Post About Nationalizing The Money System and The Philosophical Concept of Grace On Ellen Brown’s Forum

L:  CH Douglas had a lot to say about how nationalizing a central bank would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.  You would do well to read what he had to say about it before you advocate it.  It might change your thinking.  Send me an email and I’ll email the PDF book.  Or you could ask Jim or Wally for the quotes on the SC forum.  I took great pains to frame my recommendations in my own book to avoid exactly those pitfalls, and you already have a copy of that.  I recommend that you add a paragraph outlining the pitfalls.  Of course, you might also mentioned that the Fed itself is completely in oppostition to the Constitution itself that mandates the regulation of money to Congress – not a foreign-owned corporation that serves the interests of international finance instead of the American people. It can’t hurt to speak the truth.  Quote Article 1, Section 8.

JR:  Hi Liam.

Douglas  was very much against privatising the trading bakns, with which I totally agree.

But what banking institution did he forsee to create the money for public use?  Obviously not the Credit Authority, which simp[ly woulod have the job of working out how much.   Treasury?
I don’t remember finding this in any of his writings or in discussion.
Many central banks, especially in British Commonwealth countries, are publicly owned now.
In NZ, we advocate using our (cleansed) Reserve Bank for the purpose and an independent arm of it as the Credit Authority. .Prtobably its present Debt Management Office would take  a Credit Management function.  Our first labour Govt. very successfully used R B funding.
However, the USA “Fed.” ssems to be in a totally different class, and this group is, of course, mainly cponcerned with that scene.

Me:  I have a great deal of respect for CH Douglas, however, he lived before there was a conscious concept of a paradigm change. He also lived in GB which did not have a constitution. He also leaned toward the Tory perspective which at best is a mixed bag of economic truths and untruths.

A truly national banking, financial and monetary system IMO will need to be a fourth branch of government in order to best prevent the idiot political, economic and human psychological prejudices from unduly influencing it that will unfortunately be with us in perpetuity.
Besides that the way to keep the money system (and any and all other systems) free and ethical will be to make damned good and sure that its policies, regulations and structures are aligned with the philosophical concept of grace which is the pinnacle concept of human wisdom/integrative thought, namely love in action, and policy is the action of systems of course. Grace is not namby-pamby nonsense. Any concept that can successfully encompass and integrate both love and sovereignty is both ethical and practical….you just have to contemplate its aspects long enough to self actualize them.

JR:  Douglas, by comparison, was an internationally renowned consulting Engineer.  He was brought in by the UK govt during WW1 to bring efficient organisation to the aircraft industry at Farnsborough.

No man is infallible, but there must have been hundreds of thousands of managers, consultants etc.  who dealt with the sort of data he did.  He was the only one brilliant enough to detect the fault in the economic system that was the cause of many problems.  He predicted accurately the recessions of the 1020’s and 30’s.
He presented a well thought out plan to counter the problems, not just a vacuous series on semi-meaningless phrases and irresponsible promises.

Me:  That “vacuous series of semi-meaningless phrases and irresponsible promises” is actually an integration of the insights of cutting edge quantum physics, trans-personal human psychology and man’s various wisdom traditions plus a deeper and more elemental study of the signatures of historically accomplished paradigm changes than Kuhn’s informative but merely abstract observations of same…..all applied to economics and the money system.

 
The regressive forces of Douglas’s day said the exact same kind of things about his insights. 
 
Derision is one of the primary indications that the orthodox (of even a superior theory) have failed to grasp wisdom and so have unconsciously succumbed to their own enemy’s tactics. 

GA:  Trump wants three things. He wants to perform a negative rate default on our bonds so he doesn’t have to pay interest to the Chinese. Remember he wanted to default on bonds? This is a backup plan.

