
webofdebt.com
Doesn’t it seem odd that national governments, all of which have the inherent right to coin money, instead go around borrowing money — and thus putting their people deeply in debt to globalist elites? One of the few American politicians to ask that question, Dennis Kucinich, has been rewarded by getting redistricted out of office.
Kucinich, by the way, is also one of the three politicians to have questioned the official 9/11 story, the central lie of our times. All three, including Alan Grayson and Cynthia McKinney, have been successfully dislodged from that den of traitors known as Congress. If you’re wondering what 9/11 has to do with money and globalist elites you need to be paying more attention. For starters you can add the true-left website Global Research to your RSS feeds.
There are essentially three different types of currency; three systems with very distinct characteristics and economic effects.
- Commodity currency (usually gold, or gold certificates)
- Debt-based currency (coupons issued by a central bank such as the Federal Reserve and loaned into circulation)
- Debt-free currency (money issued by a sovereign state and spent, not loaned, into circulation)
Commodity currency is the siren song of Libertarians and the far right. They claim that money not backed by gold is “worthless.” This position reflects either juvenile thinking (as to the far-right rabble) or cynicism (as to the elites). Gold has always been the preferred currency of elitists; its scarcity makes gold currency a natural instrument for financial oppression. The gold standard, for example, enabled the Great Depression to be inflicted on the masses — giving rise to the Third Reich and very nearly global fascism. But gold, as a commodity, has little utility beyond adornment — so its much vaunted “intrinsic value” is dubious at best.
The other two currency types are fiat monies; so-named because money is created by decree rather than by accumulation of gold. A system of fiat money can be bad or good, depending first of all on whether it is debt-based or debt-free. Gold bugs such as Ron Paul throw around the term “fiat money” as a disparagement, giving their followers the misleading impression that “fiat” is always a bad thing. Ron Paul is right about the Federal Reserve being a detrimental institution, but it’s not because they issue fiat money. The real reason is that the Fed issues debt-based money — making them a central player in our unsustainable economy of ever-increasing debt.
The entire western world has been captured in the web of central banking — this scheme of currency being issued not by national governments but by separate entities, central banks, integrated with the supranational banking industry. When a central bank decides to issue (create) money, it doesn’t spend that money but rather loans it out — either to governments (through purchase of bonds) or other banks. The U.S. dollar, in this light, is not money but rather a coupon of debt; as it inevitably represents debt owed by someone to the banking system. That kind of elemental debt, coupled with interest charges, is by nature unrepayable except through incurring more debt. It’s an abuse of language to call such a thing “money.”
This perversion of the monetary system has produced the U.S. “debt ceiling crisis” as well as the European “sovereign debt crisis.” Such crises give impetus to neoliberal “austerity” measures, which translate as drastic cuts in standard of living (except for the elite, of course). And there’s the core of the issue — the eternal intrigue of elites sabotaging the masses through covert financial and political manipulation.
A proper currency is neither chained by gold nor privatized by the banking elite. Money is rightfully issued by each sovereign state as a public asset, used to pay the operating expenses of the state. This imbues fiat money with intrinsic value: the value of those goods and services for which it was initially exchanged. Thus fiat currency could be debt-free and possess a more solid intrinsic value than that of some glittery metal.
Now the question arises: How does one control inflation under a debt-free system? And the answer is that controlling inflation is the proper role of taxes. With debt-free currency, since the state can issue whatever money it needs, taxation is only necessary as a means to soak up any excess money supply. When inflation is low, tax rates would automatically go down. If inflation should spike, tax rates must immediately rise according to a pre-established scientific formula. But so long as the money being created is not wasted, its intrinsic value poses an effective barrier to inflation.
To the ruling elite, the power of debt-free money is a Holy Grail to be kept under tightest security. It is a can of economic “whoop-ass” which they only allow to be opened at certain times and places. In America, the Grail was once handed to Abraham Lincoln; his debt-free “greenbacks” enabled the North to win the Civil War. More recently the western elite passed the Grail to their fascist prodigy Adolf Hitler; debt-free currency allowed him to transform Germany from an economic basket case into a militant superpower. Had it not been for the heroic Red Army, this maneuver would have enslaved the entire world under fascism — the ultimate dream for which the elite are still feverishly striving.
Let us put this great power, the power of sovereignty, to use for the people — rather than having it stashed away as a secret weapon of the elite. Let us also reject the deadly allure of a debt-based economy. Neither a borrower nor a lender be.



11 Comments

Excellent! Rec’d.
Under current law, the only U.S. money that is not debt based are coins. Under current policy, coins constitute only a tiny fraction of our money supply, but under current law, 31 Sec 5112 (k), the Treasury can issue coins of arbitrarily large value and deposit them into the Fed account from which the government’s bills are paid, thereby eliminating the need to cover tax deficits through debt. Treasury money could thus be spent into the economy.
But, I’d propose going further and nationalizing the entire banking system. Here’s the case for doing so. (h/t pshakkottai)
This idea of the trillion dollar platinum coin keeps getting bandied around, but it’s really an unhelpful distraction. First of all, the denominations of US coins are limited by 5112 paragraph (a) – the highest currently allowed being a 50 cent piece. So paragraph (k) has to be understood as authorizing any denomination within the range set by (a).
