My Disquss Comments Thread.

What is striking about this article is that the writer seems to think the Electorate know that Westminster is a representative Democracy and as such Vote for their MP´s because they think they know stuff. Most people consider their MP´s to be delegates and believe that a vote cast delivers an instruction to the MP to represent their opinions and interests.
So the lesson is MP´s need to shut up and listen to their constituents all of the time not just turn up at their constituency every 5 years to win the Popularity contest.
The competing elites model of democracy has been found out, Brexit and the US electoral college system have let the cat out of the Bag, Good luck with getting the genie back in the bottle.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us 
To see oursels as ithers see us! 
It wad frae mony a blunder free us, 
An’ foolish notion: 
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us, 
An’ ev’n devotion!’’
Robert Burns Country: To A Louse: On Seeing One On A Lady’s Bonnet, At Church

( quotes from Roy Madron , Super Competent Democracies).

‘Democracy is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political 
decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a
competitive struggle for the people’s vote’.” Joseph Schumpeter, Quoted
from Roy Madron , Super Competent Democracies who in turn Cites. 
“Participation, and Democratic Theory” by Carole Pateman. Dr. Pateman 
says that, Schumpeter and his followers: … set the current 
Anglo-American political system as our democratic ideal (with) a 
‘democratic theory’ that in many respects bears a strange resemblance to
the anti-democratic arguments of the last (i.e. 19th) century. No 
longer is democratic theory centred on the participation of ‘the 
people’; in the contemporary theory of democracy it is the participation
of the minority elite that is crucial and the non-participation of the 
apathetic, ordinary man lacking in the feelings of political efficacy, 
that is regarded as the main bulwark against 
instability.
A poem.

Don´t get fooled again America. Ross Perot could have straightened things out in 92, Clinton 2016 would be sheer stupidity. http://letthemconfectsweeterli… #MAGA

Just listen the the chorus of Political Karaoke in the Media. Now is not a time for soundbites I feel the hand of making the song your own oh worthy pollsters and media scions. https://letthemconfectsweeterl…

Its political Karaoke that Hunt is engaging in here. Heres my Blog on the genre. https://letthemconfectsweeterl…

Ellen your article is very well argued and an important milestone in this monetary reform journey we have all been on. So thank you again for shining a light. The Bank of England was Nationalised after the second world war it is quite unlike the Federal reserve. Post-Brexit the British Establishment will be alive to the Ambitions of Both Wall Street and Frankfurt to usurp the Position of Stirling, meanwhile there is still unfinished business between the Dollar and the EURO. Clearly the Feds plan is that the Dollar or whatever makes up the new Dollar ( Ithink the plan is a Dollar linked to Carbon credits) will be the last man standing. How far the British Establishment will demure to the Fed remains to be seen it has clearly been and still is Washingtons Vassal, (see Boris Johnson at the UN securtiy council yesterday for the latest example.) The British way would be to see the Dollar as a first amongst equals, when this notion becomes offended, and it may well be it already has then the Bank of England is quite capable of being a monetary prometheus and spilling the beans on the Secrets of monetary alchemy. In a democratised money which Blockchain can be an enabler of a huge social control lever is surrendered, this is inconceivable as the part of any establishment plan, FIN tech promoted by a number of the large global banks and Central Bank Blockchain has to be seen as a pincer movement. It would be a very convenient way to dig the banks out of the derivatives hole which Deuthces current travails and continuing travails may well be about to blow sky high. A derivatives bail out dressed up as banking reform is what I think I am smelling. 
Finally one has to look at the usury issue, your early work mentioned Helmuth Kreutz and particularly the Late Magrit Kennedy’s work regarding the interest charge component in all goods, notably the 77% attributed to social housing in Kreutz´s native Germany. For sustainable economic development the new monetary model that has to emerge to bring our resource use habits within sustainable limits can not entertain usury. Exponential Physicist against Linear infinite Economist is the deruguer Google term to get into some interesting reading, As I know you already know Ellen, What will the future Money or rather monies look like. Bernard Leitaer is my guru on these things his web site is an excellent 101 of solutions offered for making money work as if people and the planet mattered. http://www.lietaer.com/ here is an excellent talk given by Bernard to one of the big Blockchain / Bitcoin conferences

The British Establishment as represented by the Elected members of Parliament are still massively ignorant of Money creation by private banks the latest debate on quantitive easing was very disappointing here is a link to a report on it and some discussion on Positive Money. http://positivemoney.org/2016/… sadly its a step back from last years debate on money creation which I know you wrote about.

One final Word, Steve Keen and the Uncreated interest component when Banks make loans.
Roger G Lewis Roger G Lewis • 25 days ago
http://www.forbes.com/sites/st…

finally contrast Steve Keen on Forbes with Bernard Lietaer here.

http://www.lietaer.com/2010/09…
This is the really big question, not whether Money is all debt by definition or that Governments are the enablers of all true money. Usury is the thing but it is the very last stages of the rabbit hole which emerges in a world where one sees Capitalism as Old fashioned.
The full discussion on positve money about this question may be found at this link to a video produced byPositive money titled

Create money for people, not financial markets 
(Video)http://positivemoney.org/2016/…

Thanks again for the Article , its clearly provoked in me a lot of thought and actually boosted my spirits somewhat, Thank you again.

