Skip to content

Positive Money and the Chicago Plan

by on February 25, 2014
Positive Money and the Chicago Plan

Positive Money is undoubtedly one of the leading monetary reform organizations in the world. Their analysis of our monetary problems and proposed solutions are basically the Chicago Plan. But the Chicago Plan does not address Usury.

Positive Money, headed by Ben Dyson, is based in the UK and is a spin off of the New Economy Foundation. It’s a not-for-profit corporation and is financed by a number of social justice foundations and grassroots supporters. Total income last year was 135,000 pounds.

They have a powerful presence on the web. A well designed website, with an accessible narrative. They are very active on Facebook, where they have more than 20,000 likes, which is very substantial for monetary reform advocates. And this number grows quickly too, a testament to both their efforts and the growing general awareness of the issue.

Their communication is well thought out and professional. They break down the problem as they see it in concise videos and memes (pictures with a few sentences, which can easily be shared on Facebook). They churn out these memes regularly and they are continuously shared by many people who have an interest in monetary reform. By providing them they enable these people to promote the issue and this in turn gives Positive Money a strong voice in the debate.

Here’s a short video outlining their basic take:

They have a number of unofficial sister organizations abroad. For instance Sensible Money in Ireland and ‘Ons Geld’ (Our Money) in the Netherlands.

Recently they scored a nice success, when the British Green Party included Positive Money’s monetary agenda in their own program.

The Chicago Plan
Positive Money basically promotes the Chicago Plan.

In an effort to address the causes of the Great Depression, a first draft of this plan was circulated March 16th 1933 by a number of economists from Chicago University. It ultimately resulted in a paper called ‘a Program for Monetary Reform‘.

Irving Fisher was the most notable of these economists. At the time his plan, while appreciated by his colleagues, did not gain the attention it undoubtedly deserved, for the reason that his reputation had been severely damaged by his blindness to the bubble that preceded the depression. Only three days before Wall Street’s historic crash in October 1929, he predicted that stocks had reached ‘a permanently high plateau’.

It was an honest mistake, a lesson many continue to have to learn the hard way: he was heavily invested in stocks and really believed in the nonsensical stories that people make up during these, easy credit fueled, booms. He had been a wealthy man, but lost a very substantial part of his fortune in these weeks.

This blunder not only severely diminished his fortune, it was also a great bust for his reputation as a leading economist and it’s perhaps understandable that people at the time gave more credence to Keynes’ analysis of the situation. Keynes, after all, had already written ‘The Consequences of Mr. Churchill’ in 1925, after this Rothschild agent had reinstated the Gold Standard at their behest. Keynes predicted that this move would lead to a depression, undoubtedly one of the key reasons the Austrians always hated him so much.

However, Keynes claimed that depressions were caused by falling ‘aggregate demand’ in the economy (without pointing at the monetary reason: deflation) and suggested that the Government should compensate for this with anti-cyclical spending: borrowing money for investments for infrastructure and the like.

Fischer, perhaps exactly because he had learned the hard way, was much closer to the truth. He correctly stated that booms were caused by credit expansion and busts by deflationary debt deleveraging. What is more: he blamed the banks for this and squarely pointed at Fractional Reserve Banking.

His solution was to end Fractional Reserve Banking and force the banks to lend only what they had in deposits. Money creation should be left to the State, who should have the Central Bank print debt free money.

This then, is also what Positive Money prescribes as an antidote to our current problems.

The Goals of Monetary Reform
The New World Order is basically a group of banking families. They own the banking industry and through it the money supplies of the world. They use this control to suck up the wealth of the nations through Usury, which redistributes, ultimately everything, from the many to the very richest. Compound interest makes it unavoidable that these families owned the world within a few centuries after starting their lending operations.

Their second major tool is the manipulation of volume. Usury and racketeering cause money scarcity and associated permanently depressed economies, which has been the norm throughout the West for most of modern history. Alternating inflation and deflation causes the boom/bust cycle.

The third main issue is that the banks control who gets credit and who doesn’t. They finance those they own or want to own and starve the rest. There is zero democratic control of credit allocation, let alone a recognition of the fact that the credit they create through Fractional Reserve Banking is in fact our credit, to which we are naturally entitled.

The Chicago Plan was devised to solve problem number two: the manipulation of volume and the associated boom/bust cycle. Positive Money correctly states that money must be only printed in good times with low inflation. This is indeed a reasonable formulation of how volume should be managed.

Under the Chicago plan outright bankster racketeering aimed at creating deflation would be more difficult, although not entirely ruled out.

