If you haven't heard of Austin Mitchell, at 79 years young he is said currently to be the 6th most senior MP in the House. Naturally he has his own website
; he is also one of the few MPs who understands the nature of the rip-off that is international banking.
Next year is the anniversary of the Bradbury pound
; if you haven't heard of this, it was the startling innovation that enabled a country that was technically bankrupt to fight a world war - for four years - and win it, albeit at a colossal cost in real terms.
Austin Mitchell has tabled an Early Day Motion
to restore the Bradbury. As of last night it had attracted 3 other signatories
, including, perhaps surprisingly, Jeremy Corbyn.
Here is one pertinent question, where is the signature of Michael Meacher
on this document? Although not quite as senior as Austin Mitchell, he is another of only a handful of MPs who have seen the light.
Why is debt-free money so important, and if it is so, why don't we have it already? It is important because no one in his right mind pays for something if he can get the same thing for free for no effort. Broadly speaking, governments can raise money in three ways: they can borrow it, tax it, or create it ex nihilo
like the banksters do.
Taxation is not a cheap exercise, and reduces both the purchasing power of the man in the street and the investment of both the entrepreneur and big business. If it is too oppressive, large companies will simply relocate elsewhere, something Margaret Hodge
should consider before she brands Google or any other multinational evil.
Borrowing money from the banks means it must be repaid at interest, which leads us where? Governments can create their own by printing notes, minting coin or simply writing figures in a book. This latter costs absolutely nothing. Obviously if they simply did this, money would lose all its value; this is called hyper-inflation, and is the scare tactic the banks and their frontmen
use to keep politicians in line.
Hyper-inflation need not happen if money is created responsibly; the government has a legal monopoly of force, that is what it is both a dangerous servant and a fearful master
. All the same, we have no alternative but to permit this, but the government is itself subject to the rule of law, in theory at any rate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing the government (the Crown in our case) to create all the credit needed for its own works provided this money creation is itself subject to control. It has been done before
, it can and will be done again.
There is one massive obstacle to be overcome before the UK, Europe and eventually the entire world can free itself from the vice-like grip of our financial dictators, the Treaty of Maastricht
, which gives them a legal monopoly. Clearly, this is a treaty that must go.
This madness is tolerated because there are so many people on the take, the current financial system - which is usury, not
capitalism - is a siphon, draining wealth from the have-nots to give to the haves, in particular the banks. It is a bit like a poker game, one that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown did not understand
Briefly, in a poker "cash game" the house takes no part in the play but takes a rake from every pot. This is tiny, but if play goes on long enough the house end up with the lot. Substitute the banking system for the house and the economy for the players, and you will understand why money is always too tight to mention
If the British or any economy is to grow, there must be constant injections of newly created debt-free money, something all our overpaid economists ignore, either wilfully, or simply because they are fools