5 of 13 people found the following review helpful
The premise is correct , the solution is not,
This review is from: The Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System And How We Can Break Free (Revised and Updated) (Paperback)
"let the govt print the money"
This will solve nothing. Why should we trust the govt any more than the bankers with the money supply ? Look at what Republicans and Democrats have done when trusted with money ? An increase in the supply of money will affect ALL asset prices including agricultural commodities which are assets.
The US constitution says that only the govt can issue money but the money may ONLY BE GOLD OR SILVER COIN. That will ensure that the govt cannot inflate. Gold and silver coin cannot be inflated. The value , or amount of goods the coin can buy (be exchanged for), will rise and fall IN LINE with the rise and fall of the demand for currency, it cannot be counterfeited like paper, and so will not be inflationary , even in the hands of the govt. It will only be deflationary until any prior residual inflation is wrung out. But, if you dont think we can return to 100% bi-metal coinage, as I don't think we can, then we require a compromise. I would not want to lug a bunch of coins everywhere.
What we need is a money supply out of the control of ANY one group. When a consumer makes an order with a producer, then a Real Bill of Exchange is raised. That bill circulates as money UNTIL the transaction is completed or expires after 90 days without completion. Upon which the bill is settled for gold or silver into the producers bank account, or nothing happens and in both cases the bills dies. ZERO inflation.
Under Real Bills, no cartel owns the money supply. No govt can print money willy-nilly. The amount of money always is in line with commerce. We know from Bush, Obama et al that they cannot be trusted with money. Real Bills work. They have been successfully used before. They went out of circulation when the crime was committed by the usurers to instigate the FED and the other centrl banks so that they could seize control of the most important single factor in the economy : the supply of money.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Nov 2011 01:17:33 GMT
The constitution doesn't say only gold and silver, that is a myth. Why would letting Congress, who are accountable to the people, be worse than letting a shadow government control the money who are accountable to no one? Has the Federal Reserve even had a proper audit? Take the power away from the private banking families, and you take away their ability to shrink the money supply and cause retractions. There's a reason why private individuals have fought so hard to control the money supply and it isn't because they have your best interest at heart.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Mar 2013 20:36:11 GMT
M. W. Ellwood says:
Unfortunately, from what I read, Congress has been "bought and paid for". They have expensive re-elections to fund, and the bankers know how to spend their money accordingly.
The same is true to a lesser extent in the UK. There are honourable exceptions, of course, but are they enough to make the difference?
In addition to Parliamentary/Congressional accountability, one could also add direct consultation of the people by referenda, on important spending matters.
One could also make the "printing" of new money more of a mechanical process, subject to actual activity in the real economy. similar to what the poster of this review was saying. That is something like what the 3rd Reich did in the pre-war period, under Schacht (governor of the Reichsbank). Actually he did 2 things 1. Direct loans from the Reichsbank to finance public works. These were apparently all paid back. 2. The MEFO bills, which were only issued against specific work projects.
In both cases these were essentially non-inflationary. In 1939 Hitler wanted to change things which would have effectively printed money to finance the probably coming war, and Schacht refused, and so was sacked.
Anyway, the general rule is that if you "print money" to finance productive investment leading to an increase in the supply of goods and services, the result should not be inflationary. If you have resources (including people) lying idle, because of a recession, then printing money to put them to work should not be inflationary.
Obviously printing money in the middle of a boom, or to fund speculation, is always going to be inflationary.
Posted on 12 Feb 2016 12:20:15 GMT
Hungry Joe says:
Sadly they'll never allow it to happen....
‹ Previous 1 Next ›