I agree fractional reserve banking is bad, and that people should have knowledge and choice is how their money is invested. However, allowing the government to print money causes inflation, and won't actually reduce the real amount of taxes, because all the money will be worth less, so the real value of your money will be reduced. Money SHOULDN'T be created, by anyone.
If the CB creates new funds they should be evenly distributed across the population not just given to the government. You can hardly advocate for a monetary system that you say is non political which then just transfer new created funds to the government. If these new funds are instead evenly distributed to the public then you cant get more democratic than that. I agree with pretty much everything else in this proposal though.
Investments fees for the current account should also be regulated by the central bank to avoid excessive charges. Also many private banks may waive these fees as an incentive to attract more customers who may also lend to the bank.
@PositiveMoneyUK Maybe they are just worried about their current jobs. You can let them control the money for 20 years, then after that allow no new money or have it fixed a $1 per ounce silver. If the price of the dollar or pound is more than that, then no printing will occur. Thus at $34 per ounce, we will have to wait until the price of silver drops below $1 per ounce before money can be printed. Thus you have a silver standard with no reserves in silver.
The government of each country should print their own debt free money. Nothing other than this is acceptable. The Bank of England is not a government entity it's a privately owned bank. You are misleading people here. It is also geographically in the independent sovereign state known as the City of London. So what you are talking about here is more of the same with a different set of clothes. You've lost a supporter here. This whole thing is a total fraud.
@CoreOfTheSpiral Do you want Barack Obama (the government ) in charge of printing money? The government is run by lobbiests and they finance them and they have no morals and will vote regardless of conflict of interest. The present ability of the president and congress to print money via debt is the problem.
@CoreOfTheSpiral The BoE is wholly owned by the UK government. It isn’t private, unless your key source of information is unreferenced conspiracy theories.
The BoE Nominees is owned in whole by the BoE and one nominee shareholder, who is also an employee of the BoE. It holds shares on behalf of ‘Heads of State’ and the government. It has less that £1million in assets that it owns itself, the company itself doesn’t hold very much at all – it just holds securities in custody for other groups.
@CoreOfTheSpiral In addition, the pover to create money would not be handed to the BoE as it currently exists. That’s not the case. That’s what the Bank of England Act is designed to address. This is dealt with in section 27. See "Our Proposals" on the website.
My idea is of a fully national bank, owned by citizens, where the capital is the prefect translation of the nation actual resources and potentials. Where creation/subtraction of money in any form is done to adapt to an increasing/decreasing population and profitability of its market channels.You'd then create a society of credit (no debt) where one's birth brings the nation an added potencial economic value, not a cost (or debt).A society where u own what you worth in £ and are free to invest it
Ok, seignorage is an old story of injustice. But to my knowledge The Bank of England it's not quite a national bank. It's shareholders (the royal family and many undisclosed) make it a perfectly private bank as all others, lending money to the government. Additionally it owns a good 15% of the ECB (without using euro) sharing therefore its seignorage (profit from creating money).
My idea is of a fully national bank, owned by citizens, where the capital is the prefect translation of the nation re
@bimbafly The BoE is wholly owned by the UK government. It isn’t private, unless your key source of information is unreferenced conspiracy theories.
The BoE Nominees is owned in whole by the BoE and one nominee shareholder, who is also an employee of the BoE. It holds shares on behalf of ‘Heads of State’ and the government. It has less that £1million in assets that it owns itself, the company itself doesn’t hold very much at all – it just holds securities in custody for other groups.
@PositiveMoneyUK This would seem to me to be an unreferenced reply...
I believe the individuals responsible should also be looked at and 'reformed', not just the faceless corps and buildings. Afterall, you wouldn't want those responsible behind the scenes to be psychopaths now would you?
This is great and it shows that the banks as they are today do not create value but extract it from the economy and it looks like they are the main cause of the decline of British industry over thepast 25-30 years (there are other reasons of course).
It is also a closed shop system and you cannto get in unless you are in or are chosen at 20 to be part of it. Take back the right to 'print money' and they are back in the need to follow the strategy of business and the nation.
Yep great videos! Agree with your sollutions. Should have happened years ago, but then everybody was having a way to good time spending their borrowed money. I doubt though that this information will go mainstream , people prefer to blame immigrants to bankers. Massmedia gonna boycott it. The presentation is still not spectacular or scandalous put forward to attract viewers to gain momentum for fundamental changes like these in these turbulant times. I'll tell people though!
