Our broken money system can be fixed

By changing the way that money is created, we can tackle some of the major social and economic problems we're facing today >

Our Proposals

Home » Our Proposals

If we want to deal with the big social, economic and environmental challenges that we’re facing today, we should start by fixing money. Watch this short video to find out how >

What We Need

We’ve spent the last five years researching the problems caused by the current debt-based monetary system and how to fix them. This is what we think needs to change to fix our broken money system:

1. Take the power to create money away from the banks, and return it to a democratic transparent and accountable process

History has shown that when banks have the power to create money, they create too much in the good times, causing financial crises, and then create too little money in the bad times, making recessions and unemployment even worse. They put most of the money that they create into house price bubbles and speculation on financial markets, and only put a small amount into businesses outside the financial sector. We simply don’t think that banks, with all their incentives and need to maximise their profits, can be trusted with something as powerful as the ability to create money. And it’s not enough to regulate them, because regulators have already failed to keep them under control, and there’s no reason why they should get it right this time around. We need to stop banks being able to create money. Instead, we want to see the power to create money transferred to a democratic, accountable and transparent process, where everyone knows:

  1. who has the power to create money,
  2. how much money they create, and
  3. how that money will be used.

However this process is set up – whether it’s the Bank of England or a new committee that decides whether to create money – it must be accountable to Parliament and protected from abuse by vested interests. We also want to see safeguards that ensure that the right amount of money is created: not too much (causing bubbles and a financial crisis) and not too little (causing a recession).

2. Create money free of debt

Currently, banks create money when they make loans, which means that for every pound in your bank account, someone somewhere else will be a pound in debt. It means that almost all the money in the economy is effectively ‘on loan’ from the banking sector, and interest must be paid nearly every pound that exists. If we try to reduce our debts, money disappears from the economy, making it harder for others to repay their own debts. Instead, money should be created by the state, in the public interest, without anyone else having to go further into debt. This money would be spent into the economy through government budgets instead of being lent into the economy by banks, so it would stimulate the real economy, create jobs, and make it possible for ordinary people to start reducing their own debts.

3. Put new money into the real economy rather than financial markets and property bubbles

Most of the money that banks create goes straight into the property and financial markets, pushing up house prices and increasing inequality. This money doesn’t create jobs – it simply makes life more expensive and unstable for people. Instead, any newly-created money should be used to fund public spending, reduce taxes, or be distributed directly to citizens to spend as they choose. This means that the money will start its life in the real (non-financial) economy instead of getting trapped in financial and property markets. This will help the economy grow, creating jobs in the process.

The End Goal: Democratising Money

Ultimately, we think that the economy would be more stable and society better off if we completely remove the power that banks have to create money. These ideas have been around since the 1930s, but we’ve done a lot of work to update them for the modern financial system. You can find out more below:

Report: Creating a Sovereign Money System

Sovereign Money (Cover)(Report, 56 pages) This document presents a reform to the banking system that would remove the ability of banks to create money, in the form of bank deposits, when they make loans. It would transfer the ability to create new money exclusively to the state, creating what we have termed a ‘sovereign money’ system. Read more & free download

In more depth: Will a sovereign money system be flexibile enough?

Flexibility(Report, 20 pages) This paper outlines the full range of policy options that mean a sovereign money system can be as flexible, or inflexible, as the authorities want it to be. Read more & free download

In more depth: Sovereign Money – Common Critiques

There are a number of common objections and concerns with the proposal to switch to a sovereign money system. Here we deal with them in more detail. Read more

BOOK: Modernising Money

Why Our Monetary System is Broken, and How We Fix It. The product of three years of research and development, these proposals offer one of the few hopes of escaping from our current dysfunctional monetary system. It is detailed but accessible to non-economists. Buy Now & More Info

Right Now: Making the Recovery Sustainable

When we rely on banks to create most of our money, then the only way of getting more money into the economy – and allowing it to grow – is to encourage people to go further into debt. This is why UK government policy is focused on ‘getting banks lending again’ and encouraging people to borrow more for mortgages. But the financial crisis was caused by a huge build-up in private debt, so allowing that debt to increase even further could lead us into another financial crisis. What we need right now is to have a way of getting extra money into the economy, but without relying on households borrowing even more. This can happen if the Bank of England creates money and transfers it to the government to be spent into the real economy (rather than the financial or property markets).

REPORT: Making the Recovery Sustainable

Sovereign Money (Cover)Our Sovereign Money proposal explains how the Bank of England and the government could make the recovery sustainable by creating a relatively small amount of money and spending it into the real economy. This would lead to a boost in jobs and employment, and stop the current debt-fuelled recovery turning into another crisis. More info & download

INFOGRAPHIC – The Current System vs. Sovereign Money

Debt-Based-vs-Sovereign-Money-ScreenshotThis infographic shows the main differences between the current dysfunctional monetary system, and how it could be… View now

INFOGRAPHIC: Quantitative Easing vs. Sovereign Money

QE-vs-SMC_Screenshot This infographic shows how QE was ineffective, and how the creation of sovereign money by the state would have been up to 37 times more effective in creating jobs and boosting the economy.View now…

VIDEO: Democratising Money

Video (33 mins) Positive Money Founder, Ben Dyson, presenting at the 3rd annual Positive Money Conference “Modernising Money” on 26th January 2013 in London, explains the main principles behind the monetary reform proposals which offer one of the few hopes of escaping from our current dysfunctional monetary system. Watch now (33 mins)

VIDEO: How to Fuel the Economy Without Increasing Debt, through Sovereign Money

Ben Dyson, Founder of Positive Money, presented at the Positive Money 2014 conference the Sovereign Money Creation proposal. This proposal offers a way to make the recovery sustainable, it could be up to 37 times more effective than Quantitative Easing in boosting GDP. Watch now

VIDEO: Why Quantitative Easing was a waste of £375 billion

In the years following the financial crisis, the UK wasted £375bn on a failed scheme to stimulate the economy and end the recession. This was one of the biggest missed opportunities in history. Watch Now (6 mins)

Join the Campaign

  • jagung808 .

    Real money are gold and silver. If these two precious metals are in scarcity, use commodities like barley,wheat,salt etc. Real money has intrinsic value in it.

    • Chris Kerr

      I recently heard about a (half-joking) proposal to have a currency backed by bricks instead of gold. At least from a naive viewpoint, this actually makes quite a bit of sense. The biggest problem with commodity standards is that they require scarce resources to be piled up in useless heaps rather than put to economic use; bricks piled on top of one another (in the shape of a wall etc) are still economically useful so this waste does not occur. Additionally, the fact that bricks are bulky and hard to transport would make speculative attacks much less likely.

    • http://blog.mjburgess.co.uk/ Michael Burgess

      How do any of those things have “intrinsic value”?

    • Greenbacker84

      ORLY? Because JP Morgan and the other commodity billionaires say so?
      How convenient for them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/robbeasley Rob Beasley

    The issue is not money. The issue is and always will be about the allocation of scarce resources. Therefore you need a transaction system that transparently discloses the relationship between money and that which it was designed to represent, resources. In particular, elimination of all derivatives would be helpful. Prof. J.H.De Soto has a good first step strategy to move away from the current state with relatively simple steps.

    In the end though, a resource based economy is the best option. Those models however need to be built from the ground up. New Cities are probably worth considering.

  • Barry Cooper

    The problems described are quite real, but the proposal simply transfers power from banks to the government. Whoever has the power to create money has the power to create wealth from nothing. Why is this intrinsically better when done by the government? Why not anticipate an expansion of the symbiotic relationship that already exists between Big Business and Big Government? Because your panel somehow becomes ethically superior? There is no functional difference between banks creating money for themselves, and money being created by government and parceled out to chosen corporations.

    The logical solution is to end money creation outright. This is the ONLY equitable solution, the only solution that does not recreate a de facto master/slave relationship.

    My proposal to do this is here: http://www.goodnessmovement.com/Page23.html

  • Andrew Webb

    Love the new website.

    We have all been brain washed to believe that only the banks are smart enough to create money responsibly. Any alternative that a nation creates its own money supply is treated with complete horror. In true reality, the banks create inflation and deflation on a regular scale. The world economies are constantly unstable because of it. The world is in a deep financial crisis now because of this very fact.

    The real question we should really be asking ourselves is, why are we allowing an independent identity create our money supply when we
    could do it ourselves. The system we have now is unsustainable and can only get worse.

    Money, or the financial credit of an economy, should be an exact and scientific reflection of the actual goods and services, or real wealth, of an economy. If this is followed any independent nation of the world
    can be free from the grips of debt.

    I am glad that you are now looking on using Dividends as a
    way to increase the money supply to the population as well. This was an
    important factor missing until now. Those who do not know the importance of using the Dividend would benefit from reading this section below.

    The reality is that there will never be full employment and why go there any way when we don’t need to? As time moves forward the need of people to work becomes less and less. This should be good! New technologies in all industries are reducing the number of people needed to work there. Machines are taken the jobs from people and the number of hours people work will be reduced.

    Unfortunately, the way it works some industries are affected more than
    others leaving skilled workers redundant no longer required. These people are thrown on the stock pile of the unemployed (also made much worse by the global financial crisis)

    New machinery and technologies should be for the benefit of mankind. These advances should not be negative but positive allowing the population in general to work less and less. The problem here is that as fewer hours are worked,fewer hours are paid for. Do you see the problem? People are getting poorer as wages or jobs are lost. When the population’s wages are reduced their spending is also reduced.

    As a consequence goods remain unsold in stores and shops. You know the rest, higher unemployment and higher levels of government assistance as people’s wages fall below certain levels. Lost tax
    revenue and higher government costs to manage this spiraling problem means further government debt or higher taxes.

    The real wealth in this world is in the land and what we
    make of it such as farming, building and Industry. To distribute this wealth we need a medium of exchange. The role of money is to provide and easy medium to buy and sell things. This money must be produced in correct quantities without cost.

    The production of modern times is vastly different from
    early times. We have now leaped ahead with giant steps in mass production. We have massively increased our capacity to build, grow and manufacture things with an increasingly lower work force required. This progress is passed on from one generation to another and It is a heritage we should all benefit from. Unfortunately this is not the case.

    Because production is no longer the result of labour only, it is a farce to believe that production can be distributed only through the reward of labour. It is the fruit of progress and not labour which is providing these great achievements. There for we must look at this in a different light. As new production methods expand, less labour is required resulting in a rising number of permanently unemployed people. It would also be true that working hours of the work force as a whole is reducing. If people only got paid by the hours they worked their wages would fall.

    To recognize this progress as a national heritage for everyone, a dividend could be used to supplement these lost wages. This heritage should be shared and not lost in the hands of a few. A Dividend could
    also be issued to the whole population when the money supply needs increasing.

    Presently when a nation needs to increase its money supply, it will usually get this from the commercial banks as debt. The Central Bank will inject new money first (usually as debt to the nation) which commercial banks will then multiply through fractional reserve banking. The nature of lending this way means the country will always have a growing need for money to pay its debts, including compound interest.

    With true Credit Creation running, the ability to create new money as credit to the nation is now possible. Money from now on is created on the basis of its real wealth. (This is a primary goal all nations should practice) The money supply should always be kept in check and inline with production of goods and services. A National Credit Office would be set up to ensure a correct money supply in the economy, by issuing or
    withdrawing of money in accordance with the country’s production capacity and demand.

    A national dividend to the population could also be used to expand the
    money supply, very much like stimulus packages used lately to stimulate
    economies. The richer the country is in real wealth the less taxes if would
    require and the more buying power each person has in its currency.

    Hope this makes sense.

    Andrew Webb
    (From Bleeding In Debt)

    • Greenbacker84

      Mike Montagne of Mathematically Perfected Economy explained explicitly and in detail how we can have true economy, with interest free currency issued by the people via a common monetary infrastructure, back in 1968!

      Banks are NOT lenders, nor do they even really create money. The LAUNDER and REPUBLISH our own promissory notes. The money is backed by our own labour and production. The debt is between the home buyer and the owner (who is paid in full upfront- banks are usurpers).
      The only remaining obligation is to retire/pay principal at an agreed schedule of payments.
      We the people are the source of all new money, banks are fraudulently laundering this money we create, falsifying debt to themselves and charging compounding interest for the privilege.
      When will Positive Money address this upfront? W eve been waiting YEARS and we get silence.

      • Graham Hodgson

        “When will Positive Money address this upfront?”
        See Modernising Money

      • antenna:up

        Totally correct. It is analogous to ‘reverse laundering’. The loan process appears to me to only be there as justification for the deeply unethical practice.

        There is no such thing as an ethical bank. Is there no short term answer for people who do NOT want to use a bank at all? It’s seems you are barely allowed to exist without one right now.

        This would hurt banks. Which I feel is good.