Second, he wants to weaken the dollar.
Third, he wants to increase the size of the tariffs, and wants a rate cut to help businesses to weather the tariff escalation.
However, Trump also appears to be blinking on trade, wanting an interim agreement. But even that is not confirmed. China succeeds if their businesses move elsewhere. The profits still roll in and it helps belt and road.
We will suffer inflation if the economy slows and tariffs go up. The Chinese will save money buying their own products in place of US imports.
The Chjnese have savings while our people are in debt. We can’t possibly win the trade war.

Me:  Tarrifs are not only a losing game for high cost technologically advanced non-export platform economies they are deadly old paradigm thinking.

Why not reduce costs and double individual purchasing power with a policy that eliminates any possibility of price and asset inflation (the 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale) which will additionally allow us to re-industrialize in the most efficient, productive and ecologically sane way possible. Then very quickly the Chinese and every other export platform nations will have to go exploit elsewhere….or (horrors) copy the new paradigm and free their populace as well.
Freedom. It’s a scary concept to those conditioned to slavery and tyranny.
S:  What does it mean when we have numerous billionaires jumping on the social credit bandwagon? Should we suppose they have suddenly discovered a soft place in their cold capitalist hearts for the downtrodden masses? I think not. If this happens, I guarangodamnedteeya it won’t be what people imagine. This will be a cover to eliminate social programs, and it will end up redistributing yet MORE wealth upwards, and increasing poverty at the bottom.

 
Do you know who supports the implementation of a UBI besides Andrew Yang? Billionaires. Lots of billionaires, especially the new money tech billionaires who are positioning themselves to inherit the earth in the transition to a new paradigm dominated by automation and artificial intelligence. Billionaires like Jeff BezosPierre OmidyarMark ZuckerbergJack DorseyElon MuskRichard BransonBill GrossTim Draper, and more moderately Bill Gates have all been seen advocating for a policy that is now being popularized as one which would level the economic playing field and take power away from the billionaire class.Now why would that be? Why would a group of people who’ve clawed their way up to positions of immense wealth control, enabling them to live as modern-day kings, be so eager to suddenly give away that power? Why would they break with the trend we’ve consistently observed in rulers since the dawn of recorded history and voluntarily relinquish the power they fought to claim without a fight? Are billionaires just naturally good people inherently predisposed to compassionate action and wealth redistribution? Have we been wrong about Jeff Bezos being a real-life supervillain this entire time?

Of course not. This increasingly powerful class of new money tech plutocrats are not pushing to give power away, they’re pushing to secure more. As Jimmy Stewart’s character says in It’s A Wonderful Life, Potter isn’t selling, Potter’s buying.”  https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/universal-basic-income-automation-plutocracy-dystopia-efc14f526037

UBI’s daunting financing challenges raise fundamental questions about its political feasibility, both now and in coming decades. Proponents often speak of an emerging left-right coalition to support it. But consider what UBI’s supporters on the right advocate. They generally propose UBI as a replacement for the current “welfare state.” That is, they would finance UBI by eliminating all or most programs for people with low or modest incomes.

Consider what that would mean. If you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.

Yet that’s the platform on which the (limited) support for UBI on the right largely rests. It entails abolishing programs from SNAP (food stamps) — which largely eliminated the severe child malnutrition found in parts of the Southern “black belt” and Appalachia in the late 1960s — to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Section 8 rental vouchers, Medicaid, Head Start, child care assistance, and many others. These programs lift tens of millions of people, including millions of children, out of poverty each year and make tens of millions more less poor.

Some UBI proponents may argue that by ending current programs, we’d reap large administrative savings that we could convert into UBI payments. But that’s mistaken. For the major means-tested programs — SNAP, Medicaid, the EITC, housing vouchers, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and school meals — administrative costs consume only 1 to 9 percent of program resources, as a CBPP analysis explains.[1] Their funding goes overwhelmingly to boost the incomes and purchasing power of low-income families.

Moreover, as the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal has noted, eliminating Medicaid, SNAP, the EITC, housing vouchers, and the like would still leave you far short of what’s needed to finance a meaningful UBI.[2] Would we also end Pell Grants that help low-income students afford college? Would we terminate support for children in foster care, for mental health services, and for job training?

