What If We Adopted A System Where The Banks Did Not Create Our Money?

Michael Snyder, Contributor

What if there was a financial system that would eliminate the need for the federal government to go into debt, that would eliminate the need for the Federal Reserve, that would end the practice of fractional reserve banking and that would dethrone the big banks? Would you be in favor of such a system? A surprising new IMF research paper entitled “The Chicago Plan Revisited” by Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof is making waves in economic circles all over the globe.

The paper suggests that the world would be much better off if we adopted a system where the banks did not create our money. So instead of a system where more money is only created when more debt is created, we would have a system of debt-free money that is created directly by national governments.

There have been others that have suggested such a system before, but to have an IMF research paper actually recommend that such a system be adopted is a very big deal. At the moment, the world is experiencing the biggest debt crisis in human history, and this proposal is being described as a “radical solution” that could potentially remedy some of our largest financial problems.

Unfortunately, apologists for the current system are already viciously attacking this new IMF paper, and of course the big banks would throw a major fit if such a system was ever to be seriously contemplated. That is why it is imperative that we educate people about how money really works.
Our current system is in the process of collapsing and we desperately need to transition to a new one.

One of the fundamental problems with our current financial system is that it is based on debt. Just take a look at the United States. The way our system works today, the vast majority of all money is “created” either when we borrow money or the government borrows money. Therefore, the creation of more money creates more debt. Under such a system, it should not be surprising that the total amount of debt in the United States is more than 30 times larger than it was just 40 years ago.

We don’t have to do things this way. There is a better alternative. National governments can directly issue debt-free currency into circulation. The following is a brief excerpt from the IMF report

At the height of the Great Depression a number of leading U.S. economists advanced a proposal for monetary reform that became known as the Chicago Plan. It envisaged the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, by requiring 100% reserve backing for deposits. Irving Fisher (1936) claimed the following advantages for this plan: (1) Much better control of a major source of business cycle fluctuations, sudden increases and contractions of bank credit and of the supply of bank-created money. (2) Complete elimination of bank runs. (3) Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt. (4) Dramatic reduction of private debt, as money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation. We study these claims by embedding a comprehensive and carefully calibrated model of the banking system in a DSGE model of the U.S. economy. We find support for all four of Fisher’s claims.

Why should banks be allowed to create money?

That is a very good question.

Why should sovereign governments ever have to borrow money from anyone?

That is another very good question.

Our current system is designed to enrich the bankers and get everyone else into debt.

And is that not exactly what has happened?

Taking the creation of money away from the bankers would have some tremendous advantages. A recent article by renowned financial journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard described some of these benefits…

One could slash private debt by 100pc of GDP, boost growth, stabilize prices, and dethrone bankers all at the same time. It could be done cleanly and painlessly, by legislative command, far more quickly than anybody imagined.

The conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money — roughly 97pc of the money supply — with state-created money. We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Specifically, it means an assault on “fractional reserve banking”. If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air.

The nation regains sovereign control over the money supply. There are no more banks runs, and fewer boom-bust credit cycles.

So why don’t we go to such a system immediately?

Well, the transition to such a system would undoubtedly be a major shock to the global financial system, and most people try to avoid significant short-term pain even if there are tremendous long-term benefits.

More importantly, however, is that the bankers have a tremendous amount of power in our society today, and they would move heaven and earth to keep a debt-free monetary system from ever being implemented.

You see, the influence of the bankers is not just limited to the big banks. Our largest financial institutions (and the people who own them) also have large ownership stakes in the vast majority of the big Fortune 500 corporations. In essence, the big banks are at the very pinnacle of “the establishment” in the United States and in almost every other major country in the western world.

And the vast majority of all political campaigns are funded by “the establishment”. It takes an enormous amount of money to win campaigns these days, and most politicians are extremely hesitant to bite the hands of those that feed them.

So don’t expect any changes to happen overnight.

One proposal that has actually been put forward in Congress is to cancel all of the government debt that the Federal Reserve is currently holding. Right now, the Fed is holding more than 1.6 trillion dollars of U.S. government debt…

That would seem to make a lot of sense. That would immediately wipe more than 1.6 trillion dollars from the U.S. national debt without any real harm being done.

But “the establishment” would be horrified if such a thing happened, so I wouldn’t anticipate it happening any time soon.

