Proposal for reserve currency

[Anders Lindman]

Fractional reserve currency sucks. Banks can charge interest for money created out of thin air plus the money is not properly related to real value.

If the currency was based on gold, then some people could corner the gold market.

A better currency would be based on all the natural resources that are traded on the big financial markets today: gold, silver, copper, oil, ethanol, corn, sugar, coffee, cotton and so on.

Then it would be the real natural resources who would determine the value of the currency.

[Anders Lindman]

The currency could even be based on the company stocks in the big stock markets. So natural resources plus company stocks. That could be called a 'value currency'.

[cruise4]

Nope... Don't need no banks, bar one, no financial sevices, no lawyers, no judges, no stock market... its all a fictitious industry that stems from the Bank and Law scam. These people are actually useless to us all, in their current capacity.

[Anders Lindman]

Nope... Don't need no banks, bar one, no financial sevices, no lawyers, no judges, no stock market... its all a fictitious industry that stems from the Bank and Law scam. These people are actually useless to us all.

The entire society is deeply dependent on the current system. That system can only be changed gradually without risking a total collapse of civilization as we know it.

For the change to be effective it has to start at the root and that is the fractional reserve banking principle. Replacing the fractional reserve currency with a value currency would be a change of the very root of the system while at the same time only minimal changes would be needed in the rest of the system.

[cruise4]

The current society is deeply dependant. Some ordered change would certainly be desirable but may be unattainable. Depends how things go down in the near future.

How about everyone has the house they are in now and any mortgage is wiped. All personal debt is also wiped out. Re-tie one Central Bank to a standard and remove the rest. Anyone without a house gets one from the buildings and double or more owners that exist aplenty. New money is printed and distributed up to an agreed limit and no compensation for the old notes.

Then go from there.

Maybe make it temporarily illegal for any private person to own Gold. Trying to claw back their ill gotten gains within this initial re-distribution.

[Anders Lindman]

The current society is deeply dependant. Some ordered change would certainly be desirable but may be unattainable. Depends how things go down in the near future.

How about everyone has the house they are in now and any mortgage is wiped. All personal debt is also wiped out. Re-tie one Central Bank to a standard and remove the rest. Anyone without a house gets one from the buildings and double or more owners that exist aplenty. New money is printed and distributed up to an agreed limit and no compensation for the old notes.

Then go from there.

Maybe make it temporarily illegal for any private person to own Gold. Trying to claw back their ill gotten gains within this initial re-distribution.

My proposal is to start by simply introducing a value currency. Essentially nothing else would have to be changed through regulations. Not even the central banks!

[beetzart]

The system is backwards. Money comes into circulation via it being created as a debt so someone is liable for, with interest, be it an individual, business or government. The only people to gain from this are the bankers. This should be reversed. Governments create debt-free money to spend on public services plus lending money interest free (plus maybe a small admin charge) to businesses with collaterall. This could lead to a much lower,nominal rate of tax, say 5%, or nil rate for lower earners. This way people and businesses could keep the money they actually earn. The value of money could actually be the labour that earned it. Banks would only exist as places to hold your money with 100% reserves. They could lend out money but only from time locked accounts and only the money that is held on account. They would lend cautiously as it wouldn't be their money they are lending but a savers.

To start this all existing debt would be wiped clean as this would leave money still in circulation. Bank of England notes would eventually be phased out over say 5 years replaced by United Kingdom Treasury notes that would hold their full value.

The banking system is so complex and murky today that most people don't understand it and banks have an aura of fear surrounding them. They must be the only business in the world that can get so rich out of nothing tangible.

[Anders Lindman]

This should be reversed. Governments create debt-free money to spend on public services plus lending money interest free (plus maybe a small admin charge) to businesses with collaterall.

But wouldn't the introduction of a value currency automatically reverse the whole monetary system? Banks could still charge interest, but that would be on a competitive free open market basis. The value currency would make it impossible for money to be other than representing real value.

[cruise4]

I'd say people can keep the money they earn and subject to no tax.

Industry are using resources so they pay for the priviledge and recoup from purchases.

The people owned bank could lend money for industry and small interest would go to the people for infrastructure cost.

You only need money to BUY stuff. If everything basic is free, you don't actually need it in the way we do today.

The could be no have's and have nots. If we called everthing work related 'Community Services' then money could represent 'hours given'.

[Anders Lindman]

In my view the shift from fractional reserve currency to value currency would be like this:

At a certain date, the fractional reserve currency is switched to value currency. On the surface it would look like nothing happened. The U.S. dollar for example would still be U.S. dollar.

How then are interest rates affected?

Let's say that I have a $5000 loan at a bank. That loan would remain exactly the same. The bank would be free to set any interest rate it wanted. However, as a customer I would be free to move my loan to another bank that offered a lower interest rate. That will create a fierce competition among the banks and will ensure that the interest rates are held as low as possible.

[wanderer]

Nope... Don't need no banks, bar one, no financial sevices, no lawyers, no judges, no stock market... its all a fictitious industry that stems from the Bank and Law scam. These people are actually useless to us all, in their current capacity.

I'll second that cruise.

So how about TIME and LOVE? Good currencies indeed.

Time banking- Here's how it works. Say for example you need a plumber, but are about as useful at plumbing as a fish is at basketball - but you happen to be damned good at building websites - so you offer a few hours of your time as a skilled webdeveloper - in exchange a few hours of a plumber's time. And you don't pay tax - no money changes hands.

For those who want to be a little less calculating about the whole thing, LOVE is a pretty good fallback. Do something out of love. If someone wants a little help and you can spare the time - well why not? Its suprising what comes back - especially when you most need it.

Peace,

wanderer

[Anders Lindman]

E? Good currencies indeed.

Time banking- Here's how it works. Say for example you need a plumber, but are about as useful at plumbing as a fish is at basketball - but you happen to be damned good at building websites - so you offer a few hours of your time as a skilled webdeveloper - in exchange a few hours of a plumber's time.

What if I don't find a plumber who wants a website? And when I buy a hamburger at McDonald's then what if they don't need a website either?

[cruise4]

I'll second your view too wanderer. Its about the shift from monetary concern to altruistic concern.

Your last point is also spot on Anders which is why 'some' medium of exchange is required. Still no tax though. Only Publically owned resource usage should be taxed or subject to 'compensation'.

'Time spent' removes the idea of job status.

I 'like' the fact that I've been able to help someone. I think this is the natural way for humans to operate.

("And when I buy a hamburger at McDonald's then what if they don't need a website either?" McDonalds robberies will be allowed)

[Anders Lindman]

Still no tax though. Only Publically owned resource usage should be taxed or subject to 'compensation'.


Ron Paul talks about removing the income tax.

[Anders Lindman]

Let's say that I have a $5000 loan at a bank. That loan would remain exactly the same. The bank would be free to set any interest rate it wanted. However, as a customer I would be free to move my loan to another bank that offered a lower interest rate. That will create a fierce competition among the banks and will ensure that the interest rates are held as low as possible.

You may have noticed a risk with this. If the banks work together as a cartel they can agree to set a very high interest rate. The solution is this: I am also free to move my loan to the government who always maintain a reasonable interest rate. So if the banks cannot muster to be better than the government's offer, then they would be out of business. :D

[beetzart]

There are many systems that could be set up to benefit EVERYONE but the chances of the banks giving up their oligopoly without one huge fight is very unlikely. I'm sure they've rigged things so that if they fail they will take us all down with them.

[cruise4]

Yes... Tax is there to fund large government. Take that away, take professional politicians and supporting infrastructure away and what are you paying tax for? Remember No Social Services, Neighbours help neighbours. No hard drugs because CIA is taken apart. Sickness vastly reduced because the causes are gone, no Gangs, no inner city problems, no environmental issues any more etc.

You could argue we will need roads, fibre optic networks and other countrywide (worldwide) infrastructure. But I'd argue if I could work for nothing producing free energy machines for the betterment of mankind then I'd be quite happy to do my bit and most people would also contribute in oh so many ways. But this time the aims are just, and we choose. Scientists will do science from choice. Sport will be played. Music will be produced. Films will be made. Some like tinkering with cars. Electronics is a hobby to some. How to organise factories might be interesting. Grow weed. The possibilities will get filled.

[wanderer]

What if I don't find a plumber who wants a website? And when I buy a hamburger at McDonald's then what if they don't need a website either?

Well for a start I'd skip the McDonalds - or in time you're going to need a doctor, not a plumber.

Anyway, I'll ellaborate - You effectively add your name to a list of willing participants in a time-banking scheme. As the number of participants increases, so does the collective skill-set. So in time you'll have a variety of diversely skilled individuals to call upon in exchange for your web skills. You call on their time as and when you need it and they provide it - depending on how much 'time' you have accrued in the bank.

Also of course, if there's no call for your fantastic IT skills, you might want to consider alternatives - childminding, carpentry, driving, shopping - whatever. Its no good offering a useless commodity. We've got far too many useless commodities already - most of them in government.

Admitedly, it takes a while to get ideas like this going- and I doubt it will fully replace the current scheme (scam) but it would reduce people's dependency on it. And there are a lot of intangible elements too - like a sense of community, respect, looking out for each other - y'know the stuff that's fast disappearing.

There are also other considerations - what happens to people who are unable to contribute their time due to disability, age etc.? Well here's where LOVE come in yes? We help because we can.

And to finish.

Much of what we currently spend our time doing is pointless, destructive, inefficient, self-gratifiying ego masturbation - so we could also improve things a lot by focusing on important stuff (like growing healthy food)- and spending less time fucking over the planet and each other ;)

Peace,

Wanderer

[cruise4]

Yes, beetzart. Getting from here to there is tricky. But planning or discussing the 'desired end' may reveal the method needed. Aim for the best possible and only compromise when necessary.

[wanderer]

Yes, beetzart. Getting from here to there is tricky. But planning or discussing the 'desired end' may reveal the method needed. Aim for the best possible and only compromise when necessary.

Absolutely. Philosophy in action.

:D

[Anders Lindman]

Anyway, I'll ellaborate - You effectively add your name to a list of willing participants in a time-banking scheme. As the number of participants increases, so does the collective skill-set. So in time you'll have a variety of diversely skilled individuals to call upon in exchange for your web skills. You call on their time as and when you need it and they provide it - depending on how much 'time' you have accrued in the bank.


In the video Money as Debt, they said that such scheme would be valuable at least for emergency situations in a community. But with a sound monetary system it would be more of of a burden than something useful for me, BUT with no income tax then people who love such schemes would be free to set them up. So that would be pretty cool. People who want to use time-banking can then do so and other people can use ordinary money (value currency of course ;)), and some people may want to use a mix of both.

[wanderer]

In the video Money as Debt, they said that such scheme would be valuable at least for emergency situations in a community. But with a sound monetary system it would be more of of a burden than something useful for me, BUT with no income tax then people who love such schemes would be free to set them up. So that would be pretty cool. People who want to use time-banking can then do so and other people can use ordinary money (value currency of course ), and some people may want to use a mix of both.

Yes - time-banking isn't an immediate solution, but one that could be built up to provide an alternative to the current system of usuary fuelled poverty.

[Anders Lindman]

You may have noticed a risk with this. If the banks work together as a cartel they can agree to set a very high interest rate. The solution is this: I am also free to move my loan to the government who always maintain a reasonable interest rate. So if the banks cannot muster to be better than the government's offer, then they would be out of business. :D

Then comes the next problem. What if the government turns corrupt and starts raising the interest rate to unreasonable levels? Then the banks could form a cartel and raise their interest rates along with the government. The solution is that the government's interest rate should be based on the interest rate the government use for loans to the banks. The whole economy would simply not work if that interest rate was too high. So that would create a self-regulating system keeping corruption at bay. I think. :confused:

[cruise4]

Because you have no professional government. You have problems discussed throughout society via the internet. You have representatives formed from society segments (people) and merit segments (professional). No political parties anymore, No house in London, House in Healy, free flat, free cars, expense accounts etc. With no mainstream media manipulating the information I think you'd find a remarkable resurgence in people finding their voice.

The Police would be part of the local community so when little Jonny gets in trouble the Policeman has grown up with the parents and child and can make a sensible decision, judged by and for the community.

Why do you need a full time government? The reps can come together when and if necessary. Their term is short and diversity of membership high.

There's no economic immigration going on because the world can be brought to the same level. Many issues simply disappear.

[Anders Lindman]

Why do you need a full time government? The reps can come together when and if necessary. Their term is short and diversity of membership high.

No government at all? :eek: I haven't thought much about that, but yes it could be possible. With a sound, free, open and competitive market that had matured to the point where it was automatically ethically self-regulating would make governments obsolete. I think. :confused:

[hagbard_celine]

David talks about setting up alternative, independant currencies in "The Robot's Rebellion". If a community gets together and chooses to do it then it's not so difficult. Money is just pieces of paper; it has no inhearent value, it's just a measurement of economic value. After the 1929 crash in America several local currencies started off. At least one of them is still running: The Ithaca Hour. Here's a good book about the history of the Welsh Pound:

http://www.ilab.org/db/book895_232.html

[Anders Lindman]

David talks about setting up alternative, independant currencies in "The Robot's Rebellion". If a community gets together and chooses to do it then it's not so difficult. Money is just pieces of paper; it has no inhearent value, it's just a measurement of economic value. After the 1929 crash in America several local currencies started off. At least one of them is still running: The Ithaca Hour. Here's a good book about the history of the Welsh Pound:

http://www.ilab.org/db/book895_232.html

It would be too much of overhead if every community would have to set up their own money system. And it would only effect the community, no society as a whole with hospitals, airports etc. It's better to have someone like Ron Paul change the very root of the whole system. At least the U.S. dollar, and then other nations could easily follow that example. The U.S. dollar is the biggest currency in the world.

[hagbard_celine]

It would be too much of overhead if every community would have to set up their own money system. And it would only effect the community, no society as a whole with hospitals, airports etc. It's better to have someone like Ron Paul change the very root of the whole system. At least the U.S. dollar, and then other nations could easily follow that example. The U.S. dollar is the biggest currency in the world.

Sure. The Ithaca Hour and other such currecnies were established as a defence to the economic chaos of the Depression. It might be necessary to do that again in the future. The cost might be high, but the costs of not doing it might be higher. It's already been done in many places. In Britain we have the LETS schemes.

[Anders Lindman]

Sure. The Ithaca Hour and other such currecnies were established as a defence to the economic chaos of the Depression. It might be necessary to do that again in the future. The cost might be high, but the costs of not doing it might be higher. It's already been done in many places. In Britain we have the LETS schemes.

Hopefully a new monetary system can be introduced very smoothly so that for example the U.S. dollar would still be the same, but the mechanism behind it would have been switched from fractional reserve banking to reserve currency, or even what I called value currency or something in that line. In ordinary life at first there would not be much difference. The U.S. dollar would be used exactly as before. But the dollar would be anchored in real value and would therefore be much, much more stable and sustainable, and would be able to always hold its value.