Help!

[active_indolent]

I've been doing some small videos trying to explain how the debt usury system works. They are amateurish and simple but I think the information is vital to present. The first parts deals with some misconceptions concerning "Money as debt"(a film that I do appreciate in many senses but it's unfortunate that it partly give wrong information and actually portrays banks as better then they are). They are more strict and formal. Part 6 (bank runs) and 7 (the need for bubbles) are more aggressive. I'm planing to do some more.

I would appreciate feedback and perhaps someone could help me with the speakers voice. It's done with a "text to speak" program and I would be greatful if someone with a pleasant voice could replace it. I'm not a good speaker in my own language and even worse in English (you know the Swedish chef in the Muppet show - well, that's me, BUT WORSE!).
Thanks in advance!

I was planing to join them but I think having them divided since it's easier to work with them then, since they should be seen as outcasts and in need of further improvements (an understatement).

Part1

[youtube:3f3n48n5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvGzX2yhJsM[/youtube]3f3n48n5]

Part2
[youtube:3f3n48n5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD1qguzpRbs[/youtube]3f3n48n5]

Part3
[youtube:3f3n48n5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jSD1bHu9wM[/youtube]3f3n48n5]

Part4
[youtube:3f3n48n5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MAnWisF6Jw[/youtube]3f3n48n5]

Part5

[youtube:3f3n48n5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwPvZBjcaIU[/youtube]3f3n48n5]

Part 6

[youtube:3f3n48n5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2cTxH-0ki4[/youtube]3f3n48n5]

Part 7

[youtube:3f3n48n5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfL6SrkNmrU[/youtube]3f3n48n5]

[targa2]

I suggest that you watch some of this guys videos for starters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOJIRuEksUQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqlthpY94cQ

 Then spend some time on this guys site.   Mike Montagne.    He mathematically predicted back in 1979 that we would experience economic collapse in 2010.  He has submitted his work to every president since Reagan.  They of course ignore him. Jacques Jaikaran plagarized Mike Montagne in his book Debt Virus.  Many have used parts of his work without due credit.

http://perfecteconomy.com/

Most monetary reformers are dead wrong where it counts, including Paul Grignon, Ellen Brown, Steven Zarlenga, Canada Action Party etc.

[active_indolent]

Well, as I stated before (and explain in video 7) there are other factors besides interest that is driving the escalation of debt based money. You didn't answered or questioned these factors in our last discussion.

First the obvious
1) Banks creates money and it's in their interest to create as much as possible (especially if they are allowed to take out a fee, that you don't call interest, even though your arguments where weak)

2)
He actually touches upon the second reason when his screaming about his poker chip. He's claiming that as long as nobody cash in the game is completely ok (with some dim arguments - I don't like his shouting and ranting - I don't get impressed by that - taking a interpretation precedence not by arguments but by being arrogant and superior without real arguments actually reminds me of discussing these issues with jews ).
But that's the problem - if the gamblers don't see a way of winning in the poker game since it's rigged they all want to cash in to the more permanent money aka cash. So as long as the bankers can get people to believe that the credit money "grows"  people won't cash in and withdraw their money as cash. So assets bubbles as DOW and real estates are sort of gambling stations where people are fooled into believing that their bets are going to grow. But if they start mistrusting the system they are all going to the exit where there will not be enough cash for there DOW chips (or what ever you want to call it). This leads to a demand of ever increasing credit in order to keep people within the game.
So as long as there is a competition with more permanent money (since debt will disappear when they are paid - coins and notes wont - we can argue if the y are totally permanent - in my country they are - but they are at least more permanent then debt) the credit have to give the impression of growing in order to keep people within the game. And that's irrespectively if there are an interest or not

For me creating a totally debt based digital monetary system is probably the bankers wet dream, since in the there would be no exit for the money as cash - no bank runs. It would be like a poker game where it's impossible to cash in. I wrote about that here:

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2047

How to avoid a totalitarian system in a totally debt based system is beyond me. But you could perhaps care to explain?