Ed Dolan, who favors UBI, has calculated that we could finance it by using the proceeds from eliminating all means-tested programs outside health care — including Pell Grants, job training, Head Start, free school lunches, and the like, as well as refundable tax credits, SNAP, SSI, low-income housing programs, etc. The result, Dolan found, would be an annual UBI of $1,582 per person, well below the level of support most low-income families (especially working-poor families with children) now receive. The increase in poverty and hardship would be very large.

Me:  Do billionaires know there own interests? Of course. Are there cabals and cartels in major industries? Of course. But most grand conspiracies are actually just the accumulation over time of systems designed to keep the very wealthy in control. In order to end elite control you have to change the paradigm, the entire pattern. Reforms are incapable of doing that.

How do we finance UBI (which is not aligned with abundance as basic is just another word for scarce)? Screw taxation, you do it with direct monetary distributism implemented and stabilized by making its major policy a 50% discount at the incredibly powerful point of retail sale. This immediately doubles everyone’s purchasing power and ends any possibility of inflation in one fell swoop because retail sale is where production becomes consumption….and no one can force you to pay more for something after retail sale (except the banks of course) because if possession is 90% of the law I guarantee you consumption is 99.99 percent of economics.  Has anyone here ever gone to the store and bought $100 worth of groceries and then when they got home got a call from the manager of the store who said, “Hi, the front office just said that inflation went up 30% so please don’t eat those carrots and whatever you do don’t use the toilet tissue ’cause it’s real hard to reshelf….before you give us another $30. Thanks, have a nice day.  No. Never. Because retail sale is not only the terminal ending point of the entire economic/actually productive process it is also the terminal summing point for all costs and so prices including profit and finally is also the terminal expression point for any and all forms of inflation. So if you now make $40k you can now purchase $80k worth of goods and services, or maintain your current $40k lifestyle on $20k and save $20k which when you spend it will purchase $40k worth of goods and services. And with a $1000/mo universal dividend you get $2000/mo. or $24k of additional purchasing power. A married couple with two 20/hr per week part time jobs at $9/hr would make $180/wk x 2 people = $360/wk x 2 with the 50% discount at retail sale = $720 x 4 wks/mo. = $2880/mo + $2000/mo. universal dividend x 2 = $4000/mo = a total of $6880 worth of purchasing power/mo. or $82,560 of purchasing power/yr.
Inflation? Nope. If you look at garden variety “monetary” inflation it has always been a small single digit percentage point except during and after wars or only after the price of the most important commodity of present civilization, oil, has been arbitrarily jacked up (which means it was actually cost inflation not “monetary” inflation as its cause).
Modern high tech economies are very costly operations hence they can’t afford to raise their prices except a few percentage points without fear of losing market share. And Ellen you know that hyper inflations never occur without specific disastrous circumstances happening first and only after a compliant central bank leverages up speculators who short the currency.
A DIRECTLY DISTRIBUTIVE $1000/mo universal dividend and a 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale integrates beneficial price and asset inflation into profit making economic systems…..and it actually allows us to cut both transfer and individual income taxes for virtually everyone which will enable us to integrate the normally opposing constituency of the small to medium sized business community onto labor’s side. That’s a pattern change not a measly little reform.
And once you’ve shown how universally beneficial strategically implemented direct monetary distributism is….you can expose the private for profit banking system as the completely unnecessary parasite it actually is. Then you can implement a NATIONAL publicly administered NON-PROFIT financial and monetary system and implement an additional 50% Discount/Rebate policy at the point of note signing making a $300k house costing only $75k at 0% interest, a $40k battery powered auto $10k and $40k worth of solar panels also $10k.
The truth is both cut throat capitalism and re-distributive socialism are passe’. You just have to look at how to implement the thirdness greater oneness of Directly Distributive and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting….and the scales fall from your eyes.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s