Gregory Williams7, my master's thesis is no mere cloud of speculation. It possessed the potential to prevent the collapse of the USSR and the entire socialist bloc; it could have altered the very course of human history. However, that was not required of a master's thesis. You are significantly underestimating the weight of such work. What matters is the substance within those pages, not whether it reaches the threshold of a doctoral dissertation. There was a time when Srećko Ugrin authored a volume in English regarding non-credit money and dispatched it to thirty of the most influential addresses on the planet, yet every single copy vanished in transit. The postal service compensated him for the lost shipments, but what value does compensation hold when the knowledge itself is absent? That is precisely how formidable those rulers were through their control of credit-based money. They simply would not permit the truth about non-credit money to penetrate the public consciousness. These power brokers assassinated Abraham Lincoln and they assassinated Kennedy because they dared to engage with non-credit money. They even brought down Ceaușescu merely because he managed to settle his debts, an act they deemed far too dangerous. These elites remain secure only as long as the populace thinks like you, yet they tremble when someone begins to think like Maria Thomas48. We have reached the era where more and more people will adopt the perspective of Maria Thomas48. America ought to take pride in individuals of such conviction. As for you, Gregory Williams7, you will feel shame for the positions you defend on this forum. Your influence is expiring this year. Take a look at http://monetary.org, which outlines the proposal from Congressman Kennedy, and http://endtheboe.ning.com, where Jerome Powell, the current head of the Federal Reserve, presents his views while also addressing my own research. The era of non-credit money is arriving. Those who wielded more power than Abraham Lincoln or Kennedy find themselves utterly powerless against Maria Thomas48 and myself. We are winning. Knowledge is power, but the most potent force is an idea whose time has finally come. The time for non-credit money is now.
Gregory Williams7, Maria Thomas48, and I are simply relaying what has already been established as consensus in both the USA and the United Kingdom. On January 25, 2011—which is the day after tomorrow—the BBC is set to air a special program regarding non-credit money, hosted by one of their most prominent journalists. They refer to this concept of non-credit money as "positive money," which serves as the fundamental distinction. This very project currently under debate in Congress also enjoys the backing of Jerome Powell, the Governor of the Federal Reserve. One would be wise to keep a close eye on the developments unfolding in the USA and the United Kingdom. If the implications haven't fully registered yet, they certainly will once you watch the evening news. I expect our domestic networks here in the States will eventually follow suit and report on these global shifts. The truth is becoming impossible to suppress.
Gentlemen, it has been quite some time since I last graced this Forum. On December 17, 2010, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced US Congress Bill HR 6550, known as the National Emergency Employment Defense Act 2010, which proposes the introduction of non-credit money within the USA. Under this plan, 25% of the money would be allocated accordingly. Rather than bearing the label of a Federal Reserve Note, the currency would instead be designated as a United States Note, mirroring the era when Kennedy oversaw the issuance of currency prior to his assassination. This Act is essentially an attempt to End the Fed, effectively dismantling the grip held by the Rockefeller and Rothschild interests. It would facilitate tax reductions while funding essential infrastructure, Social Security, education, and healthcare. You can find more details at http://monetary.org, among countless other sources. Everywhere, this movement is heralded as a monumental turning point for both the USA and the entire world. On November 29, 2010, debates commenced in the US House of Representatives regarding a banking reform bill aimed at abolishing fractional reserve banking in favor of a 100% reserve requirement. These discussions continued through April 1, 2011. The project finds support from Marvyn King, the governor of the Federal Reserve. While they prefer the term "positive money" rather than the "non-credit money" used by myself and Maria Thomas48, the underlying concept remains identical.
