A private bank’s ability to create money for its own expenses illustrates precisely why private finance is not a legitimate economic/productive business model. No other business is able to do such a thing which is why they are legitimate economic business models and private banking a supra-powerful, dominating and parasitical entity. Secondly, it ignores the fact that sovereignty can only be a governing/governmental power guided only by the concept behind Social Credit, i.e. grace. and not profit. Power must be bound by the beatific chains of ethics. Grace is the highest ethic. Profit is far down the list from it, and power even further down. In an imperfect world only god in his benevolence can be sovereignly powerful and in control, and finance whose “product” is the most powerful factor in a monetary economy must align with that hierarchically necessary reality.
The inevitable result of not making finance a unitarily sovereign governmental power guided by grace is the situation we live in presently which is that the Federal Reserve is actually the hand maiden of the private banks, albeit with a wink. Foolishly, there are in fact no real reserve ratios which is how in the run up to the “Great Financial Crisis” the banks were delusionally able to loan everbody and their dog’s uncle money at “tickler” rates and create and re-hypothecate derivative debt products 20 or 30 times until title to the original collateral got lost in the delusion that “the economy always tends toward general equilibrium anyway”.
And that’s precisely why not only must finance become a public utility guided by the natural philosophical concept of grace, but we must also realize that the aspects of a paradigm of grace are abundance, free flowingness and an empowering “higher disequilibrium” of OVER flowingness, not merely statistically balanced, halting/non-proceeding/coming to a stop at a temporally delusional general equilibrium and disempowering MERE theory.
I don’t disagree with any of the accounting, banking activities or that interest itself is not the problem. I DO object to the near absolute power of private finance and the fact that it is treated as if it were a legitimate economic/actually productive business model…..which it isn’t. It must be a servant, not a master and certainly not a multi-headed master. Occam’s Razor DOES apply in this regard. I believe the latter day advocates of social credit have unconsciously fallen back into the classical idea of general equilibrium and hence taken what could be a paradigm change based on a full understanding of the aspects of grace and the temporal universe, and made it into a mere theory.
The one thing Social Crediters have overlooked is the incredibly integrative and resolving potential of the CRP/Discount/Rebate policy. The one bugaboo that all theories have never effectively come to grips with is inflation, and a high percentage discount/rebate policy at the point of retail sale resolves it in spades. In fact it does what every genuine paradigm change does, and that is invert current realities into their conceptual opposites. In this case erosive price/asset inflation is inverted into its opposite of painless and beneficial price deflation. Again, due to competition and the high costs of modern technologically advanced fixed capital intensive economies, garden variety inflation is a relatively small single digit number and hyper-inflations never occur except under very extreme conditions where the means of production have been destroyed, indebtedness is onerous and a compliant central bank is allowed to leverage up and short the currency which is what finally kicks off the hyper aspect of inflation.
The high percentage discount/rebate policy is the very expression of the new monetary, financial and economic paradigm of:
Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Grace As In Gifting.
After 5000 years of the paradigm of Debt Only we require a paradigm change, NOT just another statistically tweaked theory that gets gamed and morphed back into the mess we currently face.
Me: “So where DO they put any money over and above what’s still needed to live?”
Investment banking would still be allowed to form bonds of already created and saved funds and invest such funds in the market, and they would have a much better business climate to do so in something that was actually productive/economic…instead of the economic vice of some mere financial product.
I wouldn’t anticipate any shortages as I’ve posted before. We’re capable of tremendous productivity plus as I’ve also said before a 100% increase in purchasing power doesn’t necessarily translate into a doubling of economic throughput. People will undoubtedly save more and/or invest more in actually productive/economic activities. The biggest reason there is anything more than garden variety inflation of stocks is because of speculative leveraging up….which the national public bank is not going to encourage or in any reckless way to allow to happen at all. Prudence after all is an aspect of grace, and that is the concept that the national public bank will be guided and regulated by.
Businesses by and large will undoubtedly be more profitable and their selling price would as a result undoubtedly be greater. A businesses selling price will be largely dictated by their market share and profitability. Any increase in selling price will more than be compensated by the reduction in costs that a 0% interest loan will save the purchaser.
Will there be more employment with the increased business revenue and far better investment climate made an immediate reality by the discount/rebate policy, or less? The obvious answer is that there will be more. Technological innovation and artificial intelligence will undoubtedly decrease over all employment over time, but better to provide a dignified lifestyle and start now acculturating people to leisure and other purposeful activities other than employment ONLY, than to wait and have to face another even greater train wreck of a “Great Financial Crisis” when AI, which will undoubtedly follow its legitimate micro-economic logic of cost cutting, and so will never be dispelled.
History tells us that everything adapts to a new paradigm….not the other way around, and for good reason, because it is always a more abundant and beneficial advancement in the body of knowledge/area of human endeavor to which the new paradigm applies. Did we ever go back to a nomadic existence of hunting and gathering after homesteading and agriculture made for greater and more securely abundant living? Of course not. Did we go back to hand writing bibles and other books after the Gutenberg Press? Did we ever go back to the monopoly on the sacraments after the reformation?
JT: Why not just get all the funds needed for investment directly from the Public Bank? At 0% interest? You’re not telling me that ‘some’ investments might be too risky for the Public Bank to fund, are you? That ‘interest’ still might be necessary to attract capital to those investments, even for relatively short term funding?
Sixty years ago we here in BC produced a far larger array of products of BOTH types that were primarily for consumption or use HERE. If we had surplus capacity, which was quite often the case, we exported the surplus. Today, this is no longer so. We make product primarily for EXPORT. And, as the saying goes, “We export the best, and sell the locals the rest.” Often a genuine sore spot amongst the ‘locals’, I can assure you. But that is what the industries that are here now, the large businesses, because they had to consolidate and rationalize what they do to survive, actually do. Statistically our productivity may be greatly expanded over what was the case overall sixty years ago. But of the plants themselves? They’re not geared to producing a wide variety of consumer items for local consumption any more. To get back to that takes TIME. It won’t just happen, just like that. So I think you should well anticipate there are going to indeed be initial shortages, and just the kind of activities I’ve previously described. And that’s only the half of it. The other unknown is how paying a large enough stipend that’s supposed to be a “living income” through a National Dividend will affect the organization of any kind of “program of production.”
The present globalized situation would continue…until nations either bonded together in more regional cooperative trade or better yet re-industrialized themselves in as efficient and ecologically sane means possible. With the abundant combination of dividend and discount/rebate policies there would be no need to worry about unemployment and as taxes for welfare, unemployment insurance and even social security would then be redundant they could be eliminated and the savings by employers be used for such rapid re-industrialization. And when we can competitively produce locally that would be an incentive for export platform nations to adapt by implementing such policies in their own nation.
As to 0% interest, there may well be a very small percentage of investments that the national public bank might consider “too risky” or more likely not aligned with the concept of grace as in ethically justifiable, but…so what? The idea is to be as micro-economically thrifty and macro-economically free flowing as possible not to be doctrinaire about policy.