You need to change the whole structure of the economy. The relationships the principles. Everything.And don't come at my with Soviet Union, North Korea crapola.
    The debt-free monetary system, or the Sovereign Money system, transcends the left-wing / right-wing paradigm as it no longer provides an excuse for those leaning politically to the right to render the welfare of society the sacrifical lamb due to their opposition to borrowing and taxation, and it no longer undermines the goal for those leaning politically to the left to pursue and promote the general welfare, since the imposition of higher inefficient taxes as the means of wealth redistribution would cease to be relevant.

    As the government will have privilege over primary allocation rather than secondary allocation of money, it would thus be possible to achieve all the advantages of both socialism and capitalism while casting aside their respective structural flaws. For example, the government could create full employment by becoming entrepreneurial. It would spend on the creation of a variety of feasile public projects, recreational or otherwise, taking into consideration only the physical resources and human capital available. This would create an opportunity for the unemployed to become employed in certain divisions of their choosing. For those that lack the requisite skills, on-site training would be provided and they would be paid a full living wage by the state, just as the rest.
    The conflict between the public and private sector would be ended and, instead, both sectors would coexist in harmony.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There is no such thing as a debt-free monetary system. You're talking compete gibberish. Actually, you're copying and pasting someone else's complete gibberish, which is even worse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    There is no such thing as a debt-free monetary system. You're talking compete gibberish. Actually, you're copying and pasting someone else's complete gibberish, which is even worse.
    Only a troll would label a concept gibberish and not expand on that.
    I suggest you visit the following links if you genuinely don't understand it. The second one contains a list of impressive essays explaining the concept and countering the misconceptions.

    http://positivemoney.org/wp-content/...eb20130615.pdf

    http://www.sovereignmoney.eu/

    http://www.monetary.org/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    Only a troll would label a concept gibberish and not expand on that.
    I suggest you visit the following links if you genuinely don't understand it. The second one contains a list of impressive essays explaining the concept and countering the misconceptions.

    http://positivemoney.org/wp-content/...eb20130615.pdf

    http://www.sovereignmoney.eu/

    http://www.monetary.org/
    Why can't you explain in your own words rather than simply linking to blogs that you don't have the academic training to be able to understand?

    There is no such thing about debt-free money.

    If you think there is, explain how.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Why can't you explain in your own words rather than simply linking to blogs that you don't have the academic training to be able to understand?

    There is no such thing about debt-free money.

    If you think there is, explain how.
    Here is the problem, friend. I sense that you haven't actually joined this thread to genuinely learn about this proposal in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, but simply to be arrogantly presumptuous about my intellect, as highlighted in the quote above, and to play an obnoxious game where
    1. You assert a point in the absence of reasoning and / or evidence
    2. I counter the point with reasoning and / or evidence
    3. You ignore it entirely and reassert your position and / or engage in mockery.

    There is a reason why I highlighted "explain how," too. It lacks specificity. What exactly do you not understand? I can refer you to post #294 and the opening post, and you can form a more specific query. Why are you overly concerned about the relevant research that I have copied and pasted, rather than what it actually explains? Can you not see why I feel disinclined to engage in a discussion with you? If there is a certain part of the text that you are unable to understand then I can make it clearer for you in my own words. But you never give me that opportunity because your role here, in my considered opinion, is to serve as a distraction from the discussion.

    Give me a reason to take seriously again your contributions to the thread.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    Here is the problem, friend. I sense that you haven't actually joined this thread to genuinely learn about this proposal in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, but simply to be arrogantly presumptuous about my intellect, as highlighted in the quote above, and to play an obnoxious game where
    1. You assert a point in the absence of reasoning and / or evidence
    2. I counter the point with reasoning and / or evidence
    3. You ignore it entirely and reassert your position and / or engage in mockery.

    There is a reason why I highlighted "explain how," too. It lacks specificity. What exactly do you not understand? I can refer you to post #294 and the opening post, and you can form a more specific query. Why are you overly concerned about the relevant research that I have copied and pasted, rather than what it actually explains? Can you not see why I feel disinclined to engage in a discussion with you? If there is a certain part of the text that you are unable to understand then I can make it clearer for you in my own words. But you never give me that opportunity because your role here, in my considered opinion, is to serve as a distraction from the discussion.

    Give me a reason to take seriously again your contributions to the thread.
    I asked you to explain it, it appears you cannot. Money is debt. Debt-free money is a contradiction in terms.

    This thread is done. You've embarrassed yourself, you've embarrassed your university, you've embarrassed your family.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    because they are spending the money on terrorists group.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    I asked you to explain it, it appears you cannot. Money is debt. Debt-free money is a contradiction in terms.

    This thread is done. You've embarrassed yourself, you've embarrassed your university, you've embarrassed your family.
    1. Reassert dogmatically the position that money can't be but debt without reasoning and / or evidence.
    2. Resort to abuse and insult.

    I rest my case. This thread is done for trolls like yourself, not for sane and serious contributors.

    Ignored.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jsMath)
    because they are spending the money on terrorists group.
    I asked whether or not the government can create debt-free money, not how they spend debt-based money.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.