100% reserve banking

“(In fact we now have Corporatism where most markets are dominated by a few very large businesses and cartels and they have the politicians in their pockets).” Isn’t this demonstrating a failing of a historical perspective on your part. Isn’t blaming trusts and advocating anti-trust legislation simply just an echo of the early 20thC dead-end solutions to the boom/slump problem.  I am disappointed at you raising the straw-dog arguments of central planning of the old Soviet Union and that production and distribution will be decided by committees. Or that we seek some form of state nationalised economy – (public) ownership. I would have thought by your contact with the party and its members that you by now understand our vision of socialism is somewhat much more radical and fundamental than that and indeed you do touch upon how we would build on capitalism when you say that adaptations of Tesco’s data-bases (and logistics systems) would be invaluable tools. Part of our case.  Can i recommend for a more detailed description of the socialism, you might, when you have time, add Robin Cox’s The “Economic Calculation” controversy to your reading list.http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm Also to be recommended is Adam Buicks (co-written with John Crump’s) own Alternative to Capitalismhttp://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/alternative-capitalism-adam-buick-and-john-crump-1987

"(In fact we now have Corporatism where most markets are dominated by a few very large businesses and cartels and they have the politicians in their pockets).Isn’t this demonstrating a failing of a historical perspective on your part. Isn’t blaming trusts and advocating anti-trust legislation simply just an echo of the early 20thC dead-end solutions to the boom/slump problem." I object to this, and I am doing no such thing. I am sympathetic to your ideas, but you need to be less arrogant, more encouraging of potential supporters and less adverserial, and assuming certain things of me. If you are to encourage more people to follow your cause, you need to provide real world examples on the web site (I have read the the Object and Principles on the site), otherwise the casual observer may think that you are advocating committee style economic planning. I will try and read the other links you have provided when I get time.

Dave, apologies if i offended you with my previous remark but all i wished to try to do was point out that trusts = corporatism and we have been down that road already and it failed. Land Taxes too is resurrecting old ideas such as from Henry George. New forms of banking also often simply repeat the case made by Douglas in the 30s. What happens during a crisis is all these solutions are once more proposed as if they are somehow “new” while Marxists are criticised for openly sticking to our “old” analyses.   I hope the further you read about ourselves, the more you come to understand the firm  foundations we build our socialist case upon.  You raise the problem of lazy and idle free-loaders in a future socialist society and suggest that for this reason it may not succeed. It is a question we have for over a hundred years been asked and our answer is little changed and has been in fact reinforced by new research and increasing evidence. Obviously, i can only generalise here about human nature.   It is human nature to eat when you are hungry, to drink when you are thirsty, and to sleep when you are tired and to have sex when the urge takes you. Nothing can alter this least of all socialists. However ,what is meant by human nature as an objection to socialism , is not human nature at all, but human behaviour. Human behaviour roots are to be found principally in one’s environment and the economic conditions which influences one’s make-up. How we behave is not “innate” or governed by our “instincts” or our genes, but can and does vary depending on the sort of society we were brought up in and live in. We don’t need to change human nature; it is only human behaviour that needs to change.   Socialism does not require us all to become altruists, putting the interests of others above our own. In fact socialism doesn’t require people to be any more altruistic than they are today. We will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. No doubt too, we will want to “possess” personal belongings such as our clothes and other things of personal use, and to feel secure in our physical occupation of the house or flat we live in, but this will be just that – our home and not a financial asset. Such “selfish” behaviour will still exist in socialism but the acquisitiveness encouraged by capitalism will no longer exist. The coming of socialism will not require great changes in the way we behave, essentially only the accentuation of some of the behaviours which people exhibit today (friendliness, helpfulness, co-operation) at the expense of others which capitalism encourages.  Humans behave differently depending upon the conditions that they live in. Human behaviour reflects society. In a society such as capitalism, people’s needs are not met and any reasonable person feels insecure so people tend to acquire and hoard goods because possession provides some security. People have a tendency to distrust others because the world is organised in a dog-eat-dog manner. If people didn’t work society would obviously fall apart. To establish socialism the vast majority must consciously decide that they want socialism and that they are prepared to work in socialist society. If people want too much? In a socialist society “too much” can only mean “more than is sustainably produced.”   For socialism to be established the productive potential of society must have been developed to the point where, generally speaking, we can produce enough for all. This is not now a problem as we have long since reached this point. However, this does require that we appreciate what is meant by “enough” and that we do not project on to socialism the insatiable consumerism of capitalism. Under capitalism, there is a very large industry devoted to creating needs. Capitalism requires consumption, whether it improves our lives or not, and drives us to consume up to, and past, our ability to pay for that consumption. In a system of capitalist competition, there is a built-in tendency to stimulate demand to a maximum extent. Firms, for example, need to persuade customers to buy their products or they go out of business. They would not otherwise spend the vast amounts they do spend on advertising.   There is also in capitalist society a tendency for individuals to seek to validate their sense of worth through the accumulation of possessions. The prevailing ideas of society are those of its ruling class so then we can understand why, when the wealth of that class so preoccupies the minds of its members, such a notion of status should be so deep-rooted. It is this which helps to underpin the myth of infinite demand. It does not matter how modest one’s real needs may be or how easily they may be met; capitalism’s “consumer culture” leads one to want more than one may materially need since what the individual desires is to enhance his or her status within this hierarchal culture of consumerism and this is dependent upon acquiring more than others have got. But since others desire the same thing, the economic inequality inherent in a system of competitive capitalism must inevitably generate a pervasive sense of relative deprivation. What this amounts to is a kind of institutionalised envy and that will be unsustainable as more peoples are drawn into alienated capitalism.  In socialism, status based upon the material wealth at one’s command, would be a meaningless concept. The notion of status based upon the conspicuous consumption of wealth would be devoid of meaning because individuals would stand in equal relation to the means of production and have free access to the resultant goods and services . Why take more than you need when you can freely take what you need? In socialism the only way in which individuals can command the esteem of others is through their contribution to society, and the stronger the movement for socialism grows the more will it subvert the prevailing capitalist ethos, in general, and its anachronistic notion of status, in particular.  We already as a society support “free-loaders”, the young the old,  the infirm, the unemployed, even the artist. Can socialism exist if some able-bodied take and not give? I suggest it can and over time the problem will diminish. It is not an argument to oppose socialism.

Time to resurrect this thread. Positive Money are claiming the Green Party have now de facto accepted their analsis as their party policy.http://www.positivemoney.org/2013/11/monetary-policy-of-green-party/Private banks create money – The Greens now advocate 100% reserve banking "To finance their lending, investment or proprietary trading activities, banks will have to borrow or raise the necessary national currency from savers and investors"As if they don't do that now!!…what do they mean by "necessary national currency" …no more international financing on the world market? I keep saying it – we should have a dedicated pamphlet to banking. 

Not come across the smoking gun article but i am sure when you read between the lines of this one what is currently taking place in China's banking system knocks holes in Positive Money and Ellen Brown arguments . Once again it is the central bank that is creating the money and the credit as the private banks struggle to maintain their deposit/lending ratios mostly inter-bank borrowing rather than acquiring individual deposits and subsequent profits from them.  http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4d8d97b4-6ac0-11e3-b47d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oZvlWyQD

Meant to post this awhile ago. Pretty good simple explanations of finance. Sorry if youve already posted similar in this long thread.http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

 He does not know what he is talking about.He is just another one of those money and banking  conspiracionist, another confused capitalist economists, they are just the watchdogs of the capitalist economy,  Capitalist economy can not explain how this society operates. Capitalist crisis are produced due to  over-production, it is the drive for profits which brings the crisis. He is the one who has to take a crash course in political economy, It is just the blind trying to guide the blinds. In another occassion he said that  the bail-out was paid by the so called  taxpayers which is wrong too. The capitalist goverments  saved the capitalists, and taxes are paid by the capitalsit classhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2010/no-1266-february-2010/who-bailed-out-bankersDuring the  crisis of 2008  many economists went to the bookstore to buy  Marx Capital, but reading volume 1 is not enough, it is volume 3 which deeply explains how the capitalist society is functioning.Debt is not the problem ( it is same conception of the watchdog of the American society,  known as Republicans and Democrats ) it is the world  decline on the rate of profits, and when they are producing enough profits they do not care about the debts. They are not going to admit that their own system is unestablehttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2011/08/too-much-debt-or-to-little-profit.html

Not had time to fully read or understand the article but i am sure others may find it of interest. It does repeat what we now believe to be a myth about fractional reserves and goldsmiths. The update is that the fed is manipulating the gold price because the banks no longer can cover their reserves under fractional rules.  The Fed and gold :- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37413.htm