Hello,

Attached here is a draft document I am having trouble with. The idea is to outline at least the basics of a system that tries to remove the arbitrary qualities of the current system.

However, a review of the draft would be an immensely helpful starting point to bring some extra clarity to the ideas within.

Thanks to anyone with the time to help review this with me.

Evan

Is this some kind of joke? A minute or so of looking at this suggests that someone has waaaay to much time on their hands to waste, and wants to make sure other waste time looking at it.

I allowed this post through as it looked legitimate on first glance, but I am thinking about deleting it, as it is pure garbage. I will allow a reasonable period of time for the author of the post to offer some justification for it, and then, unless others see value in it, the post may be deleted.

ejproducts,

I understand why you had difficulty in putting together your paper. It suggests that you have a few holes in your understanding; however, you do have some things right about the basic relationship between the basic components of a system, i.e.: money, raw material and labor (population). The method by which money is distributed is not very clear to me. You might want to add a bit more.

What will be found difficult for people to embrace is what I would call extreme unconventionality, including new terminology.

Also, your idea is too embryonic for anyone to be able to contribute to it. That's not to say you need to write a 200 page essay; seven pages may just be enough.

Presenting by comparison is a good idea, but it forces you to oversimplify the existing system. Most people don't understand the current system, and people will bog down following your essay.

I essentially agree with boldhawk's assessment. Those diagrams below are far too confusing. The entire "National Plan" is vague. Whatever happens in the way of government and money reforms are going to have to be based on what we now have, and people are familiar with, and then proceed from there. Small steps work best with social and political changes.

A good start would be to read Ellen's book, and follow that up with Zarlenga's "The Lost Science of Money". Then build on them, if you think you can add something to those treatments of the money problem.

The draft National Provision reform of our current monetary system of production appears legitimate to me. It seems to me to try to move from a financial to a stock keeping unit system.

Such a move would be a vast improvement if it were practical.

I have not yet fully read or understood the paper.

I hope Jere leaves it up and Evan writes some plain explanations of what the attachment is, where it came from, etc.

I hate attachments and recommend that Evan start again with plain postings that state his problem as simply as possible.

But I do intend to return to the thing and its diagram. Diagrams are wonderful when they are easily understood.

Let us look at page 1:

CURRENT SYSTEM

Currently the distribution of essential services is through
the system of trade, which is a monetary economy.
This means that financial factors impede in the progress
of the distribution of essentials, such as health care or
housing.

If someone is to lose their job they may have less
access to these essential services as their access to
financial resources is reduced. This does not reflect the
state or amount of the resources required for these
essential services.

The system inevitably fails those who cannot access
jobs, and has an underlying message that people are a
burden.

=== End Right Side, Pg 1, Nat. Provision system ===

I like and agree with this description. I would try to precede it with an overview of the intention of the author and the nature of his presentation. As suggested, we need more conventionality here, if we are asking for change in the American or global economic system.

Continuing my comment on the "rationale" for a system of functional production for need and not for profit, submitted some time ago and not yet dismissed as a joke.

In my first comment I agreed with the description of our current trade for profit system. Here is the left side of page 1 of the attachment:

NATIONAL PROVISION

The rationale of the National Provision is that essential
services are directly supported where they are
necessary and possible within the bounds of physical
resource, management resource and labour-resource,
without regard to other financial factors.

In this way an essential service would be directly related
to the resources applicable to that resource. This is to
say that if there is enough food, then people will be fed.

The idea of the National Provision is to bypass the
inadequacies of the current system of distribution, which
is linked to the system of trade, so that unrelated
financial factors do not preclude people from receiving
health, education, shelter and food.

All financial factors are determined unrelated to these
essential services.

===== end of copied description =====

Again I agree with the intent and discussion of this not-for-profit system.

Evan of ejproducts (name of the member who submitted it) seems serious to me. I think if any of us lived under the National Provision system we would be very pleased with it -- IF IT WORKED.