Hopefully we can get the American people (along with people all over the globe) educated about these things so that we can start to get millions of people pushing for change.

A debt-free monetary system is superior to a debt-based monetary system in so many ways.

For example, if the U.S. government directly spent debt-free money into circulation, it could conceivably never need to borrow a single dollar ever again. If the government wanted to spend more money than it brought in, it would simply print it up and spend it.

Of course the big danger with that would be inflation. That is why it would be imperative for there to be a hard cap on what the government could spend. For example, you could set the cap on spending by the federal government at 20 percent of GDP. That way we would never end up looking like the Weimar Republic.

And the current federal debt could be paid down a little at a time using newly created debt-free dollars. This would have to be done slowly to keep inflation under control, but it could be done.

That way we would not hand a 16 trillion dollar debt to our children and our grandchildren. We created this mess so we should clean it up.

Theoretically you could also do away with the federal income tax if you wanted to. Personally, I would like to see the federal government be funded to a large degree by tariffs on foreign goods. That would also have the side benefit of bringing millions of jobs back into the United States.

Our system of income tax collection is just so incredibly inefficient. It costs us mind boggling amounts of time and money. Just consider the following stats from one of my previous articles

1 – The U.S. tax code is now 3.8 million words long. If you took all of William Shakespeare’s works and collected them together, the entire collection would only be about 900,000 words long.

2 – According to the National Taxpayers Union, U.S. taxpayers spend more than 7.6 billion hours complying with federal tax requirements. Imagine what our society would look like if all that time was spent on more economically profitable activities.

3 – 75 years ago, the instructions for Form 1040 were two pages long. Today, they are 189 pages long.

4 – There have been 4,428 changes to the tax code over the last decade. It is incredibly costly to change tax software, tax manuals and tax instruction booklets for all of those changes.

5 – According to the National Taxpayers Union, the IRS currently has 1,999 different publications, forms, and instruction sheets that you can download from the IRS website.

6 – Our tax system has become so complicated that it is almost impossible to file your taxes correctly. For example, back in 1998 Money Magazine had 46 different tax professionals complete a tax return for a hypothetical household. All 46 of them came up with a different result.

7 – In 2009, PC World had five of the most popular tax preparation software websites prepare a tax return for a hypothetical household. All five of them came up with a different result.

8 – The IRS spends $2.45 for every $100 that it collects in taxes.

For long stretches of our history the United States did not have any income tax, and during those times we thrived. It is entirely conceivable that we could return to such a system.

At this point, the wealthy have become absolute masters at hiding their wealth from taxation. According to the IMF, a total of 18 trillion dollars is currently being hidden in offshore banks. What we are doing right now produces very inequitable results and it is not working.

In many ways, inflation would be a much fairer “tax” than the income tax because inflation taxes each dollar equally. Nobody would be able to cheat the system.

But if people really love the IRS and the federal income tax, we could keep them under a debt-free money system. I just happen to think that the IRS and the federal income tax are both really bad ideas that have never served the interests of the American people.

In any event, hopefully you can see that there is a much broader range of solutions to our problems than the two major political parties have been presenting to us.

We do not have to allow the banks to create our money.

The federal government does not have to go into more debt.

We don’t actually need the Federal Reserve.

There are alternatives to the federal income tax and the IRS.

Yes, it is very true that no system would be perfect. But clearly the path that we are on is only going to lead to disaster. U.S. government finances are a complete and total nightmare, and this mountain of debt that we have accumulated is going to absolutely destroy us if we allow it to.

So somebody out there should be proposing a fundamental change in direction for our financial system.

Unfortunately, our politicians are just proposing more of the same, and we all know where that is going to lead.

This article first appeared here at the Economic Collapse. Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

Trending on the Web

41 Responses to "What If We Adopted A System Where The Banks Did Not Create Our Money?"

  1. Anthony Nutt  October 24, 2012 at 5:57 am

    Soon we will be starting a non profit coop which combines social networking, a marketplace, credit union, crowd funding and crowd sourcing. We can all take part in creating  a cultural and economic revolution. All types of independent creative and innovative people and small businesses will be able to easily sell their stuff in a social networking environment. Plus people will be able to make commissions through affiliate marketing of their favorite goods, services, and artists. There are other ways that people will make money as well. Membership will be free but we will have service fees which are less than competitors. The surplus the organization generates from the service  fees and advertising will also go back into helping the membership through programs like education, fashion shows, concerts, grants, and gift cards for the most active members. Most of the programs will be sponsored, voted on, and organized by the members. We will also pursue programs which will help all of humanity like bringing cheap renewable energy sources to market and more affordable housing to people,  and empowering people worldwide to grow their own food and access to clean water. The technologies are already available, we just need a way to implement them, and this platform could be the key. Things will be very transparent and we will be needing people from across the world to get involved. As it grows it will create vibrant local communities which work well with our other local communities around the globe. That is the basic concept. Putting people and the planet over profits. We will start working smarter not harder.

