The Century of Enslavement

[steveb]

A new video by James Corbett is a neat little summary (90 mins) of the arguments put forward by the 'End The Fed' movement in the US (and elsewhere).
Although many of the core criticisms are the same as here, the focus is slightly different over there- especially regarding the Fed being essentially a private concern (as the Bank of England was for most of its history). The Jackal Island story, the forming of the Council on Foreign relations, the connections between Wall Street and the CIA, these all feed a deep distrust of the Fed in America, and unlike here, most monetary reformers want to see the end of the central bank system.
Should we support the 'End the Fed' movement?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJeemTQ7Vk

[richardb]

What would we replace it with? How about nationalise it and run it as a public
utility, or you could go the positive money route and nationalise the money.


rich

[peterv]

When you say "should we support it", I think we need to keep a clear separation in people's minds about the way the UK and US systems differ. There is already a lot of confusion (eg. in the US there is still a 10% mandatory reserve ratio on some accounts, and people think that's true in this country too).

So I think we shouldn't actively get involved with any arguments about the US system. Let's keep the Positive Money argument to the UK system.

However - is there a case for ending the BoE?
Post reform, all you need is a robust IT system, and a politically independent board authorised to credit new money to the Treasury. The BoE reserves system will disappear, and loads of other things the BoE does will disappear with it (things like setting interest rates, open-market operations, inter-bank settlements etc.). What is there left for the BoE to do?

[steveb]

The more I think about this, and the more attention the movement draws, the more interested in these questions I become.
From my reading, the fundamental ideas behind monetary reform have by far the biggest historical footprint in the United States.
Despite this history there is no marker within the US on the map of the International Monetary Reform Movement (here); although Positive Money lists the US as having an outpost in this regard, maybe due to recent updates...? Still it is amazing that American interest in political democracy has not really kept the monetary flame alive outside of libertarian circles (with their misunderstandings about the nature of money).
My interest in this movement is primarily stemming from a desire to understand political forces, and most notably, the implications for so-called democracy of a debt based privatised money supply. So in that respect, with the dominance of the dollar and US power globally, I am generally inclined toward support of those in America who are drawing attention to this issue. Furthermore the USA is still viewed as some form of advanced democracy by many if not most people in countries like the UK. The truth about the Fed, its creation and its associations -among other things, convinced me that this is just not true, and we should all know that.
A criticism of Positive Money that I have heard more than once is that it is UK-centric; that the globalised nature of finance and trade will necessitate the adoption of sovereign money widely in order for it to be effective and not detrimental to the economy of Britain. I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on this, and would be interested in anyone's thoughts....(this will be something I raise at the next meeting's discussion). If true, any consideration of different countries' banking systems would be important. Added to that, there are striking similarities in the histories of the US and UK systems, i.e. that the Bank Charter Act of 1844 that is cited by PM as an example of state regulation of money issuance in the past was enacted at a time when the Bank of England was a privately owned and privately run institution, so similar to the Fed's creation in 1913.
Has anyone else noticed that Ben's recent appearances and comments have not mentioned the Monetary Policy Committee as the suggested body for regulating money creation? On Max Keiser's show he stated that a 'transparent, democratic and accountable body' (paraphrasing) should be responsible, but no mention of the BoE. As things develop and revelations about state corruption and criminality continue to emerge in bigger and more shocking stories, I find myself more uncomfortable about any support of, or trust in the 'old world' institutions, and this includes the Bank of England (their role in the BCCI scandal for example).
This is all getting political, but that is unavoidable, and to pretend it isn't will prove to be to the detriment of the Positive Money campaign long term in my opinion. Our society's crossroads moment is primarily about whether any form of democracy survives into the rest of the 21st century, and the role of international bankers and money systems worldwide are central to that debate, or should be. Is there a future for the BoE? I think that the changes that are coming are so big that I will be surprised if any of the familiar institutions of state remain at the end of it all.