Simple machines can build a Village

Our World does not have to be complex. We cannot live without machines, but they do not have to dominate our lives. We can make them  serve our needs to live a simpler but a more permanently productive life.  Machines can multiply our efforts without mastering our lives. Machines can help us build a Village.  


The Village can nurture our sense of each other and the knowledge that we do not live alone. It will not replace the global world but it will give those who wish it the power to live with the world without being a slave in the world. It takes the Village to make a human community.

The Earth cannot be owned.

William Hodge  -   -  Public

We do not tax to spend. We tax to be sure that those who gain profit from the Commons of the Nation pay an equitable share to the common people of the Nation. Common people are more than just wage slaves to the Wealthy.

This is a post I received in a discussion group that I participate in.
I wanted to share it with you.

Richard Tyson

to public-banking

There are a few things that are essential to existence. Land, food, water, air. Without just one of these no human can live. To be taxed on the use of any of these, when the usage is for basic survival, is antithetical to the most basic of human rights. Every person, has in theory, equal right to that which is essential for survival, ie a minimum usage of land, food, water, and air.

When usage exceeds that which is essential then it is fair that those who enjoy excess are taxed. When an oil company drills they're doing it for profit at the expense of those who would rather enjoy a walk through unspoilt nature. One entity is taking away from the other and it would be only right for a certain level of compensation to occur. If they're paying from profits or paying a land tax, they're essentially paying because of their use of the land. At the basic level, it doesn't matter what the basis of the tax is, as long as compensation paid is equitable and results in benefit to all of society.

As to taxing income being punitive. Grrrrrr. Tell me again how one person is worth millions times more than another? ( A garbage collector is probably more important than a doctor because he stops disease before it can occur) Again, there are minimum levels of income that are to be taken into account. A certain minimum allows one to barely survive, another level allows a modicum of comfort, another level is just plain greed. No one should should be taxed when they attain a modicum of comfort. Anything above that should be taxed until the "take home" pay is the same as the tax cut off limit. If the super wealthy were to pay land tax rather than income tax they would never come close to paying what they should. Far from being punitive, tax on excessive income is the right thing to do to even the standard of living for everyone.

When this is done the incentive to speculate is removed and the result will be a far safer, more secure and happier society. Anything else results in the crap we currently experience.

While we have the opportunity to gain at the expense of another no economic system can work in the best interests of all. Tax is one way of leveling the playing field, and how taxes are instituted are not nearly as important as who and in what amounts they come from and how they're distributed.

There is never a Shortage of Money.

Here we are in the middle of an unemployment Depression and Radical Republicans and some semi- intelligent Democrats are telling us we must destroy Government Service to people because there is not enough money.  They say we must stop borrowing because the interest will Bankrupt our Grandchildren.  POPPYCOCK.  

It is possible for the Treasury Department to borrow enough money from the Federal Reserve Banks at 0% interest to finance the entire National Debt.  Only the Congress prevents this from happening by allowing only a special group of appointed Corporate Bankers to bid at the Primary Auction for Treasury Debt. 

The only role the Fed is allowed by law to play is to buy up debt on the secondary auction in order to control interest and money supply. But even in that role the Fed has keep interest rates at almost zero. and the Treasury debt it buys becomes interest free because the interest it Fed earns is returned to the Treasury as profit.
 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/20120110a.htm

Now we know that money is unlimited and is scarce only because your friendly Wealthy elected Congressmen have made it scarce by law to aid their own  SPECIAL INTEREST.  the question becomes when is it possible to spend this unlimited money in a way that helps the purposes of the Nation and does no harm

The argument that is used most often is that if you spend this magic money it will cause inflation. When can you spend money without causing inflation?  First you must understand what money does when you spend it. The Nation already has all the money it needs whenever need it.

Having money is like having gas to power your vehicle.  It is like having enough gas to power all the vehicles we will ever have for a million years.  So what do you need to use gas wisely. You need a driver [skilled labor].   You need a truck [productive capacity]. You need a load [resources].  If you have a road to travel and a destination you can fill up the truck with gas and get moving. In the middle of a recession you have the all three available. That is the best time to use your the unlimited supply of gas. 