  2. Rupert Russell  October 24, 2012 at 6:53 am

    I champion the idea of a global debt free monetary system. Giving private institutions the ability to create the material that enables cancerous concentrations of wealth was always going to end badly. This simple equation says it all: P<P+I. where P is the principal and I is the interest.
    One thing that we need to consider when we simplify any system is the knock on effect on jobs. The financial industry employs millions of people around the world. If the central premise behind this change is to bring jobs back to the US you might be missing a glaring and obvious downside. Problems create employment, solutions destroy it. It is this equation we ignore at our peril. That’s where basic guaranteed income, or BIG, come into play. Human labour is becoming less of an economic viability, less relevant in our rapidly changing world. We cannot hold onto that model and hope to move forward as a civilization.

  3. Dimitri Frost  October 24, 2012 at 8:40 am

    Well here’s plenty new jobs coming your way if you are on the payroll of some banking institution: There are some HUGE problems we are facing right now.

    The global need to clean up our polluted environment (Oceans etc…) is just one of many pressing problems that need attention RIGHT NOW. No shortage of jobs there. We need all the thinking and hand-on working genius in the world to begin solving the sustainability crisis, so there is an endless supply of jobs. Its a HUGE economic opportunity right now and for decades to come.
    The re-greening of barren lands like deserts for example, the reforestation of dead agro-landscapes the size of small continents. The global implementation of completely renewable energy technology systems, with all the trial and error R&D you could think of.

    The food problem needs attention too. We cannot afford to waste all this human food (corn, wheat, etc) to a greenhouse gas emitting animal agriculture industry. Let us eat the plants rather than feed them to animals which we then devour which makes us fat and sick.

    Man there is more opportunity than there ever was before in human history!

    But of course, in order for these pressing, truly global issues to receive any significant attention from entrepreneurial minds we now must move the point of motivational reference.

    This means new definitions for PROFIT, CAPITAL and GROWTH.

    1) Profit, the bottom line, the final measure for economic success. If instead of defining profit through the competitive model of economics (I am better than you so I deserve to win and you deserve to lose) we could define profit through the collaborative model of “let’s join forces so we all win and even the Earth wins and all peoples who would like to develop more sophisticated methods of living on the planet in harmony with nature can win too.”

    2) Capital, the thing that is the foundation of economic productivity, the basis, the soil for entrepreneurial seeds to grow from and be nurtured by. If capital would be seen as … we the people living and thriving on this Earth including all the eco systems and other systems that make it a joy for us to get out of bed every day and marvel at the wonders of this world, if capital would be US, the living layer of planet Earth, then we would have no reason to hoard it and so much reason to share it, because what goes around comes around (read: abundance)

    3) Growth, the most dangerous notion in our current economic paradigm (which has lead every other society on the planet to self destruction – talk to any historian) could be unlinked from quantitative measures and linked to qualitative measures, hence creating a changeover from a GDP focus to a kind of “happiness index” focus by which the growth of a satisfied, well educated, prosperous, sophisticated, hi-tech and sustainable society could be facilitated in co-existence and harmony with nature.

    And this is just scratching the surface.

    • Alex  October 24, 2012 at 9:27 am

      Great Post

    • Rupert Russell  October 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm

      Great response,

      I’m assuming you’ve heard of a Resource Based Economic Model? It sounds as if you are describing something along those lines.

      I’m with you all the way when you say that there are still plenty of ‘jobs’ for us to do, there’s a hell of a mess to be cleaned up, but waged labour, human toil, will shrink to the point when it will no longer be economically significant. Through automation we can/will create abundance.

      And I understand that perpetual growth is the ugly and unfortunate by product of the money-as-debt paradigm and must, at all cost;) change if we are to avoid the fast approaching cliffs edge.