The system is much the same as mine -- which I tie to an enormous data and analysis effort to protect the supply chains that deliver the goods. My supply chains include profit driven production and non-profit debt-free money driven production.

So far, except for WW II, I have not seen monumental economic output controlled by such a command system. The system eschews the mindless "market" for control of its "commanding heights". It uses the market for much below that level. More importantly, it is based on cost accounting -- not on profit and loss accounting -- for its toughest decisions.

Why we would try to constrain the American economy by its profit-driven sector's results is beyond me. You cannot prevail in war without a command economy. We are at war. I hope we all realize this.

On the other hand, command economies in peace time seem to stumble into becoming POLICE STATES.

In WW II Germany and Russia already were police states (even pathologically evil police states) -- so their command economies were not new.

UK and US became command economies but remained democracies with excellent human rights traditions (earned after many wars to achieve freedom).

Niall Ferguson http://www.niallferguson.com/ is in my opinion well versed in history and the meaning of the wars of the 20th Century.

He sees them as less a record of freedom fighting than a record of Asian awakening.

I hope he is no more than partially correct. I see our wars and information revolution as leading to Utopia around the corner.

In Utopia everyone is free, but computers and AI take over the intelligence functions markets based on profit cannot perform.

Profit pits business against its customers. Cost accounting (over profit and loss accounting) will set us free.

What is the difference between the two accounting methods?
(I have a slight understanding of the difference between cash and accrual accounting.)

Zarepheth asked: IF, as Gelles said, Profit pits business against its customers. Cost accounting (over profit and loss accounting) will set us free, THEN, What is the difference between the two accounting methods?

The difference is that cost accounting systems assume the reward to producers will be calculated as a percentage of their cost, and it will be paid by a buyer without resort to competitive market awards and rewards--where lowest wages often determine producer reward (called profit).

If we liken production of necessities within a national economy (called here National Provision) to war production that employs all labor and capital to maximize material output, then we would use, say, 10% of total cost as a standard profit, and capital invested in production would not want the lowest wages.

Since high wages are good for any modern society, a National Provision like system would tend to be capable of ending poverty in a nation blessed with skills and resources.

Socialism was based on cost accounting. Sadly, it lacked innovative competition in many industries and lacked an effective way to protect human rights.

People seem to have developed effective competition in the arts and sports. But they also must develop and protect effective cooperation, else the competition becomes corrupt and twisted as we have seen in many professional games.

When Ellen Brown writes of the Bank For International Settlements as a corrupt institution, relative to the economic goals and achievements of modern societies, we see that the problems we are facing are more than logical. They are both logical and ethical. The work of reform may be unending. That is good reason to want to spend a lot of time and money to correct our logical and ethical mistakes as we make them.

If we try to make progress on the cheap, we may never archive more than we have paid for.

Hello all again.

I have returned from holiday to see an interesting collection of posts in regards to the last post that I made. I am also sad that I had to leave it so long without being able to see replies! Sorry about that. But I hope to take the main points on board:

i) that attachments are not user-friendly...I will write simply in the forum this time
ii) that the flow-chart was confusing. Actually, a quick review of this tells me that the formatting has destroyed my intent. I will not post a graphic now unless I am 100% it will appear correctly.
iii) that comparisons are not effective. I will focus solely on the content of the idea and not competing ideas in the presentation.
iv) that there was no presentation showing how the idea could be implemented. This is a harder one, as even good ideas do not necessarily sway those who rely on bad ideas as a way of life. I will attempt to address this.
and v) that the idea is in the nucleus stage. I have no answer for this one. I must appeal to you all for feedback and assistance to help my thoughts grow.

The National Provision

The economy of the National Provision is designed with two core elements in mind: ethical outcomes and behaviours, and efficiency. Ethical behaviour means that if we have the power to care for someone, then we should. Efficient behaviour means that if there is a simpler way of doing something then it should be done. The National Provision tries to embody ethical and efficient behaviour.