Indeed!

https://www.federalreserve.gov… I was reading this after I watched the debate last week, Its not rocket science although one would think it was . If you watch the debate when the statement I found so offensive was being made the MP in the left field of vison one row of benches behind the front bench looks very smug that he obvioulsy understood this bunch of Bunkum, I do not have time this evening to write further on this but PM really need to rake over the coals on this and then rake them over some more.

”The hon. Gentleman suggested that there had been little growth in M4 in the past eight years since QE was introduced. However, the relationship between monetary aggregates and inflation is tenuous, and monetary aggregates are not systematically targeted by central banks. To target monetary aggregates, there would have to be a direct relationship between the monetary supply and inflation. For this to be the case, there would have to be a degree of stability in the velocity of money—the speed at which money circulates around the economy. I hope that is clear.´´
in the whole debate, this statement by The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby) seems to me to be the one that Positive money might have wished to comment on in some detail. The article above is positive in tone. Personally I see no reason to be positive this is a backwards step from the money creation debate and this point on Monetary aggregartes is fundamnental to the Positive money raison detre . QE enables money creation, when it is created by Private banks we know that they are very narrow in the business case they seek to pursue, to the detriment of society at large. This is also the argument between Steve Keen and Paul Krugman summarised by Keen Here in his article for Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/st… 
Come on Positive money we want some meat in our monetary reform burgers this article is inadequate even as a place holder!

Simon, I can only say I share your frustration. I have been waiting for the follow up analysis from Positive Money before taking the trouble to make my own critique of the Governments response, which was woefull and full of banking woo particularly the bit about not relationship between monetary agregates and economic Growth/inflation? Usually its not necessary as the PM crew are pretty on top of it all, but the dissapointment of this latest Debate ( debate, hardly what one would call a debate, perhaps ill informed BS fest). Anyway frustration won the day here in Sweden for me too, lets keep out chins up and keep fighting the good fight.

I have embedded the deabte on a web page, it is viewable in full screen from this page. http://vikingsoundcoop.weebly…. It will save the trouble for other folk from fiddling with the media player on the Parliament site.

Attendence was even worse than the money creation debate. Streaming yesterday was poor so re – listening this morning.14 people in attendance 6 on the government benches and 8, variously distributed on the opposition benches.Asjohn ward says the medi ignores it and the govenement response to the motion 
Simon Kirby MP (Brighton, Kemptown, Conservative) was as assinine as Leadsoms response on the Money creation debate.Trying to think of something positive to say and sadly I can not. My collection of poems including Usury Hells fuel mand oppresor and tidesof the dollar moon are now available on Amazon in Kindle format. https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B01…

”However, the nearly universal misunderstanding of money is a major obstacle. For too long we’ve allowed a small coterie of bankers and “court economists” to hold the secrets and “tutor” us. So, it’s time for total openness.
First, regarding the claim that the Swiss proposal would’ve been too costly, what’s entirely omitted from the discussion is that the proposal (and similar proposals elsewhere) appear to call for re-distribution of existing money—taking money from certain sectors through taxation and re-allocating it to the people at-large.
The implication is that the money supply is basically static and that re-distributing limited funds would require tough budget decisions—sparking tax hikes and associated spending increases in several areas; hence the claim “costs too much.”
But a successful basic-income plan can and must be based on the creation of new money, or “distributism,” not on reshuffling existing money, which is “re-distributism.” That’s the “state secret” that no one wants to touch.
The issuance of new money needs to happen to overcome the huge “gap” between today’s paltry purchasing power and the massive mountain of debt and the towering totality of prices on all available goods and services. We have full stores and empty wallets. (Ideally and importantly, governments should reclaim their interest-free money-creation rights and forbid private central banks from creating money any longer).”

RJ, It may be that we are talking at crossed purposes. what we are talking about are political constructs, man made systems of political economy as such there are many options and many outcomes. Social science is about opinions , sensibilities even taste. Money can be created with or without interest being charged. Austerity can be chosen if a political choice is made for the government to ´´Balance its Budget´´ . Money can be created by private banks when they make loans or private banks could be constraine to make loans only from funds depositied with them from customers or shareholders investments. In these choices when one talks about which options to choose we are talking about opinions based upon considering predicted outcomes from past evidence. The attached memes summarise what I am driving at RJ.

• 
• 
• 

Faith based beliefs by definition can have no evidence to support them RJ. That is why they are called Faith based beliefs. On the lingusitics of metaphysics I highly recommend Quines two dogmas, here is my favourite quote from the paper. ´´As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries — not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits18b comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.” http://www.ditext.com/quine/qu…

Hi RJ,
If people read our conversation and consult the links they will see that I have argued from evidence and not belief as you suggest. Interest is not neutral and neither is money creation, they are two seperate questions and also combine in different scenarios to give different outcomes. Money is a human construct and as such claiming one default position is what is nonsense not the arguments which I have made. Please could you engage with the evidence and the arguments rather than claiming that I have presented a faith based claim, that is not the position and I am surprised you would so early in our dscussion default to low quality discourse.