His formula is nothing new or his ranting "reasoning". Bernard Lietaer, a more soft spoken person, has describe the same thing, for instance.  Bernard Lietaer is a former central banker and have great insights - for instance while at the Central Bank in Belgium (National Bank of Belgium) he implemented the convergence mechanism (ECU).

Having a discussions in a disparaging and superior tone is not something I appreciate.

[active_indolent]

Listening to him again I think there are some things he don't actually know or understand (or more likely supress) .

Let's go through the math regarding Basel2:

The size of the loan * (Capital Adequacy Ratio * Risk weight) = needed capital base.

Let the loan be L.
Let Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) be C
Let "Risk weight" be R
Let needed capital base.be N

Then the the formula can be written as:
L*C*R=N

Which can be written as:
L=N(1/C*R)

From the first formula we see that if the "risk weight" is 0 (which it is for municipalities and states according to Basel2) the bank can create as much money as they please without any needed capital what so ever, thereby indebting the states and municipalities with credit created from nothing. So we all pay taxes for paying on a debt that the bankers create out of thin air. Youmight say that the private bank has the assets from the state or municipal as collateral but why should a private entity have property that belongs to everybody as collateral for creating something from nothing? Why couldn't the state create it themselves as permanent money , without indebting anybody, instead of putting the assets that belongs to the people in the bankers knee?  The reason is that if the state issue it's own permanent  money it would start  competing with the credit created by the parasites as I showed above. Just as Lincolns Greenbacks threatened the bankers credit since they where permanent and competed with the bankers credit - the debt "poker" game would cease to be able to create more debt slaves.
As written in the editorial in the London Times:
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in the North American Republic, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

[targa2]

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.  I commend you on your effort. It was obviously a lot of work and study.
 However, regardless of John Turmels little ourburst of enthusiasm. He is still mostly correct.  I look beyond the persons method of making their point to the substance of it.

 If you are interested in a couple of critical observations I will share them.  Here goes.  

 Spend less time recreating the way internal banking models work.  The time you do spend should be put in simpler terms.People get overwhelmed by it anyway.  Observe the system from the singular scenario of an individual and then apply it holistically across the entire spectrum.

 EG  defenders of interest based lending will say that `the interest comes from the persons future labor` No, it does not.  His future labor is what earns the money, but the source of the money is still the general money supply. The interest on the loans which he has, are not present in that supply because they never created them. Certainly those in a position of relative economic prosperity will be able to profit enough to service the debt plus interest scenario. Weaker players in the economic spectrum may not be able to.  To argue that one person can pay back the interest is to avoid confronting the fact that it is impossible for all to do so.    An examination of economic models by mathematicians produce a positive correlation between interest rates and bankruptcies. Is this coincidental.

The problem with usury is it forces everyone to become 2nd 3rd and 4th tier usurers themselves to keep up with the erosion of their wealth.

Avoid the`` money created out of thin air debate`` . First of all , it`s not true.  All money is loaned based on some existing asset placed as collateral. Often at a 2 or 3 to 1 ratio of asset to loan. Of course banker bailout money is the exception but that is another topic.

Debt is only the enemy because it gets magnified by interest even if no new money ever comes into existence.  Ask yourself this.  If all money comes into existence as a reflection of the current value of another asset at a 33 to 66% relative ratio to the total, how can there then be more debt than current money supply.  The answer is interest. It can only be the answer.

If you listen to Austrian school of economics supporters they go on ad nauseum about money supply, money supply , money supply.   How can there be too much money when there isn`t enough to satisfy all the current `` claims on wealth `` that exist.  It`s a total contradiction.  Austrian school supporters are just usurers of the 2nd degree.  Excrement living off increment.  Money is not wealth.  It is only a claim on wealth.

The goldsmith story is interesting but it only relates to the paradigm when gold was actually used as physical money. This is an accurate inflation model within those parameters. However , if you examine it from a different vantage point one could argue that by doubling the IOUs that are supposed to reflect the gold on deposit, one could say this is  like charging 100% interest on a loan of the entire money supply.  Again, it's just semantics at this point.

Money has to reflect the natural transactions of barter . Otherwise it stops becoming a catalyst unto economy and it becomes the economy itself.