@PositiveMoneyUK - I agree that this would be a tough sell politically. What do you make of a system where the money supply is generally fixed, but where money creation could occur as long as it was matched with a reduction in tax for that year. The loss of purchasing power of individuals through inflation offset would be offset by the lower tax rate. This would allow central control whilst not drawing purchasing power from individuals to the money creators.
Why do you propose that we transfer the ability to create money from nothing rather than abolish it? Money creation is effectively a tax, as it takes purchasing power from private individuals (through inflation) and adds it to the balance sheet of the treasury.
@Wulfyn99 Sometimes the money supply needs to be adjusted to help the economy along. The key is how the new money is distributed when it is created. If it goes to a handful of banks it aint going to be in the public interest. If it is spread evenly across the citizenry then that is good.
Its good to know there are organisations such as PostiveMoney proposing feasable solutions to the worldwide economic problems. I really hope more people see this video and support a change for better.
Brilliant video. I plan on buying a video and burning it with the OK of positive money. Distribute it through friends co workers and family. With any luck we will get more and more people involved in changing the current system. (real change not obama change). Well done to those involved !
Why don’t we just nationalise our money supply, not our banks, and the government can create money debt-free? We propose to nationalise rather the "creation of money".
If we did not rely on banks to create our money supply then they would be an ordinary business. And it would not be of interest to us how responsible their lending is and who they lend to. They would be allowed to fail, go bancrupt just as any other ordinary business and we wouldn't have to worry.
I agree fractional reserve banking is bad, and that people should have knowledge and choice is how their money is invested. However, allowing the government to print money causes inflation, and won't actually reduce the real amount of taxes, because all the money will be worth less, so the real value of your money will be reduced. Money SHOULDN'T be created, by anyone.
jptelthorst 1 week ago
If the CB creates new funds they should be evenly distributed across the population not just given to the government. You can hardly advocate for a monetary system that you say is non political which then just transfer new created funds to the government. If these new funds are instead evenly distributed to the public then you cant get more democratic than that. I agree with pretty much everything else in this proposal though.
daniel987878 1 month ago
Investments fees for the current account should also be regulated by the central bank to avoid excessive charges. Also many private banks may waive these fees as an incentive to attract more customers who may also lend to the bank.
daniel987878 1 month ago
"Who should decide how much money is created?"
how about making it completely non subjective and create an Algorithm to automate money creation? *comments please*
reevolutionable 1 month ago
@reevolutionable Have a mandate folowed by the central bank to keep inflation within certain bounds and also target growth.
daniel987878 1 month ago
@PositiveMoneyUK Maybe they are just worried about their current jobs. You can let them control the money for 20 years, then after that allow no new money or have it fixed a $1 per ounce silver. If the price of the dollar or pound is more than that, then no printing will occur. Thus at $34 per ounce, we will have to wait until the price of silver drops below $1 per ounce before money can be printed. Thus you have a silver standard with no reserves in silver.
pirucreek 3 months ago
The government of each country should print their own debt free money. Nothing other than this is acceptable. The Bank of England is not a government entity it's a privately owned bank. You are misleading people here. It is also geographically in the independent sovereign state known as the City of London. So what you are talking about here is more of the same with a different set of clothes. You've lost a supporter here. This whole thing is a total fraud.
CoreOfTheSpiral 3 months ago
@CoreOfTheSpiral Do you want Barack Obama (the government ) in charge of printing money? The government is run by lobbiests and they finance them and they have no morals and will vote regardless of conflict of interest. The present ability of the president and congress to print money via debt is the problem.
pirucreek 3 months ago
@CoreOfTheSpiral The BoE is wholly owned by the UK government. It isn’t private, unless your key source of information is unreferenced conspiracy theories.
The BoE Nominees is owned in whole by the BoE and one nominee shareholder, who is also an employee of the BoE. It holds shares on behalf of ‘Heads of State’ and the government. It has less that £1million in assets that it owns itself, the company itself doesn’t hold very much at all – it just holds securities in custody for other groups.
PositiveMoneyUK 1 month ago
@CoreOfTheSpiral In addition, the pover to create money would not be handed to the BoE as it currently exists. That’s not the case. That’s what the Bank of England Act is designed to address. This is dealt with in section 27. See "Our Proposals" on the website.
