I have taken the position that of the two primary issues of money and land reforms, that the voting public citizens can probably more easily understand and grasp the nature of the money fraud that the land and resource swindles. So I have been concentrating more on money reforms for now. But I agree that if land and resource reform does not quickly follow money reforms, or happen concurrently to them, then we will simply be shifting the forms of tyranny, rather than the substance.

The Land Value Tax is indeed critical. I just wish people could understand what a boon this would be to our civilization and our world. Taken in tandem with eliminating the private use tax (interest) on debt-based money, it could transform our planet into a relative “paradise” overnight.

The modern world was born out of social revolutions that broke the back of a tyranny of ‘land lords’. Unfortunately, the new system was soon hijacked by the ‘money masters.’

With the collapse of the monetary system, the ‘money masters’ are shifting their power base into land.

Without LVT, we will soon return to a tyranny of ‘land lords’

You say “the money supply is inflated when the quantity of money goes up”. I would be grateful if you could explain the difference between “money supply” and “quantity of money”. I always thought they were the same thing. Peter

IMO, the author of these words has a flawed understanding of both of the basic terms he is using. “Fiat” and “socialism” are both being used incorrectly in the above post.

Nathan claims that: “The socialist view that everyone has an equal right to everything is flawed.” Well of course that view is flawed. It is more than flawed, it is outrageous, and totally unworkable. However, it is not the “socialist view”. It is just as flawed to say that about socialism as it would be to say that the “capitalist view” is that everything should belong to private persons. It’s just not true. The most basic “socialist view” is that the government should own and control ALL of the “means of production”. Variant versions separate the basic components of production into “land and resources” and “labor”. Henry George held that there is a differnce between “land” which no man can create, and labor… and every man should own his own labor. However, there are nearly as many definitions of “socialism” as there people using (usually abusing) the term. What we think is that one needs to go beyond stereotyped “labels” and get into the realm of real ideas and sensible definitions. In other words we need to return from the realm of Orwellian “doublethink”.

The same is true of the world “fiat” which is explained more fully below, or in Ellen Brown’s book, Web of Debt, upon which this blog is based. The word is simply being used incorrectly. The essence of the book is to correct the mistaken ideas about money, currency and wealth that allow these massive money frauds to continue. It particularly exposes the errors perpetuated by the “Austrian School”, Von Mises, Rothbard, Griffin, et al.

Time limits do not allow a complete correction of all of the errors in this post at this time. Perhaps later….

The author of this post also confuses the definitions of “money”, “currency” and “wealth”. Without a basis of accurate and precise definitions no rational discussion is possible.

Also, the idea of gold, silver, or other commodities as money is what got us here (in this economic disaster) in the first place, and is the central mistaken idea Ellen Brown’s book, Web of Debt is written to correct. The author is obviously influenced by the errors taught by the “Austrian School” of Economics.

We agree that the people’s wealth IS being pilfered and plundered by private money exploitation, but it has nothing at all to do with “fiat” money. It has EVERYTHING to do with PRIVATE “fiat” money. “Fiat” implies sovereignty, and privately issued “fiat” money is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.

It is the PRIVATE creation of paper or electronic money or currency that is the problem. That is not the same as “fiat”. “Fiat” simply makes currency “legal” and acceptable in payment of government fees and taxes.

How can the full faith and credit of the people of the USA be used to “back” privately created credit-based money? That is the fraud, plain and simple! It is fraud that has been “legalized” by the banksters over time, and most particularly with the “federal reserve act” of 1913 – history’s biggest all time swindle.

Would YOU allow YOUR pledge of credit to back MY IOU (loan)? Of course not. But that is the game the private banksters are playing. THEY (private bankers) create the money in circulation (currency) out of IOUs (loans or promissory notes) and WE (the taxpaying public) guarantee or “back” those “federal reserve notes” with OUR “full faith and credit”.

The “scam” has nothing at all to do with “fiat” and everything to do with the legalized fraud known as “private central banking”. It is the largest criminal enterprise in all of human history – bar none.

We recommend reading Web of Debt as an essential first step in correcting numerous myths and misconceptions about money, or currency. It is these misconceptions (basically propaganda) that allow the crimes to continue.

The LVT could solve most of our financial problems within a few short years… or at least make an enormous start on wealth redistribution in the most painless way possible. That would make a beginning on the lowering of the largest personal fortunes, and a general raising of wages and small business income.