3 things are needed for an economy to exist.  Work to be done, labor, and materials. Money is simply a catalyst to economy, not the economy. Take away the money and a rudimentary economy still exists.  No so in reverse.  Remove the labor materials and work and what is money then. It is math equation in a computer or it is kindling for a fire.

Capital adequacy models and risk weight models are internal banking issues. They are nothing until they interface with the actual economy in the form of loans.  If the New Capitol Accord is so lofty an ideal then why are we up to our armpits in financial alligators under it's administration.

Here is a test for you. Try to explain " economic growth " without using monetary terms of any kind. You will have a migraine headache very soon.

The tally stick system had no interest and it created a stable economy for over 600 years.

Mike Montagne predicted in 1979 that we would have a catastrophic economic collapse in 2010 using mathematical models.  He says it is interest and only interest that is the flaw in the system. That is a pretty specific claim to make and it looks like he is going to be proven right.  I have yet to see a better model that has been more accurate so until I do I will bet my money on a winning analogy. He has challenged all other monetary reformers to prove him wrong and they simply cannot and will not.  For those who say economics is an art form and not mathematical I say this.  They are mincing words.  What modern day financial wizards call economy is a blend of money supply vs labor and goods. As I stated earlier money is not economy, it is an add on.  Money supply is mathematical.  Once money enters the economy it becomes part of the art form. Yes economy is an art form.  When people trade goods and services with each other it is the traders which determine the values amongst themselves. This is the art form.  Money creation from a bank of issue issue is mathematical.  You cannot mix the two together and call it an economy and then justify money creation as being an art form simply because you now claim it is PART of the economy. Money supply must interface with the organic economy as a mirror reflection of organic economy or it is doomed to failure.  

There is no usury in nature !

[active_indolent]

Actually I'm a bit concerned about the way you conduct a debate. You use the same technique as the jews I'm been discussing this with. You don't answer or reply to questions or arguments. You try to get interpretation precedence not by arguments but by being arrogant and superior. In the same manner you make assumptions based on nothing trying to get the person you are confronting to defend something he never claimed. I think this discussion would get far better if you stop using those techniques.
 
Some examples:
First of all, I haven't defended interest, somehow you try to pin that on me, not an honest way of conducting a debate. I'm against interest and you're not going to get me into a defensive debate defending something I haven't endorsed - you're trying to put me into that corner - it's a disrespectful and dishonest way of conducting a debate.

Second:
"Debt is only the enemy because it gets magnified by interest"
Actually you contradict yourself and again it's a statement without any arguments. Let's say there are no money and that the only way money can come to existence is by debt as you claim (yet another assumption you don't use any arguments what so ever for) - then the debt has to grow, or get "magnified",  with or without interest. Describe the point where debt becomes something bad and why it's bad in that point. What happens with the properties of debt in that conjunction turning debt into something bad.

The interest makes the debt grow larger (which it is the problem according to you - again using no arguments but superiority) hence the growth of debt must be the problem irrespectively of if it's the interest that makes it grow or some other factors (as I showed above and you totally ignored -again). So whats causing the growth of the debt is secondary, the problem is the debt by it self.

"All money is loaned based on some existing asset placed as collateral."

An assumption based on nothing more then your superiority - it's not true just because you say so. Money can be created without having any collateral, the state can create cash without creating them as debt. A coin or a note can be created  as permanent money (as Lincoln did with greenbacks as I showed above) not created by indebting anybody. You can lend that permanent money to someone and it's a debt but that wont create new money by doing so. So what you state is false. Why is it better to have money based on indebting people then having permanent money not by itself indebting anybody? Ignoring the fact that money can have different properties depending how they are created is either based on ignorance or, as I fear in your case, based on being dishonest.  Whats the good thing in indebting people when there is a possibility to create permanent money indebting nobody? For me the answer is clear, indebting people equals control.

"The tally stick system had no interest and it created a stable economy for over 600 years."

Sure! I used that argument in an earlier discussion with you (again without getting any reply) but where tally sticks debt based or permanent money by itself? Did they get destroyed when they where paid (as debt based money are) or did they circulate permanently for hundreds of years? Ignoring the fact that money can be more or less permanent and proclaiming that "All money is loaned based" and claim an interpretation precedence not by arguments but just superiority don't impress on me. You have to do better then that.


Again, the P/(P+1) formula is nothing new or related specially to the guys you promote.

[targa2]

Sorry, i was not trying to be arrogant , simply firm. I will explain my position on one or two of your inquiries

Regarding debt.    Let's take the bank and money out of the equation for a minute and then place them back in the equation to illustrate.

You want a house built.  A primary necessity.  Either you build it, or you get someone else to.  No point in debating that, people want and have houses. It is self evident. What can you exchange with the builder to repay him for time and materials ? That's pretty substantial commitment for the builder.  I know because that is what I do for a living. I just spent 4 months building a custom home for a rich fellow in Toronto.  From the first minute I began to hammer a nail there was an accruing debt. By the end of the day there was  a greater debt. By the end of the week.......well you get the picture. The accruing debt was primarily labor ( materials were supplied ) which we will measure as TIME because we agreed to take money out of the equation for illustration purposes, and we need some standard by which to measure.  So lets say the debt at the end of the week is 120 hrs ( 3 men @ 40 hours.)

The customer works in insurance. He builds actuarial tables for large insurance firm. This presents a dilemma. I have no need for what he does for a living. Especially 120 hrs worth. So the debt remains.  Is this a problem?  If so, it is a problem between 2 parties ; me and the customer. Up to this point the only way to avoid having some sort of time debt is for him to pay me back in time units, which we have determined he cannot do.  Futhermore, to get real technical, we could say that the debt accrues hour to hour ,minute to minute or even second to second. Some serious hair splitting, but it is merely for illustration.

So what to do about this debt dilemma?  Well...we need an intermediary to mediate the debt. To act as a utility. That utility needs a measuring standard to use to mediate. So far we have hours.  (120 ) So let's get the mediator to put a 120 hours on record somewhere. A owes B / 120. Problem is ...how do we convert the hours into a universal standard of measure to mediate the debt.  A and B can't exchange the hours as I showed before ( A being the customer and B being me )  If A and B cannot exchange the hours , how can the mediator?
We need a universally accepted token of value that everyone, A -B -Mediator( mediator wants to be paid too) and the rest of those each of us interact with, to get this house built, for A.  If we use gold as the token, what do we mediate ( or pay ) the labor/debt of the miners with,that retrieve the gold from mother nature with? If we pay them, what do we pay with, and what do we offer in exchange for what we pay with in the first place.  If we agree to use something other than gold, what do we use. We can't use time because it is not universally interchangeable.

So we need a token of value.  Lets just use the money we currently have for sake of convenience. Now we have to back to the original scenario because we are entering money back into the mix. We do 120 hours work for the customer in a week, so there is still a debt at the end of the week. We now have to back up and come to terms that are mediated in $$$ , prior to starting, because we have already established the non-exchangable nature of a " time debt " between us.  Lets say $50 per man hour.   After 1 hour x 3 men we have a $150 debt.  Do I demand payment this instant to avoid the dreaded boogey man of debt? Do I wait until the end of the day or week or month for even larger evils to descend upon us.  Or do we simply agree to engage in trust, that the total debt will be honored at the end of the transaction, or in staged payouts along the way.  That is exactly what we did. We agreed in advance to $35,000 in four staged payouts at predetermined junctures of completion.  He was ecstatic at the great job we did and we were happy to get paid at the agreed junctures. All based on debt.

I guess he could have paid us in advance to avoid any debt.  But wait !!!!  Then I would have had the DEBT.  I would have owed him a house. What a freeking dilemma we have now.  I have the $35,000 and he doesn't even know my last name.  Ridiculous scenario so I won't even go there.

