Whilst this comment does not do justice to the article and to the comments in response, I think my post to John Quiggin's sit may still be of interest:

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/06/29/monday-message-board-142/#comment-240582

I thoroughly recommend “The Web of Debt” (http://www.webofdebt.com/) by Ellen Brown (http://www.ellenbrown.com/). There can be little doubt that most of the world’s economic problems are due to the fact that, from the 18th century, at least, the global banking cartel has usurped from sovereign nations such as Australia, the right to issue the means to enable the exchange goods and services (i.e. money) amongst their citizens.
This view is solidly backed by copious quotes from a large number of credible historical figures including Benjamin Franklin, US President Abraham Lincoln, Otto von Bismarck, US President Theodore Roosevelt, US President Woodrow Wilson etc, etc.
In the 18th century, the governments of American colonies assumed the right to issue currency. This facilitated great prosperity until the British Government and the behest of private Bankers, outlawed the practice, causing the colonies to descend back into poverty. This resulted in the American War of Independence. However, the US government never fully regained the right to issue currency. This right was usurped by the private banking cartel known as the “Federal Reserve”. This caused nearly all the economic problems and indebtedness with which the US economy has been subsequently afflicted.

Well we all seem to be agreed that the source of the problem is banks being able to print money out of thin air, The issue is whether this phenomenon originates in government interventions in the money supply, or in the unfettered markets’ failure to properly regulate the money supply.

The blame must lie on government, for several reasons.

To start with, the market is not unfettered. The whole purpose of central banks is to control the price of money, in other words, to set it at prices other than the unfettered markets would set it.

Now the whole point of prices is that they regulate supply and demand. Thus the problems with the supply of and demand for money, in other words, economic booms and depressions, must be blamed on government, not unfettered markets. The whole purpose of central banks is to stop such booms and depressions happening. Unfettered markets, by definition, do not exist as concerns money under central banking.

Secondly, if government control of the money supply were abolished, the market would impose a much better, though still imperfect control over the problem. There would be no monopoly of printing money. Anyone could do it. The problem would be getting merchants like Harvey Norman to accept my Wing Ah Ling Dollars. Thus the market would evolve its own money, just as it did before government took over and imposed the National Mega-State Bamboozling Corporations, aka central banks. These monies would most probably be gold, silver and other precious metals. Their price would vary with supply and demand.

Thirdly, in the absence of profit and loss, how is government going to regulate supply? How? How are they going to know which amount is appropriate? How are they going to stop systematically favouring debtors or creditors?

And how is government’s own endless appetite for inflationary finance to be kept from endlessly generating booms and depressions, as it does now?

Under private markets, the citizens would have power to stop governments endless fraudulent inflating, as well as stopping the licence to inflate that government grants to banks

Under free banking, banks could issue money substitutes, eg cheques and credit cards unbacked by money in specie and this would entail some of the inflationary problems we now have.

But a lot less because:
1. The law against fraud would prevent banks from misrepresenting their reserves, as the government does (the very name “Reserve” bank is a fraud)
2. People could choose what level of reserve they were comfortable with, and have or not have the commensurate risk
3. The market discipline of loss and bankruptcy would extinguish banks that pushed their fractional reserve too far.
4. There would be no reason why loss-making banks, and loss-making individuals, should not face losses.
5. There would be no justification for government intervening to stop runs on banks, because government would not have lent its authority to money and banking; any more than government now saves pizza shops.
6. The only ones exposed to loss, would be those who voluntarily undertook the risk, unlike the situation now, in which *everyone is made the donkey to pay for governments’ endless and scammalicious Ponzi schemes of fake paper money backed by nothing.

Last week, gold coins from 60AD were dug up in Britain. They have retained, and even improved, their purchasing power.

Can anyone with a straight face assert that any governmental paper money anywhere in the world ever in the history of fiat money would retain its value even 20 years into the future, let alone 100? The very suggestion is laughable, and demonstrates the fraud that government monopoly control of the money supply institutionalises.

It is also laughable to suggest that government control of the money supply is necessary to guarantee economic stabilisation. It has the opposite effect.

Government control of money and banking is utterly failed; it is no more justified than government monopoly control of the supply of shoes or pizza and should be abolished.

Since the US Federal Reserve[a private cartel of banks] took control of the US currency in 1913 ,the $ US has lost 96% of it's value.We have suffered a similar fate.

Why did we give the right to produce currency to a private elite group that no other corporate entity individual or Govt can do?

When an individual counterfeits money say $22 million,equal to the pop of Aust,that dilutes the value of our currency by $1.00 per person.To counterfeit money is paramount to theft from the rest of society,yet banks do it with impunity.When we went off the gold standard in 1974 the money supply accelerated as never before in our history.Presently they are trying to solve a debt/inflationary dilemma by doing more of the same.They are propping up failed financial institutions by destroying the productive ones.Where will that lead us?

The US is currently losing almost half a million jobs per month and Obama thinks that corporate communism is the answer.Presently we are in the eye of the cyclone as a result of bailouts and stimulus packages,but the storm will soon rage more ferociously than ever we could have imagined because of our failure to address the real issues.

Arjay, I thought you had learned better, from previous threads where you have said the same stuff, only to retreat when challenged.

>>Why borrow from the likes of Rothschilds who create money from nothing,when we can create currency based on the real productivity of the Australian people?<<

There is so much wrong with that question, it defies coherent analysis.

When you are able to demonstrate that you understand a simple balance sheet, it is just possible that you will come to understand just how logically void are your posts on financial topics.

Just two questions. Neither of which you will understand, but here goes anyway.

On what basis will your "NMF" create new money, i.e. how will it enter the economy?

And what will be the economic impact of the process you have described?

Don't be shy. I know you cannot actually answer either of these, but it will be interesting to see what you come up with.

there goes periculiour with his destractions again,the current system creates money via the creation of debt..[basiclly i sign a loan document,that gets securitised and sold off up the chain via my loan bank...[through thier loan bank's...to the securities traders

thus the co signing little bank,takes my loan paper's to the central bank...central bank to the fed reserve,fed reserve to imf/house of settlements etc,its a complicated chain[that pericules him/herself cant describe and many bankers cant describe,..thus he/she keeps asking his/her inane destractions

if he could he would say this world organisation lends to this lends to that etc..[but the simple fact remains..our promise to pay is securitised,..and in the end a credit and a deficite appear on their books

[when the debt is re-paid it's credit trail majicly disappears,..into the credit accounts held by business..banks and agencies owned dirrectly and indirectly..vairiously by the rothchild's/fed reserves and other agencies,owned by other bankers and multinationals

the facts as previously stated and ignored is the house of international settlements[..assets include 25 trillion of shares..[with a debt..to some unknown rothchild type figure of 23.5 trillion,holds directly the shares as security the house of settlements is allowed to trade with to settle..

their speculative leveraged trading...at no time do these traders actually hold any share..[they are held as surity for the outstanding debt...any proffits they make go into repaying...

i have pasted the story for perculiour many times..with links,he studiously[selectivly ignores...wanting it in our own words[in 350 words or less]

again and again with his simplistic platitudes..[insults and destractions discised as questions...he claims the win...so i will leave you with his spin