By the way, I would be interested to know how Austrian Economics comes to the conclusion that Gold would win in a Free Currency market in the face of Gresham's law. That is: would Gold really finance many transactions, if people can pay with depreciating paper?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Believe the law he posited applied to government mandated monopoly money.

DB said:

"Dear Ms. Brown:

Here is the thing. If you are merely suggesting that a bank print its own currency and distribute it, we would be enthusiastic backers (bearing in mind we don't think fiat money is the preferred form of money). But again, what you are suggesting so far as we understand, is that GOVERNMENT provides the printing press (and perhaps other advantages that the private bank does not have). It is NOT an even playing field, and thus one way or another, the market itself does not regulate the supply or value of money. Inevitably, then, there will be corrosive, unmitigated inflation over time along with booms and busts. It is not the interest that matters in this scenario! What does it matter if one goes broke one the bust hits. It is the viability of the business that matters, not how cheap or expensive the money is! "

It is not interest that creates the boom/bust cycle, we agree on that. The boom/bust cycle can only be prevented with a stable money supply.
There certainly is a fair point to be made that a free market for currencies would allow greater stability than Govt issued currencies.

However, and this is the basic problem of Austrian Economics, interest in itself is a problem.

The problem is that it systematically redistributes wealth from poor to rich. And it's easy to understand why: the rich have money, so they lend it out. The poor don't, so they borrow it and pay interest to the rich.

How bad is the problem?

If you don't have any debts and zero assets, you lose 45% of your disposable income to interest. How come? Capital costs included in prices.
If you have debts, you are even worse off.

Since half of all americans (and a far greater percentage of the world's populace) have zero net assets, this is a major problem:

The monetary system itself redistributes and this is intolerable: it should allow equitable access to all market players.

And since this technology is available, the situation can be repaired.

I repeat, Austrian Economics does not address the interest problem correctly, it is a major issue and all monetary reform MUST address both the boom/bust cycle AND interest if we want to get rid of the Money Power.

See:
Click to view link
and
Click to view link
for more info on the interest problem.

Reply from The Daily Bell

OK. You believe in forcing people to do things (or not) ... forbidding them from lending money at interest and we do not. If people want to lend at interest, why do you want to stop them? How will you stop them? if they continue lending at interest will you shoot them? Incarcerate them? And if people want to BORROW from those who are lending at interest, will you also restrain them? Will you shoot them? Incarcerate them? When does it end?

Apparently I just replied to another comment rather than to the article itself, as I meant to do, but I didn't see any place to write a new comment.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Happy Xmas by the way. We disagree, but you've always been a courteous person and while we don't wish your views to propagate (though we have predicted they will, and are marginally better than what we have now) we wish you personally a good and healthy new year!

"Unfortunately, this idea has taken hold in the US as well, thanks to intrepid campaigners such as financial author Ellen Brown. It simply isn't possible, though. Only the free market can regulate how much money-stuff is necessary for an economy. A government simply CANNOT know."

I think you're confusing the NEED Act with public banking. Public banking just means the government owns the bank. The bank does exactly what banks do now: generate "bank credit" from capital and deposits. But the local government owns the bank and gets the interest back, hence the loan is interest-free. The bank is not determining how much money-stuff is available in the economy; it's just doing banking, advancing credit in response to demand, as all banks do.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Dear Ms. Brown:

Here is the thing. If you are merely suggesting that a bank print its own currency and distribute it, we would be enthusiastic backers (bearing in mind we don't think fiat money is the preferred form of money). But again, what you are suggesting so far as we understand, is that GOVERNMENT provides the printing press (and perhaps other advantages that the private bank does not have). It is NOT an even playing field, and thus one way or another, the market itself does not regulate the supply or value of money. Inevitably, then, there will be corrosive, unmitigated inflation over time along with booms and busts. It is not the interest that matters in this scenario! What does it matter if one goes broke one the bust hits. It is the viability of the business that matters, not how cheap or expensive the money is!

"Nice talking to you Gary. Curious as to the mumbling jumbling we'll be hearing from you. Not too soon, probably."

--------------------------

I cannot speak for Mr. North, of course, but will nevertheless briefly address your post: While I think you're points are - in aggregate and for obvious reasons - impractical nonsense - I wouldn't mind AT ALL to see you and like-minded people give it a try in a free-market environment, as long as others wouldn't be FORCED to accept your "interest free", government provided credit as "legal tender".

Good luck & happy holidays!

