If the state can’t save us, we need a licence to print our own money
But I want to introduce you to another way of negotiating a credit crunch, which requires no moral hazard, no hair of the dog and no public spending.… In his book The Future of Money, Lietaer points out - as the government did yesterday - that in situations like ours everything grinds to a halt for want of money. But he also explains that there is no reason why this money should take the form of sterling or be issued by the banks. Money consists only of “an agreement within a community to use something as a medium of exchange”.
Here’s a dilemma: a capitalism- and freedom-hating asshole, writing in a publication a step down from Hustler for its complete and unbiased news coverage, promotes an idea I’ve been pushing for years. We’re coming at it from different directions—he hates the idea of bankers making money, while I hate the idea of government controlling such an important aspect of our lives. But still… Whenever an idiot agrees with you it makes you rethink your position.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
I hate both* - but that doesn’t mean I think his solution (or yours, if you prefer) will work to anyone’s advantage, at least not for long. The Gubmint will step on it - their buddies in the Federal Reserve and the “foreign banking community” won’t accept it.
Even a blind monkey finds a ripe banana now and then, if he fumbles around the jungle long enough. That doesn’t make your preference for ripe ones wrong, though - and it doesn’t make him less blind.
Sorry, I omitted the footnote:
* I don’t actually hate the idea of bankers making money - I simply hate the fact that, observably, most banks’ in-built attitude seems to be that, no matter what else happens in a transaction, they must make a profit, and a damn big one at that.
If there wasn’t a central bank that had a monopoly on U.S. legal tender, then the economy would not have to be run on this principle.