If this discussion is still viable
See also "The Crisis of Global Capitalism" by George Soros and "The Death
of Money" by Joel Kurtzman. These are works by experts who have been to the
touchstone and back.
Obviously Pound did not have the ultimate answer to the economic
enigma,and he probably didn't think so himself, but it is beginning to
appear that his analysis was not all that wrong either. Sensing that
something is wrong and having the answer are two different things entirely.
Furthermore there is nothing wrong with examining or suggesting
alternatives. Vested interests, however, may see it differently.
The critics of negative-interest money or demurrage currency claim
that it encourages rapid and profligate dispersal of resources but as
Lietaer points out that "under our current system it makes sense to cut
down trees and put the money in the bank; the money in the bank will grow
faster than trees."(from the interview).
CDM
>From: charles moyer <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: FW: value / money /interest-bearing debt
>Date: Sun, Dec 31, 2000, 11:33 AM
>
> Bernard Lietaer has some intriguing ideas on the possibilities of
> negative-interest money (demurrage currency) and the present-day technology
> to make it work. His thought on the repression of the archetypal "Great
> Mother" religious orientation and its emphasis on earth's abundance as
> opposed to its shadow of scarcity, fear, and hoarding is, I think, apposite
> to Pound's thinking.
> For an interview with and introduction to Lietaer go to
>
> http://www.transaction.net/press/interviews/lietaer0497.html
>
> CDM
>
> ----------
>>From: Gerald Steen <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: value / money /interest-bearing debt
>>Date: Sat, Dec 30, 2000, 9:02 PM
>>
>
>> Can Pound's monetary beliefs be stated; Pound did not support the gold
>> standard, nor did
>> he object to fiat money, but believed a nation's currency should be issued
>> interest free and
>> be a demurrage currency? Would not this resolve a currency system that must
>> terminate itself?
>>
>> It appears to me the technology was not available during Pound's lifetime to
>> implement
>> such a monetary system in an industrial society, but now technology exists
>> and can be
>> implemented within a paperless monetary system.
>>
>> There are approximately sixty local currency systems in the U.S., Canada and
>> other
>> locations which are interest free, some having employed a demurrage
>> currency. Does these
>> reflect Pound's monetary ideal?
>>
>> Gerald Steen
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "charles moyer" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 10:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: value / money /interest-bearing debt
>>
>>
>>> Even more sobering than these questions does it follow that any economy
>>> which is sustained by a currency which is based in interest-bearing debt
>>> must ultimately and logically terminate itself under insoluble debt?
>>>
>>> CDM
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> >From: Gerald Steen <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >Subject: Re: value / money / debt
>>> >Date: Wed, Dec 27, 2000, 2:58 PM
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Discussion has been on debt, but I would appreciate a discussion on the
>>> > interest and the impact to the monetary system. Lets say debt of
>> $100,000 is
>>> > created at 8% interest over 20 years. A $100,000 of interest will have
>> to be
>>> > paid also. Doesn't this mean that only a $100,000 is placed in
>> circulation
>>> > whereas $200,000 has to be repaid? Where does the other $100,000 come
>> from?
>>> > As someone stated, if all debt would be repaid, there would be no money
>>> > left. Doesn't this means that when all the money is paid back, only 50%
>> of
>>> > the debt is paid.
>>> >
>>> > Gerald Steen
>>> > Program Manager, retired
>>> > E-System Raytheon
>>> > [log in to unmask]
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Dirk Johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 11:19 AM
>>> > Subject: Re: value / money / debt
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> When the Fed buys a government security (i.e., lends money to the
>>> > government
>>> >> -- public debt) or lends to a member bank (for the purpose of
>> increasing
>>> >> that bank's fractional reserve so that bank can make loans) throught
>> the
>>> >> discount window (private debt), money is created. This money is not
>> even
>>> >> printed until it becomes a currency demand (you go to an ATM). It
>> simply
>>> >> exists as computer entries.
>>> >>
>>> >> When the Fed sells government securities (redeems public debt) or is
>> paid
>>> >> back by a member bank, money is destroyed (i.e., the computer entries
>> are
>>> >> "balanced" -- deleted).
>>> >>
>>> >> All money (a concept that includes "all currency" but which exceeds
>> "all
>>> >> currency") in circulation results from the Fed buying securities
>> (lending
>>> > to
>>> >> the government) and lending to banks (to individuals and corporations).
>>> > The
>>> >> "reserve" of "fractional reserve" is really simply an obligation to pay
>>> > the
>>> >> Fed. That is what I meant by debt. The money does not exist until
>>> > someone
>>> >> owes it (either the taxpayers or a borrower). The money cannot be
>>> > redeemed
>>> >> by the issuer in gold or silver or platinum or even oil or toothpaste.
>> It
>>> >> only exists as somebody's promise to pay.
>>> >>
>>> >> Look at a dollar bill. Notice that it's called a "Federal Reserve
>> Note".
>>> > A
>>> >> "Note" is by definition a redeemable instrument, but if you send a
>> dollar
>>> > to
>>> >> the Fed and ask them to redeem it, you'll be lucky if they send you
>> four
>>> >> quarters (lucky because a quarter at least has SOME value), but they'll
>>> > more
>>> >> likely just tell you to get lost, because there IS nothing with which
>> to
>>> >> redeem it, except someone else's debt, which will be paid in Federal
>>> > Reserve
>>> >> Notes of equal value to the one you possess - someone else's promise to
>>> > pay.
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course, banks make profits on ALL of these transactions. And when
>> the
>>> >> banks go belly-up, we the people give them even more money. Jim X knew
>>> > the
>>> >> score.
>>> >>
>>> >> Dirk Johnson
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Tim Romano [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 4:24 AM
>>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >> Subject: Re: value / money / debt
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> What is "debt"?
>>> >> Tim Romano
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> DIrk Johnson wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> [...] The entire U.S. (and European) system
>>> >> is based upon debt, not value. If all debt were paid, under the
>> current
>>> >> system of banking, there would be no money at all.
>>> >>
>>> >> The money is created from debt and then used as a "reserve" to create
>>> >> further debt under a fictitious fractional reserve (fictitious because
>> the
>>> >> reserve doesn't actually exist except as previous debt), which in turn
>> is
>>> >> used as a reserve upon which fractional loans and so forth again and
>> again
>>> >> up to, if memory serves me, 23 times, when it exhausts itself. Of
>> course,
>>> >> new debt is simply issued by the government (bonds, bills, notes) and
>> new
>>> >> money is printed to buy it and the whole shebang starts again. Banks
>>> > charge
>>> >> interest on all of it. [...]
>>> >
>>
>
|