Now we have to put the mediator ( bank) back in this scenario.  Why ? Because we need to model banks and debt to be realistic. This fellow I worked for could have easily come up with the money he paid us for our services, but I am damned sure he couldn't have bought the property he built the house on out of pocket.  Let me explain. This fellow bought the property next door to him for $1,000,000 and tore the existing house down to build a bigger one.  He obviously had to go into debt for that. I am presuming a bit, but actually I know he did from our conversations. I'm sure glad he did too, because I would have sat at home for 4 months seeing I had no other prospects at the time. So how did that work? Well...we know that the banks just issued him tokens ( dollars ), in the from of a ledger entry.  He probably got more than $1,000,000 so he could pay all the trades without going into savings. I would have!  Who actually creates the tokens?  It's a joint relationship right?  The bank has the charter and they get his signature to validate the debt. I still don't see the problem. The bank is just mediating or acting as a witness/ trustee to the debt. Keep in mind that I haven't established this as private or government bank. It's just a bank. And it is just debt at this point. There is a 1 to 1 ratio. If we add interest to this scenario( from any bank ) in the from of a mortgage @ say 6% for 25 years, we amplify the actual nominal debt to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.2 million.  $1.2 million of which will never exist, because it was never put into circulation.


I'm a little confused as to how you say I am speculating when I say "All money is loaned based on some existing asset placed as collateral."
OK.... go to a bank and get them to create some money for you without collateral of value. Show me a corporation that can borrow without asset collateral.  I sold private equity investments as a sideline for 6 years. We wanted to fund the expansion of a natural spring water company to the tune of $5,000,000.   Our terms were to share in the profit the company generated, if successful ,and to put the company up at full collateral if not successful. They could keep control of the company forever as long as they shared the profit.  The bank they went to, had much more harsh collateral terms than us. The company was easily worth $20,000,000 for fun.  Show me an example to the contrary.

Even when the International banks lend to governments the labor and resources of the country are pledged as assets.


So let's examine your "permanent money " solution.  I am somewhat familiar with that because I belong to a community currency group.We issue the money to circulate  permanently.   The leader of the project and I are good freinds and we both agree that the sole problem with money is interest.( maybe we are wrong ?)  We do not , however believe that our " permanent money " in the form of community currency is a full blown solution.  We simply agree that it mitigates the damage a little, by creating a small parallel black market.  Even Lincolns Greenbacks were just community currency on a greater scale.  He issued them as an alternative, so he could fund the Revolution.  Can you show me where Lincoln ever declared the Greenbacks to be a permanent solution to the bankers system?  Now I will put you on the spot to back up your claim.  Show me the declaration, document ,conclusive statement , whatever, that Lincoln made , stating that it was a full on permanent solution to the banking system.   If you can't substantiate it from Lincolns' own words ,then you are making a presumption too.  You can't have it both ways.

In your permanent money supply scenario...how much does everyone get issued? What happens when you want to buy something for which the asking price is more than your disposable possession of tokens at that time? How do you get more if you are short. Won't you have to go into debt? If you issue everyone $1,000,000 of money up front , what will a free market demand in terms of price?  If we claim that an increase in money supply is the culprit causing inflation in prices, then issuing tons of permanent money at the onset, will inflate prices based on an inflated supply of ready available capital; unless you issue price controls. Is this the freedom we are looking for....price controls?  If I know everyone has a million dollars I will just say " hey man...don't be so stingy with the pay scale.... I know you have lots, and the current inflation in prices has got me a tad short this week." Welcome to Zimbabwe. The reason it costs a billion units of Zimbabwe currency for a loaf of bread is because it is available in those quantities in Zimbabwe now. How did it get that way is what I want to know.

"The interest makes the debt grow larger (which it is the problem according to you - again using no arguments but superiority)"
 I didn't say it was " the only " problem I said that " debt is ONLY A problem , when it gets magnified by interest" : inferring that the debt by itself is not the problem.

Are you going to tell me that debt DOESN'T get magnified by interest ?( Ie ,  $100 debt @ 6%......... will be $200 in 12 years.  Rule of 72. I'm sure you know that. ) It sure seems like that is what you are extracting from the above italicised quote.  Of course you will have a problem with that statement from the outset ,if you believe that DEBT is the problem.

Look.  In the 10 years I have studied this, I have believed all the different scenarios that people claim are the inherent evil.
Debt based money.
Money out of thin air. ( where else is a man made creation going to come from, it's just a representative agreement between people and that comes from thin air too )
Fractional reserve banking ( should be 0 reserves,  no interest )
Gold standard. ( standard for what ?...paper ? ) Then why not just paper ?
Keynsian theories.
Austrian school theories.
The Fed
The Jews
Gold and silver money only. ( I think it has some potential )
Commodity standard.

I know this. Interest is condemned 22 times in the bible. I'm not much of a bible scholar, but a series of 3000 year old writings that have lasted this long, must have some merit. That is not the original basis for my argument . Simple math is enough for me. The bible is just support.

[active_indolent]

First of all I have studied this for a long time as well, you won't get a interpretation precedence by repeating that and I don't expect to get one either.

You didn't (again) address almost any of the points a made so I will feel free to use the same tactic as you do- ignoring parts of what you say - not because as I can't refute it but because then I would have to put my self in a defensive position and the "debate" would go on for ever coming no where (a situation I'm to familiar with when discussing these issues with a certain group).

Ok, to make the difference between permanent money (which you seem to have some problem understanding) and debt based money perfectly clear. Imagine an Island where they only use tally sticks as medium as exchange. The tally is split and one part is used as money and the other part is used as reference and kept in a secure place in order to prevent forgery. Lets say they are spent into circulation on the Island by building something that's useful for the public, let say a school, a library, a road, a hospital or what ever. Nobody is put in debt and the money exist without anybody having to take a loan. Thereby I have proved that your thesis "All money is loaned based on some existing asset placed as collateral." is wrong.

It's true that inhabitants on the Island can lend tally sticks to each other and loans can be made among the inhabitants using the existing tally sticks. But no new money (tally sticks) are created thereby. Conclusion: a debt don't necessarily means newly created money- if a loan is created using the existing permanent money supply. Thereby I have proved that debt don't necessarily equals money creation.

If all those indebted on this Island paid of their debt the tally sticks, hence the money. would still exist. It's possible to have an equal distribution (or what ever you prefer) of the existing money (tally sticks) without anybody being i debt.

Now lets consider an Island where they let the only money consists of debts in the form of IOUs. So the only way money can be created is by putting someone in debt. So in order to build a school or a hospital or what ever some people in the community is forced to get into debt in order to create the money. And if all pay of their debt the IOU the money would disappear. So in order for the money to exist there's got be those in debt and those holding the money asset in the form of a claim. And in order to expand the money supply the disparity between those in debt and those not in debt will have to increase since you can't indebt those having a money asset since they will be able to pay of their debt and hence destroy part of the money supply - the only way to increase the money supply is to indebt those not having any money asset but have something they can put up as pawns. So an inequality is built into the system escalating with increasing debt = money creation. If all on this Island paid of their debt the money supply would shrink to zero. You said earlier that money should have the property as a catalytic converter, just being the medium of exchange, not being destroyed in the process - well, as I have showed - debt based money don't have these properties.

Now consider a system (as the present) consisting of the permanent money described above competing with a debt based money system (there's even more competitors to debt based money such as barter, LET:s and so on but let skip them for simplicity). In order to have a competitive advantage to the permanent money the debt based money must seem to grow - if this growth is interest or masked as raising real estates "values" or increases in stock market "value" i secondary. In order to keep those having a claim on the banks (claim on permanent money aka cash, hence bank reserves) from withdrawing their money the banks are forced to make it seems like the debt money has a property that permanent money don't have - the ability to magically grow - and in doing so by indebting more and more making the disparity more and more clearer. So the problem is (as you pointed out) the growth of the debt but not what the increase is called - interest or "increased" real estate or phony raising stock values. Because why is people putting money on the stock exchange, because they think they will have a future earning keeping them there - just as interest. And why is a buyer buying a house for that cost more then he can afford if not because he think he can sell it at a higher price - again a sort of disguised interest. And it's all made up for preventing people claiming the permanent money (hence bank reserves aka cash as I showed i video part 7).

But there's also another property permanent money has (besides being a a competitor) that threaten debt based money (credits). As you have stated money should only be a catalyst, it can be used but not being destroyed by doing so. Debt money don't have these properties but permanent money does. Hence the permanent money can pay of the debt underlying the debt money but still exist ( the tally sticks could as an example pay of the debt based money but the tally stick would still exist after doing so) so permanent money threatens debt money by it's ability to kill it. That's another reason why the debt money has to keep up the impression of "growing".

[targa2]

So let me get this straight.  Are you suggesting having a centralized system of money as well as a de-centralized system ( or multiple systems ) of permanent circulating notes?  Or are you advocating a decentralized permanent money supply only ?

If you are suggesting simply allowing competing money systems of notes to circulate without hindrance then I agree.  We already have an estimated 6 billion dollars ( or equivalent foreign notes ) in circulation already with various community currencies;that we know of.

I am all for this because this is what community currency/lets provides now.  There is at least an alternate for people.

[QuiteCharming]

Well I must give Kudos to both of you for clearly being so well informed. A lot of people have spent centuries, if not longer, thinking about monetary systems. It seems distressing that no one has even come close to a perfect solution yet. After all the things the human race has achieved,it's frustrating we can't manage the one thing that has been making societies function since society began. Ah well, I suppose many people have their ideas on how the system should work but there is always someone to find a flaw. I myself am waiting for a money free society!

As far as your videos indolent, I think that they are very well put together and concise considering the type of information you are relaying. I could do without the robotic voice though, it puts me in a semi-trance;)

[active_indolent]

I'm open for different solutions. But I think it's important that we first understand the flaws and use the right terminology regarding the present situation:

1) All money is not created as debt
2) A debt don't necessarily means newly created money (meaning that you don't create money if you lend 10$ to a friend - you only use a portion of already existing money)
3) Money can be more or less permanent
4) Debt based money are non permanent and cease to exist when the debt is paid
5) Permanent money can exist without indebting anyone
6) Debt money can't exist without putting people in debt
7) In order to increase the money supply the debt burden on people has to increase in a debt based monetary system increasing the disparity. Sooner or later the pool of new debt slaves will dry up - and the system will crash into a "debt wall" as economist and professor Michael Hudson puts it in his latest article (I'll try to find it)
8)Permanent money has the property of a catalyst, they can act as a medium of exchange, make economic transaction possible without being destroyed.
9) Debt based money don't act as a catalyst since it can be killed when the debt is paid
10) The different systems, permanent money (cash) and non permanent money (debt, credit) can compete with each other and the permanent money can kill the debt based money without being killed itself. Hence the debt money has to prevent people from using permanent money (cash) and withdraw them from their deposits. This is done by increasing the amount of credit and manipulate peoples mind into thinking that the credit has this this ability to grow if they just don't withdraw their cash (interest) or making people bet their money on the stock exchange (actually this sucking up cash is embedded in the word stock - the word derives from the fact that first stocks in Bank of England was bought by a bunch of tally sticks, hence the word stock) or the in raising real estate values.

Not being clear about the things above makes the discussion rather meaningless. We from there can try to point out the properties we want to get rid of in the present system.

1) Private interest shouldn't be allowed to indebt people. If there's a fair way of having debt based money (as perhaps social credit or Franklins model) then it should not be in the hands of private interest and the goal should not be to maximize the debt burden. It should be democratically totally transparent
2)Interest in any form (including presenting inflation as in real estates or stock exchange as raising "value" when in reality the only thing making it raise is the amount of newly created credit, hence newly created debt burden)
3) To tired to think right now but but feel free to fill in

I agree there's a lot of problem going from the local plane to the international sphere in implementing anything new. Bernard Bernard Lietaer has some interesting ideas that in some senses are similar to Keyenes Bancors wher local economies are protected (hes also influenced by Gessel).

Both you and I know that finding a solution is not easy but starting with the things wrong in this system and knowing what you don't want is somewhat of a start. Perhaps we can have an open discussion from there?