      • bill439

        I wish we, the people, were the source of all new money but, obviously, we are not. Nor does our labour and production back up the money banks create. Today, nothing does.
        What you say is your, rather romantic, description of the money issuing process. No wonder positive money ignores it.

      • http://www.bleedingindebt.com/ Andrew Webb

        Sorry for this
        very, very late response.

        Very true,

        It is we the people that produce the real wealth of the country, the goods and services. Why the hell should we need to be bogged down for ever in interest- bearing debt to the banking system, which does nothing but produce, handle and deal in money, the symbols of the real wealth that we produce? This must be reversed.

        Therefore if we use money as an exchange, it must be produced in correct quantities without cost. What man is physically able to produce, grow, build, and invent, must not be limited by lack of money but rather by the lack of
        resources. Trade should not be restricted by lack of money.

        You will find that Positive Money acknowledges this very well and is doing everything possible to reverse it. The shackles of debt inflicting the whole world cannot be removed until we acknowledge this. Your complaints are not
        warranted; essentially we all have the same beliefs.

        Let’s share them and work together!

        • Greenbacker84

          I’d love to believe we have the same beliefs believe me. My issue is how can we…when PM specifically evade and obfuscate how money is created? Why do they falsely state money is created from thin air? Banks do not create money, nor is it from thin air, first in every case, in every ‘loan’ an obligor issues a promissory note/obligation for x amount…its backed by our labour and production. Our labour and hard work is not ‘thin air’. The issuing power has to be restored to the people free of interest. The answer is MPE, I’d urger you have a look at the work Mike Montagne’s been doing for over 40 years now. PM can’t even articulate the real root cause of the problem

  • vhammon

    Your proposal suggest using an inflation rate of 2% as a criteria for new money creation. I’ve read both your books (excellent! and VERY well written) and did not find a rationale for planning for steady inflation. How about using population and productivity to maintain a stable money supply, without inflation? If the inflation issue is about encouraging innovation—I can’t think of any other reason that would weigh more than the disadvantages of continuing a system of exponential growth—, couldn’t that be addressed directly with a 1% for innovation ?

  • joe

    You say you are looking specifically, for people with
    experience of the present – corrupt – financial system to help you “govern” this site. This means you are simply a part of the same problem that exists already since you think you can address this financial problem using THE SAME experience and mindset that created it in the first place – thus, you are more a distraction than solution. You are clearly, more interested in your own rule-making “power” than the actual problems at hand

    You talk about “Human Resources” yet do not appreciate that your acceptance of, and casual use of this very phrase exemplifies the rottenness and base cruelty of the current system – and reflects the fact that you too, happily accept their notion that precious human beings may be regarded as nothing more than a “resource” commodity. Again, your happy use of this vile and disgusting term without conscious appreciation of what it actually infers, demonstrates that you are little more than a distraction – and a grotesque one at that

    “Become a director of Positive Money

    Positive Money is looking for new board members to join our board of directors who can make a significant and positive contribution to the governance of the organisation. In particular we’re looking for directors with at least 10 years experience in areas such as finance, management,
    corporate governance and risk management, company
    law, fundraising and HR.

    • Greenbacker84

      PM are trying to retain the very banking system that is bankrupting us, namely banks laundering our promissory obligations into their unwarranted possession and charging us interest for the privilege. A dead end solution purported by pretenders

  • Phil

    It’s all nice and good to have a website with tons of information but what do you guys do to reach the mainstream? It would be good to publish a campaign plan with well defined objectives & milestones and track progress against the plan. You can then reach out to the +10K followers to help meet these objectives. What about a fund raiser to buy a full page in the FT? What about organizing a peaceful walk through the city? Without a proper and transparent program I am afraid your campaign will fizzle out.

    • Erronihim Victor

      One can hope that this website has a chance of being picked up by one of the same FT’s financial correspondents and be mentioned in an article as a credible grass-roots voice for an alternative monetary system.

    • antenna:up

      I wouldn’t hold my breath for ANY newspaper’s help. An crowd source funded advert would be a very good start. Please not the FT, a rag more understanding of all related issues would be more advantageous.

  • anthonychambers

    I am very supportive of the idea of stopping banks creating money. However, I think you really need to think hard about transferring that ability to anyone else. Who says we need more money (in aggregate) anyway.

    If you must produce more money, then it should be distributed equally to everyone and done at a predicable rate. But, I would suggest that government never be given it directly. They would be even worse than the banks. It would become all too politically easy if taxation was so intimately connected with the money supply.

  • Danny Key

    Although positive money are correct about the nature of money and how it works. When they suggest things such as the following:

    “But if money was created by the state, in the public interest, and spent
    into the economy through government spending instead of being lent into
    the economy by banks, then that money would stimulate the real economy,
    create jobs, and make it possible for ordinary people to start reducing
    their own debts.”

    They either fail to see the extreme danger in this or they are fully aware and are pushing a socialist, communist agenda.

    The truly ideal, is that government neither borrows nor creates money, it simply uses what it receives in tax for its funding no more no less. for is that not what was already socially agreed anyway? that the government should have a portion of our tax in exchange for what we consider benefits.

    It is my beleif that alternative digital currencys will dramatically rise in popularity and replace entirely tradional forms of money.

  • tomfrom66

    Osborne’s latest smoke and mirrors are about the sale of Lloyds and RBS.
    Leverage rations at 3% are ludicrous!

  • ettore

    Please Is there anybody going to explain to me how your proposals are possible matching the MEMMT theory

    Thank you


  • Privet Romashki

    Absolutely fantastic web site.

    Clearly and logically laid out with clarity, helped me understand the issues quickly and succinctly.

    Many thanks.

  • non.de.plum

    Another failing of money is its failure to value or to integrate with economic models with a non-monetarist perspective. These other economic forms are ‘fringe’ organisations from the mainstream perspective, but not from the perspective of the tribes, clubs and interest groups who use them.
    Accounting systems using cowrie shells and fishbones, or using knotted string as pseudo-mnenomics for a verbal accounting system, also notched sticks, worked well for long periods within closed circles. Clay tablets representing a fraction of protected consumables such as grain have been used successfully.
    The blame for lack of integration with money goes somewhat both ways.

  • Marco

    Sharing will save our world.

  • db1

    It would be nice if this website could just be honest and say “we want to abolish credit”, but then I guess you would have less supporters.
    When you talk about banks creating money, what many people probably don’t understand is that there is NO difference between what a bank does when it extends credit and what happens when I lend my mate a fiver. I have increased the money supply by £5.
    Your proposals don’t even do what they say on the tin because you you actually still have a mechanism for lending money but use smoke and mirrors to convince (yourselves?) that it isn’t debt. Ridiculous.

    • Mira Tekelova

      You seem to have misunderstood our proposals. Please watch the video “Do banks create money or just credit?” and read the article Will there be enough credit in the Positive Money system?

    • Mira Tekelova

      You seem to have misunderstood our proposals. Please watch the video “Do banks create money or just credit?” and read the article Will there be enough credit in the Positive Money system?

      • db1

        Mira, I have read them throughly and they are medieval nonsense. John Russels post below does a good job of explaining the impact on credit. Before you say it, I know that there is provision in your proposals for lending but the bottom line is it will either substantially reduce credit OR you will end up with the same amount of lending and therefore the same ammount of RISK as you do today. Your ideas around accounting treatments so that this lending does not count as money creation or debt are laughable sleight of hand and do not change the reality of what is happening. Your proposals would end free banking in the UK, and make it virtually impossible for people to get a mortgage or loan to start a business.

        • GWHodgson

          Brave words, and easily spoken from a cloak of anonymity. What evidence supports your assertions, what research, what authority?

          • GWHodgson

            The above response to db1 was an unworthy outburst which I regret. The point is, we have never claimed that debt will be abolished, and we certainly wouldn’t think of abolishing credit. Human society runs on credit.

            We make two fundamental points, Firstly, that having allowed bank deposit liabilities to take over as the core of the payments system has delivered the whole economy hostage to banking system liquidity, and secondly that the expansion and the contraction of bank deposits, the means of payment, as bank loans are extended and repaid, builds in systemic instability. Both risks are totally unnecessary and are easily (and for the most part imperceptibly) avoided.

            Bank of England figures show that over every 12 month period for the last fifteen years the repayment of mortgages and consumer borrowing has used up between 25% and 50% of all household deposits. For money to remain available at least that amount has to be borrowed back again. It is that structural dependence on debt that we decry.

        • Laughing_Gnome

          Indeed, money lent would be at risk to an optional degree and priced accordingly. Presently the risk is borne by the FSA and ultimately the taxpayer. Also private lenders would have a choice in wether they wished to support business or asset bubbles. The present system is not spectacularly successful in funding small business.

      • Greenbacker84

        Banks do not create money, nor is it thin air.
        They first launder (steal) our promissory notes (between each other) publish the evidence and falsify debt to themselves (while charging interest.)
        Why wont Positive Money address this? Why do they the very root of our money (promissory notes) and interest?

    • Michael

      “lending your mate a fiver” doesn’t create money

  • John Russell

    If you want to go there I wouldn’t start from here.

    By implication you propose going from a system of fractional reserve banking where bank’s liquid reserves (cash and deposits which aren’t lent out) are say around 3%+ of assets (typically loans, i.e. credit or debt) to a 100% reserve ratio.

    This ratio is already under the control of the UK monetary authorities – Bank of England now, FSA during the crisis. In fact the FSA increased minimum capital requirements with the aim of strengthening banks balance sheets, but with the effect of forcing banks to reduce their lending.

    Nevertheless, if the Bank of England wanted to increase the reserve ratio it could do it. At the 100% level you propose, there would be no lending and no borrowing. Banks would keep cash deposits in their vaults, and the UK would in effect run a cash economy.

    Whilst this would cut the banks down to size, it would remove all funding from UK businesses and consumers. The ensuing depression as the money supply collapsed to 1/30th of its former size would make the US Great Depression look like a picnic. Businesses would close as their loans were called in or fell due; employees would lose their jobs in vast numbers. And the value of UK assets would fall until enough foreigners were willing to buy them.

    But it seems you would kill the patient to treat the disease.

    If you want to look harder at what’s really happening – althought the banks’ lending is the instrument of money creation, they don’t control it. The Bank of England does. The credit bubble arose – with excessive asset prices and all the rest of it – because central bankers – Alan Grenspan and Mervyn King – allowed excessive growth of the money supply, refusing to consider the level of asset prices, as long as inflation of goods and services stayed low.

    I didn’t hear Mark Carney say anything about asset prices and monetary policy, but if you want to avoid future asset bubbles and crises, that is where to look.

    • GWHodgson

      The money supply would not collapse to 1/30th of its present size. It would be fixed at its present size by the monetisation of sight deposits and reserves and be subject thereafter to controlled expansion. I agree that the failure to monitor asset prices was a dereliction, as both Steve Keen and Richard Werner attest, but even if the regulatory authorities found ways of managing asset prices, consumer prices and economic activity simultaneously our economy would still be at the mercy of precarious bank liquidity.

      • GWHodgson

        John Russell said:

        By implication you propose going from a system of fractional reserve banking where bank’s liquid reserves (cash and deposits which aren’t lent out) are say around 3%+ of assets (typically loans, i.e. credit or debt) to a 100% reserve ratio.

        No. It is true that we have indeed referred to our proposals using the language of full reserve banking but this has proved an unfortunate choice of words which we are now trying to avoid. Full reserve banking requires banks to hold payment settlement assets equal to 100% of their payment settlement (demand deposit) liabilities towards their account holders. In our system banks would have no payment settlement liabilities towards their account holders. They would instead have access to the payments settlement assets (central bank money) of their customers so that payments would be settled using the customers’ own assets. But the banks would have no demand deposit liabilities and no reserve assets. They would instead hold their own payments assets purely for settling the payments they incur on their own behalf.

  • timsahyiyen

    A great man lived in Turkey last century. He said “The reason behind most of the social problems is the system created by the bankers, which battles labor with the capital, and uses combined interest to maintain this battle. They increased their capitals by deception and misleading and let the rich feed on the bloods of the poor.”

    His solution to the problem was 2 simple things:
    1. Banning Usury
    2. Collecting Tax Based on Wealth, not Income

    These are in fact main the principles of economics in main religions..

    I couldn’t understand it earlier when he said “The solution to ALL SOCIAL PROBLEMS is two things. Banning usury and collecting tax based on wealth.” I could understand if he said ‘solution to financial problems’ but ‘all social problems’?

    After the 2009 crisis, it seems much more logical.

    Think about it. The capital won’t grow where it stands, but instead shrinks. So the capital owners should invest or let their money diminish each year. And as there is no interest, they should invest in actual things and not deposit the money to financial playgrounds. They also can’t give the money to consumers, but instead give the money to producers.