1. A body would exist that issues money. The amount of money issuable is finite, and is related to a relevant statistic, such as the population (as a core ideal is to care for people). The ideal of the finite amount of money tied to such a statistic is that, in general, too much money would not be issued and cause inflation, and that too little would not be issued and cause bankruptcy.

2. The money can be loaned to commercial banks, who can loan the money on to enterprises, businesses, and even individuals. The money must be loaned at a 100% reserve to again avoid arbitrary inflation. As neatly explained in 'Currency: Self-regulating and Elastic--a Letter to the Duke of Argyll' (a published but anonymous essay from 1855) inflation does not increase material goods and so does not represent a true growth of value, but instead serves to redistribute it.

The loans to businesses and individuals would not contain any interest, as this reduces the purchasing power of the dollar. Instead the loans would simply be paid back in full, or follow a risk-sharing agreement (i.e. partnership investment). Many sharia-compliant banks (Islamic banks) exhibit these loans already, as 'riba' (or interest) is forbidden by the Qu'ran (and if I remember correctly, usury is frowned upon by the Bible, also).

The businesses pay wages to their workers, who can then use the wages to buy goods, etc. such as tvs, holidays, games, whatever.

3. A department is created which is designed to let all members of the population access to essential services--these include health, education, shelter, warmth, and food. These services and products are declared basic human rights and should be easily and freely accessed by all people. This department is the National Provision.

Money is issued by the central body to pay for the services of the National Provision--i.e. this body funds the wages of the National Provision workers and their enterprise. The products themselves are freely available to the population, though abuse of the system may be monitored.

The various enterprises of the National Provision can compete commercially--every uptake of a product counts as a sale, which is then 'paid' to the National Provision company: first against their grant, as if repaying a loan, and then any excess as profits. Thus the National Provision companies can run in a similar manner to completely commercial companies and are rewarded for excellence and not considered for renewed funding if they are inefficient.

The percentage of money allocated to the National Provision is as required to meet ethical standards and no less--people cannot go hungry, thirsty, uneducated, etc. because not enough funding has been given to a specific area. The core of the National Provision model is that these basic human rights are the baseline of the economy: the prime reason that it exists.

4. The money issued as commercial loans is recouped when the loans are repaid, which brings a balance to the system. However, without some other agent the money issued to the National Provision would continue to inflate the total money supply. To offset this, a tax applies to all purchases which is directed back to the issuing agency and destroyed as is a loan.

The issuing body does not have a balance sheet of income and expenditure (in this case, tax and issuance). Instead its purpose is to keep a healthy money supply that does not inflate or deflate too wildly. Its tools are the issuance of money and the tax on purchases, which can create 'tight' or 'easy' monetary policy. At no point, therefore, does a deficit in the balance sheet prohibit it from funding essential services.


This is the basic idea with which I need assistance. Of course, I see the issuing body as part Reserve Bank, and part Government (i.e. the people, through the government, can assess what are essential services and how items may be taxed.)

In Victoria (a state of Australia, and where I live), part of the state government's revenue comes from gambling companies, such as Intralot. In the first months of this year the government revoked $17 million in funding for health, simply because not enough revenue was collected from Intralot (whose revenue they had allocated for health funding). People were no gambling as they were scared of recession. I see no real relation between pokies and funding healthcare, but one has been created.

As to how to implement such a system as described, the nucleus exists already--the government has expenditure including welfare, and revenue from taxes. these are tools that I would associate with fiscal and monetary policy, and disassociate from the arbitrary government 'balance sheet'. As to loans that do not have associated interest, a review of some Islamic banking practices show that these concepts already exist in the real world. Their failure: that they are a square peg (a non-interest loan) in a round hole (a banking system that legally demands interest by the central bank).

When the state of California (if I read the news correctly) cannot provide welfare due to lack of funds, I highly doubt that it is because the resources to help people do not exist, nor that people are unwilling to help others, nor that people are not in need of help or would reject it: simply that the current concept of money has created some arbitrary, but seemingly impassable, constraints.

I appreciate anyone who can lend time and ideas.