  4. Ted  October 24, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    The creation of the Federal Reserve was an instant enslavement of the US Government. When the Fed creates money, they LEND it to the US Gov and charge interest. If that is the only money in existence, and we have to pay it back plus interest, it is impossible to ever pay it back! I find it humorous that with all the talk in the debates about reducing our debt the topic of the Fed never comes up! I think Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard mention it.

    I absolutely agree that the fractional reserve banking should go away as well. The creation of debt is the enslavement of people. When this was first introduced we began to see a rise the price of homes and cars. By artificially inflating the prices, it forced people to turn to loans (debt) to be able to purchase what they need. The banks do not even possess the money they are lending, yet they charge us interest payments on the loan. If we do not make our payments, they cease our property and sell it off. As a side effect of this system, we have far more debt in this country than “actual” money in circulation. If every American tried to pay off all of their debt the banks would all go bankrupt. To avoid bankruptcy, they would attempt to create more inflation thus forcing people to borrow again.

    Taxes. In order to pay my 25% to the IRS I must surrender 3 MONTHS of my entire paycheck every year. The IRS is nice enough to allow me to break that up over 12 months though so I don’t notice it as much. Gee thanks. In addition to the 25% that goes to the IRS, I then have to pay a 9.8% sales tax on all the goods I purchase here in WA state. Lets not forget about my property tax that is due every year as well. I also noticed that “debtors prison” was not mentioned in the above article. Nobody should ever be sent to prison for not being able to afford to pay their taxes! (If they cannot collect tax revenue from you, they will spend it on you in order to punish you. Sick.)

    Thank you for taking the time to write and share this info. I apologize if what I am writing is not the most eloquent statement. This is just some streaming thoughts being typed out!

  5. Mandy  October 25, 2012 at 5:32 am

    The Global Elite currently control the global financial system. So, do the ideas proposed in this article truly give financial power back to the people, or do they enable the Illuminati to restructure the current banking system into their New World Order – One World Bank?

    • Brad Ebel  October 25, 2012 at 5:54 am

      IMHO your concern is correct. The common man will not see significant and lasting improvement until each member of the society is guaranteed to be allowed to “create” their share of the “money supply”. I’ve briefly laid out a proposal in another lengthy comment here which has been waiting almost 24 hrs for moderator approval. I’ve resubmitted it again.

