Countries everywhere are facing debt crises today, precipitated by the credit collapse of 2008. Public services are being slashed and public assets are being sold off, in a futile attempt to balance budgets that can’t be balanced because the money supply itself has shrunk. Governments usually get the blame for excessive spending, but governments did not initiate the crisis. The collapse was in the banking system, and in the credit that it is responsible for creating and sustaining . . . .
Read more here.
Filed under: Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary |
WEB OF DEBT BLOG 
I risk making myself look naive here, but here goes. Before any nationalised banking system was put in place, (if that were to happen) would capital controls not have to be put in place as well?
As Wall Street seem to be not too fond about any notion of a state controlled bank, if there are no capital controls, won’t capital simply flee the US looking for a place where there are no state controls?
I understand that before 1971, any countries that had holdings of dollars could demand the equivalent of those dollars in gold. However, as the US hadn’t anywhere near enough gold to do this anymore, Nixon stopped this and effectively ended any restrictions on the inflows and outflows of capital,
As that way of doing things is reliant on the quantity of gold and unlikely to be re-introduced again, wouldn’t it be a better idea to simply tax capital and permenantly keep a proportion of it in the country? Especially the money dealt with in the currency markets in which hundreds of billions of dollars are gambled with every week?
Say, if possible, you taxed the money used in the currency markets at 1 percent and assume that money amounted to $1 trillion a week (I believe this to be an underestimate). The amount per year would be $52 trillion, and at 1 percent tax (if my math is correct) would mean that $520 billion stops in the US every year for investment in hospitals, schools and infrastructure.
This may well not be necessary, but there is a possibility if, without capital controls, much finance would simply leave the US, causing massive damage to the economy.
Good idea or rather naive?
Let me ask YOU a question. If the country’s prosperity and profit possibilities were greater in a nationalizied banking system than in one which was privately owned, if there were no “business cycles” caused by increasing and decreasing the money supply by lowering or raising reserve rates, because reserves were kept at 100%, wouldn’t you, as capital, be attracted, rather than repelled by nationalized banking?
Jefferson thought so, Jackson thought so, and the effect was that during that time prosperity increased dramatically in the US and capital, and brains, were DRAWN TO the US because of the opportunities and possibilities. But, when the privately held banks took over, business cycles caused by decreases in money supply, brought the worst depressions the US had ever seen.
Rome suffered the same fate when fiat was replaced by gold. So did England, when tally sticks were replaced by gold. It caused the decline of both empires and is doing the same thing to the US.
More details in http://www.planmon.webs.com — go to In English, navigate to Secrets of the Banker.
I am eager to read more. Too bad all of your links on your English page come up in Spanish!
Ms. Brown, I hope my webpage http://www.planmon.webs.com will prove valuable to your efforts. It is about money, banking, the fraccional reserve system and the value and logic of government issued, debt free money. Here are some exerpts.
“To create money is a right and constitutional duty of the government. It is the only entity that should create money from nothing. And, whatever money it creates should be 100% backed by law. This right and duty is so important that it should never be delegated in any form to private entities. When the authority to create money is clearly defined, an honest and understandable monetary system facilitates changing the real values one has created for the real values another has created, without benefit to a third party.”
“And now some financial fools or mercenaries are saying we should go back to the gold standard. That makes the commodity backing smaller and easier to control. Observe that they didn’t even say gold and silver because we have a lot more silver. And nobody asks: “Why do I need to back up my money with gold? I don’t wear it, eat it, house in it, I can’t even melt it down legally for jewelry if it’s money, so, why gold?”
It is in Spanish and in English. On the upper left of the page is the link to the version in English.
Yes. You are very right. Thank you very, very much, and my humblest apologies. I have the situation fixed now . Please try again