It would probably also to a large extent solve money scarcity. But not entirely, because money scarcity is implicit in a usurious environment. Interest plus debt will always be bigger than the principal.

While solving problem two, the Chicago plan does not even address point one or three. Banks would continue to rake in the interest and pay out to the rich (‘savers’) and the poor would be paying. They would continue to decide who gets credit and for what.

The Money Power and the Chicago Plan
There is little reason to doubt Fisher’s (let alone Positive Money’s) intentions. It fitted well with the thinking of these days.

But on the other hand, the Chicago Plan is not very threatening to the Money Power either.

It is more than noteworthy that we see the same thing with the Chicago Plan as what has become the fundamental conclusion of our discussion of NSDAP monetary policy after they came to power: Schacht solved the depression by providing the economy with some extra liquidity through his MEFO bills, but he vehemently opposed and managed to shut down Feder and the Strasser brothers and their anti-usury movement.

For the Money  Power it’s a given that volume is under discussion. Their Austrianism is a typical example. It’s the redistribution through the monetary system that is the taboo.

Some highly amusing anecdotal evidence for this statement was recently provided by a friend, a notable monetary reformer from the Netherlands, who told me that at some convention he was invited by a well known Dutch economics professor to join the wholly innocuous ‘New Economy Transformers’, centered around ex-World Bank chief Herman Wijffels. The good professor had no qualms off handedly adding “but you will have to stop talking about the wealth transfer through the system all the time”.

Another issue is that leading Money Power outlets, including the Financial Times and the IMF, nowadays routinely positively discuss matters in a very similar vein to the Chicago Plan.

Is it worthwhile limiting oneself in the discussion to the boundaries of thought that the Money Power itself sets?

Full Reserve Banking
Until about six months ago, they didn’t mention the Usury issue at all. They reasoned (and basically still do) that Usury is too big an issue and getting it on the agenda, let alone rid of it, impossible.

But the growing momentum and ongoing feedback on their Facebook page made them change course and they produced a number of their typically high quality vids and memes exposing the hundreds of billions per year the British banks are raking in through Usury and the wealth transfer from the 90% to the 10% through this process and Usury in general.

But they frame it in such a way as not to disturb their proposed solution of Full Reserve Banking. They claim private money creation is the problem.

But ultimately it matters not who creates the money. What matters is what it costs and whether volume is stable. What matters is who gains by money creation.

We have already discussed Full Reserve Banking extensively in this article. Suffice it to say that the Money Power will quickly reestablish full control over any ‘debt free money’ and will continue to reign supreme through interest-slavery.

A 200k mortgage would still cost 300k in interest. The opulent would still rake in most of the money.

The conclusion is that the Money Power is comfortable with proposals that end the depression based on the correct analysis that they are caused by deflation. Sure, while implementing depression, they combat these plans, but they are no existential threat and in fact are used by them to solve depression when they have achieved the goals they were aiming for in creating them: they provide the necessary paradigms for the public to ‘understand’ what is going on.

But can we really avoid the Usury issue, considering the myriad profoundly dishonest and destructive  implications? Its supreme importance to the Money Power?

The more so since such reasonable ways to do away with it are readily available?

Positive Money and the Chicago Plan are close to Public Banking and the Hamiltonians. And even more so to Zarlenga and the American Monetary Institute. Modern Monetary Theory also fits in this group.

The main difference between the Hamiltonians and the others is either private or public fractional reserve banking with interest vs. private full reserve banking.

Their common basic idea is that the problem is that control of money is private and that it should be nationalized. They either nationalize money creation or the banks (which automatically means the money too).

They all avoid the crucial Usury issue and enforce the State. They do not really accept the commoner’s fair share in it all. The fundamental need to end interest slavery.

But to the common man it matters little whether he is paying interest to the State or to private banks. Governments are not the commonwealth and history shows less is more.

So while Positive Money is doing a wonderful job getting monetary reform on the agenda, their proposals are simply not comprehensive and are co-optable for the Money Power.

The Goal of Monetary Reform
Forget about Full Reserve Banking
Full Reserve Banking Revisited
The Difference between Debt-Free Money and Interest-Free Credit
Austrianism is Dying! Truthers Unite!
More on Mutual Credit
Hitler’s Finances, Schacht in his Own Words



  1. Andy Sloan permalink

    Maybe the idea is that the State will take control of credit allocation, in style of the Chinese social-credit system? That will greatly increase state control of citizens (slaves) and be more effective in punishment of dissidents, who they can lock out of receiving anything. The system are steps ahead of us and advanced in their post WW3 planning for world slavery.