Paul Anderson2, you simply recycled the example I provided, where I posited a supply of 110 against a demand of 100. Since the supply exceeds demand by 10%, you are essentially increasing the money supply by exactly 10%. If your calculation correctly identifies that a 10% increase is required, inflation remains at zero. If the requirement is actually 7%, then inflation cannot possibly exceed 3%. Conversely, if 13% is needed, it means the initial 10% was insufficient, necessitating an additional 3% injection. The error you made is marginal and easily rectified; there is absolutely no basis for claims of hyperinflation. If one possesses even a rudimentary grasp of elementary school mathematics, one could theoretically manage the entire world without the need for central banks, their governors, or their endless committees of advisors. All that is required is the formula I have presented to you. That is all there is to it.
crimsonfalcon10, savings have been removed from this equation because they are irrelevant. A bank can offer interest on savings and then utilize those accumulated funds to issue loans that also earn interest; this is a private matter between the bank and its clients, one in which the government has no vested interest. The critical factor is ensuring that banks cannot manufacture new money the way they currently do. Instead, new money should be issued by the state according to the formula I previously outlined. This formula relies solely on supply and demand. Supply is driven by production, making growth essential, while demand is tied to the velocity of money—meaning it is vital that the velocity of money decreases to temper demand. Since supply will always exceed demand, dividing that excess by total demand provides the exact rate at which the money supply should expand. That is the entirety of it, and it is the only thing that matters; everything else is merely a derivative. If an individual takes out a loan to increase production, they create non-credit money based on that increased output rather than the loan itself. If they use the credit poorly and incur losses, no non-credit money is created. Progress generates non-credit money, and it is this non-credit money that realizes progress. Savings and credits remain the private domain of the bank and its customers. If the bank and its clients conduct their business wisely, they will be rewarded with the non-credit money gifted by the state. If they fail to act rationally, they will simply face taxes for their inefficiency. This is how price stability is maintained and economic advancement is secured.
Listen, crimsonfalcon10, non-credit money isn't subject to inflation, because inflation is an inherent necessity when dealing with credit-based currency. You really ought to re-read my previous point more carefully. If supply stands at 110 and demand sits at 100, then k = (110 - 100)/100 = 10/100 = 1/10 = 0.1, which equals 10%.
Maria Thomas48, it is frankly depressing to witness the sheer lack of awareness prevalent in the USA. Kennedy was assassinated precisely because he dared to initiate the issuance of non-debt, non-interest money—essentially creditless currency. If you look at what is documented online regarding his actions and the motives behind his death, one has to wonder how many people actually grasp the reality of it. In his analysis over at hrsvijet.com, commentator Dinko Perica argues that both Kennedy and the leadership in Poland were eliminated due to their pursuit of this non-credit money. At the time, sources in Poland were providing intel directly to the President of Poland. The primary contenders for power were the late president's brother and a figure closely tied to the Bilderberg Group. Ultimately, the nation elected this servant of the Bilderberg Group, who immediately moved to secure a $20 billion loan. There was no economic crisis in Poland at the time, yet they refused an IMF loan. Their non-performing loans stood at 18%, which looks quite stable compared to the 45% seen in China. It appeared as though Poland was following the Chinese model. The Polish people showed no remorse for their lost leadership; they didn't choose the brother who had shielded them from crises and debt, but rather chose the man who plunged them into debt instantly. That is simply the nature of the populace. Still, I hold onto the hope that we might see a sudden explosion of consciousness—a rapid awakening of the people that triggers swift, decisive change.
Maria Thomas48, China is essentially handing out 45% of its capital. Is this a calculated move? With China seeing 12% growth this year compared to 10% in India, the shift is undeniable. Argentina was once drowning in debt just like Greece, yet they have now severed ties with the IMF. Boson proposed non-credit money to the G20 summit as a potential fix for these systemic issues. If the USA and the EU continue to cling to credit-based money, they are destined to decline while China and India inevitably seize their dominance. One has to wonder why the USA would allow this to happen. To prevent such an outcome, the USA will likely attempt to seize control of the Federal Reserve. There are those who argue that the current authority over the Fed expires in 2013. We shall simply have to wait and see how this unfolds. Take a look at http://monetary.org They are hosting their 6th annual conference in Chicago very soon.
Mr. Maria Thomas48, what happens if someone runs for President in the USA on a platform centered entirely on ending the Federal Reserve, and the people actually cast their votes for them? We already have Ron Paul in the mix, and Dennis Kucinich might follow suit. Given that Ron Paul currently commands a majority in the House of Representatives along with 32 senators, he would only need to secure another 19 senators to tip the scales.