1.There is no need for a soveriegn government to pay interest on newly created money.2. Money created free of interest makes a huge difference to the cost of social provison into the commons. 3. Only the top 10 % of people are net recievers of interest and over 50% of people actually have a negative net worth Interest is a syphon of wealth from the many to the few. 4. Pension funds have been eviscerated by the current system as have the pensions of most ordinary folk. 5. Universal Basic Income addresses the case very well as a distribiutive monetary piolicy and not a redistributive one.

RJ, I recommend Oshos essay EGo the false centre,http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm, I agree with you entirely , I explain the distinction in the arguments above. Let us remember what Epictetus tells us in the Enchiridion ”42. When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived. For if anyone should suppose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, “It seemed so to him.”

http://classics.mit.edu/Epicte…
I can assure you that I have considered as many sides of these questions as I have been able to find and I am always delighted to find new arguments that apply to further cases. an argument that applies to all cases at all times in Political Economy is not something I have even dreamt of finding.

RJ, Keen is not wrong in the most basic premise he puts forward in the forbes article,although he also admits the real world is more complicated as would Lietaer regarding the 11th round parable. Starting assumprions and parameter definition are everything thats the boundaries point in the comment of Marc Gauvin above. To say Keen is 100% right on this point is a very narrow claim for there is no such thing as 100%right in an emergent universe dealing with complex chaotic flow systems. Usury is a big problem, Keen thinks Capitalism can be reformed etc. I do not I think its an old fashioned social and economic technology past its sell by date. Usury is and always has been a bad idea imposed on the majority for the benefit of ruling elites, it is an unnecessary thing economically which most economists freak out about as it is their main yardstick for just about all analysis being the price of money. 
”The value of goods,
expressed in money, is called “prices,” while the value of money, expressed in goods, is
called “value.” quiggley.

Marc Gauvin a year ago
Before going ahead, let me point out that the instability of interest has nothing to do with whether or not loans can or cannot be paid but rather it has to do with the unbounded nature of debt growth, bounded being mathematically defined as:
Bounded: Any function f(t) where there exists some value B > 0 such that |f(t)| ≤ B Ɐ t ∈ℝ
For more on the instability of standard lending practices see:
See: http://bibocurrency.com/images…
The idea is that irrespective of whether loans are payable or not, any unit cost attributed to money will compound across the value chain as well as a function of any growth formulae within contracts (simple or compound interest). Thus, interest does create a constant demand for money in the form of increased and compounding costs of production that needs to be satisfied. This is only offset by economic failure that cannot be said to be unaffected by interest.
With respect to the simpler argument that both interest and principal (P+I) cannot be paid, Keen’s response neglects that it is not a myth. That is, there are cases where it is true, for example if we take the case of 100 principal (P) and at 10 percent interest to be satisfied in a single instalment, then it is evident that P+I cannot be satisfied. The question is then why this fact not myth cannot be extrapolated to a system of “n” such borrowers with overlapping repayment schedules of varying instalments. This would have been the correct point to begin his proof, but we must take note that he does not recognise this fact.
Another simple fact that he ignores, is that at no point in time is the WHOLE sum of all Principal + Interest in a system payable, i.e. payment is contingent on a potential “flow” which is neither guaranteed nor representative because said “flow” can be between positive accounts or negative accounts which in either case has zero impact on debt. ONLY transactions between negative and positive balances alter the aggregate debt balance in the system. See:
http://bibocurrency.com/index….
Without a model of flows that covers all such permutations his reference to “flow” is effectively meaningless.
This is very relevant because it means that no matter the rate of potential recirculation, in the limit and as principal in the system dwindles approaching the last principal instalment sum, then at that point any P+I is indeed un-payable at least for that last instalment.
If Keen wishes to prove his point then he needs to provide an equation that shows that in the limit and as Principal diminishes ALL P+I can be satisfied, which he cannot do, which is why his proof is not a mathematical proof but rather just prose.
For example, for the following proof to hold, it does not require flow to be zero or money to be treated only as a stock:
http://bibocurrency.com/index…. and this from those comments. And to be honest I´,m not really even half started warming up yet. RJ.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/st… heres the Keen Forbes article read all the comments and do bone up on your Kreutz.

http://letthemconfectsweeterli… you might find this blog of a dialogue I am having with Clive Lord one of the founders of the Green Party of interest.

Hi James,
Yes patience and one dialogue at a time the exponential function will evetually do the rest. One of my first introductions to all this was this article in economania. http://www.economania.co.uk/va…

Steve keen wrote an article in forbes trying to make that case, he is actually wrong in his argument there, Lietaer and Kreutz are in fact correct.
Usury is the last taboo and Keen who is a believer in reforming capitalism will not tackle usury, economists generally do not. I was reading this earlier another Economics taboo, Entropy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…