PositiveMoneyUK 1 month ago
My idea is of a fully national bank, owned by citizens, where the capital is the prefect translation of the nation actual resources and potentials. Where creation/subtraction of money in any form is done to adapt to an increasing/decreasing population and profitability of its market channels.You'd then create a society of credit (no debt) where one's birth brings the nation an added potencial economic value, not a cost (or debt).A society where u own what you worth in £ and are free to invest it
bimbafly 4 months ago
Ok, seignorage is an old story of injustice. But to my knowledge The Bank of England it's not quite a national bank. It's shareholders (the royal family and many undisclosed) make it a perfectly private bank as all others, lending money to the government. Additionally it owns a good 15% of the ECB (without using euro) sharing therefore its seignorage (profit from creating money).
My idea is of a fully national bank, owned by citizens, where the capital is the prefect translation of the nation re
bimbafly 4 months ago
@bimbafly The BoE is wholly owned by the UK government. It isn’t private, unless your key source of information is unreferenced conspiracy theories.
The BoE Nominees is owned in whole by the BoE and one nominee shareholder, who is also an employee of the BoE. It holds shares on behalf of ‘Heads of State’ and the government. It has less that £1million in assets that it owns itself, the company itself doesn’t hold very much at all – it just holds securities in custody for other groups.
PositiveMoneyUK 1 month ago
@PositiveMoneyUK This would seem to me to be an unreferenced reply...
I believe the individuals responsible should also be looked at and 'reformed', not just the faceless corps and buildings. Afterall, you wouldn't want those responsible behind the scenes to be psychopaths now would you?
123drive 3 weeks ago
This is great and it shows that the banks as they are today do not create value but extract it from the economy and it looks like they are the main cause of the decline of British industry over thepast 25-30 years (there are other reasons of course).
It is also a closed shop system and you cannto get in unless you are in or are chosen at 20 to be part of it. Take back the right to 'print money' and they are back in the need to follow the strategy of business and the nation.
sinjofin 6 months ago
Yep great videos! Agree with your sollutions. Should have happened years ago, but then everybody was having a way to good time spending their borrowed money. I doubt though that this information will go mainstream , people prefer to blame immigrants to bankers. Massmedia gonna boycott it. The presentation is still not spectacular or scandalous put forward to attract viewers to gain momentum for fundamental changes like these in these turbulant times. I'll tell people though!
MrStoorzender 6 months ago
@PositiveMoneyUK - I agree that this would be a tough sell politically. What do you make of a system where the money supply is generally fixed, but where money creation could occur as long as it was matched with a reduction in tax for that year. The loss of purchasing power of individuals through inflation offset would be offset by the lower tax rate. This would allow central control whilst not drawing purchasing power from individuals to the money creators.
Wulfyn99 7 months ago
Why do you propose that we transfer the ability to create money from nothing rather than abolish it? Money creation is effectively a tax, as it takes purchasing power from private individuals (through inflation) and adds it to the balance sheet of the treasury.
Wulfyn99 7 months ago
@Wulfyn99 Sometimes the money supply needs to be adjusted to help the economy along. The key is how the new money is distributed when it is created. If it goes to a handful of banks it aint going to be in the public interest. If it is spread evenly across the citizenry then that is good.
daniel987878 1 month ago
Its good to know there are organisations such as PostiveMoney proposing feasable solutions to the worldwide economic problems. I really hope more people see this video and support a change for better.
OhMrJakey 7 months ago
Brilliant video. I plan on buying a video and burning it with the OK of positive money. Distribute it through friends co workers and family. With any luck we will get more and more people involved in changing the current system. (real change not obama change). Well done to those involved !
chipdietrich 7 months ago 3
Nationalise the whole banking system.
Credit is a public utility and should be run in the public interest, not for private profit.
GreatGungHolio 7 months ago 6
@GreatGungHolio
Why don’t we just nationalise our money supply, not our banks, and the government can create money debt-free? We propose to nationalise rather the "creation of money".
If we did not rely on banks to create our money supply then they would be an ordinary business. And it would not be of interest to us how responsible their lending is and who they lend to. They would be allowed to fail, go bancrupt just as any other ordinary business and we wouldn't have to worry.
PositiveMoneyUK 7 months ago
@GreatGungHolio Nationalising everything would make the banking system unmanageable and incredibly bureaucratic.
daniel987878 1 month ago