Evan

A change from profit accounting to cost accounting is neither necessary nor appropriate. In essence, cost accounting values all capital equally, no matter how well or badly it is invested - the result - lower efficiency in the allocation of capital.

Rather, the problems stem from: the money creation system and market transaction costs (including the taxation system.)

Too much new money is channeled to 'old capital' to the detriment of newly created capital. A 'national income' (citizens dividend) would largely correct this imbalance, by giving more equitable voting rights in the market.

The existing taxation system is overly dependent upon transaction taxes, which increase transaction costs - penalizing newly created capital (by draining resources from them,) and rewarding old property rich capital (which is in no need of further resources.)

This problem may be addressed by increasing land taxes, whilst simultaneously reducing transaction taxes (such as sales tax, value added tax and income tax.)

Over-regulation also increases transaction costs in the market, resulting in a slower flow of resources from old capital to newly created capital. In combination with a loose money supply, the result is stagflation - with a tight money supply, depression.

Thanks Matabele, I agree.

Evan has suggested a system I believe may someday be seen enacted for a global currency, or other Information Technology application, that solves the problem of PRICE in a command-- economy protected from bureaucrats and Ayatollahs.

In the meantime Matabele trusts "markets" to be improvable -- if we find the right degree and kind of regulation to make them more trustworthy.

Gelles does not. Markets as we know them need to be improved by imposition of prize juries, or something like them, like those used for award of architectural projects-- where excellence must be judged by experts not a majority of shoppers with discretionary income.

The closest we humans ever come to a practical solution to the production problem is in war materials. Here, where the live of a nation hangs in the balance, all the BS about shopping and markets is forgotten. The nation gets down to business. It produce the most of the best it can.

We can do something like it today by financing peace and asymmetrical war and super-power defense needs, with central bank debt free money and commercial bank debt-based money.

Matabele thought about efficiency comes up against the measures of unrecorded future cost that "profit" hides in today's market systems.

In all events, solutions for today must be practical and attractive to continental nations called on to develop them.I invite all who care to view http://www.ustaxreform.us -- where a system with minimum change from the present is under construction.
.

The problem with regulation, is that the process is always compromised by special interests - either in its formulation, or in its implementation. The aim of these special interests is to create a monopoly upon some private privilege, whilst leaving future (unrecorded) liability to the public.

In essence, greater vigilance is not required upon the market (which works well when transaction costs are low and property rights are protected), but rather upon the law and order system. The current system evolved from an all powerful traditional state - it is a system designed to entrench privilege - a system based upon blame.

A truly democratic system would apportion responsibility by seeking consensus and consent. In this environment, resources would be fairly and efficiently allocated by the market.

I think this is the crux of the problem. Those with the power want to retain it - even at the expense of everyone else. Those without the power are reduced to slavery.

Another reason we want money creation placed into the hands of government, is that government represents the community. Money is a communal need - especially in communities with a high degree of division-of-labor. So money should be regulated by the community - not by private interests. Even more so when the private interests' oppose the interest of the community.

Now, I believe that some of the countries which previously used command economies did a whole lot more than just create the money supply. They also set prices on each product and micromanaged the whole production process. Further, they treated each person the same (which is sometimes good) but did not account for individual differences in ability, effort, efficiency, desires, and all the things that make each of us unique individuals. So effort and efficiency were not rewarded, and the systems net inefficiencies tore it down.

Getting back to the point, money creation is important to the community. Too much or too little quickly result in bad economic outcomes. Privately controlled money creation has proven that it is no better than government controlled - just review history and note how frequently periods of inflation and deflation occur under the current system.

The major problem with each individual creating money, everyone would be tempted to create enough money to buy whatever they want, irrespective of how much they contributed to the community. If each person's money were distinct from their neighbors, then people would have a plethora of currencies to deal with. How would they determine whether Sam's money is worth half, the same, or twice what the same units of Jill's money is worth?

So, to minimize confusion, it works best when the whole community uses the same currency. And the community leaders must determine how much money should be created and how it should be given to the community members.