Maria Thomas48, the solution lies in debt forgiveness. I am uncertain whether China operates under a specific theory or if this is merely incidental, but they effectively write off 45% of their loans, essentially turning them into gifts. This allows China to maintain prices that are 45% lower than those found in the USA. In response, the USA demands that China appreciate the yuan by 45%. The true exit strategy is for the USA to forgive its own debts to drive down costs. Had mortgage debts been wiped clean, for instance, we wouldn't be facing these crises at all. However, the inevitable outcry will be that loans weren't repaid and interest wasn't collected. A loan can be serviced for decades—perhaps even fully satisfied in reality—yet officially, it remains unpaid and the interest uncollected. We see prominent citizens in the USA committing horrific acts of violence against their families because they cannot satisfy creditors who already possess far too much wealth. You and I are proposing something that could resolve this crisis peacefully, yet those opposing us are merely fighting to preserve the credit-based money system. They are protecting the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. One day, the entire structure will collapse. Perhaps people will finally realize that your suggestions were reasonable when they find the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds hanging in the middle of New York City. Ever since its inception, the Federal Reserve has remained uncontrolled. Congressman Ron Paul authored the book End the Federal Reserve, and he is nearing a majority in Congress that should finally terminate the rule of the Fed. We are approaching the centennial mark since the Fed seized the right to create money. That moment will signal the end of the Federal Reserve, and once that happens, everything else will change as well. Let us hope it happens through peaceful means.
Maria Thomas48, within a system of pure non-credit money, savings are essentially converted into credit, which becomes a private transaction between the bank and its clients. It is vital that banks refrain from creating new money through credit; instead, new money should be issued solely by the state as non-credit money. This type of currency is necessary to facilitate additional production, a point where you are entirely correct. Perhaps China is currently navigating that specific phase. However, the USA has entered a stage characterized by a decelerating velocity of money. While increasing production efficiency drives up supply, an increase in consumption rationality leads to a slowing velocity of money and a subsequent drop in demand. This imbalance is also offset by non-credit money. The amount of non-credit money required to support increased production is precisely equal to the amount needed to counter decreased consumption. Friedman proved this principle, though he failed to realize that non-credit money is the ultimate solution. Boson stated at the G20 summit, "We propose a system of non-credit money, where the creation of money is decoupled from lending." The headline of that piece reads, "To solve this crisis, we must think outside the box." Money is created as a gift and lent as credit. If we simply decouple the creation of money from the act of lending, our monetary problems will vanish.
Mr. Maria Thomas48, an issue regarding non-credit money isn't something that can be accounted for through labor alone. Labor represents merely one segment of the total cost structure. It was only Mark who operated under the delusion that work was the sole variable of importance. According to my own formula, it becomes clear that supply and demand carry equal weight in this equation. If supply and demand reach equilibrium, then the introduction of new money becomes entirely unnecessary. For money to function, supply must exceed demand. That specific surplus—once adjusted by the velocity of circulation—determines the exact volume of currency required in circulation. This surplus serves as the fundamental backing for money, which essentially necessitates that money be treated as a gift. No amount of gold, silver, or credit can substitute for that reality.
Maria Thomas48, there is no distinction between a mathematical formula and reality; they are one and the same. You plug actual figures into a formula and you receive an actual result. If you input flawed data, the outcome will simply reflect those flaws. The result is invariably accurate because it precisely quantifies the amount of non-performing capital required. One must simply provide the correct variables to achieve a correct conclusion. Mathematics remains an exact science, regardless of opinion.
Maria Thomas48, I find myself repeating this point indefinitely, yet it seems to fall on deaf ears. The precise volume of non-credit money is always determined by a specific formula: dM = kM ; k = (supply - demand)/demand ; For instance, if supply equals 110 and demand equals 100. k = (110 - 100)/100 = 10/100 = 1/10 = 0.1 = 10%. If you issue 10% non-credit money, 5% will be directed toward boosting production, while the remaining 5% compensates for the deceleration in the velocity of money. Every single unit produced will be sold, including any unsold inventory that lingered simply because the circulation of money slowed down. This entire process occurs with prices remaining perfectly stable. In other words, there is no inflation.