  2. Reblogged this on RogersLongHairBlog and commented:

    Poisitive money and MMT are really deomcratic socialist Fabians and Stalinist commisars perpetuating the status quo. In the same way Feders Monetary radicalism was hijacked and corrupted then forgotten by Schact so it is with Positive Money who have been Hijacked by Green NGO Fascism. #WrongKindofGreen
    the whole campaign is pivoting with The Green New deal, #ExtinctionRebellion and other ruses to bring in CO2 trading schemes debt and Agenda 21 and Agenda 30. With all the nastiness of misanthropic eugenics and population control.
    Then there is #8thwaytothink and DOughnutEconomics again an NGO funded apologist crew for Usury.

    March 6, 2019

    Then there’s energy-based economics and the vacuous definition of the monetary unit to contend with.


    Positive money and MMT are really in the former case democratic socialist Fabians and the later Stalinist commissars perpetuating the status quo of State Monopoly Capitalism,( The Washington Consensus. In the same way, Feders Monetary radicalism was hijacked and corrupted then forgotten by Schact so it is with Positive Money who have been Hijacked by Green NGO Fascism. #WrongKindofGreen the whole campaign is pivoting with The Green New deal, #ExtinctionRebellion and other ruses to bring in CO2 trading schemes debt and Agenda 21 and Agenda 30. With all the nastiness of misanthropic eugenics and population control.

  4. Anthony Migchels,

    I need to borrow a few thousand. Do you fancy working overtime for the next year and lending me the money you earn at a zero rate of interest? No, didn’t think you would. Your anti usury crusade will get nowhere. I should give it up.

  5. Ross N. permalink

    George Washington said that Government is like “fire.” Others say that Government is a necessary evil. I say, “What kind of government?” A real government is us. Since we’ve never fixed the problems with Capital and other Rents, the idea of a third way government is outside of people’s mental paradigm.

    Abe says, “Frankly I don’t trust government” and “invoke the devil of government.” I think most of us don’t trust government because we don’t trust the nature of man. Yet, we create government to prevent predators from taking rents on society. We create laws in advance, and generally those laws are reasonable except when perverted by rent seeking.

    In my opinion, the only power that can thwart money power is Government. When the Templers were kicked out is a good example of the State asserting its authority. How to thwart the money power in a bottom up nonviolent organic way is the question of the ages.

    Here’s a comment by Huber: “If one accepts that the state is not, and must not be, a monolithic homogenous body, but a differentiated structure of manifold institutions with separation and balance of state powers (including budgets) under public law, then one will have to assess the concept of a ‘currency board’ under the roof of the treasury as problematic. The monetary prerogative should be in the hands of an independent monetary state authority outside the executive power, such as, for example, an independent nationalized central bank. This is all the more important since monetary and fiscal responsibilities must not be confused. “

    My personal view is that money power is also fire, and it needs to be in a fireproof box. I would have a monetary authority outside of the normal three branches of government. Said monetary authority would in turn have strong law and the people as supervision.

    If honorable private creditors can get together, and have an election, it would mimic a monetary authority. The problem is private creditors fight amongst themselves, and cannot even agree on the proper role of government.

  6. Abe permalink

    I’m curious about your view for the necessity of government mandating full-reserve/non-usury banks, or even a tacit, backdoor mandate by using public funds to support a particular banking model, i.e. creating state or national banks, or creating a national ‘greenback’.

    Currently the banksters have built in support for their usury,fractional system via a myriad of laws to maintain & solidify their monopoly on the creation of currency & credit. This of course didn’t just suddenly happen, most all reading this know by now the sordid history of how this came about.

    Now that we attempt to navigate our way out of this mess, I can’t but wonder if we aren’t setting ourselves up for another hijacking of good intentions. Recall at the founding of the Fed that it was promoted as a way to keep Wall St banks in check and serve & protect the public.

    Frankly I don’t trust governments and yet I see you apparently wish to invoke the devil of government in support of a new banking model. Wouldn’t it be wiser to focus on getting government out of banking and let people organize/create their own cooperative banks along any model they wish to pursue?

    Want full reserve, non-usurious banking, then join a co op that implements it. Just have government ensure it faces no more barriers to entry and operation than any other banking model.
    Want fractional reserve, usurious banking because it offers some feature you desire, then use their services. Just ensure government/regulations/laws aren’t hijacked by the wealthy so as to favor this model.
    The point being individuals are free to support the banking models they choose and government isn’t picking winners and losers.

    For hundreds of years it’s been the zionists controlled banks working in concert with governments to place road blocks on any form of banking outside their own self serving model.
    As I read your articles I get the impression that your primary intent isn’t to break up the current monopoly by removing the laws & regulations supporting it, rather it seems you wish to have government overtly choose a particular model (one of the ones you’d been championing) and use it’s power to implement that.

    Again, I don’t trust government and feel that any new banking model based on government issued currency will be hijacked by special interests. Wouldn’t it be better to have government focus on maintaining a level playing field/freedom of choice and let the collective decide in aggregate with their individual choices.

  7. Ferdinand permalink

    Positive Money advocates debt-free money creation – which means also interest-free money creation. But we do not advocate abolishment of interest, nor interest-free loans. Interest would still exist in the Positive Money system.
    Regarding usury, see – it’s only in German for now, but there should be some more information in English coming soon. First glimpses at banksneedboundaries

  8. Kevin Moore permalink

    The way understand it, Banks so called money is only a receipt issued from the debit side of the ledger to balance the asset lodged in the form of a promissory note or other negotiable instrument.

    Banks do not have any ‘money’.

    Borrowers finance their own “loans”.

    It is a con that is so simple it is simply unbelievable.

  9. In an ideal society with an evenly spread wealth over all households, the idea of full reserve banking would not be that bad. However in a society where wealth is concentrated in the hands of few, the idea is ludicrous, seen from the viewpoint of the 99%.

  10. Ross N. permalink


    Here is a critique of 100 percent reserve. It is a “credit” system, where the banks issue their hypothecated money. However, there are 100 percent reserves to back up banker credit IOU’s. In other words, the Chicago plan is still private money with private banks, and government stamp of approval.

    A real sovereign money system is different than 100 percent reserves and the Chicago plan. Although they both come from the currency school of thought. With sovereign money, the money is issued into the economy and banks are forbidden from making new credit. Banks are simply intermediaries between us the people, and they take a fee for their activity. It is similar to JAK banks.

    Since money is not always being created and destroyed, it helps it become non usurious. The usury in this case is the banker creating credit with little or no risk, and then enjoying harvesting of the population.

    All private credit money systems suffer from a fatal defect – countercyclical spending. I call it the comet scenario. Some disaster happens, and credit fails because people will not take out new loans. Loan payback will drain the money supply, and a positive feedback loop forms, furthering the downward spiral in depression. In the comet scenario, with real money, people simply hoard, but their money doesn’t disappear. It only changes hands from debtor to creditor. The economic ship rights itself more naturally as the disaster passes.

    With a real money system, credit and debt contracts are between the people using existing money; since the base money supply is full, there is not an overwhelming need to create credit, and hence the cost of capital goes down. Some disappearing money is necessary, but it should not be the dominant component in the money supply.

    I don’t know about positive money, but I believe they are currency theorists aligned with Huber.

    Usury is more than just interest on money it is unequal contracts – usually made more unequal with multiple factors.

    • Ross N. permalink

      Multiple factors are: 1) Different money types doing swaps for usury. 2) Financial Credit usurping the Social Credit 3) General purchasing power and debt instruments shifting away from each other through time and space. 4) And the hypnosis on the population that an asset (specific purchasing power) is necessary for hypothecation conversion to create general purchasing power (the bearer instrument we call money).

      1) Every time there is an asset swap, it is really an unequal conversion – and the financial intermediary is taking his usurious cut. QE money swapping for usurious mortgage backed securities is a good example.

      2) The social credit is gifts from our ancestors, gifts of the earth, and our ability to work and create. Financial Credit, at least in today’s world, is private actors attaching the social credit for their financial schemes to gain legitimacy. With no ability to produce there is no need for money. Private financial money power needs the social credit for their confidence game.

      3) General purchasing power is hypothecated into existence, but through schemes it is removed from the money supply. Dollars in particular can fly anywhere. Debt instruments then cannot be served as there is no “money” in the local supply to pay the “debts.” Note this mechanism has nothing to do with interest – yet it is usurious. The third world often gets hosed with usury this way as their leaders take the money and run, leaving the population holding unpayable debt. Give me your land and your real assets then say the usurers, and we’ll tear up your debt contract.

