At the same time, I cannot support their proposed solution, which involves putting all private money in accounts at the Bank of England, and which involves setting up what amounts to an “inflation commission” dedicated to determining “scientifically” what the proposed rate of inflation should be, then passing the “money” along to Parliament.
He proposes that banks, as they receive payments for loans made, in effect pay down their own balances–which he would put in the Bank of England–such that all the money they have created gradually disappears. They would make their money from money invested in them, and then reinvested. I have no objection to that, of course.
The gradualistic idea has some merit, as all gradualistic ideas tend to, but as I state below, I don’t feel we will do much of ANYTHING substantive until are backs are to the wall, which is where my proposal comes in.
Ben,
I’ve read your proposal, and unfortunately I still believe that your proposal will act to consolidate governmental power, without corresponding benefits to ordinary citizens which could not be achieved in another way.
Regardless of other specifics, I think it MUST be understood that ALL money creation, aka monetary inflation, is redistributive. I tend to call it theft, but since you are in effect making it a tax, I will simply point out that such taxes have both winners and losers.
You posit that there is a “normal” or acceptable, or economically justifiable amount of inflation, which can be assessed by a group of apolitical experts. Yet, how can this be? Logically, if we are becoming more efficient technologically, we should be working less, and the value of our labor as expressed in monetary units should be increasing. Not only, in other words, is inflation not normal, it is the OPPOSITE of what should be happening, which is a steady increase in the value of our currency. You should literally see returns on money buried in your back yard, given Capitalist-driven increases in efficiency.
We have not seen that since, as you point out, banks have stolen large sections of the wealth of our respective nations through the fractional reserve banking system. However, allowing the government to continue this function to any extent merely means that those who receive the money win, and those who do not lose. Yes, you can pay down the debt with this money, or hand it out to the “people”, but in so doing you are simultaneously devaluing the currency, such that those who have savings, or fixed investments, see net declines in their wealth. More importantly, this interrupts the natural process of wealth accumulation that would attend constant innovation and sound money.
I do not disagree that checking accounts should be separated from investment accounts, but I would suggest that the individua’ banks could do so themselves, without the need to place ALL private liquid wealth in the hands of an organization that is already either nationalized or which could easily be nationalized. The direct control of money is and long has been a core Fascist aim, and I use that word carefully, and in the sense that Mussolini praised Keynes calls for this outcome.
There is no inherent benefit to centralizing the repository function, and large potential risks to liberty. All that needs to happen is that the banks separate these functions internally, by charging fees for checking and savings functions, and paying out for investment accounts, which is exactly how Certificates of Deposit work currently in the United States.
As far as how we get the debt out of the system, this is more ambiguous. Your proposal that banks more or less be required to “pay back” money they created is perhaps the right one, but one that could be done within their own ledgers. It is gradualistic.
At the same time, I fully anticipate financial disasters which will arise in the next ten years as a result of the graft, incompetence, stupidity, cupidity and unprincipled behavior of our politicians–both in the UK and here. Gradualism will not work then, and at that point I think something like what I have proposed will be needed.
I will note in that regard that defaults have been common throughout history. Greece has defaulted a number of times, as have many of the nations of Latin America. China defaulted, if memory serves, back in the 1920’s.
Money is not real, not even gold money. It is a symbol, and a pact we make with one another. It can be made and it can vanish. My proposal fixes everything, and in a way which no one has ever attempted. When nations default, they normally default as governments. The default is normally the result of the public sector buying too much, spending too much– often in the service of war, or unsustainable handouts to the people in order to win votes, and secure power.
No nation has tried to eliminate its private sector debt. I say “why not”? The answer, of course, is that most people do not understand how money works. In some respects, it does grow on trees, if you are a licensed “gardener”.
You objected to giving the millionaires their homes with mortgages. I thought about this, and came to this conclusion: there are only three groups which could get the home–the government, the bank, and the tenant; given that the goal is wealth generalization and redistribution, there is only one group which would not centralize wealth in getting the proceeds, which of course is the tenants, or mortgagees.
Logically, there is no reason that ALL property held by EITHER the government or the banks could not be passed over to the tenants. All public housing could be converted to condominiums. Most Federal agencies devoted to one social program or another could be abolished, and their offices donated to local or State governments, who if they chose could then reinstate the programs.
We are going to have economic chaos. It is in my view inevitable. We have debts skyrocketing, and at a time when the Basel 2 accords call for deflationary banking policy. We will see calls for tyranny, and rioting in the streets. What I have proposed is far less radical than the sorts of things which have already been tried, like Fascism and Communism, and has the salient advantage that I understand basic economics.
I would be curious as to any thoughts you may have on this. I made detailed notes on your proposal, and am only responding in general fashion, which I hope addresses most of the important points.
Your educational work on the predatory nature of the fractional reserve banking system is very useful, but I want to do what I can to support movement towards solutions which will work to support liberty, and on-going increases in prosperity.
P.S. As far as money, I thought about this too, and decided that physical money is the best solution. It occurred to me we would put gold threads in it, and perhaps radioactive identifications. Banks would warehouse the money, which would more or less be treated like gold in the past, wherein ownership of specific notes could be passed around electronically, but where the “owner” of specific currency could always pick it up at the bank and carry it around.
As I stated in the piece, I see no value in ANY fluctuation in the quantity of money, as it is inherently and ineluctably redistributive in invisible and thus dangerous ways. I would see the creation of a currency, once, and no change EVER thereafter.