Listen, lonehawk5, that 3% figure you mentioned covers a much broader timeframe than what we are discussing here. The links you provided track average GDP growth over several years, which pertains specifically to a credit-based economy. My point concerns a non-credit system entirely. In such a framework, GDP growth would be significantly more robust, while inflation would effectively vanish. Regardless, I appreciate you sharing the data; it doesn't undermine the case for non-credit money in the slightest.
user123, I find your preoccupation with inflation and arbitrary figures quite misplaced, considering the US maintained a steady growth rate of 3% for years on end. Historically speaking, the US hasn't seen development exceeding that 3% threshold even during its most dominant eras; if you were issuing money at a 3% rate, it would function essentially as non-credit money. It is impossible to conjure the kind of inflation you are describing under those parameters. If one were to issue 3% more money as a direct grant while achieving 3% annual growth, inflation would effectively sit at zero and the dollar would maintain its exact value. Instead, the dollar has lost roughly 1% of its worth because money is being issued strictly in the form of credit. If money were distributed as a gift based on the formula I previously provided—k = (supply - demand) / demand—inflation simply wouldn't exist. This is elementary school mathematics. Run the numbers: determine how much the supply exceeds the demand and divide that by the demand. Even providing a rough percentage would be a significant improvement over our current reality. If your calculations are slightly off, correcting them should be a trivial matter.
Ashley Barnes9, a non-credit monetary system fundamentally discourages malice and nudges people toward virtue. Once a programmable, non-credit currency is implemented here in the States, you will witness the reality of this shift firsthand. Consumer psychology won't be able to fight against it. Production will expand while the velocity of money slows down, and that is simply how it will always function. Consequently, people will become increasingly content and, ultimately, better versions of themselves.
Gregory Williams7 and lonehawk5, the bourgeois school of thought stands in direct opposition to Marxist theory, at least according to their own logic. Marxist theory begins with labor, which I view as an objective cost. In contrast to this objective cost, we must identify what constitutes objective utility. Objective utility is measured by the velocity of money circulation. When utility is higher, the velocity of money decreases, subsequently lowering demand. While supply is dictated by labor and other costs, demand is determined by the velocity of money as an objective metric. Bourgeois theorists have insisted that subjective utility is the most vital element in economics—that consumer psychology you both seem to favor. In my estimation, subjective utility dictates consumer behavior, whereas objective utility determines one's actual fate. A man might enjoy drinking or using drugs, and that represents his consumer psychology. That is his subjective utility, but his objective utility will decide his ultimate end. Objectively speaking, he will die.
crimsonfalcon10, let's look at the math: MV = GDP; V = GDP/M; GDP = PQ; M = GDP/V; M = PQ/V; therefore, dM = (PdQ - MdV)/(V + dV); In this framework, dM represents the additional money supply as a dependent variable, determined by the independent variables dQ (an increase in production volume) and dV (the change in velocity). I have no interest in consumer psychology, nor am I concerned with interest rates. My focus remains strictly on how much production has increased (dQ) and how the velocity of money has shifted (dV). If the velocity of money decreases, it signifies a drop in demand; consequently, more money is required to facilitate the purchase of goods that failed to sell due to that slowing velocity. The real money supply is simply the reciprocal of the velocity. Thus, real money increases if the velocity slows down. If production rises, velocity must decelerate. The necessity for new money is dictated by this equation: dM = (PdQ - MdV)/(V+dV); dM is the exact amount of capital required. PdQ accounts for increased production while maintaining a constant price level (P). -MdV represents the volume of unsold goods resulting from the deceleration of velocity. V + dV represents the adjusted velocity of money (which is -dV). When considering non-credit money as a gift, one must account for the extra liquidity needed to cover both the surge in production and the inventory stuck in limbo because of the slowing velocity. That is the fundamental reality; everything else is merely unnecessary complication.
John Doe, the US pulled its liquidity from the market, effectively engineering this crisis. It’s a mess that has left all of Europe and anyone blindly following the IMF's playbook scrambling to catch up. Meanwhile, China, India, Brazil, and Argentina remain remarkably insulated from this particular fallout. We have a duty to advocate for non-credit money until the system finally shifts. If we continue to push credit-based money, we are merely acting as agents for a global establishment that is clearly nearing its expiration date. You, however, continue to promote credit money. The logical progression requires non-credit money first—the actual creation of wealth—followed by the subsequent stages of saving and lending the capital that has entered circulation as a gift to the economy. I am holding out hope that this transition occurs within the next two years. This proposal hasn't just appeared overnight; it has been on the table for over a year now. It will persist, it will spread, and eventually, it will be embraced.