      4) The hypnosis that credit must have an asset base i.e. be “backed” up. Do any of us know what is backing up the money in our pockets? Who cares? We all use money as an article of faith – faith that our money is being managed properly. Assets should be used as security against existing money. But, using assets to create money implies credit creating banks must perform a vetting process. Yes – you get a loan, and you don’t. Bankers should not be creating credit to get between us individuals. We can create our own credits and debt contracts human to human, whether said contracts are in money or assets or favors. A real money system mimics our evolution – that of a gift economy.

      At its root, money is law. No private entity can take on the social credit because it is not theirs. Private entities may be awarded the social credit through an election, and hence forced to work for the common good – not for parasitic private gain.

      Equally, history tells us we don’t want a psychopath administrative type government holding the money power. Money really belongs in the legal sphere, where law and good design control its volume, path, and type.

  11. Where is blog Money the 12th and Final Religion on your blog roll?

  12. @ Jake,

    The American Monetary Institute is apart of The International Movement for Monetary Reform, just like Positive Money:

    The current (temporary) websites sucks, but one of my friends is going to build the new website the upcoming weeks on full time basis.

    I also advocate Full Reserve Banking but I agree with Anthony, usury will always create wealth distribution from the poor to the rich and will always stimulate shorm term investments. However, I must say that under a full reserve system the current form of banks does not have to be the same.

  13. Jake permalink


    Have been learning a lot from you blog ever since Drudge linked a story of yours about a year back.

    Do you know of an American-grown equivalent of the Positive Money initiative or something better?

    Also, do you have a favorable opinion on the work of Bill Still? The Bank of North Dakota?

    • Both Bill and Ellen Brown (who promotes Public Banks a la the Bank of North Dakota) are friends and I side with them automatically when sweeping the Truth Movement clean from Austrianism.
      They both are in the ‘nationalize money’ camp.

      But I don’t see how money can really serve the people as long as there is usury.

    • I forgot to respond to your other question: no, I’m not aware of a US based PM spin off.

  14. “Self-issued/local money” is the OPTIMAL form of money. It’s the “middle path”

  15. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

    We MUST decentralize the “money power” to rid humanity of this terrible affliction. Both monopoly gold/silver/Bitcoin AND government monopoly money must be eliminated. Money must serve and not dominate human beings.

    Government Talley Sticks/Greenbacks were used for empire, genocide, war, military draft etc. I define “usury” as “money monopoly” in any form as this is the first step to owning humanity’s commercial energy. This usurps majority will/self-determination. Usury/interest is a symptom of usury/money monopoly. If Mammon can redefine the meaning of usury; we should be able to as well.

    Expanding: Demons can perpetrate evil through money monopoly/usury alone without interest. Therefore, to me; usury means MORE than simply interest. Usurpation can be achieved without interest.

    • Their is no evidence to support you fear that a nationalized bank issuing interest free credit will lead to despotism. In fact there is ample historical evidence to the contrary. When usury was outlawed in Europe during the first 1500 years of the Catholic Church, there was no tyranny under the monarchies and laborers could work 14 weeks out of the year to adequately provide for their families.

  16. Dear Anthony,

    I am a longtime reader of Your blog and I share most of the insights You offer here. Nevertheless a carefull analysis of the current monetary system – as nearly offered by MMT – shows, that saving money is the main issue, why debts and fees can’t be paid. Money that is issued by borrowers through the underwriting facility of banks is retained by those people who are able and willing to save. Thus it is impossible for debtors to acquire those promisses to pay, that they have issued (via banks).

    As I am writing a – more or less academic – book on this topic I’d like to invite You for reading an exposée in German, which I guess You do understand. Please contact me under the e-mail adresse noted here, if You want it.

    Kind regards, SB

    • Hi SB,

      Thanks for this!

      Hoarding of money is an important issue. However, it is a subset of a wider one: scarcity of money. Hoarding cash exacerbates an already grim scenario. Usury is another key cause, because debt + interest is always bigger than the Prinicpal. Bankster racketeering (not lending, keeping money out of circulation) is also a prime cause.

      Demurrage solves both usury and money scarcity, but not mainly because it disincentivizes hoarding. More important are its vast acceleration of velocity and the clear incentive to lend interest free to spare the holder of money the demurrage fee.

      I can read German reasonably well, but it does depend on the length of your text: reading a complete book would be a big effort for me because of my far from perfect control of the language. How many pages are we talking?

      • Hi, actually we are talking about > 100 pages in tough speech, so you might prefer not to read it. Anyway it could make clear a lot of misconceptions: money is abundant! (only in the wrong hands as taxes are evaded). Hoarding is another problem, I meant saving because the saver holds on a claim, which the borrower has issued (loans make deposits and not vice versa) and which come due! The modern form of demurrage would be the issuance of government-bonds as MMT proposes (correctly). Thus savings made by the private sector must be offset by public “debt” (better: intergenerational tax-credits). Debts + interests are bigger than the principal, but both are created by bookkeeping-identities, so there ist no money missing – the crux is, that interest are not respend in circulation but mostly capitalized. Only in this way usury becomes a problem more than mere redisribution.

        In other words: the current system could work well (as in Japan) if it would be understood rightly and if economist, bankers and politicians would tell the truth how it works and if souvereign states became the issuer of their currencies (via central bank/issue department). The point is that money-powers and bond-holders desire a positive real rate of return, which they only can extract, when the supply of government bonds is below aggregated savings or when the supply of new bonds is under the accrual of interests.

        • Well, there are couple of issues: Usury destroys circulation. It is a prime cause for hoarding and sluggish circulation.

          I’m surprised to hear you say Japan works well. The Japanese pay 300k interest over a 200k mortgage and 40% of the prices they pay are cost for capital. I call that slavery. Meanwhile, debt is 280% of GDP and while this money comes from the Japanese themselves and rates are low, this is a completely unsustainable situation. Japan has been in deflation for more 20 years now and has fallen back big time during these years.

          Of course the current system cannot work. As long as the many pay to the few through the banks, we are interest-slaves. As long as the banks own each other, we face a monopoly pricing operation hell bent on enslaving us. As long as banks can influence volume (even if they don’t create the money themselves) we will know volume issues.

          I agree money in itself is abundant. The money supply is undoubtedly much too big, but it’s not circulating because of Usury.

          I’m not even so much averse against saving (although I don’t favor it either), as long as the deposits are lent out interest-free through JAK banking. In this way the effective money supply would not be affected by savers.

          • Ross N. permalink

            Anthony, beware the MMT crowd. I’ve spent many years reading their analysis, and most of their work is good. Some of their models are worthwhile. But, when they say bizarre things – such as the government collects taxes and it goes in a trash can, that is crazy talk. Government respends what it taxes.

            Another thing that MMT gets wrong is the relationship of government to banks. Banks lend first and find reserves later. That means that the banking system is primary, and the Fed subservient. The Central Bank is a construct of commercial banks. U.S. Treasury works with the FED on open market operations helping control the “volume” interest rate valve. The discount window and currency swaps are to help keep banks solvent despite the inherent instability of the system.

            A third thing MMT doesn’t do is break out the FIRE sector. Sector Balance equations then become lies because they don’t show the gains that finance is stealing with usury. Government money must become savings, etc blah blah. MMT economists also don’t understand that credit can be released and then become floating money. There is so much bad thinking along with the good, it can lead people astray.

            The revolving door is always from Goldman Sachs to Treasury, but never a reverse path. Never will anybody start out in government and end up in the private financial industry.

            Huber has plenty to say about MMT. MMR (Cullen Roche) has had a public split from MMT, and to paraphrase him, “MMT is all about their government work program. They should be honest enough to admit their ideology is a front for their agenda.”

            Here are many pages of reasonable critiques about MMT:


            • Thanks for this Ross! Highly enlightening.

              MMT really is very limited in its thinking. To be honest, I’m surprised with the uncritical and non-innovative way these old programs are circulated these days.

              It’s amazing how they all dance around the bush, MMT, the Chicago plan and yes, even classical Social Credit. They all address volume and the problems of lacking purchasing power but none will go to the core of the issue.

            • Complete nonsense. MMTers are quite right to say that the government / central bank machine can print and spend money, plus they are right to say the “machine” can put the process into reverse: i.e. collect taxes and “unprint” money. Did you know that Mugabe printed and spent loads of money? Perhaps you didn’t.

              Re your claim that MMTers don’t believe that “Banks lend first and find reserves later”, the reality is that that’s exactly what MMTers have been saying loud an clear for years. In fact probably the only reason you’ve come to understand that “Banks lend first and find reserves later” is thanks to the efforts of MMTers.

              And I’m only half way thru the 2nd paragraph of your comment. Can’t be bothered with the rest.

              • My comment above was a reply to Ross N. But something went wrong. My cursor was blinking while writing the reply – not something I’ve seen before on a PC.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Extinction Rebellion and the Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism – The New Dark Age
  2. Extinction Rebellion and the Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism – News from Nowhere
  3. Bernard Lietaer Has Died | Real Currencies
  4. Positive Money and the Chicago Plan | Real Curr...
  5. Positive Money and the Chicago Plan |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: