Comments on: The Federal Budget Through The Looking Glass

By: AMI

AMI — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:07:46 +0000

Patrick, I have to call the BS in this argument.* There is no additional risk in having the government to print money, as it is constitutionally mandated to. Zero. In fact, it reduces risk (of an economic collapse resulted by monetary mismanagement)! Government has a stellar record of managing the money supply. The private sector has a dismal one. Read ANY work of monetary history- our book The Lost Science of Money is a good place to start- before coming to any further "informed conclusions." The government would lack the "professionalism" that the Fed employs in monetary management? That doesn't even pass the laugh test. Read the bill. The government has the power issue as many T-Bonds as it desires. This reform would restore its power to issue actual dollars instead. Either way spending is not constrained by revenues through taxation. The difference is the current system is indebting all future generations of Americans into a life of indentured servitude. A rather high price to pay for the cozy warm (and completely unfounded) feeling of having an "perfectly dysfunctional" federal government. Of course those future generations would be blame the government, not the economic experts who are getting them into this sovereign debt crisis. Why is this ironic? A government in a free society is a tool, an instrument, a servant of the people- it is not any more anthropomorphic than any chartered profit-making enterprise! Their blaming and disowning of government would center their blind spot over their only effective vehicle for getting out of this mess! I agree that reducing the obscene concentration of wealth is an essential component of any serious American economic plan. That is why we need to end the private creation of money and have our investment dollars do something useful! If those trillions that private corporations invest in T-Bonds suddenly needed to go elsewhere (because the national debt is paid off) where do you think that money would go? The problems for domestic industry are not supply-side. They are demand-side. We need to focus on that. I agree that working people understand the economy better than the economists. That is why they don’t give voice to their most rickety arguments as you do here. *This comment adheres to the American Money Scene Discussion Guidelines Jules

By: AMI

AMI — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 03:11:47 +0000

Under Kucinich’s proposal, the banking sector shrink and the availability of easy credit would diminish. Banks would continue to make money on credit cards. Yet credit cards would be less ubiquitous than they are today. Consumers would not mind much as consumer income would be replenished by money, rather than remain dependent upon credit. For example, the citizen’s dividend will give consumer spending a real shot in the arm and therefore boost employment rates.

Jules

By: AMI

AMI — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:44:32 +0000

The link was broken. You should be able to view the Rock River Times letter now. Let's try not to be too cynical.

By: James McGurrin

James McGurrin — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:55:05 +0000

Thanks for the excellent article by Jules Brouillet on budget problems and the money system. It would appear all that he says is true, except the French monetary system or group he refers to is unfamiliar to me. That could use some explaining. I should think the majority of thinking, working Americans would support Congressman Kucinich’s plan, there is one question that I have not heard discussed.
Would not an honest, 100 percent reserve system mean the end of credit cards? I don’t think a bank could afford to operate such a tentative lending system under a 100 percent reserve system. I may be mistaken, but I can’t imagine how anyone could make money on such a system without fractional reserve banking. It would be OK for me since credit cards are only a minor convenience for me, but they might be more important to others.

By: Michael L

Michael L — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:43:11 +0000

A brief version of this post was published as a letter to the editor in the Rock River Times in Illinois. You can read that version here.

The Daily Harold published the story here on April 2nd here.

The links does not work. Has it already been censured?

By: AMI

AMI — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:22:32 +0000

Japan is more concerned about their nuclear power policy than monetary reform at this time. The best route to draw their attention towards the idea of a democratic monetary system that is not inflationary is its successful implementation in the United States and the UK. The world will take notice.

Jules

By: as

as — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:26:09 +0000

Please post the ‘slimmed down’ version here! Not all of us, nor inquiring elements of the great hoi poloi, are up to the ‘expanded’ version of what we need to know

Also, would it be too much to hope that Japan may notice Prof Yamaguchi’s studies, and find their current catastrophe sufficient motivation to implement some form of debt-free money?

By: AMI

AMI — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:42:29 +0000

A brief version of this post was published as a letter to the editor in the Rock River Times in Illinois. You can read that version here. The Daily Harold published the story here on April 2nd. Send letters written in your own words to the newspapers! Help AMI break the media silence on real reform for our economic system! Jules