The economy is the single most important, yet misunderstood, aspect of our society.  Some of the major issues facing our economy are taxes, unemployment, inflation, underfunding, and debt.

–  Taxes.  You don’t need to look very hard to find someone who hates paying taxes.  Republicans generally run on a platform of lowering taxes.  Why?  Are taxes that bad?  Short answer:  Yes.  Taxes are generally paid more by productive people than less.  Why on earth would we want to create a penalty for people providing the rest of us with goods and services?  As is, our economy is set up where we think we need taxes to continue to have a government and public services.  But the question is, if we need taxes to pay for these essential goods/ services, then why do we continue to go further and further into debt?  Taxes obviously aren’t paying the debt off if it’s continuing to grow.  The only reason for taxes is to show some sort of “good faith” in that we are willing to work to pay off the debt we continue to wallow in.  (More on how we can eliminate taxes later.)

–  Unemployment.  The unemployed are an unfortunate bunch.  These are people that are willing to work, but have no one willing to pay them for their abilities.  Why?  In our society, our money supply is largely expanded by our government’s willingness to put us further into debt.  The more in debt our country goes, the more money government has to pay employees or contractors for work deemed necessary by our government leaders.  This expansion of the money supply is what brings good economic times.  The better government is at getting you to ignore the bloating debt during these times, the more you will notice that people are spending more money.  The more people are spending, the better your odds are of getting more hours, or better yet, a raise.  If the unemployed were to work and provide goods and services we need or want, then how can we get an expansion in the money supply without going into debt?

–  Inflation.  Many people believe inflation to be a result of “government printing too much money.”  Oh how the interest profiteers have fooled us all.  If government were actually printing money, then why would they have to go into debt?  Better yet, why would they have to tax us for our share?  Reality is that inflation is a direct result of compounding interest.  When we delay to pay off debts, more interest accrues adding to total debt without expanding the money supply.  So if debt is continuously increasing without printing more money, then it stands to reason that inflation is not caused by printing more money.  In fact, it is the growing ratio of debt to money.  When the money supply is expanded through fractional-reserve practices, as governed by the Federal Reserve, there will always be more debt than money in supply.  So as we all struggle to pay off our own debt, we are in fact always competing with each other to do so.  All the while, the banking corporations are the ones creating this conflict of interest, and collect on their debt either through payments or foreclosures.

–  Underfunding.  Generally speaking, government programs are in place because our society has a need/ demand for such services.  If we are unable to afford to keep those programs in place, then those programs will find inefficient ways to do so in their fight for survival.  For example, our country has been trying to find ways to improve upon our faltering education system.  The schools, in their search for more money, spend it on things that distract and detract away from their main purpose.  Instead of hiring better teachers or textbooks, schools are improving football fields and hiring expensive coaches so as to attract more people to spend money on their tickets and merchandise.  The reason for our faltering school systems is our blindness to the reasons for it.  If a school’s sole function was to educate, then we should be able to provide that education regardless of the cost.  An improvement in the intelligence of our population can’t be a bad thing, could it?

–  Debt.  How many of you have realized our inflating debt?  If debt is continuously increasing, then what belief do we have of ever paying it off?  Anyone who does hold that belief is obviously delusional.  Taxes aren’t paying it off.  Funding cuts aren’t paying it off.  Inflation isn’t decreasing the value enough to make a difference.  So is there really “good faith” that we’ll pay it off?  No.  The only reason why we are able to continue to go the direction we’re heading is because of our money expansion system.  We, as a country and individuals, have to keep going into debt to pay off older debt.  This is an impossible equation that only leads to the taxes we pay, the sacrificial funding cuts, inflation, unemployment, and yes, more debt.  But have no fear, the solution awaits.


