Monetary systems – Which one is right for us?
Imagine a planet with intelligent beings who use platinum coins for money and have platinum storage facilities where platinum is kept in vaults and where receipts for the stored platinum (ownership of the platinum) can be transferred from one intelligent being to another as a means of payment. That planet has a commodity money system.
Imagine a planet of intelligent beings where there is no money, only IOUs, and where debt dealers buy and sell IOUs. Those to whom much is owed and from whom little is owing have much credit for buying. Those to whom little or nothing is owed but who owe quite a lot have no credit, but they can work to make goods or provide services and sell them for other people’s IOUs, and with them pay down their debt and gain credit. That economy has a moneyless credit/debt system.
Now consider planet Earth as it is today. Goods and services are purchased by transfer of deposit from one bank account to another. A deposit is created when a man enters a bank where, because the banker sees that the man has a job and can make more payments, the man is suitable as “fissionable material” in the simultaneous making of new credit money and new debt. The man simply signs a contract with the bank whereby the bank creates new deposit money in a new account for the man, while at the same time receiving the man’s signed document obligating him to make over time a series of payments totaling the same amount as the deposit that was created (called principal) plus more (called interest). At first, there is no deposit and no debt, then the great co-creation of both takes place: the bank enters in its books as a liability the deposit it creates for the man, and as an asset the man’s IOU at its present value – its value, at the time of the co-creation before any interest is owing, of the stream of future payments of principal and interest. [Note: the present value of the interest due is zero, since no time has elapsed.] That is why the books balance, when in fact the money created at the time the contract is signed is far less than the total amount of principal and interest that will be paid month after month subsequently.
Earth is divided into nations; each nation has its banks that do this, and a central bank owned by the bankers but acting with the authority of the government, that regulates the amount of lending and influences the interest to be charged for deposit creation (for loans). The central banks also operate a service for the biggest creditors (the biggest holders of other people’s IOUs): it will swap large numbers of IOUs for new deposits, or it will swap deposits for IOUs, but only the big creditors can enjoy this service. Also, on Earth, all loans are secured and all risk is upon the borrower, not the lender. The banker and the man both sign the contract, often with the banker having a better idea of the prospects for default than the borrower; yet the borrower who is the one who will put the money to work and make the investment profitable must take all the risk, while the banker does nothing but get signatures on the “fissionable” contract, co-creating a deposit for the borrower and a debt owed to the bank out of thin air.
Obviously under such a system where all of each nation’s money supply is co-created with a debt requiring payments totaling more than the deposit created, there must be plenty of default and a continuing shortage of purchasing power (of transferable deposit) existing at any one time that would keep the people productive and happy. There must be plenty of loan defaults and poor sales, with revenues too low to pay all the employees and all the suppliers of the producer’s goods needed to furnish the product. The central bank and the bankers who own the central bank can increase or decrease lending, so that at a particular time there may be more deposited for buying and debt-paying than at other times. But always over time there is a net drain – more money is owed in debt to lenders than was created as deposit by the loans – so businesses fail, the risk-taker loses all he risked, and the lender gains the real assets which he takes possession of and keeps in institutions called corporations, which the bankers run and hire people to manage for them.
We can name the Earth system according to its historical provenance, or we can name it by how it functions – by what it does. The historical name is the East India Company/ Bank of England/ Rothschild system. The functional name is debt-slavery, usury, riba, financial manipulation, the managed business cycle, deficit-financing with ever-mounting debt and transfer of assets to the lending elite. Or we can call it simply the racket of the financial oligarchy that ends up “owning” the world.
Soon only what the big lenders want, their agenda, is all that matters. They get to run the world, because they “own” the world, and everyone is dependent on what they choose to lend or not lend.
The only way for the debtor slaves of Earth to gain their freedom is to repudiate their debt to Big Finance and to quickly – before the economy fails and everyone dies – replace it with another system of money and lending that can continue where the discontinued system left off, without disruption to the general population and with immediate gains for most of the Earthling populations, making the change immediately worthwhile even as it is certain to deliver more and more and better and better from human abilities in cooperation when cooperation is amply rewarded.
What percentage of the world’s population knows all this? And of that percentage who know all this, what percentage are the creditor class who gain from the system and have no desire to see the system taken down? Those percentages are anybody’s guess, but I do assert with some confidence that the number of Earthlings who would be better off and face a better future under the populist system replacing the interest-slavery system is somewhere around 6 billion souls.
My friend Biophilos in Greece wrote to me asking: “Do you think that ‘Social Credit’ can really work… or is it another utopian hope as yet not able to root itself?”
Revolutions change everything, and the new system has no precedent, and all of the old vices of mankind come into play in running the revolutionary government. Someone said “revolutions end up eating their own children”.
Liberal and “progressive” reforms do a lot of things at once: regulation of the market, price ceilings, new tax structure, new government undertakings, and expansion of the state. Always there is room for corruption, for diverting funds and power to the private ends of the reformers and their friends. The state becomes ever more a political machine for giving favors to political allies.
The bigger the change, the less control over outcome. The more gradual the change, the more likely the reform is to run off into a ditch – like the communist promise of “austerity now and utopia later”. REFORMS THAT CALL FOR SACRIFICE UPFRONT: IT IS USUALLY THE PEOPLE SACRIFICING, TO PAY MONEY TO THE REVOLUTIONARIES AND THE INTERNATIONAL LENDERS AND CORPORATIONS THAT GET THE FUNDS – OR IS IT THE SWISS BANK ACCOUNTS?
The Populist Social Credit reform is the least likely to fail due to corruption, because it is so simple and the money moved is in such small amounts – and exactly the same amount going to each person, rather than billions going to each of a small group of banks or corporations. New permanent money is created, but it is not created in the hands of government or banks or corporations. Rather, everyone gets a new money dividend at the same time and for the same amount. No one gets more and no one gets less, and everyone knows what the amount is that everyone else is getting. The money, when distributed – new deposit creation in everyone’s bank account (remember, no new debt is co-created with these new deposits) – the people have it, and the people will spend it into circulation. The only way for businesses to get hold of this money is to offer the people goods and services at a desirable price in competition with all other sellers of goods and services in the economy.
This is very simple. The government has only one number it has to decide: the size of the new money dividend that will be sent out each month or each quarter.
The new money will be permanent national money – not the deposit money (call it credit money) that we have now. Today the money supply of every nation is borrowed at compound interest from foreign lenders and the domestic banks owned largely by foreigners – and regulated by Rothschild-owned central banks. Under populist social credit we end that system. Banks cannot create money, and central banks no longer exist.
No one is needed to regulate interest rates, because such regulation was nothing but “price fixing” by a lending monopoly. The money supply will be ample enough to put idle resources and idle men to work.
There will be enough money in circulation and far less debt burden, so that savings will increase everywhere and businesses will be able to expand with funds from their own profits, with less lending.
There will be lending, but only money that savers give banks that operate purely as lending clubs will be loaned. The lending clubs will share the risk of lending with the borrower, 50/50. There will be no more reserve requirement.
The banks can decide how much risk they want to undertake. There will be no uniform “national” interest rate. Each loan will be unique – involving the condition of the lending club and the individual circumstances of the borrower and the market and other factors. BUT THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A FEW JEWS IN LONDON AND NEW YORK DECIDING WHETHER THERE IS GOING TO BE A BOOM OR A RECESSION. That power to manipulate the national economy will be taken from their hands – and not put in any other hands. That power to manipulate will be gone. There will be no more deflation – which causes default and depression. Inflation, like the national interest rates, will no longer be of importance, because any and all new money comes to everyone equally.
There will no longer be one small group to whom everyone else owes great sums of money, and who always want deflation because it increases their wealth without their doing any work.
The rich will no longer have the control – the levers to pull – to make themselves richer at everyone else’s expense.
When the new money dividend to households is increased, everyone gets the same small increase to spend or save as they individually see fit. All benefit, and the entire economy experiences the increase in aggregate demand at the same time.
Compare this with how the central banks control interest rates – making it more or less expensive for banks to lend, even as they allow the richest people to trade their bonds for cash at any time. The present system is made for manipulation: to rob the working people to prosper the lending class.
BUT NOTICE THAT POPULIST SOCIAL CREDIT DOES NOT ALTER WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES IN ANY BIG WAY. THERE IS NO NEW SOCIALIST TAKEOVER OF PRODUCTION; THERE IS NO REGULATION OF PRICES AND NO RATIONING AND NO AUSTERITY SO THAT GOVERNMENT CAN PAY ITS EVER INCREASING DEBT BURDEN.
No big organizational changes are needed. The change in the system is big, but the new machinery needed is very small and very simple. Furthermore, all of the complex machinery that was the root of the problem – the source of theft and injustice – is eliminated. Rothschild no longer has power over the country.
It is this simple:
1. Create new national money that is not credit money. The government is given the power to credit everyone’s bank account a given amount of money – adding to total national deposits – BUT WITHOUT ANY NEW DEBT CO-CREATED. The new money dividend is received free and clear, and it stays in the system – being saved, or transferring from account to account as citizens make purchases.
2. Government repudiates its debt to the international lenders of the old system. This can be done legally because the old system was fraudulent, and fraud vitiates all contracts. The international lenders and the great merchant bankers have operated as organized crime and have committed many crimes against humanity – often more terrible than great wars – and yes, they have caused great wars too for their own gain at the expense of millions killed and nations falling billions and trillions into debt.
3. With ample money in the economy, government can end all deficit financing. When the people have plenty of money, the government can tax the people to pay for public utilities and services on a pay-as-you-go basis, and without the large increment of interest. Today, in the US, the taxes only collect enough to pay the interest owed on the debt; the rest of the funds go to pay the debt. Federal tax money does not directly pay for the goods government provides; loans do. What a horrible system! How good to be rid of it!
4. The decision of how much money should be passed out should not be based on whether there is inflation or deflation, but on whether the nation is utilizing its natural resources and its people for maximum benefit – realizing that leisure for man and time for the culture of the family is the most important benefit to be considered. If the change in the price level becomes an issue, the rule should be that it is always better to err on the side of inflation rather than deflation. The truth is that it is good if prices are falling – we want a fall in prices over time – not a fall in prices that is caused by fewer dollars, drachmae, yen, pesos, or whatever; but by more efficient production and design: “doing more with less”. Falling prices are good, but only when caused by improvement in the conditions of production. Rising money supply and falling production costs and an ever-increasing standard of living: that is the reward for adopting the Populist Social Credit system – and it is so simple that the people can understand it and see to it that it is being handled right. The economics can be made understandable even to schoolchildren – as it should be in a republic with representative government.
5. I add that foreign trade should be switched from free trade or “fair trade” to what is really best – which is BALANCED TRADE where exports mostly pay for imports year after year. Also, foreign investment is a thing that all nations should ban. Foreign ownership of a nation’s industry is the result of the criminal system that has ruled the world since the East India Company, the Bank of England, and the Rothschild domination of European banking. The development of the United States was distorted and misshapen because of London investors pushing railroads and profits – rather than balanced growth for the good of each community as Jefferson, Franklin, and other anti-Federalist founding fathers intended. But the same conflict of interest exists in each nation. The middle class, the entrepreneurs, the farmers, and the craftsmen want a populist arrangement; and the big landowners, the financiers, and the speculators want the Rothschild system. Even the communist states following revolutions had big debts to international finance.
Those are my thoughts on the subject of whether Populist Social Credit is workable. Thank you for asking.
My comment regarding “Gold Leaving US Vaults: Signs of Upcoming Currency War and Armed Conflict“:
Gold leaving the United States is not a bad thing. When Americans can exchange their gold with foreigners and be paid in offshore dollar deposits, that is a good thing. Those repatriated dollars can add to our domestic money supply; the gold has not, cannot, and will not. I thank Richard Nixon for saving us from enslavement to gold and Rothschild manipulation of gold as the international reserve currency.
This does not mean we should be happy with the current system.
I would be very happy to see the US Dollar abandoned as the international reserve currency. I would be even happier if this were done with a transition from “free trade” that allows the US to import without exporting – paying for the imports with new debt to foreigners, or selling our land, businesses, housing, and public utilities to foreigners – adopting instead “balanced trade” where imports are approximately paid for by exports year after year, and gold is simply the bridge for covering gaps in the balance. Along with this populist internationalism would be a cessation of international lending and of flow of labor force across boundaries, except for those qualifying for full citizenship.
“Every man is responsible to every other man”
Dick Eastman on the Wealth Money Radio Show 2016/11/26
Dick Eastman with Mike Harris – When a Nation’s Purchasing Power Is Borrowed Money – May 18, 2013
More info: Abel Danger monetary reform