  6. Brad Ebel  October 25, 2012 at 5:44 am

    Fantastic to see articles like this, and that you are encouraging others not just to follow another “position” but to actually EDUCATE THEMSELVES on the nature and workings of “money”. Here are a few of the most important quotes from history that directly address our current situation.
    “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in our Constitution; not from want of honour or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
    – President John Adams, 2nd U.S. President
    “The eyes of our citizens are not sufficiently open to the true cause of our distress. They ascribe them to everything but their true cause, the banking system”
    – Thomas Jefferson
    “If the American people knew the corruption in our money system there would revolution before morning!” Henry Ford, Sr (1863-1947)
    “The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough money to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” (Sir Joseph Stamp, former Director of the Bank of England)
    Now, about the article, again great to see this coming out, but the ruff proposals being talked about here will only change part of the problem. It eludes to the method of distributing this “new” money into the system will come from government spending. This “debt” free money would then slowly (or not so slowly) become concentrated in the hands of the already wealthy and those in control of much real estate, who would then put there excess “debt free” money into banks to be loaned out to the common people, at interest, in order for them to ever become home owners. I realize this is a sloppy description and only a partial explanation of the major flaws of what I believe is being proposed in the IMF report, but IMHO it appears that the “state” would benefit, and the rich would benefit, but the common man would be (again) at the mercy of the “Monied”.
    In order to avoid continuing the “have/ have nots” slave system in a “new” arrangement, we have to address not just the creation of “Money” but the access and cost of credit (at least for Real estate). Ultimately, what we are talking about is creating and distributing units of trade to be used as a “Money supply”. Too little in the system and commerce stops, too much and money can lose its value. Currently, the bankers not only are the only ones with the power to “create” this money supply, but they profit (interest and fees) off it, and decide who gets use of it and how much it will cost them. Virtually our entire “money supply” currently comes from Real Estate Loans. They charge interest on these “loans” under the guise that you are “borrowing” someone else’s savings, and thereby owe those people interest for letting you use “their” money. The banks also rationalize additional interest to cover “risk” of the principle should there be a default. With regards to RE “loans” both these are false. They create “new” money to “loan” you, and where is the “risk” on loaning $190,000 on a $200,000 house? Especially when you consider that THIS IS the money supply and needs new loans created to replace the loans that are being paid off to keep the “Money supply” from shrinking and hurting the economy.
    So, what is the magic combination? It would take a books worth of dialog to go over ever aspect but here is a short version. 1) End Fractional Reserve Banking 2) Money supply would be created in much the same way as now (RE Backed). Each citizen of a country would have a “right” to create a certain amount of the money supply. When a person turns, lets say 18, they “qualify” for, let say $120,000 worth of a RE Loan. (the “new” Money is now backed by land and durable structure). This loan would be interest free, and instead of requiring a payment schedule for the entire principle PLUS 2 times as much in interest to be paid back, we would now only be concerned with keeping the Loan to Value in a favorable position, so that if the person dies or for some reason walks away from the property, that the sale price would cover any remaining balance and any cost of the sale. Similar programs could be set up to provide common folks with access to retail sites, production facilities/storage. 3) eliminate property taxes on owner occupied Real Estate. 4) increase Capital Gains Taxes on land. (want to take away the incentive to create artificial scarcity of land because of “hoarding”) 5) To avoid runaway land prices, local, state and federal government would encourage vertical developments, such as “sky city” out of china. 6) Governments and Private Sector needs to focus on mastering a source of energy that will remain extremely low cost (and safe for both humans and environment, possibly Thorium), And Advances in Battery Technology. 7) Governments need to make whatever changes necessary to allow medical advancements in the fields of cancer and immune system disfunction. (They are most likely extremely interrelated and between the two account for the root of most medical problems we face today) and 8) We have to re-establish a solid set of checks and balances to the branches of government (and role of media)that take into account the rapidly increasing level of technology that can be brought to bare on the population.
    When considering this change to the Monetary Policy, we not only have to look at the past, but be realistic about the future. The days of manual labor “production” jobs is almost gone, and many, many other “jobs” currently done by humans will soon be “lost” to computers and robots or the need eliminated by advancements in technology. Instead of asking ourselves “how will we all be able to make great wages in the future?”, we should be asking “why does it cost so much just to exist in America today?”. If we dig deep enough, we find that the cost of energy and the cost of occupying land lay at the root of most costs. Under my proposal, I would be possible for a family of 4 to live in a nice house, afford food, clothing and entertainment on a single, minimum wage job with no government assistance and LESS Taxes. Wages would be pushed up because people would not work crappy jobs for low money if they didn’t have to and if they had access to retail or manufacturing facilities at low cost.
    you can find me on Face Book and please join our discussions at “The Beautiful Truth About Money” on FaceBook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/414761005223185/

  7. DJC  October 25, 2012 at 8:20 am

    I’m confused. Full reserves would mean if I were a bank and took a deposit of $100 i would need to deposit this $100 with the reserve bank before could lend $100. But once deposited with the reserve I wouldn’t have $100 to lend. I wouldn’t be a bank. See why banks do not create money out of thin air, and some insight into the multiplier effect here http://iwillknow.jesaurai.net/?p=1296 .

  8. kptm  October 25, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    I’m simply charmed. How can you imagine a world with 50/50 rule working? It is just a matter of wasting time with grace. You can’t send to jail every banker just for the fault of making money!!! Arrest every bakery for making bread! Nobody get’s weight for eating meat. If you eat much meat than necessary you will have a problem! There is no solution for that. We have to focus on decent matter. Think about the industries, each one, grown too big for this world. This is not fair. You can’t fire an automotive industry worker just because there are many cars out there on the roads and the roads are never enough. You can’t ask a teenager not to dream about having his car because, you see, we, the elder once, have already bought enough. And so on. There are many un-needed computers on the market. So what? Fire the workers? Close the computer factories? Let’s imagine a perfect world. Than wake up, it’s still a long way to the end. Think on layers. Go Africa. Than Germany. Than India and go visit Sweden. Italy after Great Britain and Somalia after Czech Republic. Rest my case.