Look up Dean Clifford... the land belongs to the people, the Crown is trustee (and foreign TO THE LAND)... you are beneficiary and executor but you mistakenly always identify your self as the trustee, so the gov't plays the other roles of the holy trinity that is trust law. Lawfully you own it all, but you mistake legal for lawful... uber different.

Peace...

Hopefully, this case will put the spotlight on the Moneychangers and how they operate. See links below.

Click to view link
Click to view link

It does NOT need savers, sorry about that.

Hmm... ... ... .
Is that the best he could do? That's bad.

Why has interest free credit not been offered in the market place?
Well, it has: in Switserland there is the WIR: a barter offering long term credit at cost price.

Secondly, we haven't had a free market for currencies in a very, very long time, right?
You know, monetary theory has come a long way since the middle ages, which probably was the last time in the West there was currency freedom.

Third.
Since the credit is created when it is lent out, and destroyed when it is taken back in (when repayed), it is completely irrelevant what it's purchasing power is, or how much it declined.
So therefore any decline does not require compensation.

Fourth.
Modern interest free currency is not created in the nefarious fractional reserve way. It is created with zero reserves. Every unit in circulation is created out of nothing the moment it is lent out. Therefore it does not need capitalization.
Therefore it does need savers.
Therefore it does not need to compensate anybody for capitalization.

Fifth.
Because Gold does have value in the eyes of some, people want to be recompensed when they lend it out.
That's why Gold is a no go.

Nice talking to you Gary.
Curious as to the mumbling jumbling we'll be hearing from you. Not too soon, probably.

Ah!

Gary North has finally, at last, found time to think about Interest.

Let me dissect this.

I'll be back.

I like his mumblin/sputtering thing, typical Ollie!

The last time this happened in Canada (John Dempsey):

Click to view link

... the matter was thrown out of court and, poor John was smited with many life / career destroying bogus sanctions such as "Contempt of Court" (contempt for the personal OPINION of the decreeing "rule of man" - political hack on the bench), and, especial hostility of the court for arguing in terms of the "rule of law", with my permission:

Click to view link

I have personally witnessed the TERROR in THEIR eyes when powerful, factual arguments such as these are used to counter the OPINIONS of these complete and utter frauds on the bench. A FREE person is not only uncontrollable, but, unpredictable, an existential TERROR to those who decree their survival advantages, at the expense of others.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks. This lawsuit is a truly international one and involves the BIS as well. Dempsey, from what we can tell, focused directly on Canada. Here are entities that Dempsey named ....

"The suit names Envision Credit Union (“Envision”), a credit union; Laurentian Bank of Canada (“Laurentian Bank”), Royal Bank of Canada (“Royal Bank”), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”), Bank of Montreal (“BOM”), TD Canada Trust (“Canada Trust”) and Canadian Payment Association (“CPA”) as civil conspirators."

"In fact, the Government could provide interest free credit.

It's not even so much the volume.

It's the price for credit. It should be free. Almost, anyway. "

-----------------------

"Some of the critics of the Federal Reserve System propose a solution worse than the FED itself: the creation of a fiat-money based central bank that creates money out of nothing to pay for government-funded projects. These critics argue that this government-run bank will be able to offer interest-free loans to the public, which will keep the economy running at full capacity.

This is what John Maynard Keynes taught in "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" (1936). Keynes praised several economically unsophisticated predecessors who proposed schemes for government-created zero-interest money, including the founder of Social Credit, Major C. H. Douglas, and the farmer and former economist for the week-long Bavarian Soviet Republic of 1919, Silvio Gesell. He referred to them as part of the economic underground, as indeed they were."

The Greenbackers hate the idea of the gold standard, just as Keynes did. They claim that fiat money will keep depressions from happening, just as Keynes did. They claim that capital - the tools of production - can be obtained free of charge at a rate of zero percent per annum, just as Keynes did.

The odd thing is this: most of the adherents of the Greenback position think of themselves as conservatives. They think of themselves as defenders of the free market. Yet they see all privately owned banking as an economic evil. They trust Congress to set up a government-owned bank with the legal right to print however much fiat money that the government-protected, monopolistic bankers decide.

They do not understand the reason why there are interest rates in every society. They see interest payments as an undeserved payment to bankers. The bankers, because they control lending, are exploiting the public. They are able to get something (interest) for nothing (fiat money).

Let's get to the heart of the matter. I ask this question - the question that every free market economist asks whenever he finds someone arguing that anyone can get something for nothing.

If a seller is charging something for nothing, why doesn't a competing seller charge slightly less?