    I am an engineer and no expert economist, but I can feel that this is better than the current system.

  • David

    Great website addressing many key issues in our political/bank money system.
    There is one critical element missing. Neither the banks, central banks nor governments actually create money. You touch on this briefly in your last video. Money is actually created/destroyed and can only be created/destroyed by individuals buying or selling goods and services.
    Our current political/bank money system is simply a mechanism that enables the government and the banking system to authorise, encourage or prevent you as an individual creating money through your own economic activity. It is the ultimate control mechanism. The real jaw dropping irony is that we imprison ourselves with this system – there is no jailor.
    Unfortunately I suspect therefore that your prospoed solution may be flawed as it is impossible for any central body, independent or otherwise, to actually create money. The power rests with the individual. It is also impossible to create money without creating a debt or a ‘promise to pay’, but in this context this is not a bad thing. It is a simple requirement of split barter. It is hard to exchange value for value today, much easier to exchange value today for a promise to deliver equivalent value tomorrow.
    In theory the money system is very easily resolved and the economic (and democratic) benefit to all from doing so would be enormous. However, in practice I suspect the old system is so well ingrained in collective thinking, culture, education, regulation etc that it may well need to collapse before the new can emerge. We must remember that the people with the real power to change it are the very same people with an overwhelming interest in the status quo and they will do almost anything to keep it.
    That said we are developing a new free enterprise money system called the Exchange, and we are not the only ones to be working on similar schemes around the world.
    The hope is that when the old system fails (as it has begun to do) then there will be viable alternatives available to prevent economic collapse.
    Good luck with your endeavours.

    • GWHodgson

      David said:

      … it is impossible for any central body, independent or otherwise, to actually create money. … It is also impossible to create money without creating a debt or a ‘promise to pay’, but in this context this is not a bad thing.

      Money can only be created and serve as money in a society where everyone promises – not to pay – but to sell. In other words, if people are not prepared unconditionally to make their goods and services available for sale, then money cannot function. It is the commitment of everyone, or at least of a substantial and significant proportion of the population, that they will conserve and promote the principles of monetary relations that make money work. Given that commitment, then money becomes unquestionably an asset of its holder and, having no material existence and therefore no intrinsic value of its own, it must therefore also feature as a liability elsewhere.

      But not all liabilities are debts. Some liabilities are indeed obligations to make payments to others – debts. But other liabilities are obligations to have regard for the beneficial interests of others – equity. Equity reflects a duty of care, not an obligation to pay. A homeowner has no equity in his home if he allows it to become derelict and pollutes the land on which it stands. Shareholders have no equity in their company if the directors allow the assets to waste away. Money can be created by debt, but our position is that it can also be created as equity.

      • David

        Yes, I see your point.
        As you say, money is an obligation on the community to unconditionally make their goods and services available for sale on demand.
        Personally I would not call money an asset of it’s holder, this implies that it has tangible worth that can be stockpiled. That in turn requires equal and oposite debt’s to build up elsewhere. Effectively you end up with a blockage in the monetary system as a result.
        Money is just a record of the balance of transactions. Ideally it should remain in existence only for as long as necessary to facilitate efficient exchange of value.
        The obligation is therefore not only on individuals to sell their services on demand, but also to buy an equivalent amount from the community. This does not necessarily mean consume excessively as you can buy assets, invest in enterprises, lend to others etc. The point I am trying (poorly) to make is that you can’t have a net positive balance of money. For every positive there is a negative somewhere.
        A money system that distorts this truth is not helpful and detracts from the real purpose, which is how a community can prosper. That is solely dependent on the sum contribution of each individual/group of individuals.
        The primary goal of any monetary system must therefore be to stimulate, encorage and empower individuals/groups to contribute to their maximum potential.

        • GWHodgson

          No, I said commitment, not obligation. True, if you’ve committed to something then you hold an obligation to yourself to carry it out, but I do not believe that anybody is obligated to sell their goods or services. Compelled is a different matter. People in a market economy simply can’t survive unless they accede to the demands of the market. In a market economy nobody owns enough of all of the things that are necessary to make themselves self-sufficient so as to be able to ignore the market. But money works because people commit to making it work, even if only by their acquiescence. They enter into binding contracts. Overwhelmingly, they act in good faith. Instinctively, they acknowledge property rights.

          But I agree. The commitment to sell must include a commitment to buy, quite apart from the necessity to buy. Things simply stop working if people refuse to buy more than they must for the sake of survival, whilst continuing to earn more than they need to cover their expenditure. Internationally, this is the problem with those exporting countries who run a persistent surplus.

          So perhaps the conclusion should be that, for all who commit to a market economy, in order to be consistent with their commitment those who sell, and thereby capture the means of commerce, are obligated to buy with the proceeds of their sales, and those who buy, and therefore enjoy the benefits of the goods and services made available for sale, are obligated to originate and make available for sale further goods and services (or, in the case of those who are unable to produce for market on account of age, incapacity or non-market responsibilities, arrange to be credited with having done so).

          But a monetary system alone cannot impose these obligations. They have to be enforced on top of money by a system, a superstructure if you will (a word I find singularly appropriate in spite of its Marxist connotations), of social and political sanctions:- abhorrence of the hoarder, ridicule of the miser, tariffs against the dumper (NOTE – none of this purports to represent Positive Money policy. These are my extrapolations from the logic of money).

          Should money be an asset? The way things stand, it has to be. If somebody has something to sell that can raise them money then that thing is, by definition, an asset. If they swap it for something else that they can sell, then that other thing is also an asset. If they sell it, then the money they receive (which they could use to buy something else that they can sell) must also be an asset. Does an asset imply a balancing debt? No. Because, as I said earlier, equity – the obligation to respect someone else’s beneficial interest – equally balances an asset.

          But does money need to be an asset? Does it need to be a place-holder for something of value given away? Catherine Ryan Hyde’s novel “Pay it Forward” suggests not. The one who gives away the thing of value could also give with it the obligation to do likewise. Money, the obligation riding with the gift, would then be a liability – again, a liability in equity rather than in debt, since there is no individually identifiable beneficiary of the obligation, just as with money as asset there is no individually identifiable person who is obligated to provide the appropriate goods or services.

          A conventional monetary system works because the money itself has extrinsic value (at the least), which recipients want to retain. A “pay-it-forward” money system would need a totally different support and enforcement infrastructure, and its own social superstructure, to ensure that those who received it passed it on with value, rather than simply throwing it away (who wants an obligation?).

          • David

            Thank you for your detailed reply. I don’t think we are that far apart in thinking.

            My only contention is that I do believe that the monetary system, if properly structured, can indeed impose (or systemically encourage) the necessary obligations on the participants.

            Ironically the greater the central control, the lesser the effectiveness for the ordinary person. But I am sure we differ on this point. Thanks again.

    • Greenbacker84

      Are you familiar with Mathematically Perfected Economy?
      Its true debtors/obligors actually create money backed by their labour/production.
      We only need to address creditworthiness (how much can they afford to issue?) and an agreed schedule of payments (to retire principal alone)and a common national publisher to record the issuance and payment schedule. Little more than software is needed, banks are just glorified publishers stealing our promissory contracts, falsifying debt to themselves and charging interest (causing price inflation and volumetric deflation).
      Positive Money so far refuse to address this basic facts.
      There ‘solution’ would strip us of our natural right to issue promissory obligations and empower the bankers with a ‘full reserve’ system wherby we are still forced to ‘borrow’ our contracts AND pay interest. In my humble opinion its text controlled opposition.

      • David

        I’m not specifically familiar with Mathematically Perfected Economy although a quick look on their website suggests they are coming from a similar school of thought. Your comments about what is really needed follow naturally. Unfortunately, what is theoretically simple is hard in practice, largely due to cultural barriers.
        The main problem is that virtually our entire economic knowledge is based on a theory of money that is totally false.
        This misunderstanding stems from the practical reality of how and why money came into being in the first place (split barter using precious metals, leading to safe keeping in banks, promissory notes, government standardisation, coinage, regulation etc etc).
        However, this historical evolution clouds the pure simplicity of what money is and does and its power to transform prosperity of humankind.
        Unfortunately, until mainstream economists start to question the truth about money rather than simply accepting the collectively adopted wisdom, then little is likely to change.
        The Bank of England is packed full of economists who actually believe they can press a button on a computer and create money (in it purest form). Governments are surrounded by advisers preaching Keynesian economics, all of which is brilliant so long as you subscribe to the classical theory of money.
        As soon as you realise that the classical theory of money is flawed, the solutions to todays problems start to become obvious.
        But it took many hundreds of years for scientists to accept the world was not flat, nor the centre of the universe despite the overwhelming evidence, that is group think for you.
        The money debate has actually been raging for well over a hundred years already, so I’m hopeful the penny will begin to drop in the next hundred or so.

        • Greenbacker84

          One can only hope so. W eve had hundreds of years of controlled inflation and deflation by the money masters (banks) laundering our promissory contracts into their possession.
          The truth is they never lent us a penny, fraud nullifies contracts (they give up no equal consideration to the obligor in any loan).
          I’d really ask you to look further into MPE.
          I started as an Austrian gold bug, moved into the Bill Still Greenbacker camp. Now I recognize there is no loan, we the people as obligors are the true source of new money and only have the need to retire/pay it at an obligatory schedule of payments.

          Mike Montagne created the MPE thesis in 1968(!) So far its the most plagiarized online document I’ve found.
          I kid you not, not one single ‘truther’ on talk radio youtube will address this topic.
          That includes Alex Jones, Max Keiser, Ron Paul,Gerald Celente and sadly even Bill Still himself.
          All either continue to peddle scarce metals (owned by bankers and imposed interest) or ‘national’ money and a full reserve lending which again leaves all the money in the banks (and compound interest).
          Neither solution (nor Positive Money) address the theft of our promissory contracts by pretend lenders (so called banks) and the terminal implication of compound interest on the money supply (price inflation and volumetric deflation).

          • David

            I will look into MPE, thanks. You might also find the works of E C Riegel interesting (from the 40’s) and there is plenty of associated literature out their from highly respected minds.
            But ask 20 central bankers the question, what is money? and you will get 20 different answers. So much to be done in this field.

    • bill439

      David said:

      “Neither the banks, central banks nor governments actually create money.”

      This is obviously incorrect and contradicts what happens all the time in the real world.

      “Money is actually
      created/destroyed and can only be created/destroyed by individuals
      buying or selling goods and services.”

      For individuals to buy and sell goods and services they first have to have a means of exchange. They get it because The Treasury issues bank notes for them to use or they get it from a loan from a private bank which enters the economy for everyone to use.

      I didn’t create the money i use. Do you? How? Are you a counterfeiter?

      • David

        When you buy goods or services in exchange for a ‘promise to pay’ at a future date, you are indeed creating money. Technically it is the seller that creates the money by accepting it and the buyer that ‘backs’ it in a promise to pay in the future. Basically a simple iou.
        Indeed this is the only way that money can genuinely be created. Neither the buyer nor the seller require anything to enter into this transaction and create money – no prior means of exchange, no licence, no bank a/c, no permission from any other party. Try it with your neighbour.
        You can of course use other exchange mediums to trade, but none of them are actually money.
        If you use gold as the exchange medium then you are not creating money because a commodity of equal value has been exchanged for the goods and services. That’s the end of the transaction.
        When you use ‘fiat’ money issued by a bank, central banks or governments you are simply exchanging somebody else’s iou or ‘promise to pay’. However, as is already well illustrated on this site, these fiat iou’s have no material backing at all from the issuing bank, central bank of government.
        They carry value only because the are ‘backed’ by the community that accepts them. If the community stopped accepting them, they would be entirely worthless.
        So we are really back to the situation I described in the first paragraph.
        But there are big problems with fiat currencies including: 1) We are arbitrarily charged interest margin by the bank and central bank 2) We give absolute control of all our economic affairs to the bank, central bank and the government. 3) The central bank and Government have the ability to print fiat money.
        Printing money is very different from creating money. Creating money requires the creation and exchange of genuine value. But when the government prints money it does not create any value whatsoever. They have increased the monetary base but the value of the economy remains unchanged. When they do so they quite simply steal from anyone that has a positive balance in that fiat currency.

        • bill439

          David said:

          “When you buy goods or services in exchange for a ‘promise to pay’ at a future date, you are indeed creating money. Technically it is the seller that creates the money by accepting it and the buyer that ‘backs’ it in a promise to pay in the future. Basically a simple iou.”

          If I buy something I receive the commodity or service and the seller receives my payment. This can be cash or through a debit or credit card. The amount of the transaction is deducted from my bank account and credited to the seller’s. No money is being created by the transaction because it has already been created when a bank granted a loan to someone and credited the borrower’s account for him to spend. When he spent it it entered into the economy.