However, I disagree somewhat with your generalization about interest: “Money issued with interest is fundamentally flawed (no matter who the issuer.)”

To date I have seen no persuasive evidence that publicly issued and controlled money would not be vastly more beneficial to the common good and welfare of society than privately issued money, regardless of the interest attached.

With publicly-issued money interest could range from 0 to ??? percent, based on 1) whether it was spent or lent into circulation; 2) spent on infrastructure (public wealth-producing or enhancing assets); 3) distributed to state or local governments for infrastructure on those levels; 4) the risk involved in loaning money into circulation (ex: to private banking or commercial enterprises) or 5) credit worthiness of the borrower and chances of default. There are other issues that could and would affect interest rates as well.

Demurrage is one way of guarding against the hoarding or currency, which takes it out of general circulation. Hoarding of currency is inflationary. Demurrage would work to insure that stored wealth was in some other form than currency (circulating money).

But in my opinion, the simplest, quickest, and most direct way of correcting the current private money monopoly is to make the so-called “national banks” really national. It is doing no more than what their name implies in the first place.

“National” should actually mean that it belongs to the “nation” – not a tiny minority of private money-monopolists.

“Federal” should actually mean that it is part of the “Federal” government.

All I ( and Web of Debt) am proposing is to return to “truth in wording”, and re-make these institutions into that which they already claim to be. End the deceptions. End the private monopoly over money – which in turn controls everything else, including our so-called “democratic” government.

I just wish people could grasp the importance of these issues, and the enormous cost to them of doing nothing.

If the lender has actually earned and must part with the money that is being lent, then the lender has the right to charge interest or demurrage, or any other fees, as supply and demand allows. (With real money in a free market, these rates set themselves.)

But if the “lender” is creating the money out of nothing, then there is no justice in collecting anything for it in return, whether interest, demurrage, or any other fees.

I think the biggest problem though is fiat currency itself. The owners of central banks around the world have the monopoly power to steal from everyone through the use of these currencies. The wealth of nations is being pilfered, and fiat currency makes that possible. (The collection of interest or demurrage or anything else for the creation of money also makes this possible.)

I do like thinking things through theoretically though. If the theft didn’t happen, what principles could stabilize fiat currency to make it behave like real money? (But in the real world, fiat currency is too tempting for the monopoly powers that create it, and the unlimited wealth they gain from the system ultimately leads to tyranny.)

When fiat currency is created, there is a transfer of wealth from existing currency to the new currency. So a just system should issue money to everyone, not stealing from the many to pay the few. But what system could pay everyone the appropriate amount to maintain both stability and justice?

“Land value tax” sounds pretty much like Henry George. I do believe it has many benefits over other forms of taxes.

George believed that land value is a measure of economic productivity. If the number of goods and services stay about the same from year to year, land value should stay the same as well. If goods and services increase, land value should also increase. For money supply to increase along with goods and services, it could increase along with land value. With the “land value tax,” this value would be partially collected in taxes. So changes in tax revenues from land value could indicate appropriate changes in money supply.

The most just system would leave everyone’s purchasing power unchanged. So currency could be issued as a percentage of the amounts people already have. That way people can still buy the goods and services they could buy before, plus having the ability to buy the new goods and services as well. The easy way to accomplish the same thing would be to leave the money supply constant, leaving purchasing power the same, but allowing the value of the currency to change. (If everyone’s money doubles simultaneously, prices double in response, and everyone still has the same purchasing power as before. Why not leave the money supply alone? It’s much easier.)

But gold and silver are a better form of money, because they are much harder to counterfeit. They can be mined, making the growth of the currency dependent on production (so it can only grow with production). The free market can determine their value relative to other goods and services. And their intrinsic value makes “fiat” regulations unnecessary. Supply and demand become free to work, and the people become free from the monopoly powers that currently steal the value of everyone’s money.

But one point. Ellen Brown writes

“Price inflation results only when “demand” (money) exceeds “supply” (goods and services).”

This sounds like Milton Friedman creeping in. Surely “demand” is a function of income not money. More money in itself will not create shopping basket (goods and services) inflation as the speed of circulation of money is highly elastic. The monetarist relation between the quantity of money and price only works with asset prices. Why? Because the speed of money used for asset purchases is much slower than for goods and services and much less elastic. Indeed, the noughties asset boom resulted directly from money creation by the banks.

But what empirical evidence is there for a relation between quantity of money and goods and services inflation? And how could it work theoretically given the variability of the speed of money used for goods and services?