Monetary Reform Act

[Kensington]

Soon, Dennis Kucinich will bring the Monetary Reform Act before Congress. There are many bills being discussed now on the Federal Reserve and monetary policy, some quite radical, that seem, on the surface at least, to have some bipartisan support.

It is clear that there is a mood for systemic change in In America. People, and some honorable politicians, have had enough of the bankers and, indeed, mainstream economists. They all got it wrong, very wrong, yet it is the public; not the bankers who have to suffer.

For Einstein, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'. Fortunately, even if the majority of Politicians and Economists are insane, one would hope that the majority of the public - the people who live in the real economy - are not.

We have tried everything to treat the symptoms - from bailouts to nationalisation - they do not work. They never have and we should have the sense to know that they never will. This is the only piece of legislation that will deal with the root cause of the problem. It is clear that we have no choice but to change the system.

The Monetary Reform Act wants to end Fractional Reserve Banking. From now on, Banks will have to loan out money that they have on deposit or in their own reserves. Banks can no longer create money.

The Treasury has to sole authority to create money and they must make sure 'that the supply of money in circulation should not become inflationary nor deflationary in and of itself.'

The new money is credited to the Government and spent into the economy.

This is basically it. It would not, in any way, disrupt the working of the economy. It would greatly reduce debt; allow investment for start-up companies; increase competition; improve national infrastructure and reduce taxation.

The money system is the most important component of the economy and it simply needs to be reformed. I think, though i am not certain, that Ron Paul is considering supporting the Act.

Obviously, it is unlikely that it will pass. Wall Street has alot more clout in Congress than main-street, but if it gets a good show, it may well get in the public discourse.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8OjgN-3ZDA"]YouTube - Dennis Kucinich addresses AMI Monetary Reform Conference Participants 2009[/ame]




Link to act American Monetary Act version 10 feb 06

[Panopticon]

This is part of the discredited Austrian School religion that says the money we use in transactions should depend on the value of gold, and that ideally it would be issued by private banks free to do what they like with the money.

Ending low and stable inflation rates would have a huge effect on the economy. Not to mention ending monetary policy as a tool of governments and giving it instead to private banks. To put it in context for non-economists, in which group I include the Austrians, it is as if we chose to abolish the automobile because of road deaths, and instead revert to horse and carts. It is a faith-based alienation of modern technology.

[Kensington]

This is part of the discredited Austrian School religion that says the money we use in transactions should depend on the value of gold, and that ideally it would be issued by private banks free to do what they like with the money.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Gold-Standard. I agree that a Gold-Standard would be a very bad idea. It also has nothing to do with Austrian economics. Dennis Kucinich would not go near it if it did.

Ending low and stable inflation rates would have a huge effect on the economy. Not to mention ending monetary policy as a tool of governments and giving it instead to private banks. To put it in context for non-economists, in which group I include the Austrians, it is as if we chose to abolish the automobile because of road deaths, and instead revert to horse and carts.

You want to do what?

[ivnryn]

So, erm, "spend money into existence" doesn't sound like much better than letting banks do it. At least interest rates act on a break on banks doing it.

[Kensington]

So, erm, "spend money into existence" doesn't sound like much better than letting banks do it. At least interest rates act on a break on banks doing it.

The banks create money as debt. They create it and loan it at interest to whomever will make them a profit. Business start-ups are too risky, but property developer will get as much as they want. Banks are not answerable to anyone, they can create as much as they want or create none at all, irrespective of the national situation. There only aim is personal profit.

'Monetary supply targets shall be established by a Monetary Control Board consisting of nine public members appointed for staggered six-year terms by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and reporting for administrative purposes to the Secretary.'

This is a far better system. Their aim would be to ensure a stable money supply, their jobs would depend on it. If they fail to regulate properly, they would be accountable to Congress who are accountable to the people. Most importantly, money would not be created as debt. It would be spent into the economy on services beneficial to the public.

At least interest rates act on a break on banks doing it.

That has not worked at all though. A far better break on bank lending would be making them lend money out of what they have. If more money is needed, the Treasury can create more debt-free.