In an increasing population, as we have been experiencing, combined with our individual desires to own, consume or experience more, does it make sense to have a decreasing, stable or increasing money supply?  A decreasing supply would mean there is a less likelihood of you having as much money tomorrow as you do today.  A stable supply would mean having to fight with more and more peopleas the population expands, ultimately leading to a less likelihood of you having as much money tomorrow as you do today.  Therefore, the only possible solution is an increasing money supply.

As we stand, money is handed to government in exchange for government bonds.  Who has this money?  The Federal Reserve.  Where did they get it?  By using the authority delegated to it, to create accounting entry transactions.  In other words, they don’t have it, just as government doesn’t have it, until it is needed by the public.  The problem with this process is that every time government resorts to it, it puts us further into debt by obligating us citizens to pay off not just the principal but the interest on top.  It leaves us with more debt than money.

If the Federal Reserve can create money when it’s needed, then why shouldn’t government?  When the Federal Reserve Act was first passed, it was because the bankers were able to scare people into thinking government couldn’t be trusted to perform such a task.  Hindsight’s 20/20 as it turns out, the bankers couldn’t be trusted.

If government used the authority given it by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution, then government would create money as needed by society without the corresponding debt.

How would this process work?  In order to maintain a stable currency while also increasing the money supply, controls would be required.

First, money would be created then spent into circulation by government.  This would be the positive flow of currency.  Where government spends that money would be up to your Congressmen and women.  But since the majority would have to agree on those expenses, it should be safe to say that those expenses are required in order for our country to operate successfully.  In order to ensure that money is spent wisely, each and every agency or private contractor would have to accept transparency standards.  In other words, if you think your services are good enough for our country, then you should have no problem allowing us to look into your procedures.  And if need be, adjust those procedures – it is our money and our right to do so.

Second, a negative flow of money would be required so as to ensure a gradual, as opposed to an all out onslaught,  increase in the money supply.  This negative flow would be any and all processes that has money recycled back into government.  A current example of this would be taxes in that the debt-free money spent into circulation was then given back to government.  However, since the object is to eliminate obstacles to productive people, other tactics could be employed.

One tactic would be government (or social) control of debt.  In other words, banks could still operate as they do today except they would be lending out actual cash and not “promises to pay,” on a 100% reserve requirement.  The banks would borrow from government and then lend the money out at a higher interest rate.  The interest payments made back to government would be the money that is recycled since now the bank has to take back the principal plus interest, which would come from the debt-free money spent into circulation. 

If government deems it appropriate to increase the money supply at a higher rate, then government could raise its interest rates and increase the opportunity for people to work for government.  Those government jobs, no matter how mundane, would still be required by society in order to increase the money supply or provide goods or services at a lower price than current private enterprises (until those private enterprises are capable of providing their services of equal value at reasonable prices.)

Another tactic to recycle money back to government could come in the form of government sponsored events.  Much like the entertainment industry charges tickets for their events, whether its movies, sports or concerts, government would do the same.  The ticket price would cover the expenses of the event plus a “profit” which is the portion being recycled back to government.  This is different than our current tax system in that it doesn’t require people to sacrifice that which they worked for on a mandatory basis, but allows people to choose whether or not they want to help government.

Over the past 20 years, the national debt has increased by an average of 7% each year.  This means that each year, our government determined that in order to maintain or improve the standards of our country, they had to overspend by about 7% of our debt each year.   Make sure you read that right.  They had to OVERSPEND by 7% of debt each year.

We spend more than we are bringing in and we find it necessary enough that we will try to cut funding or increase taxes in other parts of our society.  The proposal I support is the same as overspending, except that we aren’t relying on someone else’s money to spend. 

Government has the authority to create money and rightly so.  The power to control a population’s money supply can be dangerous if given to a select few, as it is today.  It only seems right that a system that powerful should be shared collectively, so as to not allow the few to benefit off of something required by all of us to survive.  A government created money supply would enable us to achieve the American dream for every American.  Not by keeping a small money supply regulated by those who profit off it.

It’s not just smarter this way, but also more empathetic toward the population’s biggest problem:  Money.


%d bloggers like this: