PS to Newsletter No. 50 - April 2015
Links to other Newsletters can be found here.
The last item in Newsletter No 50 (March) was on "One Glimpse of the Coming UK Election". Now there is something else to say.
(1) "The Public Money Supply should be for People, not for Banks - an Election issue for Britain?". See www.thomasattwood.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/a-message-from-dora-meade-positive-moneys-network-coordinator.
You should act on it if you agree it's important.
There have also been some other interesting developments.
(2) With good sense the Iceland government is now seriously considering whether to deprive commercial banks of the privilege of creating the national money supply as debt to themselves. See www.thomasattwood.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/frosti-sigurjonssons-sovereign-money-proposal-icelands-central-bank-would-become-the-only-creator-of-money.
(3) A petition is being put to President Zuma of South Africa asking him to "Create a People's Bank in South Africa - and to do this by re-purposing the CENTRAL BANK (South African Reserve Bank) to make it a PEOPLE'S BANK that creates sovereign money as value rather than interest bearing debt". See https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/President_Zuma _STOP_the_BANKS_from_CREATING_MONEY_as_INTEREST _BEARING_DEBT/?pv=97.
(4) Euro or restored Drachma for the Greeks? If the Greeks have to go back to the drachma, they would be sensible to follow Iceland's example at (2) above. See www.wolfstreet.com/2015/04/03/greece-threatens-with-drachma-plans-exit-euro.
These examples and others suggest that, sooner than we think, the world may accept the proposal to transfer the function of creating the whole of their national money supplies debt-free to public agencies serving the public interest.
That would remove the present privilege given to commercial banks to create over 95% of national money supplies as profitable debt for themselves.
Public policy would then not only remove the compulsory debt now imposed on all citizens for using the public money supply. Public policy would become freer than now to encourage the use of democratically controlled local and other complementary currencies; and it would also be freer than now to reduce today's systemic pressure to widen the growing financial gap between the majority of people and the comparatively few people able to share the unearned profits of the banks.
There are well-meaning people who believe that reforming the money system at national level will conflict with developing its growth at local level. But I think they are wrong. It's fairly obvious that reforming the money system at national level is a necessary step toward a more decentralised money system as a whole.
28 April 2015