If on the other hand  all the drivers, trucks, and loads are in use, then pumping more new gas will just spill on the ground and cause a fire [inflation].  A good thing to do then is stop pumping.  Your problem is now training new drivers [education] and building more trucks [capitol investment] and building roads [infrastructure]. 

This ain't Rocket Science Folks. It is no shortage of money ever.  It is POLITICAL, pure and simple.  I  suggest you elect a new Congressman who understands Money.



Copyright © William Hodge 2012

Time for Public Owned Banks has Come

I received the following forwarded message from Ellen Brown of the 

http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org/ in a discussion group about public Banking

I believe that Public Banking is the answer to removing the hands of Internationale Corporate Banking from the throats of taxpayers on the National, State, and Local levels. I wanted to share it with you on my Blog.  It is time to stop paying the Bankers for doing what we can do for ourselves. 

William Hodge

from:		Ellen Brown ellenhbrown@gmail.com
reply-to:		public-banking@googlegroups.com

                                                                                                                         

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Stivers <jwstivers1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Subject: the circus has come to town

My latest article: http://jamesstivers.com/circus.pdf

The website has been updated in general to reflect my change in political affiliation.

The Circus has come to Town

As of this writing (February 21, 2012), Idaho has joined the nation in Presidential politics. For many years, Idaho's primary system decided its partisan races at the end of May, including that of Presidential nominees. Usually, that made Idaho's 32 Republican delegates irrelevant because, by then, the nominee had already been decided for all practical purposes.
This year, with changes to a caucus nominating process to be held in March, Idaho joins the madness of "Super Tuesday" and the flurry of candidates flying in and out of the state wooing voters. It is a spectacle that folks in the back country are not used to seeing.
Unfortunately, it is also distracting citizens from state business. Idaho has a citizens legislature that meets during the winter months. The March 6th Presidential event comes in the middle of the session and competes for the attention that voters should be giving to consider important legislation.
One such proposed legislation is Rep. Brian Cronin's (D - Boise) bill to study a state bank (HCR030). This bill proposes to form a commission to study the state bank of North Dakota and see if the idea would work here in Idaho.
When I ran for the state senate in 2010, I made an Idaho State Bank the centerpiece of my campaign. I believe there is no more important legislation than this one for the future of Idaho.
Regrettably, Republicans have not shown interest in this idea. In some respects, they have been hostile to it. During my campaign, I suffered attacks from my Republican colleagues for flirting with socialism. The general consensus was that state government should not be in the banking business. Ron Paul Republicans who have now come to dominate the Party in the state evidenced even greater hostility.
In spite of the fact that the state Republican Platform calls for monetary reform and eliminating the Federal Reserve System, somehow, Ron Paul Republicans fail to see how an Idaho State Bank would be an important step toward that goal. Nature hates a vacuum and so does money and the notion that we can abolish the Federal Reserve and not end up with a de facto substitute is immensely naive. Government entities need places to put their tax receipts. As soon as they put them into a private bank, a new system will be created by default. Wouldn't the citizens of this state be better served if that bank was owned and controlled by the people rather than stockholders out to make a profit?
Actually, many Ron Paul Republicans do support the state bank concept. I discovered that when I polled the members of the Campaign for Liberty in 2009. It is really a vocal minority within the party that uses scare tactics and name-calling to discredit the proposal. Unfortunately, that vocal minority has control of the party and there seems to be no hope in sight. It appears that no faction within the Republican Party will come to the aid of this bill.
Now that the Idaho Bankers Association has begun organizing an opposition to this bill, it appears stalled in committee. Ron Paul Republicans are mesmerized by the election process; not a single discussion on state legislation has appeared on their Internet forum groups. I tried to bring this bill up for discussion and got token nods from a handful of old friends.
In contrast, Idaho Democrats have embraced the state bank proposition and are pushing forward with it. Ironically, it was the liberal Democrats in Congress who included Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill into their larger package of banking reform - and then passed it. It appears that Idaho Democrats would follow the same course were it not that there are so few of them. Democrats comprise a mere 15% of the legislature.
The Republicans have complete control of the state and all they seem to be concerned about is contraception, evicting Occupy Boise and other inanities. I suppose if we want a state bank in Idaho, forward-thinking Republicans and Independents will have to switch to the Democrat Party and change the representation in the Legislature.
That is what I am doing.
-- James Stivers

Taxes and Basic Income

"Why is it fair that I should be paying a higher percentage of taxes than anyone else?" - Sheldon Adelson, net worth $21.5 billion USD (2011) 

There is no good reason why anyone should pay
a higher Tax Rate than others. After the Community has provided every person with sufficient food, serviceable shelter,  medical care, and free access to education that teach all skills necessary to prepare a person according to his ability and desire to express his contribution to living, a flat tax rate will be fair to all.

If the essentials of life are not guaranteed, it is necessary to make sure that we do not create a Social division of wealth so great that we end up with a society of Noblemen and Serfs. That is the major reason for progressive taxes. 

In the age Debt Currency, taxes are not levied to fund the activities of Government. They only serve to control the amount of currency in circulation to prevent an imbalance between enough to operate the economy at maximum efficiency and too much that will lead to inflation. 

The operations are actually funded by creating money through borrowing and spending it into the economy to achieve the Public Good that is mandated for Government to do. That is the real reason that we have had a growing debt for most of the Nations history. As the Economy needs more money to function it is created by debt. Money = Debt. Taxes remove money that is not needed.

The problem is that we have done it poorly. Banks control Debt and they find it useful to expand rapidly and then contract rapidly in order to create opportunity to convert Monetary wealth accumulated through interest into real wealthy by foreclosing on Debt collateral. We need to remove Debt creation from Banks and place it in the hands of Government.

Copyright © William Hodge 2012 

GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER HAVE A MONEY SHORTAGE

Pax Village Voice

GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER HAVE A MONEY SHORTAGE

Marriner S. Eccles and the Federal Reserve Policy, 1934-1951

Eccles believed that the only institution that would be capable
of turning the [economic] cycle around was the government. In particular, he argued that only the federal government had the capacity to increase debt without going bankrupt. In his own words:

“If a man owed to himself he could not be bankrupt, and neither can a
nation. We have got all the wealth and resources we ever had, and we
do not have the sense, the financial and political leadership to know
how to use them.

We are trying to apply a theory of economy as
obsolete as the Ark. (…) If the Government in order to finance the
War [World War I] could spend billions of dollars in order to give
protection to life and property, and not have a single thing to show for
it when it is over but the destruction of the flower of the youth of the
nation, then certainly the Government is justified in supplying
sufficient credit or money to take care of the unemployed through
public works, or an unemployment wage or a combination of both”
(Marriner S. Eccles Papers, Box 74, Folder 2).

I first wrote this essay for my  Facebook Community page  -   Pax Village Voice. 

Now Is the Time for an Economic Bill of Rights | Truthout

                 Now Is the Time for an Economic Bill of Rights | Truthout



Now Is the Time for an Economic Bill of Rights
Friday 11 November 2011
by: Ellen Brown, Truthout | News Analysis

We are beginning to understand that our money is not created by the federal government, but by banks. (Photo: photobunny / flickr)

Henry Ford said, "It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

We are beginning to understand, and Occupy Wall Street looks like the beginning of the revolution.

We are beginning to understand that our money is created, not by the government, but by banks. Many authorities have confirmed this, including the Federal Reserve itself. The only money the government creates today are coins, which compose less than one ten-thousandth of the money supply. Federal Reserve Notes, or dollar bills, are issued by Federal Reserve banks, all 12 of which are owned by the private banks in their district. Most of our money comes into circulation as bank loans, and it comes with an interest charge attached.

According to Margrit Kennedy, a German researcher who has studied this issue extensively, interest now composes 40 percent of the cost of everything we buy. We don't see it on the sales slips, but interest is exacted at every stage of production. Suppliers need to take out loans to pay for labor and materials before they have a product to sell.

For government projects, Kennedy found that the average cost of interest is 50 percent. If the government owned the banks, it could keep the interest and get these projects at half price. That means governments - state and federal - could double the number of projects they could afford, without costing the taxpayers a single penny more than we are paying now.

This opens up exciting possibilities. Federal and state governments could fund all sorts of things we think we can't afford now, simply by owning their own banks. They could fund something Franklin D. Roosevelt and Martin Luther King dreamt of - an Economic Bill of Rights.

A Vision for Tomorrow

In his first inaugural address in 1933, Roosevelt criticized the sort of near-sighted Wall Street greed that precipitated the Great Depression. He said, "They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and where there is no vision the people perish."

Roosevelt's own vision reached its sharpest focus in 1944, when he called for a Second Bill of Rights. He said:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights.... They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however - as our industrial economy expanded - these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

He then enumerated the economic rights he thought needed to be added to the Bill of Rights. They included:

The right to a job;

The right to earn enough to pay for food and clothing;

The right of businessmen to be free of unfair competition and domination by monopolies;

The right to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Times have changed since the first Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791. When the country was founded, people could stake out some land, build a house on it, farm it and be self-sufficient. The Great Depression saw people turned out of their homes and living in the streets - a phenomenon we are seeing again today. Few people now own their own homes. Even if you have signed a mortgage, you will be in debt peonage to the bank for 30 years or so before you can claim the home as your own.

Health needs have changed, too. In 1791, foods were natural and nutrient rich, and outdoor exercise was built into the lifestyle. Degenerative diseases such as cancer and heart disease were rare. Today, health insurance for some people can cost as much as rent.

Then there are college loans, which collectively now exceed a trillion dollars, more even than credit card debt. Students are coming out of universities not just without jobs, but carrying a debt of $20,000 or so on their backs. For medical students and other post-graduate students, it can be $100,000 or more. Again, that's as much as a mortgage, with no house to show for it. The justification for incurring these debts was supposed to be that the students would get better jobs when they graduated, but now jobs are scarce.

After World War II, the GI Bill provided returning servicemen with free college tuition, as well as cheap home loans and business loans. It was called "the GI Bill of Rights." Studies have shown that the GI Bill paid for itself seven times over and is one of the most lucrative investments the government ever made.

The government could do that again - without increasing taxes or the federal debt. It could do it by recovering the power to create money from Wall Street and the financial services industry, which now claim a whopping 40 percent of everything we buy.

An Updated Constitution for a New Millennium

Banks acquired the power to create money by default when Congress declined to claim it at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Constitution says only that "Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the power thereof." The founders left out not just paper money, but checkbook money, credit card money, money market funds, and other forms of exchange that make up the money supply today. All of them are created by private financial institutions, and they all come into the economy as loans with interest attached.

Governments - state and federal - could bypass the interest tab by setting up their own publicly owned banks. Banking would become a public utility, a tool for promoting productivity and trade rather than for extracting wealth from the debtor class.

Congress could go further: it could reclaim the power to issue money from the banks and fund its budget directly. It could do this, in fact, without changing any laws. Congress is empowered to "coin money," and the Constitution sets no limit on the face amount of the coins. Congress could issue a few one-trillion dollar coins, deposit them in an account and start writing checks.

The Fed's own figures show that the money supply has shrunk by $3 trillion since 2008. That sum could be spent into the economy without inflating prices. Three trillion dollars could go a long way toward providing the jobs and social services necessary to fulfill an Economic Bill of Rights. Guaranteeing employment to anyone willing and able to work would increase gross domestic product, allowing the money supply to expand even further without inflating prices, since supply and demand would increase together.

Modernizing the Bill of Rights

As Bob Dylan said, "The times they are a-changin'." Revolutionary times call for revolutionary solutions and an updated social contract. Apple and Microsoft update their programs every year. We are trying to fit a highly complex, modern monetary scheme into a constitutional framework that is 200 years old.

After President Roosevelt died in 1945, his vision for an Economic Bill of Rights was kept alive by Martin Luther King. "True compassion," King declared, "is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."

King, too, has now passed away, but his vision has been carried on by a variety of money reform groups. The government as "employer of last resort," guaranteeing a living wage to anyone who wants to work, is a basic platform of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). An MMT web site declares that by "[e]nding the enormous unearned profits acquired by the means of the privatization of our sovereign currency ... [i]t is possible to have truly full employment without causing inflation."

What was sufficient for a simple agrarian economy does not provide an adequate framework for freedom and democracy today. We need an Economic Bill of Rights, and we need to end the privatization of the national currency. Only when the privilege of creating the national money supply is returned to the people can we have a government that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people.



This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.