          Your comments, David, are an unnecessary obfuscation of what is a commonplace transaction.

          • David

            Realising that the earth was round was very confusing at the time, but it was still true.
            There is not much point in a further lengthy explanation, but if you are interested just ask what exactly is the ‘payment’ that the seller receives?
            What is a £10 note, what does it mean, and where does its value come from? What’s behind it? What are the numbers in your bank account and what’s behind them?
            It’s a fascinating trail to follow.

    • Jim Park

      You said something about creating a new free enterprise money system called the Exchange. Do you mean this is already happening? In what ways does it differ from this type of exchange? https://moneyless.org/hospitality-exchange-networks

  • Joe Doe

    I have an additional system for money creation. Labour can create money. The employer doesn’t pay a worker. Instead, money gets created out of thin air by a worker doing work. The government sets wages and salaries for each occupation. Labour is a money source, and tax is a money sink, i.e. a portion of tax will take money out of existence. If there ever is a system like this, regulation is necessary. Fraud detection and prevention is necessary. The suggestions provided by an economist named Steve Keen are also necessary to stop asset price bubbles. Look him up on the web.

    • Communist

      Isn’t this essentially communism?

  • MH

    1. Money should only be created through a democratic and
    transparent body working in the public interest.

    I don’t see how the MCC is any different
    from a central bank? How do you prevent them printing too much money either as
    pressure from the government or through corruption and bribery? How do you
    prevent them pursuing their own agenda holding governments and people hostage?

    Money should be created free of debt

    If the state creates the money – who is
    that then? – the government or the MCC? And how much money is made? How is the
    money spent into society and who controls that? Aren’t we back at today’s Central
    Bank and Government system?

    Another thing there are always more people
    wanting a mortgage than people having savings to lend to mortgages. In addition some money needs to be created in
    the banking sector to account for (represent) new assets being made (new
    housing). Simply trying to shift money from a savings account doesn’t work.

    Money should be created free of debt

    Money spent into the real economy? I don’t
    see how that is defined? Who’s to say the government of tomorrow is so much smarter
    than the government of today?

    Another thing if money is just handed out to
    the citizens where is then the incentive to work and contribute constructively to
    society? If I own a textile mill or a tractor factory why should I be the lucky
    one to get money from the government while other businesses struggle in the
    free market?

    4. Banks should not be allowed to create money

    I agree in principle. Just how to go about
    this is a bit blurred without having a state bank. Centralizing the financial sector
    under government control somehow doesn’t seem that appetizing to me (I get
    associations to a communist totalitarian society).

    I have seen other arguments from the British
    constitution group and Ron Paul in the US. My personal view is to more radically
    change the money mechanics in society by having assets/commodities and services
    backed currency – in effect each local community and even individuals should be
    allowed to create money (I owe you). However how this is implemented in
    practise is another headache.

    • David

      MH, you are right in all your observations. These proposals are flawed and really not that different from todays setup, just different players.
      The main problem here is that very few people indeed understand what money actually is. For a start you can throw away the economic textbooks that define money as a store of value and medium of exchange. Both statements are totally false. Gold is not money, nor bitcoins, nor indeed the paper notes we hold in our hands. Certainly the numbers held on the computers of banks and central banks are not money, as the PM team have nicely demonstrated.
      The Positive Money team really need to get back to basics on this and I would recommend the works of E.C. Riegel as an essential first step to properly understand money, despite being written in the 40’s.
      Money has only one purpose and that is to enable barter or the exchange of goods and services to be split into two parts. Fundamentally it can only ever arise through private enterprise. In otherwords it is bound to an individual’s ability to deliver economic value to others.
      The notion that Governments, central banks or banks can have anything to do with it is really a nonsense. Except, of course, to the extent that these bodies control the people.
      The notion that you can only have ‘positive’ money is also totally flawed.

      • GWHodgson

        David said:
        Money has only one purpose and that is to enable barter or the exchange of goods and services to be split into two parts. Fundamentally it can only ever arise through private enterprise. In otherwords it is bound to an individual’s ability to deliver economic value to others.

        The notion that Governments, central banks or banks can have anything to do with it is really a nonsense.

        Barter is the simultaneous exchange between two parties of commodities assessed as of equivalent value. Barter is split into two parts by credit. The exchange is no longer simultaneous, but there is an obligation on the party receiving commodity value to complete the exchange in due course. Money disavows that obligation. The process of payment does not complete the barter but releases the payer from any obligation to complete it, because the recipient of payment, the contributor of commodity value to the deal, trusts that someone else will make equivalent commodity value available under the same terms, ie for payment. It is the function of government through the institutions of the state to establish and maintain the conditions under which that trust prevails. That is why government, the managment of state institutions, has a central role in the conduct of monetary relations.

        • David

          Graham, you illustrate well why governments and state institutions can’t actually create money, all they can do is ‘maintain conditions underwhich that trust [within a community of producers and consumers] with prevail’.

          (Although, running up vast debts and unimaginable unfunded pension liabilities, and then flooding the economy with montetary stimulus would hardly be the recipe I would recommend for maintaining trust in our monetary system.)

          I agree that there is a significant role for the state to play, but you seem to be suggesting that one individual cannot enter into an exchange agreement with another individual or with a community of individuals without the direct involvement/control of government and state institutions?

          I certainly hope that is not the case. (except to collect taxes and uphold the law)

          After all these allmighty state institutions are merely representative of the will of the people, run by a subset of the people. Things are going very wrong when the tail begins to wag the dog.

          • GWHodgson

            No. I believe it is a function of government, or of the governor of a sovereign monetary economy (and who knows, it could be Walmart), to provide the means of payment. That is to say, the means by which individuals transacting with each other can agree to disavow the obligation on the recipient of value in the transaction to reciprocate value to the provider of value in the transaction through the profer by the recipient, and the acceptance by the provider, of the means of payment.

            I believe that the state is a far more appropriate provider of the means of payment than a private company engaged in competition with others because, in a market economy composed of multiple independently operating enterprises and individuals, the means of payment has to exchange at par. People will not accept a situation where what they have to pay depends on whose ATM they got their cash from. An economy of multiple monetary authorities is an economy of multiple currencies. And economies go multi-currency when they’ve failed. Stable economies require a monopolistic means of payment. And monopolies have to be adminstered by the state.

            On the role of government in an economy of freely transacting individuals and enterprises, I can only quote Raghuram Rajan, now the hawkish governor of the Reserve Bank of India. To set the picture, in the Afterword of the paperback edition of his awarding winning book “Fault Lines” he says: “After all, I am a Chicago economist; and yet here I am arguing that some governments need to strengthen their social safety nets if they want to move away from excessive policy activism and serial crises.”

            Rajan’s view is:

            “In a democracy, the government (or central bank) simply cannot allow ordinary people to suffer collateral damage as the harsh logic of the market is allowed to play out.”

            That “harsh logic” includes the valuation of any private monetary system.

          • David

            I totally agree the state should run the monetary system.

            I only disagree as to its form.

            It would be a eureka moment for the world if governments and central banks recognised that their job is not to control the supply of money, but to create a free monetary system that promotes enterprise and prosperity for all.

            Oddly enough our monetary system has been run by private enterprises, licensed by the state for a long time. I do not advocate this and agree that it cannot be run by competing private companies.

            However, I do believe that in the absence of an adequate state organised monetary system, then a mutual monetary system operating and owned in the mutual interests of its members is a pretty decent alternative. Perhaps the state will eventually catch on.

            I have great respect for the work the PM team is trying to do, I just happen to believe they have come to the wrong conclusions. Happy to agree to disagree and wish you all best. The momentum for change is building and I suspect lots of variants on the theme will get tried around the world in the coming years – so we will see which works best.

  • LindaG

    I wasn’t sure where to put this comment (and question), but this looks like an active and current spot on the site, so I’ll try here (also posted elsewhere on the site, but after posting, I thought it might be better to seek out a more active spot).


    I’m from the U.S., and first of all, I want to say that your “Banking 101″ video series is the best, by far, that I’ve come across since I started trying to learn more about these things as a layperson, starting about 5 years ago.

    I had been learning bits and pieces, here and there (some still cloudy to me), through all of that time, but I still didn’t have a clear overall picture.
    You’ve tackled a great many of those “pieces” very well; plus, the series helped me to understand a few really key pieces of the overall puzzle, pieces that I didn’t even know were missing for me. And with that, I’ve made a critical advance in my understanding. Thank you for that.

    I have looked into the American Monetary Institute, which also poses a positive money solution, but I remember not finding what I was looking for there. I can’t quite remember why. And so, when I first came upon your site, and saw “Positive Money,” I was wary.

    But since first finding your site a few days ago, I keep being impressed by what I’m finding. Some day, I’ll sit down and compare your materials and proposals with AMIs, so that perhaps I can better understand why I’m readily appreciating so much of what I’m finding here, and yet, didn’t have the same experience with AMI.

    I do know one thing that made me hesitant about AMI’s positive money proposal came from an interview I saw with Steve Keen, who had been invited as a guest to speak at the AMI conference a couple of years ago. (I did appreciate that they invited him to discuss his criticism of their proposal.) Here’s the interview:


    I was hoping someone from this site would consider addressing this criticism of AMI’s proposals by Steve Keen.

    Perhaps there are enough differences in your proposal such that Keen’s concerns would be well addressed?
    Thanks for any guidance you can give me.


    • GWHodgson

      Steve’s focus is on economic instability arising from the amplification of cycles by speculation. He proposes to moderate this by making company shares and real estate less attractive as speculative investments. There’s no reason why his proposals shouldn’t be pursued in parallel with ours (and AMI’s). There’s no conflict. Our proposals protect the payments system against financial instability and remove the unwarranted privilege that banks enjoy of being underwritten by the taxpayer. They also ensure that banks must be upfront about their investment strategies, just as unit trusts (mutuals) and other investment funds have to be. Our proposals (but not Steve’s) ensure that if (when) banks again decide that they want to follow investment strategies that involve betting against each other about how long they can hold their breath (which was basically what the sub-prime crisis was all about), then they’ll have to find people who will agree to stake them. If they do, when they fall over again then at least they won’t pull the rest of us down with them.

      • LindaG

        Thanks, GW. Yeah, I don’t see any reason why his proposals and Positive Money’s proposals need to be mutually exclusive.

        Plus, as you mention, there’s some important separation in place in your plan, which, at the very least, would allow over-reaching investment houses to fail.

        Finally, for me, the transparency, the accountability throughout the whole of the system, and, perhaps most importantly, a structure that the general public can be well educated about, and fairly easily – all of which, I think, your proposals work hard to include – make this set of solutions particularly attractive to me.

  • David

    Forgive the lengthy post, but once started I couldn’t stop.

    Steve’s criticisms of these proposals are hard to fault, although I am less convinced by his
    proposals. The Positive Money team have done a fantastic job on this site of
    communicating the absurdity of our current money system, but the proposed
    solutions are really no better and some would argue far worse.

    The last thing I want to do is defend bankers or the current system, but compared to these new
    proposals they have one major advantage – the harm that they cause is at least
    self-regulating to an extent. Under the PM teams proposal all this ‘money
    power’ will be concentrated in the hands of a handful of ‘independently elected’
    people. No doubt this will start with the very best of intentions, but the
    power that these few would wield over the people is near absolute and as they
    say absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    What’s more once started it will be near impossible to stop. While well intentioned, to my mind
    this is a very dangerous and quite alarming road to be heading down.

    So what’s the alternative? Well the first thing anyone needs to understand about money is
    that it is not really a ‘thing’ at all – rather it’s a measurement, much like a
    metre or a litre.

    This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is critical. A measurement is inextricably bound to the
    thing it is measuring. A metre on its own is meaningless, but a metre of timber
    is valuable. Metres can’t be created arbitrarily, but they spring into
    existence as soon as you have timber cut into useful lengths.

    Money works in much the same way, but with some unique and powerful characteristics. Money is
    a measure of the net exchange of value between parties within a community. It
    is bound by three things 1) the creation/supply of value, 2) exchange, 3)
    mutual acceptance of the community. All three are also dependent on each other.

    To put this another way: money is created whenever 1) value is created and is 2) provided
    to someone else in exchange for 3) the promise of equivalent value provided
    back to the originator from the community at some stage in the future.
    Similarly it is ‘used up’ when the originator is provided the equivalent value
    from the community.

    Notice that this is a double entry system. The seller gains a positive entry in the ‘value
    delivered’ column, while the buyer has an equal and opposite negative entry.
    The money you have in your bank account is also a liability on the community.
    The linkage between the two should never be broken. At all times the total
    money balance, by definition, must equal zero.

