TURMEL: Sabine had MPs looking at public money

>Subject: [ijccr] Digest Number 491
>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:39:22 +0200
>From: "Sabine Kurjo McNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Inquiry into Publicly Created Money and Monetary 
Reform?

S: Dear List Members,
This is not a discussion but a news item which you may find 
of interest after all. Sabine 
Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies
 
NEWS RELEASE
GROWING SUPPORT for INQUIRY into PUBLICLY CREATED MONEY
and MONETARY REFORM
 
26 MPs from three political parties have now signed House of 
Commons Early Day Motion 854 which calls upon the Government 
and the Treasury Committee to commission and publish 
independent reviews on the procedures for and benefits of 
increasing the proportion of publicly created money in the 
UK economy.

JCT: Wonderful. Publicly created money needs no taxes to pay 
interest. It works just like the provincial bonds issued by 
the Argentinian provinces, like the tallies issued by King 
Henry 1 in 1100. The very fact they're talking about public 
money versus bank-created money is a great thing. 

S: Similar Early Day Motions have been tabled in the House 
in earlier parliamentary sessions and there is a steady 
increase in support being shown year by year for such a 
fundamental review of how the government finances its 
activities in view of the pressing problems it faces in the 
light of demand for low taxes and high quality public 
services.

JCT: I am not aware of even one MP in Canada who understands 
the difference between public and bank money. 

S: The Motion, sponsored by Labour MP David Chaytor draws 
attention to the concerns of MPs about the rising burden of 
private debt, public borrowing, student borrowing and 
public-private finance initiatives. It also notes that the 
proportion of publicly created money in circulation has 
fallen from 20 per cent of the money supply in 1964 to 3 per 
cent today. 

JCT: I know that the amount created by our Bank of Canada is 
about the same thing with the rest created by our private 
banks too. 

S: In calling for a review into this trend it notes the 
strong academic arguments that have been put forward that 
suggest that increasing the proportion of publicly created 
money in issue could provide a new means of financing public 
investment. 

JCT: They figured that one out. 

S: It also notes that the use of publicly created money can 
significantly reduce the cost of public investment by 
eliminating the need to pay interest on borrowing.

JCT: I've never heard of any MPs every worried about cutting 
the interest in the budget. Paying whatever interest that is 
demanded first is the standard thought of most politicians. 

S: The motion has been backed by the Forum for Stable 
Currencies and has been signed by Labour, Liberal Democrat 
and Plaid Cymru MPs.  

JCT: LETS really is a non-partisan issue. In my 1997 
election, I was joined in signing the petition for a 
national LETS by the candidates for the NDP, the Greens, the 
Natural Law Party and even the Marxist-Leninist Party. Only 
the 3 major party candidates, Liberal, Tory and Reform 
refused. It's as if getting into power changes their brains.  

S: Richard Murphy said on behalf of the Forum "We are 
delighted that this call for a review is attracting 
increasing support amongst MPs. It is obvious that UK 
governments of whatever complexion will have a significant 
funding problem in the future if they are to continue to 
fund the level of public services the public say they want. 
The review this Motion calls for, and which these MPs 
support, is one way of solving that problem."

JCT: It's a great breakthrough to have any MPs thinking 
about money. I've never managed in Canada. Great work in UK. 
 
S: Titus Alexander has worked on these issues for the Forum 
for Stable Currencies. He said "In view of the importance of 
this matter we are hopeful that The Treasury Committee of 
the House of Commons and the government itself might respond 
to the suggestion of a review into this form of financing".
Ends
Notes to Editors

EDM 854 says:

PUBLICLY CREATED MONEY AND MONETARY REFORM
 
That this House, concerned at the rising burden of private 
debt, public borrowing, student borrowing and public-private 
finance initiatives, notes that the proportion of publicly 
created money in circulation has fallen from 20 per cent of 
the money supply in 1964 to 3 per cent today; believes that 
increasing the proportion of publicly created money in issue 
could provide a new means of financing public investment; 
further notes that the use of publicly created money can 
significantly reduce the cost of public investment by 
eliminating the need to pay interest; accepts that such a 
policy can be adopted without any impact on inflation if 
suitable regulatory changes are made; and therefore calls 
upon the Government and the Treasury Committee to commission 
and publish independent reviews on the procedures for and 
benefits of increasing the proportion of publicly created 
money in the economy.
 
A list of the MPs who have signed the motion is available at
http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=854

The Forum for Stable Currencies promotes monetary and 
banking reform to Parliamentarians and concerned citizens 
through regular lecture series and debates held at the House 
of Lords. It can be contacted through Sabine McNeill on 020 
7328 3701 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
A full technical briefing on this proposal is available from 
Sabine McNeill or Richard Murphy and on 
www.intraforum.net/money/publications
Richard Murphy can be contacted on 01353 645051 or 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:47:39 +1000
>From: "Graeme P Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Inquiry into Publicly Created Money and 
Monetary Reform?

Dear all
Graeme here....
I am aware that this was not intended as a discussion but I 
wish to chip in some thoughts.
You seem to be talking about M1, the legal tender in 
circulation, and M3, the mutual credit systems.
My 'hunch' on the World Bank, IMF and Argentina equation is 
a tolerance of "creditos" and a ban on government bonds.

JCT: I heard that there were 35 different local 
currency-issuing authorities in Argentina and I haven't 
heard any bad news since then. Makes sense that if all the 
provinces all start issuing their own small-denomination 
bonds that everyone would start to use them. I wonder if 
they were smart enough to color all their 1-peso bonds one 
color, all their 10-peso bonds another, etc. Then it 
wouldn't really matter what province's blue bond you're 
using as your 1s. 

Also, in regard to mutual credit systems, the profit/loss 
tax regime restricts free trade. A sole trader has to spend 
their points on their business, or points earned are as a 
money profit. I figure it increases a business turnover, but 
not a profit or loss except when exiting the system.
The VAT application for a business is quite straight forward 
to cost in to a 'price'.

I am negotiating with the Australian tax people, and 
suggesting that, in regard to LETSes here, they are taxing 
'social capital' and making it almost impossible to convert 
a LETS hobby into a business and stay in LETS, as above.

JCT: LETS was never a tax-evasion system, it was always an 
interest evasion system. If you turn your LETS hobby into a 
business, there's no reason they can't stay in LETS like all 
the other businesses are. 

Just thought I would offer the tax issue for publicly 
created M3 money, for your lobbying. good luck seattle too. 
cheers Graeme Taylor

JCT: I've never considered the tax issue a problem. I've 
always explained that doing a LETS transactions frees up 
some of your orthodox government cash. If you pay with a 
LETS IOU instead of paying with money from your bank 
account, it leaves the money in your bank account!

EG: A teacher lives pay to pay like most everyone else. In 
Canada, when he joins LETS and starts earning an extra 3000 
Greendollars a year tutoring, he owes about $1000 in new 
income tax but it must be paid in federal currency, not 
local. Is that a problem? No. 

If he uses his G$3000 to spend on consumption, it leaves 
3000 in cash in his account with which to pay for the 
income tax on the increased income. Leaving him $2000 cash 
to pay down his debts. 

Barter is not a tax-evasion mechanism, it's an interest-
evasion system. Pure and simple. There should be no problem 
paying more tax which is why governments should love LETS. 

--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-756-1325 USENET: can.politics