As a comprimise between too many currencies and too much centralized control, I suggest that each level of government - Federal, State, Local - establish its own currency, useable by all residents within their jurisdiction.

Monopolies are never good - they are always exploited by someone, somehow. It is wishful, therefore, to think that a market with a monopolized money supply could function efficiently. Competition in the market is the only force that has ever (peacefully) challenged historical privilege.

It is not necessary to use only one currency - people are not idiots, and can easily manage with a plurality of currencies (they already do.) The fallacy of this necessity for a single currency for convenience sake should be dispelled.



This is on the right track - but why stop at taxing authorities? Certainly any institution granted the power to tax can issue currency on the back of this - but so can any institution with the productive capacity to create a future income stream.

It is not whom issues currency that is important, but rather the manner in which such issue occurs. Any currency issued with transparency and according to the same clearly defined rules will be equally good, and should be afforded equal legal privilege.

note:
The current crisis was not caused by inadequate rules, but from public awareness that these rules were not being transparently and equally applied. Many of the senior banking and financial appointees receiving seemingly exorbitant compensation, were not compensated for nothing - they were compensated for breaking the law - many face 30 year jail terms if brought to book.

See quote from this Act - Title 18 USC; § 1014:
" Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way...shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
see: http://www.fraudproblem.com/supporting-information/

To claim ignorance after 2003/2004 is ridiculous - the housing bubble was a matter of public record on the internet from about then (even I was aware of it!) I suspect most of these appointees were not only aware, but party to the fraud long before this.

Having read all of the above I note that money creation, markets, taxation, etc. as well as 'new capital' and 'old capital' are mentioned quite a lot. I like Matabele's tag: 'A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem' - Albert Einstein. I think that in money people see a great confusion of aims.

The aim of the National Provision is not to create a better monetary system. It is, instead, to not turn human rights into a debt, and to stop pretending that people are a burden on society. People are (of course) society itself. The moment that we put a cost on something such as healthcare, or the system of money itself, instead of focusing on our actual potential, we create a system that is inherently inefficient. In this case inefficiency means poverty.

If we stop being able to trade food because of lack of food, that is reality.
If we stop being able to trade food because of lack of money, but not for lack of food, then we have rejected reality.

At any point where there is supply (the resources to create and distribute something) and demand (want of that something) and a fair standard of living, then we should be able to have an active market. I don't think that between the beginning and the end of last year and overwhelming amount of physical resources went missing or were depleted, and yet businesses collapsed, people lost their jobs. So what happened?

Money is an intermediary.

Since I last wrote:
..... "Matabele's thought about efficiency of markets comes up against the measures of unrecorded future cost that 'profit' hides in today's market systems."
..... Matabele and Zarepheth (M. and Z.) have added suggestions for better money in the 'market'.

My point, (although I might agree we have lots of monies in the market -- but only one LEGAL TENDER,) is that PROFIT is what destroys the efficiency of markets when it fails to account for future costs. We will never be able to account for all future costs, so MARKETS can never be trusted with COMMANDING AUTHORITY OVER OUR LIVES.

Only an economic democracy, (such as the one we are building in the USA,) can be trusted to do, ASAP, what it may take to correct our past mistakes and move on.

I swore I would never write to this forum again. But, M and Z, if you think I'm not worth reading, please say so.

I am not writing for Jere H. because he gets ill on every thought I express. He would have us read doctrine -- not think out loud and perfect doctrine when we can.

The wheels of the law grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine. What you ask for will, I believe, be forthcoming.

But what I ask for is INDEXED SAVINGS -- like TIPS bonds. This will make the government responsible to prevent inflation as a tax on individual work and savings. Once we do that, government will be forced to spend and lend to prevent both inflation and deflation.

You may think no government can do that. I believe, if you do think that, you will be surprised when Obama and Bernanke spend and lend enough to break the back of this deflation.

It is my belief (although open to dispute!) - that in the long run economics is a zero sum game. Value only ever has temporary existence - capital and profit are, therefore, fleeting illusions - reflecting a 'bubble' of value rather than anything permanent.