Secondly, a coin is by definition something intended for public circulation. A purported coin of an outrageous denomination would not qualify as such.
Jack Balkin is a Yale law professor, and he reads 31USC5112 as allowing for the minting of large coins:
If Jack Balkin understands that 9/11 was an inside job, and enlightens his students to that effect, I’d give credence to whatever he says. If not, he’s just another **** as far as I’m concerned.
It is used for electrical contacts in computers, maybe as much volume as jewelry. But most of its commodity value as accounted by its price is as a hedge against inflation of various currencies.
Explain how this is so in all transactions after the issuance of debt to banks. And the purchase of government bonds to finance government expenditures. In debt-based currencies, the interest rate limits the expansion of debt in the money supply but does not limit circulation through non-debt transactions.
The debt ceiling crisis is apart from the solvency of the federal government. The debt ceiling is a legally-created arbitrary number that Congress uses politically to force budget showdowns. It has no real financial reality, except that the threat to default of debt service as a result of the debt ceiling concerns the holders of that debt. And the Social Security Trust Fund holds a fifth of the debt; the playing around with the idea of defaulting would have affected Social Security recipients more than other creditors because Social Security is “intragovernmental debt”. Repealing the debt ceiling law would return the situation to the way it was before the Second Liberty Bond Act was passed in 1917. The appropriations of the Congress and Congressionally passed revenue acts determine the size of the deficit, and that plus interest rates determine the size of the debt. The debt ceiling is thus redundant.
A proper currency is delivered through a mechanism that ensures that it has constant value over time. No currency has ever done that. And if Marx’s analysis of the use of money as a commodity is correct, no currency can.
In the 1930s, we had evidence of how a commodity-based currency could crash the global economy. Our current experience is of how debt-based currency can crash the global economy. Anticipate how a debt-free currency could crash the global economy and build in safeguards.
Taxes return to the Treasury the excess money in the economy in order to ensure that the currency has (relatively) constant value. That would imply the monitoring of the value of money in the economy and and applying variable tax rates depending on whether more or less money needed to be taken out of the economy. Given the ideology around taxes in the US, how does one accomplish that variable taxation politically? Would this imply a value-added tax and a financial transactions tax as the primary taxes? How would one ensure progressivity of taxation and prevent gaming the tax system? How would taxes be collected?
How will folks get used to the idea that government spending creates money and taxes destroy the excess money to maintain its scarcity?
Or…are the taxes merely to equal the expenditures in any given year so that federal action does not either expand or crowd out private transactions?
By the way, until 1971 US currency was called “Silver certificates” instead of “Federal Reserve notes”. It was backed by silver; country balance-of-trade was backed by gold. Because of rising imports and declining exports (except for war), the US was transferring gold bars to other countries’ accounts at an alarming rate. That is why Nixon ended the gold standard (and the silver standard as well).
During the Carter administration, a lot of the inflation was being caused globally because of the growth of dollars used in transactions outside the US (called “Eurodollars” by the media).
Which brings up the point that one nation cannot insulate it’s currency from the currency systems of other nations. Indeed, that’s what allows foreign exchange arbitrage and speculation and the derivative hedges of forward transactions to exist.
Under a debt-free currency regime, how do you deal with the pressures from the diversity of global currency systems?
If the objective is neither to be a borrower or a lender, outlaw and punish lending for interest or other consideration– i.e. usury.
Those with a vivid imagination can imagine that the government freshly prints every dollar that it spends and burns every dollar that it collects in taxes, fees, and borrowing.
Those with a less vivid imagination can imagine that the Fed lets the government run an unbounded overdraft in its general account.
Either way there’s no longer a point to borrowing, but there remain two reasons for taxation:
1) to manage the supply supply of dollars
2) to create an on-going demand for dollars.
Supply and demand then control the value of the dollar and thereby control inflation.
That’s what I was thinking. I was also imagining the difficulty of constructing an econometric model to make that work in terms of knowing how much to adjust taxes.
The issue of understanding what is going on is huge because of the long-term use of the analogy with family finances and because of the lingering feeling of “I wish I could do that with my finances.”
There’s another way that money will be taken out of the economy–private saving. So does that indicate that there could be a mechanism that in some times taxes savings going in from the economy and at other times taxes savings coming out into the economy? And that that could somehow be econometrically indexed so that it never re-enters the political arena, where grandstanding can cause much mischief.
There is an intrinsic demand for debt-based dollars, because debtors need to acquire them (i.e., exchange their assets and services for them) to pay back their debts and avoid the unpleasant consequences of bankruptcy.
There is an intrinsic demand for fiat dollars, because people need to acquire them to pay their taxes.
Currently, the government accepts debt-based bank dollars in payment of taxes. But, everything would change if the government suddenly insisted on being paid on Treasury-issued dollars and covered its expenses the same way.
Oops. I’m using “fiat” and “Treasury-issued” as synonyms.