[Occupymendocino] How money is created, Why we need Public Banks

[Elaine and Ed]

In a nutshell, David Korten wrote that *interest* is what is destroying the living world by fueling the endless growth of the global economy.  New money is required to pay interest, so it is merely printed. As we know, money is just paper and has no intrinsic value but is "does" by a universal and mythical perverse consensus. But most money is NOT backed by any material thing, such as actual crops, land, shelters, etc. Gold was the last material thing that USED to back money. Now its just paper.

Whips and beatings are not required to keep the wage slaves getting to work on time. Everyone MUST keep on working to get paid to use the new money to pay off their loans and buy all their life's needs (especially food and shelter where eviction and starvation are the "whips"). All humans DIDNT NEED MONEY a mere ten thousands years ago we were all gatherer hunters and we got all our needs directly from the Living World (Eden).

And the human economy keeps on growing because it has cancer (caused by interest) and the one percent's pregnancy mandate. In a pro reproduction society   choosing to NOT have children is seen as wierd because the moneymen own the media and require an endless supply of consumer/breeder/worker/ soldier units to keep the economy growing and to FURTHER ENRICH THE ONE PERCENT. 

The uteruses must be kept in maximum industrial reproduction (notice the word "re-production" which is vastly different from "giving birth." 

So that's the whole reason for interest and the pregnancy mandate. Parents are the principle and children are the interest. Hence overpopulation and humanity devouring the Sacred Living World.   Elaine


On May 23, 2013, at 8:21 PM, agnes at mcn.org wrote:

> Here's a simple explanation of how banks create credit/money and the
> source from Jon Sakowicz email to me and the board of supervisors.
> 
> As Michael Sauvante explains it on the website of the Commonwealth Group:
> 
> The number one privilege enjoyed by banks is their ability to create new
> money, in
> the form of credit granted to their borrowers. Banking laws permit a bank
> to create
> that credit based on the assets of the bank (generally defined by the
> Basel II
> Accord). This credit is not extracted from those assets (which remain
> untouched in
> the process), nor is it drawn from any other pool of money, but rather the
> assets
> serve strictly as the basis for calculating the total amount of new money
> that the
> bank is allowed to issue in the form of credit. That amount (usually a
> multiple of
> the assets, typically in the range of 10-12 times the value of the assets) is
> governed by regulators, and varies from bank to bank.
> </blockquote>
> 
> 
> A state-owned bank would not lend the state’s credit but would accept the
> state’s
> revenues as deposits, just as Bank of America does now. The state’s
> revenues would
> simply be shifted from one deposit account to another.
> 
> Some small portion of its capital would also be shifted from one
> investment to
> another. Some idle rainy day fund, for example, might be used. This would
> be an
> investment in equity, not an expenditure. It would not cost the state
> money but
> rather would make money for the state. The Bank of North Dakota has
> reported a
> return on equity in recent years ranging from 19% to 26%.
> 
> This is also true for the state’s deposits: they would not be spent or
> lent but
> would remain at all times deposited in the bank.
> 
> The state-owned bank would then do what all banks do: leverage this
> capital into
> credit backed by deposits. And because the bank would be publicly owned
> and would
> have a mandate to serve the public, it could be expected, like the BND, to
> advance
> this credit conservatively for creditworthy local projects and needs.
> Banking “would
> become boring again.”
> 
> In North Dakota (population 647,000), the Bank of North Dakota has $2.7
> billion in
> deposits, or $4000 per capita; and virtually all of these deposits are
> drawn from
> the state’s own revenues. The bank has nearly the same sum ($2.6 billion) in
> outstanding loans.
> 
> California has 37 million people. On the same scale, California might
> amass $148
> billion in deposits. Assuming an 8% capital requirement, with $12 billion in
> capital, this $148 billion in deposits could generate $133 billion in
> credit for the
> state (subtracting 10%, or 14.8 billion, to satisfy reserve requirements).
> 
> If that credit were used, for example, to purchase $133 billion in
> municipal bonds
> paying 5% interest, the state would have made nearly $7 billion annually
> on its
> investment. This is new revenue for the state, acquired without spending a
> penny
> more in taxes.
> 
> If it is constitutional for the Bank of America to make this income by
> leveraging
> the state’s capital and deposits for the benefit of the bank’s investors,
> it is
> constitutional for a state-owned bank to do it for the benefit of the
> state and its
> people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this list send an email to occupymendocino at lists.mcn.org put "Un-Subscribe me" in the Subject.
> 
> For listserv technical problems please contact: listmanager at mcn.org