It is for this reason that I champion demurrage based monetary systems over interest based systems - the two systems give very different perspectives of this bubble.

• Interest compounds past value, and discounts future value - it is backward looking, favors the privileged and encourages consumption of resources.
• Demurrage compounds future value, and discounts past value - it is forward looking, favors creativity and innovation and encourages conservation of resources.

All the talk of green economies, green taxes etc. will not change the economic engine driving our stampede toward oblivion.

• Interest based money is 'black money' - it is based upon exponential increase in the consumption of energy (primarily oil.)
• Demurrage money is 'green money' - its use will gracefully change our habits: from gross, consumptive and wasteful of energy; to elegant, conservative and energy efficient.

Change from interest money to demurrage money, base the tax system upon land taxes rather than transaction taxes and introduce a citizens dividend - and most of our economic problems will vanish. Corruption in government will become negligible, and property rights will be respected.

In short - we need a change of operating system - not a security bug patch.

This topic seems to have veered away from where it began. I am unsure how this forum is supposed to be structured, but it seems to let people express their ideas without coming to any constructive conclusions.

I find it appropriate to ask, then, what is the ultimate goal here? What is the baseline of what we are trying to achieve? I can say honestly that my aims are an extension of my ethical code. The point is not to qualify what 'progress' is, but to create a system that is built upon, and provides, ethical values. The National Provision is, as outlined above, a type of welfare state designed to resist insolvency (because it cannot go bankrupt unless it is bankrupt of resources), designed to resist hyper-inflation (because it can remove an excess of money when it is used), and designed to resist recession and collapse in the industries that are integral to the population, all without destroying the idea of competitive commerce. That is not to say that competitive commerce could not be affected--the point is that ethical welfare and commerce are the foundation stones (i.e. people's needs) and the rest is built upon this (i.e. people's wants). (It is my belief that once the first is settled the second will improve greatly).

I cannot say for sure what exactly other people are trying to express here, except that they want to solve the 'economic problems'. What is the foundation-stone for these new paradigms, the reason that we feel all this trouble to think ideas and post? What core results are people looking for? Are we all on the same page, or do we think different things when we say we want 'saving' and 'value' and 'progress'?

In short - I agree with a national provision/citizens dividend.

People have to live anyway - if you divide equally the proceeds from the commonweal (primarily by taxing land) amongst the citizenry - the economy will work better, and social welfare will become redundant.

I believe the foundation for why we post our thoughts and ideas, is that we see the current economic situation and believe that something is wrong. We are expressing our frustrations regarding the problem and also expressing our thoughts about how to fix the problem.

As for being on the same page - well, I think we're scattered on many pages...
For example:

Most of us believe that private interests should not have monopolistic control over the money supply.
As for who should:

• Some of us believe that a democratically controlled government should control the money supply - either directly (as in our legislators) or indirectly (like a non-political government agency).
• Others believe we should allow each individual to create money as they need it or as they produce wealth.
• And yet others would choose a middle road between those extremes.
• I suspect there are even a few more options...

So - on one issue discussed in this forum, you can see that we have not yet come to agreement. Most of the other issues discussed here are in the same state. In time, we may reach consensus on what the best economic system would be, but we're not yet there.

I appreciate how succinctly Zarepheth has outlined the problem: that private interests have a monopoly over the money supply. Any economy that derives a profit from money itself--i.e. one has to pay for the use of money--is a paradigm for poverty.

Zarepheth says that some of us believe money creation should stem from the individual, and some believe from the government.

I have yet to see a system where money creation by individuals would create cohesive currency, or maintain a balanced monetary policy--that is, where inflation or deflation could be systematically avoided.

Money creation by the government is ostensibly money creation by the people, via elected representatives. In the National Provision economy, direct government monetary creation is only towards the essential services included in the National Provision itself. The rest is created by the government but distributed by banks, much as today. However, because 'paying for money' puts those who loan at a disadvantage, and because money is an essential service, banks would be funded through the National Provision, disassociating their profits from their monetary distribution (Banks, the way they are run now, have a distinct conflict of interest).