Kudos
I know - the voice sucks. But the alternative was that I read it and hearing the Swedish chef in the Muppet show (but WORSE) would definitely put you in a trance - if not to say a permanent coma  

[targa2]

I still don't believe that debt is inherently evil. That , to me , is just another Griffin/Zeitgeist/Grignon/Zarlenga red herring.Everyone is down on debt because that's what every other truth seeker says they should be down on. We best be careful not to start acting like the "couch potatoes " we scorn, by blindly following a different set of celebrities. When debt gets extinguished upon return to the bank( as it does) it ceases to be debt. While it circulates in the system( that which has not been cycled out) it acts as an exchange medium.  I just do not think that the whole system we currently have is completely broken.  I think it needs serious modification regarding interest, who controls it and available alternatives for those who seek them. After all, this system has assisted in building this civilization.  We can argue all day long about whether that is good or bad.  I thinks it's both good and bad.  When someone shows me a half of a glass of water and asks the trick question " do you see glass as half empty or half full ? "  You know what I say......I say  " it's BOTH.....can't anyone handle that ".

Now I am really going to get into some deep stuff.For every hour I have spent studied money reform , I have spent 50 studying law.  Remember that money is a " creature of law ".  That is no small statement.   Most people are completely unaware of the benefits that are available to them in the current system available under " Negotiable Instruments Law ".  Here is a list.

Limited liability to discharge debt
Bankruptcy protection as opposed to debtors prison ( not available under "substance money" in common law )
International shipping Limited Liability insurance
Redress of grievances in commercial courts involving bills of exchange
International redress of above
Checks, bonds , promissory notes, credit cards, drafts etc.
International commerce itself is only possible through this medium
Depositors insurance
Tax exemptions
Ability to sue
International citizenship protection anywhere in the world ( most are not aware of this but as a consideration in contract for the use of Fed Res notes the US must come to ANY US citizens aid ANYWHERE in the world just because they use the money....it's true )

The above is an incomplete list but you can imagine the titanic struggle it would take to unwind this mess in legal terms without total anarchy.

These were all offered as contractual consideration to US citizens when the Federal Reserve was established.  It is not like they just held a gun to the head of Congress when they instituted this system.It's creation was devious , no doubt ;but there was lawful exchange in kind by the people who instituted it. You cannot dismiss this as trivial.  Personally I think the price we pay in taxes for these benefits is ridiculous and the political fallout from the Fed is nothing short of heinous. However, you may find that gradual change through a series of compromises on THEIR part is more feasible than radical change.  I don't hate the world quite that much.

[QuiteCharming]

I still don't believe that debt is inherently evil.

I would also have to agree that debt isn't the main problem. Now this may be an unpopular opinion (and perhaps this comes from my banker roots), but many people get themselves into debt because of poor decision making. Rarely is a gun put to someone's head and they are forced to make purchases with credit. So while we are at reconstructing the monetary and banking systems, why not change human behvaior as well? Granted some people are in debt because of circumstances beyond their control (medical expenses, emergencies, accidents), but let's not demonize the idea of debt and pretend that the general person bears no responsibility. Maybe a change in the human race must occur before any meaningful change in the money system happens.

[targa2]

Debt is actually a natural by-product of mutual barter.  It simply reflects the time displacement when you give me something I need now, but don't receive back from me what you need, this instant, but instead, put it off until later. It's ...." I still owe you a loaf of bread ".

It's a double edged sword like a lot of things.  It is currently being used as a weapon but it need not be used that way any more than a knife is necessarily an instrument of murder .

I used to believe the DEBT myth too. Some very wise people have showed me that this has prevented me from getting deeper into the mystery of money , and therefore closer to the real truth of the matter.

My brother in law is a retired bank manager and he thought I was a lunatic 3 years ago.  No so anymore.  He knows I  was telling him the truth and he is one stubborn SOB. Anal retentive is more an apt description of him.  He is , despite this fault, a very learned man and once he got past his perception of the messenger, and got to the information, he quickly saw the deception.  He just stopped me one day and said  " it's all about the god damned interest isn't it ".    " That is how I see it " I replied.  Interestingly enough, he deduced this conclusion from " Money as Debt " and " Money Masters ".   His deductions were unprompted by any further education from myself.  I think it was a combination of what he learned over 30 years and a " filling in of the blanks " that led him to his conclusion.