Ms. Brown

I have read the GREEN BANK BILL (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h111-1698), but must admit, as a carpenter I get rather lost in the theory and regulation of how this would actually work. I wasn't clear that the Bonds would be available for purchase directly by the public. It seemed as if they were being written from the Treasury (AKA the collective Public) to the new GREEN BANK entity. I'm not sure how exactly the repayment would be accomplished.

In that vein a colleague at the Pickens Plan, Michael Shawn Kendall, USN, has proposed creating publicly available Treasury Savings Bonds specifically earmarked for the development of Clean Energy pursuits. He models them on the 1940's War Bond program. The Bonds would be identified categorically for specific projects. For instance, W-Bonds for Wind Turbine, S-Bonds for Solar Projects and so on.

The appealing aspect is that the public would participate in ownership and derive interest income from their investment in the resources which need to be developed to achieve the objectives of independence from foreign oil, rebuilding the economy with the resulting energy related jobs, increase national security and positively affect our environment.

Since the principal investment would come from the grass roots...the Treasury would avoid writing checks from other resources. I'm not sure exactly how and where the interest payments to Bond holders would come from; but I suppose the source would be similar to conventional US Treasury Bonds.

In your comments about the GREEN BANK CONCEPT, you said...

Interesting! The only hitch is, it's being financed with bonds, which means debt. Bonds will evidently be sold to the public on which interest will be paid, driving up the federal debt even further. The better alternative would be to simply create credit on the books of the bank against the projects to be created, using double-entry bookkeeping or accrual accounting. Checks could be drawn against this credit at very low interest or even zero interest to pay for workers and materials. The income from the projects would then return to repay the loans, canceling them out. Best wishes, Ellen

In your view, does the publicly available Treasury Bond in Shawn Kendall's concept have the same hitch?

Welcome to the new forum, Jack. You raise some good questions. I agree with Ellen's answers so far. The key is who gets the interest, and what it is used for.

My problem with all of these current programs, no matter how good they may seem when compared to those of the past 8 years, or even 80, is that they all further indebt the citizen taxpayers of the USA.

Who can argue against funding "green" projects? This bill is probably among the better ideas out there. I suspect they ALL have the "same hitch".

But what is desperately needed is a return to Lincoln's Greenback Dollar, issued directly by the Treasury at no cost to the American taxpayer. What is obscene is that our supposedly sovereign government has to borrow funding for all of its projects from private bankers. That is the ultimate absurdity, and the reason we are going down the drain, economically. The wealth of the people, and of our nation, is being transferred to the private bankers and international financiers, and is being done on a scale that most people could never imagine possible.

I do not presume to speak for Ellen, but we often see things similarly.

Jere & Ellen

So as I understand it a Bond is a loan to the government by the purchaser at a fixed rate of interest with a predictable period to redemption. That's what qualifies it as debt. How did that work with war bonds? The period after WW2 was one of unprecedented economic growth. Soldiers were returning from a decisive victory. Confidence in the USA was high. Housing, industry and the population boomed and some believe the roots of our current dilemma were planted in this acceleration of the post war economy.

Although referencing a period decades later, Greenspan would define this behavior as irrational exuberance, others suspect deceit, greed and regulatory incompetence. Personally I believe it is all of the above, combined with a significant ingredient of apathy, ignorance and complicity in the grass roots who participated, albeit unwittingly, in their own victimization.

By what Ellen says should we conclude that purchasing government bonds during these hard economic times for any purpose, energy or otherwise is not a viable solution? That government bonds are only a legitimate mode of monetary exchange during a growing economy?

If we follow the example of creating credit...in these times when we have almost 12 trillion dollars in debt, where does the money come from? I understand the idea that providing a loan and collecting payments plus interest provides an accumulating cash flow dynamic. However, since the safe is empty at the moment, does the government just print the paper now hoping for prompt and reliable repayment of the loans and collateralization of the original outlay from future generations of taxes?

It seems at some point the money they lend now will have to come from somewhere other then their imagination.

The more I think about our current situation and how the recovery will occur, the more I realize how far above my pay grade this is. I only know that I care about where my children, grandchildren and great-grandson will get the money to pay all this back...especially if they don't have jobs.

Thanks for helping clarify these issues for my old, tired and worn out brain.

You may find that the introductory chapter to the book - "Private Enterprise Money" by E. C. Riegell - illuminates the current situation, and especially any parallels with the period after WWII:

http://www.newapproachtofreedom.info/pe ... ction.html

Greetings Jack, So many questions, so little time to answer them. Good questions, though.

My first impression is that you have not yet read Ellen's eye-opening book, Web of Debt. If that impression is correct, then that is the first and best piece of advice I can offer. The book can be read in about 10 hours or so. Some say less, others more. Reading the book will clear up 90 percent or more of your questions, I think.

Now, even though attempting to address your questions before you have before gaining a firm grounding in the main themes of the book will probably only lead to further confusion on your part, I will try briefly to respond to a few specifics in your reply:



War bonds were generally purchased and held by the public. However, the main point is that the bonds were really never necessary. It is the right of the government to issue money the same way it can issue bonds. Trying to understand the nuances of bonds is not really going to get you anywhere. All you really need to know is that a bond is essentially an IOU, or a loan certificate, to be repaid to the final holder in principal plus interest at maturity. The credit of the USA is what makes a bond valuable. But that same credit would make money issued by the government just as valid, and without incurring the compounding interest.



Greenspan's term was in reference to the stock market, not the economy in general. It was mainly everyone wanting to get aboard the "investor class bandwagon", which created a bubble that broke. Assessing blame for it is a Gordian knot, that ends with the private money creation scheme and "fractional reserve banking".



I don't think she said that, and if she did I wouldn't agree with her on that point. First, you have to define what you are seeking a "solution" for in buying the bonds. Solution for what?



Jack, you really have to read Ellen's book to gain insight on this. Where the money has come from is not the same place it will have to come from in the future. What you are failing to grasp is that the current money model is fraudulent. It is an unsalvable Ponzi scheme. It can't be paid off - ever. And laying that burden on future generations is criminally insane. But there are ways to get out of the dilemma. It's all in Ellen's book, or Steve Zarlenga's. We have to change the way money is defined, issued, and controlled. That is the only answer.



Quite so, unless we change the system. If we do that, possibly not. Imagination may be quite sufficient.



Well that is the heart of the matter, is it not? The answer is that unless we change the system of who controls the money supply, future generations will have been sold into debt-slavery, or indentured servitude to the bankers and financiers. Actually, unless we act decisively and soon, that has already happened. It really isn't a very pleasant picture.



You are most welcome, although my own brain is now 70 years young. It tires more quickly than it used to.

Jack, you would probably get more info in the shortest time from watching a 47 minute video, "Money as Debt" by Paul Grignon. A great "de-programming device"!

Hope some of this is helpful.

Hi, Jere what a nice work you did by providing link to this informative 47minutes VIDEO, it's worth spending your time watching it.

Thanks, micky Simulation pret

The money can literally come from nowhere. Basically, the government just "prints" up the money - or more accurately, just increases the size of the treasury's bank account through bookkeeping entries. After all, that's exactly what the banks do for you when you take out a home loan, or a car loan, or any similar loan. The benefit of the government creating the money, instead of borrowing it, is that the government would not owe any interest on the money. However, the government is still "indebted" to accept that money in payment of taxes, fees, fines and so forth.

The government, after all, does not create wealth. But it could use less wealth for its operations if it created money and accepted it back as payment for taxes - than it would borrowing money, demanding taxes, and using the taxes to repay the debt plus interest.