If bank A is charging 6%, why doesn't bank B charge 5%? If bank B can make a profit charging 5%, why can't bank C charge 4%. And so we go, right down to such a low rate that nobody would complain - not even Greenbackers. You get the idea. Let me put it a different way:

If something is really worth nothing, how is it that anyone can charge anything for it?

Simple question, isn't it? Yet I have never seen any Greenbacker admit in print the existence of this conceptual threat to his/her theory of banking. They either do not understand this most elementary principle of economic theory, or else they do not connect general economic theory to banking.

If you ever come across a defender of Greenbackism, ask the person to explain this. Why does it take a government-created monopolistic bank to offer zero-interest loans? Why doesn't the free market provide this?

Theoretically, there is no answer that is coherent with the theory of supply and demand. When the person starts to mumble, you will know he is stymied. You therefore do not need to pay any attention to him or her.

If you get the response, "Well, you have to answer my question first," just reply: "You brought this up. It's therefore your responsibility to explain how something that is worth nothing can command a price in a free market. Why doesn't competition among sellers lower the price?"

If he/she says: "Because there are government restrictions on entry into the field," the person is close to the truth. The correct response is this: "Then we citizens should demand that Congress get the federal government out of the field of money and banking. You should stop calling for a government bank."

See what the person replies. Does the mumbling become sputtering?"

The entire article here:

Click to view link

It is accurate to posit that Australia, New Zealand and Canada are not independent, sovereign countries. However, these nations are not owned and run by the UK; they are owned and run by the House of Windsor Crown Temple syndicate within the City of London Corporation. The head signatory of the Crown Temple syndicate is Elizabeth Windsor (Queen Elizabeth II of England).

Click to view link

The 4th largest landowner on Earth is often said to be the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land area of the USA, 760 million acres. However, this Washington DC private corporation Federal Estate is actually owned and controlled by the London Crown Temple syndicate. Indeed, at the present time, the London syndicate in partnership with an old family Chinese syndicate, hold, and have activated, a $47 trillion World Court Writ of Execution and Lien on the US Treasury and the US Federal Reserve Board.

Click to view link

On November 23, 2011, the clouds parted. A vast, 111-page legal complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. This complaint is now a provable matter of public record... as you are about to see.

Click to view link

"Unfortunately, this idea has taken hold in the US as well, thanks to intrepid campaigners such as financial author Ellen Brown"... .compete with far more generously funded parties in societies in which their enemies have restored their wealth and privileges and use them to tilt the playing field strongly in their favor. They own the media, and therefore are in a position to shape public opinion and give parties of private property critical backing during elections. They spend a king's ransom on lobbying the state and politicians and running think-tanks which churn out policy recommendations and furnish the media with capitalist-friendly 'expert' commentary. They set the agenda in universities through endowments, grants and the funding of special chairs to study questions of interest to their profits. They bring politicians under their sway by doling out generous campaign contributions and promises of lucrative post-political career employment opportunities. Capitalist democracy means democracy for the few-the capitalists-not a level-playing field where wealth, private-property and privilege don't matter.
Click to view link

"Only the free market can regulate how much money-stuff is necessary for an economy."

In fact, Soviet socialism-while it existed-worked better than capitalism in producing economic growth.

From 1928 to 1989, GDP per capita grew in the USSR by a factor of 5.2, compared to 4.0 in Western Europe and 3.3 in the major industrial offshoots of Western Europe-the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

How they know that? Here is recipe
Click to view link

+ 100. Canadian establishment will never allow their fief to be a trailblazer of change. The selling point of Canada is "Predictable on steroids". Nothing interesting ever happens in official Canada, because everything that happens in Canada is under Putin-grade control. Things that might threaten the core just... just never begin to exist. It's a an enormous lump of cotton that muffles any alternative view.

What and where is written in Hebrew Scriptures about cashless society? Thank you.

The Great Entropy maybe as written by Paul Rosenberg, and a likely scenario I believe as well. Scary stuff, but these are the times we live in.

Canada belongs to the CROWN.
The constitution is a farce purely for the distraction of the tenants.
All land belongs to the CROWN. As does any thing you purchased with the notes
printed on your behalf by the CROWN. Legally they own the whole sherrbang.

Now if this court case exposes the serfdom we are already in.
We might get somewhere.

The Bank of Canada and The Bank of North Dakota practice fractional reserve lending backed by legal tender laws and a government coercion-backed banking cartel. That's not "working well".

How can a government "for the people, by the people, and of the people" print the peoples money and not, like, give them some? How do they justify giving it only to certain people (i.e. bankers)? At least cut our taxes and then print the money! We are schmucks.