I’m glad you put ‘wealth’ in quotes, but it’s still misleading, and I expect many readers will get the wrong idea.

Real wealth, as Bill Daly suggests, is the goods and services in the economy. Ask any Zimbabwean billionaire

Expansion of the money supply, whether perpetrated by the banks or the government, simply redistributes existing real wealth. It allows the recipients of new money to purchase real goods and services without offering anything in return. It is legalised counterfeiting, and the cost is borne by everyone who isn’t in on the game, as the purchasing power of money inevitably decreases.

Our peculiar system of money, founded on debt, is dangerously unstable, and your reform would address some fundamental problems. Deflation, in particular, would no longer represent such a menace.

Like James Stephenson, I find it frightening that you would even consider increasing government spending, at a time when the state accounts for half of our GDP, but you are right to treat the question of how we divide the proceeds of the reform as separate from the need for a more stable monetary system. As many people have said, this reform should be supported across the political spectrum.

After your reform, inflation would still be a stealth tax, but at least the blame for it would lie squarely with the government, rather than being hidden in a tangled web of corruption and collusion between the government and the banks.

Likewise, it would still be possible for the government to wreck the economy through run-away inflation and market distortion, but the link between government action and economic catastrophe would be much clearer, and there would be more democratic pressure for them to behave responsibly.

It will be interesting to see how the politicians of all parties react to these proposals. I suspect John Martin is right that “resolving this problem to the benefit of mankind in general holds no benefit to them”.

Though my economic views aren’t fully aligned with yours, and you seem to have much more faith in the benevolence of government than I do, I wish you the best of luck in your campaign. It is essential that we awaken the public to the foulness of the current system.

PS. To Mark Haynes, I must say that “cheap, affordable credit” is not a good thing. Government manipulation of interest rates does serious harm to the economy. Artificially low rates are a big factor in the ongoing housing bubble, and they lead to all kinds of malinvestment (businessmen pursuing marginal ventures that would not be justifiable if interest rates were determined purely if the time preferences of investors).

You stated that the members of the government are not aware of the alternative road that you offer as an alternative to the ever growing debt cycle.

However, there are many members of governement whom have studied economics and I am almost certain that they are aware of the issue and the hopeless situation that it puts society in.

So surely the question we should be asking ourselves is; not what is the alternative road out of this but instead WHY are the government not interested in searching for this alternative road in the first place. I hazard a guess that resolving this problem to the benefit of mankind in general holds no benefit to them. And this is the real problem here.

Once we tackle this fundamental question then I think we will be able to make some progress with this new Act that you are proposing.

Like many other controversial subjects in which educating the public is key, one path forward could be to involve celebrities in the cause (as undesirable as this may seem).

I will be spreading the news as much as I can.
Keep up the good work.

John

Great to see this reform campaign is up and running. I have looked at the proposed act and have to say I’m impressed, and am in full agreement and support, and wish it every success. Well done for all the hard work that has gone into this.

The tough part will now be getting this proposed legislation accepted and implemented by the politicians, which I can see being a hard task, as I tend to think the ‘vested interests’ banking fraternity have a lot of them in their pocket, maybe I’m too cynical, but we’ll see?

I have to say when I hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer Osbourne or our new Prime Minister Cameron talking about the need for cuts, and we are all in this mess together, it gets me really annoyed, as i know their is no need for cuts or indeed tax rises, and these place-men won’t suffer any hardships, unlike the general population.

If the money-supply was created by or on behalf of the government debt-free, and with no need to tax people extortionately to pay the interest, and commercial banks hadn’t usurped this privilege, we wouldn’t be in a mess, and most importantly people’s lives would have a chance of being a lot more free, and prosperous.

This idea and reform is pure common-sense, and apart from the tiny minority of banking oligarchs and their lackeys, this should be welcomed by all, if you are a socialist on the left you should welcome the fairness and possibility of better public services, and if you are a capitalist business owner on the right you should welcome the easier access to cheap, affordable credit!

I really hope this reform gets enacted, and I just hope we can breakthrough the controlled media’s stranglehold on information, as this is certainly the right time to convince the people of the benefits of such an essential reform!

The best of luck
Mark

Those on the right and left alike ought to be equally as disgusted by the shocking waste of public money involved in buying our nation’s money supply from banks when it could be created interest and debt free.

All we hear about these days is ‘cutting out the waste in public spending’. This proposal addresses the biggest. most fundamental source of wasted public money.