    If the seller only ever sells and never buys from the community then we get an imbalance. The
    seller has a large positive money balance and the community has a large
    negative money balance. This quickly causes a log jam as the community cannot
    keep buying if there is a shortage of people in turn to sell to. It follows
    that for money to work there is an obligation on the seller to buy the
    equivalent amount from the community as soon as possible. And the reciprocal.

    Please notice that at no point is it necessary to have a bank or a government or any other
    independent body issuing money. In fact they can’t. All they can do is influence/control
    1) the creation of value, 2) exchange and 3) mutual acceptance. The only people
    who can actually create money are those individual buyers and sellers and they
    do so on an ‘as needed’ basis. Isn’t that democratic?

    But our current money system is not setup this way. Looking at the numbers the net money
    balance is mysteriously not zero! We have a collective misunderstanding that
    money is a kind of tangible asset of the holder and ignore the inseparable
    liability on the community (and vice versa). We think positive balances are
    good, negative balances are bad and forget the two are inseparable. Our money
    system reinforces this at every stage. You have to have money just to open a
    bank account – where did you get it from in the first place? Think about it.

    Now consider how strange it is to introduce interest into the system. Interest further
    encourages the seller to hold onto their ‘money balance’ and not to use it.
    Similarly interest punishes the buyer for buying. If anything this is the wrong
    way around. It would be better if money actually expired – use it or lose it. That
    does not mean excessive consumption it just means do something useful with it.
    Invest it in a local enterprise, lend it to the state, buy an asset, employ
    some people etc. These all recycle the money.

    Our current monetary system systemically encourages the accumulation of money and penalises
    the use of money. This drives a toxic imbalance that periodically becomes
    unsustainable resetting itself through the default of parties with negative
    balances and the devaluation of those with positive balances.

    This is the true origin of the boom and bust cycle. But notice the true net money balance still
    remains zero and the systemic imbalance between positive and negative balances
    is not rectified, merely reduced. The real price of this ‘bust’ phase is
    therefore not monetary, but the destruction of real value and the contraction
    of a community’s ability to create and distribute value.

    Such a financial crisis might be addressed in a different way. If the problem is a log jam in
    the flow of money, then reducing interest rates should encourage less hording
    of cash and more spending, which it does. If this is not enough then arbitrarily
    increasingly the supply of money may also help in the short term to unblock the
    system. But none of this addresses the underlying cause of the problem.

    Printing money or quantitative easing is a particularly clever trick when the party doing the
    excess buying (running a deficit) is the Government itself. It’s like pretending
    to create more metres of timber by simply halving the size of a metre! You double
    the number of metres but the amount of timber remains unchanged. Of course if
    the Government happens to have a substantial debt with the timber yard, then
    this is great because they have halved their debt overnight!! The poor timber
    yard is left scratching its head wondering what happened.

    This is nothing more than a massive stealth tax. You tax people without them even knowing it –
    clever. Better still – let the Independent Money Issuing Authority do it for
    you. Then the politician has free reign. He can make endless promises and spend
    recklessly but can never be blamed when the music stops. This is one good
    reason why the money issuing power needs to be kept as far away from the
    corridors of power as possible.

    Notice also that if it is the Government doing the excess buying, particularly in the form of
    redistribution of money, then the log jam is actually exacerbated. At the margin
    money is now being spent by parties who by definition are not supplying
    equivalent value to the community and the community cannot therefore buy
    sufficiently from them. Consequently, money is accumulated by parties who are
    now providing excess value to the community. So the imbalance is amplified
    between the positive money balances of net value suppliers and the negative
    money balance of net value users (through Government proxy). This naturally
    leads to an amplification of the boom and bust cycle.

    Of course there are many good reasons why this can be socially desirable and the monetary
    imbalance can be avoided through explicit taxation, but there are substantial
    dangers here also. Breaking the link between value creation and value usage not
    only leads to monetary imbalances but also drives huge social imbalances.
    Ironically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and no one can work out
    why. Moreover the total amount of value creation in the economy is diminished,
    and with it prosperity generally.

    Lastly consider what happens when people delegate the power to issue money to a central body.
    Firstly, as described, the only way a central body can create ‘real’ money on
    your behalf is to actually do the buying and selling physically for you also.
    This is communism. Ideologically there might be a case for it but in practice
    it has been shown to fail repeatedly. The reason why is not hard to spot. The
    link between value creation and value usage is broken completely. Again this
    actually leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (some
    more equal than others, comrade). Power is concentrated in the hands of the few
    and total value creation diminishes drastically until eventually the imbalances
    become unsustainable and the system fails.

    Of course, this is not typically how a central money issuing authority works. Rather than doing
    the buying and selling for you, the issuing authority arbitrarily controls the
    supply of money in the economy. All this means is that the total level of
    buying and selling that can take place in the economy and who can do it is
    being artificially controlled from the centre. The central authority has
    absolute control over the ability of an individual to create value and exchange
    it with the community for equivalent value. How the central authority is
    supposed to determine when, where and how much money is needed is anybody’s
    guess. Unsurprisingly there is a myriad of unintended side effects.

    Seeking freedom from this control, there is a stronger incentive for money to be stockpiled,
    reinforced by interest rates and a perverse belief that it is good to have a
    net positive balance of money (rather than value). The systemic imbalance
    between positive and negative money balances grows and the boom bust cycle
    emerges again. Perhaps less bad than communism but still pretty ineffective?

    In fact the power of the money issuing authority is so great that it rapidly gains absolute
    control of an entire economic and social system. Again this has been
    demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. The Roman’s used money supply to
    maintain control of their remote empire, as did we the British (sorry). In
    America the independent States lost their sovereignty when they allowed US
    money supply to be centrally controlled. Following the emergence of the dollar
    as the world’s reserve currency, the US used money supply to help
    maintain global dominance for 50 years.

    More recently the Eurozone member states have all effectively conceded sovereignty to the centre.
    They may not fully realise it yet but the likes of Greece, Ireland and Spain are
    now fully aware of the true cost of losing their money power. It is interesting
    looking back that one of the motivations was to dislodge the dollar as the only
    global reserve currency and thereby wrestle power back from the US. Of course,
    the Chinese are busy doing exactly the same thing right now.

    The issue at stake here is not really about greedy bankers (boo hiss) or inefficient
    markets, it is about control and power – in fact it is about freedom itself.

    So what’s the answer? We can break free of all this by taking back our individual
    money power. (Ironically we never really lost it we just thought we needed
    permission to use it.) All that is really necessary is an effective central
    accounting system, some basic rules, contract law, and the mutual agreement of
    members. Dare I say it is probably best run by the state? What’s not required?
    Central banks, banks, central arbitrary issue of money, interest, monetary
    inflation, global power struggles, arms races, war … just free enterprising
    people creating and exchanging value.

    • Tertius Wehmeyer

      David, your understanding of the issue is 100%. You are perfectly right, al that matter is a proper accounting of our exchanges. So what is lacking today is a fair, honest, just and accurate accounting system.

      What do we exchange? Goods and services with a certain value attached to it. To standardise the value, we need to value all goods and services in comparison to a commodity (good) which is traded often in a particular trading community e.g. a cow or 1 gram of 24 carat gold or a liter of oil or a 1kg of pure wheat flour. For a specific trading community it is probably better to use a commodity that is produced in that community and required by most people in that community e.g. 1kg of dried wheat kernels at e.g. 20 degree celsius. So if we use a cow of prime breeding age, e.g. 5 years old, we then decide in the trading community what a standard value of other goods will be compared to the cow e.g. how many breeding hens. So maybe a 100 breeding hens equals 1 breeding cow. For meat eaters a scientific way would be to compare the nutrional value of a kg of beef to a kg of chicken flesh. So 1kg of pure proteien can be a value unit. Pricing can be calculated mathematically & scientifically so as to ensure that it maximally benefits the needs of the whole trading community. But of course, a trading community can decide if individual sellers are allowed to set their own pricing and then it is up to the buyer and seller to bargain for a final price. Or standard prices can be set and then buyer and seller bargains for final price of sale.

      The old problem of bartering often given to give a reason why money was developed i.e. that a person wants to trade but doesn’t have what the person he wants to trade with wants and has to find someone who has what he needs for his trade and wants to acquire what he has to offer, can today be solved by an electronic trading exchange where a search engine will match up buyers and sellers in a trading chain which ends with an equal exchange of value between the chain of buyers and sellers. Of course, this will not always be possible so somewhere someone will have to give up some of their goods in exchange for a credit note on the trading exchange. But that might only be something like half a breeding cow. Here all who participate will be sellers of some good or service. Those
      who cannot find a buyer for their goods or services will sadly not be
      able to trade and will have to think of offering other goods or services
      which is in demand. And for those in the community who doesn’t have anything to sell, can be looked after by individual sellers e.g. children of a seller or the community of sellers can take pity on the village idiot/s by providing basic care, food and accommodation.

      In a small self-sufficient community e.g. a village, we don’t even need an electronic system. If the chicken farmer goes to the dairy farmer he can take 10l of milk in exchange for a promissary note to give the dairy farmer 10 dozen of eggs when he needs it. As they know each other, there is no reason why this will not work except if somewhere there is a break of trust between the two parties. As each one in the community knows the chicken farmer, the dairy farmer can give that promise to provide 10 dozens of eggs to the shoe maker in exchange for a pair of boots. Then the shoe maker is now in a position to get the 10 dozen of eggs from the chicken farmer. This chain can continue for a certain period but of course it shouldn’t take too long as the chicken farmer might be out of stock or moved or gone bankcrupt. As everyone in that village have an idea of what others need and what they can offer, the common bartering problem is eliminated as trust replaces the immediate transfer of goods.

      In a bigger town or city, where people don’t really know each other well, a bank (ideally a cooperative bank in which all who use it are share holders in proportion to their volume of selling), the bank, who would be in contact with all the members of the trading community and who has insight into their stock or service volumes, and has a record of all transactions and stock / service volumes, can exchange the chicken farmers promise to provide 10 dozen eggs and exchange that for a standardized bank-guarenteed promissory note in terms of the standard measure of value e.g. 1kg of wheat flour. So the dairy farmer who exchange the chicken farmer’s promissory note can now buy anything of a similar value in that trading community. However, the bank will still have to give the chicken farmer’s credit note, to someone who wants eggs. The bank can also take the form of a trading cooperative. Any member can go to the trading cooperative, and buy what they need in exchange for a promise to deliver an equal value of whatever they sell to the trading cooperative withing a certain period. So a seasonal farmer can buy what they need througout the year at no interest and at time of harvest, provide whatever they harvest to the value of their outstanding account. And the surplus they have above what they need to settle their debt with they can sell to the coop and get a credit on the books of the coop which they can use to buy from the coop in future. If the trading community is not self-sufficient e.g they don’t produce their own fuel, it will be up to the trading coop to use surplus stock which the trading community cannot use themselves to trade for critical imports into the community.

      The fractional reserve system, where an obligation to service a loan is created out of thin air, is a sophisticated way of doing what I described above. But for it to work, the power of a central authority and laws to regulate commerce, are required mainly to ensure that the debtors pay their debt and the banks don’t commit fraud and to regulates the bank’s fees. This system is quite efficient and has been working for a long time. The problem with it is the fact that they raise interest on something they don’t provide (the goods or services bought with the “loan”) and don’t pay that interest to the sellers and in fact, the sellers are not even in agreement with that or often not aware of that. The bank can do that because they are part of the authority mafia, i.e. the government which is controlled by the politicians they fund and who benefits from the whole show through government owned central banks. The central banks control the amount of fractional reserve loans that commercial banks can make. So commercial banks make “loans” from the central bank at a certain interest rate. The commercial bank in turn makes a loan to a customer who actually pays the interest on the loan. The commercial bank gives the central bank their share of the interest and pockets the rest. So both the central bank and the commercial bank taxes the consumer. As most people thinks that it is moral to pay interests on loans and to pay their loans back they get away with it. Of course, the people working for a bank and the central bank, needs to get paid for their work. And this is why the bank is paid service fees and why a government owned central bank, is funded by taxation. So no need for the interest. Of course, if it is a private central bank like the Federal Reserve of the USA, the scheme is even more disingenious as in theory, in a democratic system, the government has to answer to the people and the courts. The FED is completely above the law and government. Never gets audited or regulated. Very much like courts and judges. Who oversees the courts and judges? If a judge wrongly convicted someone to a death sentence, will that judge ever go to court and get the death sentence himself? I don’t think so. Just oops, it was a mistake and I’m very sorry. No compensation to the victims family. Governments were created by the powerful who are almost always also rich. It is only after WW1 where the power elite in Europe had to give general franchise to all men above 18 as otherwise the revolution that happened in Russia, would have swept all of Europe. The fighting men would have become very disgruntled and have the skills to violently take power from the elite. After WW2 the male population was so depleted that females above 18 were also given the vote. But this was all in a very controlled scenario as the powerful still dictated what news news papers can publish. Either through ownership or advertising revenue.

      Anyway, if banks become non-profit entities in which the owners are those who use the banks services as in a cooperative, the current system can continue to be used. Interest on promise to pays or IOUs should be disallowed. The central bank should become only a regulating authority and ideally, representative democracy should be replaced by direct democracy.

      Profits can be made by increasing real assets e.g. growing your cattle herd. And if you can’t do that yourself, make a deal with an enterpreneur who can use your goods or services in exchange for future profit. And if your land is not enough, let someone else who has land and no cattle, look after them for a share of profit. Of course there are more sophisticated examples like e-commerce systems and automated systems. And yes, you can store value by trading whatever you sell, for something that has a high trading value and a long life e.g. 100 grams of pure gold. And if you don’t want to store your gold, then you can take it to a a gold vault which will give you a certificate which you may trade if you need to do it. Of course, they will charge you a service fee for secure storage so that your share of the gold will diminish. The best alternative is your own secret vault which you can access without being observed. And then when you transfer the gold of course, you have to hide the gold so that no-one knows that you are carrying the gold. And of course finally the person who accepts your gold, shouldn’t tell anybody that you gave him gold. Or you can hire a security service that will protect you. But at some stage, they might also decide to betray you…. Of course, in a community where each one trust and protects the other, this will not be necessary. But if you become rich at the expense of others, that trust will not exist…

  • LindaG

    I think what makes me the most uncomfortable from the Positive Money proposal is the proposal for how to deal with long term lending, which is what a lot of businesses will need for capital expenses, as well as families wishing to buy a home.

    The proposal is a series of short-term loans. The initial funding would occur from amassing the funds of a lot of current short term investment depositors. That part I get; that part comes from existing investment funds.

    But after that, after the first 6 months to a year, the bank would need to pay current obligations with assumed future funds, and it has to do that every 6 months to a year (or so – whatever the average time deposit would be) for the next 30 years (using the example of a thirty year mortgage).

    What if the flow of future funds doesn’t match at any one of those intervals (and for any number of similarly structured long-term loans)? Surely, some mismatch is bound to happen, which will at times be worse than other times. Does that mean turning to a money market? What about to the central bank for an injection of liquidity with the govt’s newly created funds in order to take care of existing payment obligations?
    That’s precarious territory, not all that different than what we currently have in place, it seems to me – significant and ongoing obligations to pay with a strictly presumed future flow of funds. How can a bank make accurate projections of cash inflows a year in advance, much less for every six months to a year for 10 or 30 years out, which it would have to do upon making each long-term loan?


    For long term loans, and keeping to the notion of making a loan with actual existing and matching funds (in terms of amount and duration of availability), and in keeping with the kind of money creation Positive Money has in mind – as a government function, albeit by an independent body, or branch, of govt. – I would think long-term lending would work better (relative to the suggested alternative) through a govt. agency, which could use a prescribed amount of created funds for such loans (which would still exist upon being payed back, and would be in keeping with inflation monitoring), and wouldn’t depend on obligations to find funding not yet in the banks’ possession, over and over again for 10 or 30 years, etc.

    I would suggest that there be thoughtful rules in place to prevent uncontrolled asset price escalation. But with acceptable rules in place for such lending, and with the separate arm of govt. keeping an eye on overall inflation, which would provide a feedback mechanism (as is the case now within PM’s proposals), I would prefer that kind of set up for long term loans to households and businesses (long term loans that are likely to go beyond the usual scope of term deposits at private banks).

  • LindaG

    By the way, here’s a helpful Ted talk having to do with some positive data regarding govt. spending (not necessarily the stodgy, inefficient, far from innovative spender, afterall, something I had become pretty resigned about):

    Mariana Mazzucato: Government — investor, risk-taker, innovator


    • LindaG

      As a follow up, here’s a more thorough interview with Mariana Mazzucato sponsored by INET:

      Mariana Mazzucato: How the State Drives Innovation


      • LindaG

        And one more video featuring Mariana Mazzucato (last one, I promise). I’m including this (after just viewing it) because she talks here more pointedly about how important a deliberately created framework is for this kind of “entrepreneurial contribution” from government to really work.


    • David

      Thanks for sharing this Linda, I love this description of the role of Government.
      The state does have a critically important role to play, but it must begin with vision, values and inspirational leadership for the national as a whole.
      Of course arbitrarily controlling money supply should not come into it. That it about control and bureaucracy.

      • LindaG

        I don’t want to take away from your effort in this comment, but I’m afraid that I’m still just learning about this stuff from a layperson’s perspective. And I need to have the kind of communication that I’ve seen so far on the Positive Money’s website… often so well communicated that I can actually say… you know, that’s something right there that makes sense to me the way it’s put, but it also feels uncomfortable to me, and so, I’m not sure about that specific proposal; but this other part… that makes sense to me, and I like that, etc.
        I’m afraid I had trouble “getting” what you were writing about. I couldn’t understand it well enough to agree or disagree. Still, maybe it’s a start, and you could find a way to break it down and work it out along the lines that the PM folks are doing with their ideas.
        This is important stuff, isn’t it? And I think it’s good that people are thinking about it and trying to engage with it.

  • Mans Viedoklis

    Almost everyone is aware about how current monetary system is
    unstable, unfair, not economic at all and very dangerous for every
    country in the world and actually to planet earth it’s self. For those
    who are not aware of current monetary system and how money is created –
    there are plenty of materials to look at – you could start with this one
    – click here.

    But is there any other monetary system out there that could be used
    instead that would create stable harmony between economic growth, social
    stability, state and good welfare for everyone, logical and economical
    processes and of course protect planet earth from pollution? Well, I
    offer you – Green economic – my opinion how to get all that good stuff for every country and every human being.

    I now will describe what should be done to achieve this.

    New global currency

    Every country (or at transition period – those countries that are
    members of Green economy union) should be using only one currency –
    let’s call them „GREENS”. This doesn’t mean that there will be one
    central bank for this union but that every central bank of each country
    will be able to create money – GREENS. It’s not that they will be able
    to create it as much as they like – no.

    The amount of GREENS created, reserved and used by each country
    central bank is calculated and allowed by taking in account of these

    How much amount oil, gas and it’s materials (petrochemicals, etc.) are created, reserved, imported, exported, used;

    How much amount of green energy and it’s bio materials are created, reserved, imported, exported, used.

    So the more country is going away from oil & gas (or using it
    less) and is producing green energy and bio materials/services – the
    more money they are allowed to create and have to use for their (and
    others) economy.

    What would be consequences

    1.) There would not be any economic bubbles anymore – because money
    is not created out of thin air – debt. Money would be backed by real
    material resources (green energy and bio materials) that every country
    and everyone needs. It would be also more fair for every union member
    because every country can work to create green energy and bio materials –
    so it would not matter so much (and in time absolutely) does country
    has oil & gas resources or it doesn’t. This means that of course
    there is no need to go on war just for the resources as it’s now.

    2.) Pollution reduction would be significant and in years it would be
    eliminated almost completely. No country would be economically
    interested in pollution by using oil & gas and it’s raw materials –
    because then they would have less money in their economy. So pollution
    reduction and using green energy make your country richer.

    3.) Every country will invest to develop new technology (or use those
    who where kept as secret by oil industry) that would make more effective
    green energy and it’s products/services. This would be major technology
    advancement for all countries in this new monetary union (which should
    be world wide).

    4.) There would be new Banks – as they would not be able to create
    money out of debt – Banks would be only allowed to loan money using
    funds from depositors. So this means that they would have to think how
    to earn more money from projects that creates more money in economy.
    Because as more money is there in economy – the more money banks will
    have from depositors and so more will they have in revenue. This
    eventually means that these new Banks are interested in giving loans and
    financing project that either create green energy or creates products
    from green energy and/or creates bio products/services (as you remember
    than central bank will be allowed to create more money). So Banks would
    be in direct interest and action to speed up green projects which creates
    actual jobs for people and so creates more consumption for green
    products and energy and so country central bank is allowed to create
    more money… and so on and on by spiral up way till we can go to next

    5.) All created money – GREEN is created by country central bank and
    given to country government to decide where to use it and invest it. So
    as now governments has money they don’t have to tax people. So in time
    as more and more there are GREENS in country economic – at some point
    governments will stop Tax at all, because there will be enough GREENS to
    supply all necessary government services. As almost everyone would be
    rich – everyone could pay for services. Only small amount would be
    necessary to support those that doesn’t have necessary money to buy

    Is in this great – more technology advancement, more jobs, no taxes
    and more money and more bio products/services and green energy and clean


    This new monetary system would be stable, logical, economical and
    make everyone much richer and increase people of the world welfare many
    times making this a golden age for humans. It would make us think how to
    spend less resources from the planet and to create re-usable materials
    using green energy. It would remove all the taxes and lower the prices
    just to accumulate more green products so that there would be more money
    to work for more technology advancement.

    Actually it’s very simple – you back the money by what you want the
    world to be working to – either it’s debt, oil and financial bubble or
    it’s something else.

    It’s all possible and after such monetary system implementation no-one will want to go back to this nonsense we have now.

    So – let’s go for this!

    P.S. I do understand that this site is keen on gold & silver – not other options.

  • the.hoarse.whisperer

    I would be interested to hear views on Bitcoin. Fools gold or the future for currency , what’s your view

    • David

      Bitcoin’s have some attributes that are better than the current system. Most notably that supply is not controlled or manipulated by governments. However, the Bitcoin system does not provide a complete monetary system and has major flaws in its construction that become increasingly significant the more successful it becomes as a monetary unit.
      You can think of bitcoins a little bit like virtual-gold. Limited supply means that bitcoin values should keep up with inflation over time. However, in the same way that it would be impossible to run the global economy using gold as the only monetary unit, it would similarly be impossible to use bitcoins – it is just too inflexible and is a poor approximation of the ideal monetary unit.
      If we are going to replace traditional political-currencies then we can do a lot better than bitcoins.

      • Tertius Wehmeyer

        In my view, bit coin is either or scam or the people who created it suffer from the same delusions as those who do not realise that all that money is a unit of value for accounting purposes. A unit of measure should always use a fixed value. How can you otherwise measure something? That is why in the real science of physics, scientist have agreed on a standard length to measure a meter. Standards units of measure has a long history. There are many variations of measuring systems but all of them can be converted into another by a constant conversion factor. Why must our measuring system for value always fluctuate? And can you ever stop measuring things because accurate rulers are not available? The current economic and financial system is absurd.

        The Credit Theory of money which is based on the views of A Mitchell-Innes was published in 1913 in the articles linked below in The Banking Law Journal.

        If you read these articles, you will realise that all we need to correct our current financial system is accurate accounting and the removal of interest paid on IOUs banks issue in the name of the debtor, the originator of the IOU. Under the fractional reserve system currently in use, banks create the IOUs which is then regarded as real units of value instead of IOUs. The IOU is honoured once the debtor has paid the bank in currency earned through either selling services or goods. But the entity who actually gives credit to the debtor is the seller. So interest should really go to the seller. But why raise interest on anything as if everyone does it, it merely increase the cost of goods in a never ending spiral. If no-one asks interest, prices will remain fairly stable. Interest does not equal profit. Profit can still be made and investments can still be made by investing in profitable businesses of others.

        It is a total fallacy that the goverment needs to provide all currency required in a trading system as simple accounting principles can be used to keep track of what is owed to whom. When you really get an economic crisis is due to social upheavels such as wars or plagues that follows wars or environmental disasters such as droughts. The economic crises of 1929 and 2008 are artificially created by people falling for the financial trickery of the money masters.

  • Aj

    I watched the above video and it is not the first time this type of proposal was made. You see people are still BLIND, you got to see things from a birds eye perspective, see everything as a whole and not just focus on one aspect. Look at the The Balfour Declaration, UK always had a mysterious connection with zionist Israel, all the funding for war, Billions and Billions of pounds and dollars spent on war in favour of Israel. I suggest people watch David Duke on how he exposes the top leading zionist Bankers. I also suggest people watch John Perkins Confession Of An Economic Hitman and also watch Mike Maloney Gold and Silver.

    Forming a committee will not solve the issue, why? When President J.F Kennedy kept the Dollar under the gold standard, things did not go well for him, when Gaddafi leader of Libya did not want to sell Oil for the Dollar but wanted to sell for GOLD things did not go well for him same with Saddam. Even if you get to a stage where you can create your own money (which i doubt) i.e. electronic money such as bitcoin, you will always have a BANKER mentor you from the shadows.

    How do they do it? Simple, they have a PHD in Deception and they bought POWER. What kind of power? They successfully terminated the use of Gold and Silver and created their Money, and with money they currently own Media, Weapons, Police, Army, Secret agents, IT, Medicine, Lawyers, People like you and me to keep their system alive (city) and so on. You can do your research and try to see pass the smoke and mirrors.

    I am a person of Faith, my research also lead me to go way back, yep that includes holy scriptures. Once upon a time God was the printer of money e.g. Gold and Silver. Then the devil came to corrupt men and whispered ‘you can be a GOD! Become the printer of Money!’

    Solution for people who can see with the internal eye and not just the external i.e. internal eye is your heart, see with your heart. By now we are all aware the bankers are super power giants and we are not, lets us help one another, buy our own lands and farms far away from the cities and create our own jobs and business, live a simple life, have solar energy, bio gas energy etc without us the cities are nothing. People are already doing these kind of projects and living a peaceful life.

    I can be here all day talking, this is a huge topic, this is my opinion and everyone are entitled to their own opinion.

    Kind regards,


    • Tertius Wehmeyer

      I agree with a lot of what u say but gold & silver is part of the deception. In South Africa a huge war was fought over the control of gold. Have you ever heard of the Anglo Boer war of 1900 – 1902? Answer this question for yourself. Does a country that does not have any gold deposits have to buy gold before they can create a trading / financial system? Then they first have to trade their valuable commodities with countries that have gold before they can start trading their own commodities in their own country. Does this make sense? I suggest you investigate community exchange systems (CES). These are electronic trading systems which already exists and does enable communities now to do what you still want them to do. And if you think hard about it, all that money is are tokens of value for an accounting system. And what is taken account of is trading of goods and services and the increase/decrease of the value of the goods (fixed assets). And of course, what we owe and what is owed to us. By this I do not deny that gold can be a good store of value in communities that value gold for whatever reason. But then, where do you store your gold? At the bank that provides you a certificate of security? Or in your own safe with all the risks that that imply. The real store of value in a country is in all the tradeable products and services. And of course, how it is managed and traded. If it includes gold that you mine in your own country or gold that has been traded as am intermediate store of value to trade with other countries which will accept gold for goods or services you want from there, great. Do you know why gold and silver has such a great importance in European minds? Because before China was subjugated by Europe, they did not want to accept any goods or services from Europe as they didn’t need whatever Europeans produced. So for Europe to get things from China, they had to pay in gold….. What practical use does gold have? Nowadays in computer components but before that, mainly to make objects of aesthetic value which most people can do without.

      You also mention that you investigated the holy scriptures. This is most probably the Christian Bible. And then you also mention a mysterious connection to Zionist Israel. In my opinion Chrisitianity can be viewed as the ultimate Zionist plot. Why? Firstly it regards the Bible, old and new testament, as holy scriptures which were dictated by God himself to his chosen mediums i.e. prophets including the 4 apostles and Paul. And no man is supposed to alter a word of this book. And of course, conveniently in the old testament, the Israelites of which the Jews are one tribe, are designated as the Chosen Race. And that a member of the Chosen Race, the 3rd personality of God, is also a Jew. So we get so p-d off with these Jews but are for always kept in their power because we believe the religious myths of that same tribe. What is the difference between Sumerian, Greek, Hindu, Buddhist, Khoisan or any other tribal myths and that of the Israelites? Are the Israelites myths better than those of other cultures. What makes them so special as they are not original. These myths were copied from more advanced civilisations with which the Israelites interacted with i.e. Sumerians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks etc. And with some of this copying, only the priests of the tribe of Judah had a hand in. In fact, the priests of the tribe of Judah might have been responsible for the compilation and copying of most of this mythology. It is quite amazing that Europeans do not value their own tribal mythologies, those of the Mediteranean people like the Greeks or Romans and the Nordics like the Germans and Scandanavians or the Celts. These mythologies are just stories, sometimes embedded in real history. Their purpose is to provide answers for a specific culture on the origins of the universe and life on earth as well as practical issues of morality and to serve as carriers of tribal wisdom. And of course, to provide some kind of psychological security against the forces of nature.

      Do you know that the people of pagan Europe had to accept Christianity or otherwise be killed by their rulers. Ever heard of the inquisitions. Christianity is a religion of empire devised by the late Roman emperors to make it easier for them to rule and to get men to die for their country. This they probably realised after seeing how fanatical the Jews were to die for their religion in the revolts in Palestine against the Romans.

      With this I do not deny other energetic realities as in my view, science is limited to human knowledge, our thinking abilities and our instruments of observation. If we refine the resolution of our observation instruments we might be able to detect other realities which can give us a consensual view of these realities. For example, if we can develop an antenna made of neurons, we might be able to pick up thought patterns i.e. verify telepathy. But for now, alternate realities can only experienced by individuals through altered states of minds e.g. in dreams, NDEs, different methods of inducing trance states or psychedelic substances. And then we are not sure if it is only a hallucination or really a different energetic reality. So my view on other energy realities and the nature of “God” you can classify as agnostic. It is because in my view, no human can ever be able to know everything or to be an accurate filter of whatever they have witnessed in altered states of consciousness.

  • http://www.fija.org/ Max Abramson

    Perhaps you could just poll the voters every year asking them what they believe the current inflation rate is in the economy. By law, enough money would be printed to then keep the inflation rate between 0-2%. Over the course of that year, every natural born mother who had a baby would be given an equal portion of that increase in the money supply, in person, no strings attached.

  • Carlton Newman

    You need to watch this video and begin to understand the difference between money and currency. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

    • GWHodgson

      The opinions expressed in this video are addressed and refuted elsewhere on this site, and in the books “Where does money come from” and “Modernising Money”. Money does not have to be a store of value, it only has to be a means of payment to enable you to buy a store of value. Money/currency is not created by the money multiplier. That process was dreamed up by academics writing textbooks on economics to stop students having to think too hard about the mechanics of banking.

      • Carlton Newman

        You essentially agree with the points in this video regarding the creation of money out of thin air through loans made by banks. A Committee creating “currency” out of thin air is no different than a bank creating money out of thin air except for the Debt part of the equation. There is no such thing as an incorruptible committee., What you seem to disagree about is the role of “money” as a store of value. Please don’t jump to conclusions but hear me out.

        Let’s get down to basics here. Everything is energy; energy is neither created nor destroyed and that is an attribute of our Creator. All of the Creation is composed of God’s Light (Christ) which is self-luminous. innately intelligent, conscious energy. We are that energy and that energy is us.

        When we expend energy in living our lives, we are expending energy on loan to us from our Creator. We are accountable for every erg of the energy that we expend. The energy of the sun enables all life on the planet to exist. The energy from the fire of the sun is equivalent to the fire of God (Deu 4:24, Hbr 12:29). The Creator is a part of that energy and our identity pattern is stamped upon the energy that we expend so that the Creator can trace the flow of that energy wherever it goes. For good or for ill, the Creator multiplies that energy and returns it to us so that we can learn the effects of our use of that energy. This Cyclic Return of energy is called the Law of Karma of which “sin” is the negative aspect.

        When we expend energy in our labors we must receive in return something of equivalent value for the energy that we have expended in that labor. Gold is recognized as that store of energy as it most directly represents the energy of the sun as it is a precipitate of that sun energy. The less noble metals of silver, nickle and copper allow for the “stepping down” in value of that energy.

        When we hold physical gold in our hands or wear it on our body we receive a “charge” of energy from that substance which stabilizes us mentally, emotionally and physically. A Golden Age Society literally depends of the free contact with gold by all of the people. The debasement of society occurs when gold is no longer in circulation because it has been replaced with something, such as paper, which cannot convey the higher frequencies of energy contained in gold.

        Gold as a medium of exchange maintains the value of the energy we have received from the Creator and expended in our labors. Through it we transfer to others the value of their labor expended in the goods or services we wish to purchase. It is therefore a fair an honorable exchange. The only value of a currency of exchange lies in the value of the
        Light of the Creator that the currency can hold. Paper cannot hold that
        “charge” of energy. The substitution of paper for gold represents a Theft of that value and a debasement of WORTH. The psychological condition of unworthiness pervades the society as people sense that they have been cut off from their true value and cheated out of their inheritance.

        No Committee can “charge” a currency with value. Their currency is just as much a debasement as any other. To think otherwise is folly.

        • Tertius Wehmeyer

          For us humans it is about our human energy i.e. our life force. And what maintains, protects, sustains the life force and makes it more efficient. It is as simple as that. Gold is only valuable because if you make a cup from it, it never rusts. And if you give a woman a beuatiful gold object, she is more likely to marry your again to pass the life force on to future generations. In some societies who are OK with a wooden cup and where woman find cattle more valuable than gold to sustain the life force, gold was of no value. Sub-Saharan Africa rarely used gold or ivory but often traded that for salt from the Sahara which they did need to sustain their life force. Of course, nowadays gold has found more value in that it can be used in computer technology without which we today cannot function as a society… Metaphysics is highly debatable and not really a good way of dealing with something that is tangible and real, the exchange of goods and services required to sustain our life force.

          • Tertius Wehmeyer

            And if you really need gold on you to increase your life force i.e. give you a charge, wear a gold chain with a gold amulet. If gold are coins, do you always carry it in your pocket or keep it in your hands? No you don’t. What you state cannot be proven scientifically. I have never heard any person who lived a long live attribute that to the gold chain they wore…. But if you can prove me wrong, please let me know where I can read these scientific studies…..

  • Attochron

    Sounds interesting…but suggestion to have government print the money just ties back to the fact that the politicians are all having to grapple with special interests who dominate their voting public. Keep government out of it. And just printing money isn’t the answer. What is the value of money going to be tied to? Gold standard? America’s Oil standard (which Nixon put us on when he abandoned the Gold standard?) Good faith?
    You need a commodity and/or service with a value that is determined by the real world and *already* owned by the majority of citizens so that citizen action can overrule arbitrage by the few. It already exists, it’s right under people’s noses and a model has already been proven in the poorest of countries regarding the method of exchange. Give up? Pick up your cellie/smartphone/pad device, etc…. it’s the very broadband capacity that makes it work. Cheers.

  • Chris

    No more money, please! It will ALWAYS lead to corruption. The best solution is a Resource Based Economy. No more money, no more work (unless you want to), each and everyone on the planet will live abundantly and we’ll save the planet in the process. Let’s make everything free: freeworldcharter.org
    It IS possible with today’s technology and inevitable if we as a species wish to survive. Paradise or Oblivion, it’s your choice ;)

    • Lukas Vyletel

      so, say people who currently work at mines won’t like to work at all anymore… How are people, who WANT TO work gonna work, if they don’t have nothing to work with? This would bring us back to the stone age

    • Tertius Wehmeyer

      What is free? For whatever is received something must be given. A cell needs nutrition otherwise it will die. If one cell keeps all the nutrition for itself, then the rest die off. That’s how cancer works isn’t it? Of course, you can give something away which you already received. But if you give everything away without receiving anything, soon you will not be here. In my view, a Resource Based Economy is a nice slogan but no-one actually explains it or thinks it through properly. What is the system you will need to redistribute resources in a community and who will decide how it works? Without explaining that, it is only a slogan. And can be quite a dangerous one if controlled by a group of control freaks with enough power. Maybe the link you provide will explain that. I haven’t looked at that yet. My instinctive response comes from what a have read on the Venus Project website and what I saw in Zeitgeist videos. There analysis of current problems are quite accurate but their explanation of their solution is not clearly spelt out. Science fiction cities is given as the solution. Whereas with some adaptions our current cities can be changed into low or non-polluting and fairly self-sustaining systems. And ecovillages can be created with simple technologies and organic production methods. We don’t need to develop science fiction technologies. We have enough of them already and they don’t seem to solve problems we have. The solutions lie in clear analysis and clear, transparent solutions which puts the power back into ordinary communities. And of course, all the answers are not always there. Those answers can only come by the input and decision making of all involved in a particular issue. A system of direct democracy operating at from community level upwards is one way of doing this.

      Is your model one in which everyone goes to a big store and take what they need? The big store will be empty soon if what is taken is not replaced. And if the people who provide stock for the big store, can’t take anything themselves they will die and the big store will go empty again. And if their are people who never brings anything to the big store and always takes, then those who bring to the big store, will soon get quite p-d-off. Isn’t this what banks now do by raising interest on an IOU? And if there are people, who always bring more to the big store than others and get the same amounts as others, they will soon keep some of what they bring to the big store in hiding and start to trade on the “black” market which takes place outside the big store. The big store concept will only work in a small community where everyone else can mentally keep track of what the others contribute. So in bigger systems where we can’t keep mentally track of what others contribute, the answer lies in proper accounting of what we trade. And a payment system i.e. money, is part of this. What is wrong today, is fraudelent accounting not “money”. Of course, the economy has to be resource based in the sense that non-replacable resources should be used sparingly and even replaceable or renewable resources should not be used above their point of replacement or renewababity. The fact that we don’t do that now is evident in environmental pollution and resource depletion. This need to change.

  • Paul Johnston

    You’ve got some interesting ideas, but I don’t think your proposals would effectively prevent banks creating money. You say people would have “investment accounts” and that when banks lend these funds, this isn’t creating money, because the investor doesn’t have legal ownership of their money for that period. Compare this to the current setup where people do have legal ownership, but the majority do not withdraw. Either way, that money is “dead” money. And crucially, either way it earns interest, so someone else has to pay that interest. Your idea that “banks can’t create money” is just a semantic change in how you refer to money that is in an investment account.

  • Lukas Vyletel

    so you want government to create money and use them where they see fit… well I can see where this leads to -> corruption and stealing. It’s so easy to steal money, that didn’t previously exist. They are money of nobody, so why should a corrupt politician feel ashamed of taking his portion

  • Grey_Wanderer

    Hello, I

  • Wilson Logan

    I 100% agree that the banks need stopped. The financial sector has become so efficient at sucking money from the real economy that the real economy is on the verge of collapse. On the face of it distributing money directly to the people instead of the banks seems very reasonable. My only concern is that we are already doing that. The UK government is already distributing £80 billion a year to the UK public in the form of pensions. I don’t realistically see how we could afford to give out any more, given that this £80 billion seems to be having no effect on increasing general wealth.

  • http://www.theorganiceconomy.blogspot.ca John Reid

    I agree with the 3 points but there are other things to address to make it all work effectively over time.
    A committee as you suggest would quickly become corrupted either by bribery or blackmail, as has happened since time immemorial. Where there is immense wealth at stake the snakes will be slithering in for their share.

    The reason why the money lent does not go into things like job creating businesses is because there are no markets left to create real jobs, due to the fact politicians stood and held the door open waving the manufacturing base goodbye as it cruised overseas.

    The global powers today (corporations, bankers and elite families) are much too strong for the handful of politicians we elect to represent us, the political system too has ran its course and cannot protect the voting taxpayer. The new trade deals exemplify this as corporations are literally writing their own rules and ignoring sovereignty and laws of nations for pure greed and profit.

    We need a complete clean sweep of the political, financial and economic systems, they only work for a privileged few.

    We are in a fantastic position as we can all see clearly the systems are done and dusted they have failed us.
    Therefore we need a new system which does represent the voting taxpayer, is truly democratic, fair, just and prosperous.

    I have ideas for that system and wrote them into a short, free, no strings ebook called The Organic Economy, the final step in the evolution of democracy.
    Downloadable at http://www.theorganiceconomy.blogspot.ca. (I am an ex pat Englishman living in Canada).

    The coming collapse is a golden opportunity for us to take back our world and live the lives we dream of instead of having sleepless nights worrying about the future our kids will face.

    Revolution is not the answer but evolution is, we need to evolve our way out of this mess, evolve our beliefs, our thoughts and see there is another workable democratic way.

    We will never solve today`s issues from within the same systems in which they were created, it does not serve the elites to do so.

    Our power now lies in spreading new ideas to as many people as possible, to show we can have the life we want, to actually share in the prosperity we create with our labours (the only true thing of value) instead of watching it being leeched out of the country into the pockets of bankers for completely unnecessary interest payments (the root cause of our demise).

    When a critical mass of people `get it`, wake up and decide the present systems are not for them then it`s game over, just as Gandhi did, he changed people`s beliefs, that`s all he did in effect.


  • Gregory K. Soderberg

    I think http://www.wealthmoney.org is right on.

  • Denny

    Banks should not create money, but it is okay for governments to do so?


    Please read Mises, Rothbard, et al.

  • Jamie Strong

    . CASH would not exist! All transactions would be made via an account using a unique ID for each human being. This would recognise and flag up individuals running into dept who would then automatically receive advise and help. All private sales and transaction would also have to take place through this account and witnessed by an independent which would eliminate the black market!
    This was a small part of something I was thinking about the other night.
    I’m glad I have been able to find this petition and sign.
    This is the full version of what I posted on FB the other night.
    Ok so I’m bored in a hotel room and this is my way of passing time:/ sorry!
    Think of a world where our anxieties (aside of natural illnesses) were relieved. Where realistic hope and aspirations were a reality and not just based on what family you were born into or lucky brakes!!

    I am not a naive idiot and I realise that change is not as simplistic as my views but I do believe that the world should work to suit the majority and provide everybody with the opportunity to live in harmony and not just survive in fear. I am by no means a deprived individual but I do fear for future generations and existing younger generations with regards to the continuing failure of our cultures to learn from lessons of the historic past and more resent past.
    I take this view, firstly after having time to think about the mass cruelty that takes place on this planet under the headings of the following causes.
    1. Jealousy
    2. Greed
    3. Perversion
    4. Fear
    6. Necessity to survive
    7. Devout faith in extreme versions of religion

    My list of Major Problems with the current situation.

    1. The intended cause of pain and suffering to any conscious living being/ inhuman killing of any conscious living being.
    2. Killing by any means of any conscious living being for no purpose or benefit to nature or the human race.
    3. Grossly disproportionate distribution of currency to benefit the minority.
    4. The ability for black markets to exist.
    5. The pursuit of ever more destructive weapons/ sales of weapons
    6. Opposing views on religion taken to the extreme.
    7. Lack of respect for other cultures
    8. Exploitation of other cultures
    9. Disregard and exploitation of the natural world.

    In relation to the above (in no particular order) here are my thoughts on solutions. Granted, they are simplistic but hey!

    1. Re-distribution of wealth to provide a minimum standard of living to all! Relevant to their geographical location and cultural needs. Business owners drawn off profits would be linked to the number of people they employ and the standard of living that those employees have I.e. A percentage of the combined employees wage packet. The current billionaire would no longer exist with a cap at £100m in today’s money.
    2. Real Opportunity provided to all through availability of good education and access to funding for the development of ideas/business/technology that pose a benefit to the common good.
    3. Following the provision of a minimum standard of living and providing real hope to all that are willing to contribute to society through work and thoughtfulness.
    4. CASH would not exist! All transactions would be made via an account using a unique ID for each human being. This would recognise and flag up individuals running into dept who would then automatically receive advise and help. All private sales and transaction would also have to take place through this account and witnessed by an independent which would eliminate the black market!
    5. As the purpose of weapons are to defend a nation from attack and are paid for through taxation then the weapons business would be a public business and non profitable I.e. Not sold! Weapons should be stored and only used as defence if the country was under attack.
    6. Religious extremists who are opposed to living along side each other harmoniously would be required to reside in countries that are predominant in that religion!
    7. If cultures are hard to accept due to their very different ideas and ideals then it should be agreed to disagree and segregation implemented with trade restricted to goods that are required for the survival of people within either culture.
    8. Our planet Earth belongs to all living beings that have the gift of consciousness. Renewable energy should be used to its full potential in climates that offer the required natural energies. Fossil fuels should be available to all that renewable energy can not provide for.

  • jedituahn@gmail.com

    I will be pushing this idea here on local radio in the United States. Our corrupt government beholden to even more corrupt bankers is a sure recipe for destruction…hence reality right now. We the people will rightfully claim the GOD given freedom that is ours alone.

  • darren kis

    Guys. Bitcoin is the solution you are looking for. I hope you can get to understand it and appreciate it soon.

  • darren kis

    I’ll just leave this Whitepaper from ‘Satoshi’ here and you can make your own mind up.https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

  • darren kis

    On the subject of sovereign currency

    Andreas M. Antonopoulos – L.A. Bitcoin Meetup – “…: http://youtu.be/1ZtSqJHoTrw

  • Phil

    I have been following you guys for a while and I must admit I am not sure how much progress you have made. All a bit disappointing really. Also, I have tried to find on your website more information on Silvio Gesell’s model and the Wörgl experiment. Not much success I am afraid. To my knowledge the Wörgl experiment was a defining attempt (successful!) to change the way money is managed. It resonated a model that run for a few centuries (aka the golden middle age), a time when fantastic buildings and entire cities were built. I am not going to go into details. Anyone interested can Google the golden middle age, Gesell and Wörgl and find out more … and why the Wörgl experiment was eventually stopped.
    Besides this, I am not clear who your target audience is. Clearly, anyone who has a mortgage or an assets portfolio will not dare to rock the boat – they have benefited from the system you are proposing to change. In order to start a successful movement you need to engage the next generation, and clearly distance yourselves from all the nutters out there who want to destroy the system. We do not need to destroy, all we need is a small tweak here and there.

    • Greenbacker84

      PM can’t even articulate the root cause the the problem (the banks laundering of our promissory obligations to each other…and the imposition of compound interest of our debts). I’d suggest looking at the work of Mike Montagne/MPE, he builds upon the usury free currency and has a solid solution. The problem is no politician, nor 99% of the so called ‘truth’ movement will even discuss the topic.

  • Tertius Wehmeyer

    In May 1913 A Mitchell-Innes published the articles linked below in The Banking Law Journal.

    This clearly explains what the fractional reserve system is. Banks create universally legal IOUs or credit notes. A British IOU can be used in the USA today subject to foreign exchange. The real problem with this system is that banks raise interest on these IOUs. This interest will go into their own reserves as well as whatever banking costs are related to these transactions. This is how banks do business and make profit. And the central bank creates interest on their IOUs to the commercial banks. If the central bank is really a government entity, then this is an undeclared tax on the population as the interest will accumulate in the government’s bank. If the central bank is privately owned like the USA’s Federal Reserve, then it is a tax on the general population by the private owners of the central bank. A fractional reserve bank loan provides legal tender to the borrower who pays e.g. for a house. The seller can then use that money and the IOU is paid back when the borrower has paid of the principal. The interest should go to the seller as it is in reality not a cash sale or a direct exchange. However, the interest goes into the banking systems pockets who created the loan out of thin air (banking system = central bank + commercial banks)

    If commercial banks are constrained by the IOUs they can get from the central bank, i.e. they can only make loans up to the loans they have with the central bank, then the portion of interest which is the difference between their lending rate and that of the central bank, is what will be added to their own reserves in addition to their banking fees.

    In reality, banks can be replaced by accountants. And the banking system can be replaced by an accounting system. In our modern era, where Information and Communication Technologies are the basis of our record keeping and communication activities, a large portion of what the accountants do, can be done by ICT systems, so not so many accountants will be needed. The only human service banks really provide is the creation and maintenance of ICT systems, the intellectual know-how and to qualify the credit-worthiness of the borrower. Do we really need them?

    Lastly, in my opinion it is not a final solution that the government creates money as if a fully government owned central bank exists in a country, they are already doing it. A government should only issue IOUs annually on what they need for the annual aggregrate (national, provincial & municipal) government budget which should not exceed the annual aggregrate tax income. In the representative democracy that exists in most democratic countries in the world, the elected representatives are really like benevolent dictators. Very much like authoritarian parents who do the best for their children, even asks them what they want but rarely listens to the children (the electorate). Except for their favourites who help them to increase their assets.

    To really solve the financial problems that plague mankind we need a financial system based on sound, moral and fair accounting principles as well as a POLITICAL system based on Direct Democracy! The financial system can never be divorced from the political system. The representative democracies are manipulated by the moneyed elite in their own best interest, not that of the whole country. They do this through lobbying, bribes, ownership of the media, funding political parties etc. Money reform cannot happen without political reform as the financial reforms will soon be eroded by political influence on the representatives.

  • Lay González

    Is there an article that explains that what you’re fighting for are or aren’t bitcoins?

  • Harry Georgiou

    Question… cant some of you guys get together and start your own bank based on these values… no interest and no debt. Ursary is not healthy neither is debt. The age old Christian value of ursary which thankfully at least islamic banks have kept although Christian society has forgotten can be applied. I think there are enough intelligent and buisiness smart people here to begin such a thing. I think buisness deals are ways a bank makes money rather than debt from the very little I have read

  • Jim Park

    I am not a financial whizz kid nor do I have much economic nouse. But my understanding is that corporations, bankers and governing elites are controlling access to money. This is at the expense of small businesses, providers of public services and localised activities. So isn’t the trick to establish a currency that can only be traded for smaller transactions and public services but not for properties, paintings or gold?

  • Jim Park

    I think the trick would be to create a currency that could only be used for small services and purchases. If it had no value to investors then we would escape from this destructive paradigm as the incentive for controlling its access would be removed.

  • JohnJGelles

    There seems to be some excitement over Positive Money at this time over a revived interest in UK. The USA should have a chapter. Maybe UK HQ could help. My main thought is that the rich are not the main problem. They could be an element of the solution. Everyone wants more money. The solution is to focus on enriching the poor, the democracies, and the planet. Then we can all be in this quandary together.

  • Ian Bell

    I couldnt find where the petition was to sign……anyone?

No Announcement posts

back to top