  9. Tom Sherlock  October 26, 2012 at 3:07 am

    I’m not interested in giving gov’ts (especially national central gov’ts) any more power than they already have. I subscribe to E.C. Riegel’s position: separation of money and state: http://reinventingmoney.com/documents/private-enterprise.html

    • Gabe Webb  November 29, 2012 at 10:17 pm

      The government already has control of the money supply as according to the constitution. They just subcontracted those controls to the Federal Reserve via the Federal Resever Act of 1913.

  10. moneytruth.org  October 26, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    I’d seriously recommend the author take a look at moneytruth.org for a deeper understanding of the remarkable technology that is money. Debt-based money is not our problem, indeed, it is debt-based money that holds the key to all our emancipation. Debt itself is not exploitative, it is the interest component (being levied on monies created from ‘thin air’) which is a clear exploitation of debt and debtors. The government has no need to pay interest (to channel interest tribute from taxpayers to the rich through taxes) on the money we have today. So changing our money could be disasterous, because the only way we can get access to money, if it doesn’t come into and out of exisetence when we need it, is by ‘borrowing’ it… and borrowing it, of course, at interest.

  11. DJC  October 27, 2012 at 3:08 am

    Let me be clear, banks Do Not create money out of thin air. They do facilitate the multiplier effect which is more accurately called money velocity. But to lend money they must have a deposit to lend. See http://iwillknow.jesaurai.net/?p=1296

    • Jörg Starkmuth  January 24, 2013 at 1:28 pm

      @DJC: While it is true that laws prevent banks from lending *unlimited* amounts of money, the amount they can lend (create) is still *a lot* higher than the sum of the deposits on the bank’s accounts. Any they demand high interest for this money without actually producing a real countervalue for it.

  12. Abe  January 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    @DJC: Banks can, and do, create money out of nothing. It use to require printing, but these days is simply 0s on a computer screen.

    There are at least a few hundred thousand documents, articles and peer-reviewed papers covering the subject. I believe the “money multiplier”, commonly cited, is a miss-quotes myth and taken out of context.

    The current, fiat based currency system is nothing but paper valued on belief. Creating a bill of exchange can be done by anyone (according to UK law) but it is the lack of belief that makes it worthless.

    • DJC  July 29, 2013 at 8:54 am

      You are right anyone can make a token/means of exchange and if people believe in it it will have value. I am saying that commercial/retail banks do not create money out of thin air. Central banks use a bit of an accounting trick (QE) to do something similar but it is supposed to come back out of the economy eventually. I’d like to see these peer reviewed papers. Send some links.

  13. Jörg Starkmuth  January 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Actually, as far as I understand, the problem is not that the system is debt-based, but that debt and deposits are subject to interest rates. All we need to do is make high deposits unattractive by prohibiting positive interest rates for them (slightly negative rates might be useful). If people stop owning large amounts of money, national debt decreases on the other side of the balance, because state debt is always equal to the sum of deposits of people and companies. People would start investing their money in real assets instead (e.g. companies) to make more money from it. On the other side, interest on state debt must be abolished. Debt is no problem for the state if it doesn’t have to pay interest rates to bankers or anyone else. State debt would just mean that the state issued money needed somewhere, which is a good thing. Ultimately this solution has the same effect as suggested above, as it would transfer the power back from the banks to the state.

  14. jhon karl  January 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    oh my god thats a lot of information should i read it all? no thanks. won’t bother. no need. i’ll be issueing a statement later telling the world that no system need exist for only a mind steeped in fear thinks in such petty limiting terms. what then you may ask? just let go of fear and all will be revealed!

  15. Mike Stann  January 24, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    Why not start an online petition on the government website. A response is required by the administration if you get 100,000 signatures. In this conservative environment, it may be a great time to eliminate income tax with a bi-partisan bill with the comprimise for the dems to introduce bank free money creation. It would at least make it public. I’m a Canadian, so I can’t help you. But it affects me greatly as our economies are greatly intertwined. Good luck!

  16. Roofus  January 24, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    Ya’ll can play your money game, I’m going to a place where money is not required and I won’t be back until the venus project is no longer just a project.

  17. noob  April 27, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    Google “Bitcon

    • noob  April 27, 2013 at 4:57 pm

      I meant “BitCoin”

  18. Michael Doherty  July 26, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Both Abraham Lincoln and JFK decided to reclaim the right of the government to print money, and looked what happened to them.

  19. fraenk  July 26, 2013 at 7:48 pm



Leave a Reply