The heart of the problem to me seems to be the idea of a national balance sheet, where someone has to account for all the money created as a debt. If the idea of a national debt is replaced by smart monetary and fiscal policy then money creation does not need to be accounted for, but simply monitored and corrected. Again, this disassociates governmental policy and monetary policy.

Does anyone else see the national balance sheet as a problem?

I do like the concept of a citizen's dividend (such as the premise in Social Credit), but I have a fear that monetizing what I consider human rights (i.e. essential services) is the first step to devaluing them. In the National Provision essential services are given as themselves and not with monetized value, so they literally cannot be eroded.

In another thread, I suggested that we should be looking to formulate legislation that allows all forms of currency reform. Currency reformers tend to allow themselves to settle into a 'camp', and spend their energies arguing amongst themselves instead of focusing on their purpose.

If currency is issued transparently, and according to the same clear rules - then it should not matter who issues it. The amount issued will be regulated by the rules.

First let me say I appreciate the NP proposal, and the most recent comments about it. I also can appreciate the questions about the focus of this forum, and why ej would raise those issues. There has recently been a flood of posts lately that have been all over the map, even in the same post, and I have spent all my spare time doing what I can to deal with this problem. It has primarily come from one prolific poster that I have had to remove from the forum, after many private and public communications and warnings.

I am looking for volunteers to help moderate one or more forums, and also 1 or 2 administrators. The only real requirements are that they be honestly and sincerely dedicated to systemic monetary reforms or meaningful alternatives to the dysfunctional system, and have a few spare hours a week to help out. It would be helpful, although not essential, to have either read EHB's book Web of Debt, or Zarlenga's The lost Science of Money, or other reform proposals, such as Richard C Cook's, that are similar in their core ideals and objectives.

Most of those who have submitted or commented upon proposals here in the "Solutions" forum would be encouraged to volunteer.

I apologize for the apparent disorganization of the goals and purposes of this forum. We are new, understaffed, and engaged in efforts to change a system in which there are numerous and powerful vested interests doing their best to disrupt and confuse.

We will be undertaking a reorganization of the forum beginning this weekend. This should not affect active current members, but the reorganization will probably affect and possibly restrict who can post to certain forums and sub-forums as well as the qualifications for becoming a registered user.

More to come on the National Provision in my next post.

Before commenting further on the National Provision, I would like to address Matabele:

Yes, I have seen, and if I remember correctly, commented on your suggestions. The bottom line for me is that I have not yet seen any proposals for such that can withstand logical criticism. I could possibly draft one that would work, but it would be restricted to the national, state and local governments issuing the currencies. I can not envision public and private currencies in competition with each other, as you have suggested. I'm open to be convinced, but the arguments I've yet seen fall short. This is also a concern I have voiced many times. That is why I tend to favor the idea of organizing around a group of core principles that should be a part of any reform proposal, and then taking it from there. The first thing I think is essential that we do is to agree on organizing principles and goals. We need a big, broad tent to begin with, IMO. I don't think it is quite so clear cut as that, Matabele. It matters to those who will accept or reject the optional currencies. If it's not legal tender then as far as most people are concerned it isn't money. Of course, what you want to call money within a specific localized economy, and what is used to trade between it and other economies are two different things entirely.

In summary, I think these issues are important, but I'm not sure how well they relate to the subject of ej's National Provision, which I hope to address further in my next post.

I was simply responding to earlier posts in the various threads - often it appears that similar topics are being discussed on many threads simultaneously.

Sorry Matabele, I was not referring to you or your posts. I appreciate your well thought-out contributions here. But there are parts of the National Provision that are unclear to me, and I haven't yet found time to delve into.

One area that is glaring is the vagueness about the composition or ownership and control of the money issuing authority. I am unclear if this is supposed to be private or public or what? There are other issues, but I don't have time to address them now.