Talk:Socialism/A Doylist Perspective on National Debt

Notes

Short and sweet, I probably won't add more. I assume our debt is in fact dollar denominated or mostly so, but I feel the point still stands if it isn't. Sadly I haven't the budget for a fact checker. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 04:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: I haven't added the essay on vaccination to the list of essays on socialism, but I'm considering adding this one instead, with your permission. Thank you again for having a look. I may not add it, but I'm not sure how anyone would find it in the first place if it weren't part of some category or list. Do you have any other recommendations? AP295 (discuss • contribs)

Go ahead and add that essay. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

To do: Maybe suggest that nationalization of banks and bank assets can be used to eliminate the potential difference between debt and amount of absorbed treasury notes. General cleanup. Ref wikipedia lede and wiktionary on FRB, explain why they're misinformation. Explain how The Fed manages the currency supply. Be careful not to conflate commercial banks with central banks. It seems like this sort of context is missing from so much material on Jackson's war with the bank, so talk about this too. Central banks have the prerogative of managing the money supply (though commercial banks do essentially create money with FRB) AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

...not to conflate commercial banks with central banks...

I would add, not to conflate retail(high-street) banks with investment/merchant banks.

More fundamentally, most confusion and deception is worked by conflating concepts that seem similar but are epistemologically different and, conversely, distinguishing notions sharing the same category.

Classic example of the former is using "capital"(means of production) to mean accumulated sums of money in banking accounts or parked in "securities". Janosabel (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"More fundamentally, most confusion and deception is worked by conflating concepts that seem similar but are epistemologically different and, conversely, distinguishing notions sharing the same category." Yes, I believe you are correct. This is why I take special care in the second paragraph to explain the quotes on money creation and address the reader's presumable uncertainty about their meaning. People tend to imitate jargon without really considering its semantic value. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, I tried to clean up the wiktionary definition of fractional reserve banking and was blocked indefinitely shortly thereafter. I also created the entry on propaganda laundering, which has since been debased by the blocking sysop. I've an essay about that here, which includes a proper definition. [1] I suppose this could be considered an example. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Janosabel: In fact, I understood this (or thought I had) from the start, but I realize lately that this is really what one ought to be writing about. I had written a long time ago that the "left" and "right" political archetypes in America (as portrayed and propagandized by the media) are each themselves a group of fundamentally incompatible ideas. There are many neologisms that seem to have been invented for exactly the purpose of false association or false distinction, though from what I've observed, false distinctions are often just the byproducts of false associations (perhaps someone else would argue vice versa). I may write an essay on the subject, and if you don't mind I'll quote/credit your statement. It's difficult because one often knows when piece of rhetoric or jargon isn't really being used honestly, yet all the same it can be difficult to positively identify the salient points or what's really going on. It occurs to me that one cannot really conflate two well-defined concepts without using a new word. The invented words are often nominalized forms of adjectives, verbs, or other nouns, perhaps because they have no previous or clear definition attached to them except the connotation implied by the word they originate from, e.g. from social we have socialism. Orwell writes about these "meaningless words" in "politics and the english language", which aren't entirely meaningless but don't really add any expressive power to one's vocabulary either. He does a fair job of trying to describe exactly what's wrong with them, and he does a great job at instructing the reader about how to avoid writing in such a way. Yet some people do not use these words by accident. What is needed is a very sound investigation of such rhetoric. Not that I have any formal education myself in rhetoric myself. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I could still add to it or change a few things but it's starting to look like a decent paper. I think this is my new favorite essay, of those I've written. I should probably at some point plot the debt data myself so I have a figure I can include in the resource. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 07:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I've thought about redoing the intro but I'll probably keep it. Perhaps contempt is what keeps moderate cynicism from turning into outright nihilism. It's probably hard to sympathize with nihilists without being one. No doubt some philosopher or another thought so. Incidentally, this was meant to be an essay but with fourteen or so works cited it's beginning to resemble a paper or extended abstract as it nears completion. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

A short digression

Ended up being blocked indefinitely, seemingly for my efforts on wiktionary:fractional reserve banking, which were quickly debased after I was no longer allowed to have my say. I don't mean to bitch but I've got to get it out of my system. So many editors there are preoccupied with slang, innuendo, political idiom and pop-culture nonsense reminiscent of urbandictionary but don't seem to have time to work with me on issues like this one. Some were very antagonistic. It was upsetting. See below for a short digression about this. I feel it bears some explanation. Unfortunately, I did not end up finishing the definition on wiktionary, and it's been thoroughly ruined since I was blocked. As anyone who follows my contributions well knows, I usually need quite a few iterations before I can say exactly what I want. I'm dysgraphic/dyslexic (my diagnosis was motor dysgraphia but I also have some dyslexic symptoms, similar to dyslexic dysgraphia) and it takes me a lot of revising to get it correct, so it's particularly annoying and obstructive when editors stonewall me, forcing me to repeatedly explain the obvious, and do nothing but revert. Now the definition is actually worse than when I started, which I'm quite disappointed by. I would have gotten it right eventually had I been given the chance. [2] was probably the best version, but perhaps still not quite there. I should note that I perhaps wasn't blocked for modifying the entry on fractional reserve banking. Rather, I was probably blocked also because some editors lost face. A user took up harassing me ever since I suggested that the context label offensive should be replaced by derogatory in cases where a word is offensive because it's derogatory, and that offensive was not an objective or neutral descriptor that a dictionary should use in most cases in the first place. Derogatory describes the word, offensive describes an observer's reaction, and is relatively subjective. This is a common-sense approach, yet a certain cadre of users constantly misrepresented my argument, and continue to do so in my absence. See [3] for my original topic on the matter. Hardly how I wanted that discussion to go, though I think I came out on top and that's probably why they're pissed off. Actually, derogatory/pejorative are also sometimes misused, e.g. as in wiktionary:propaganda, wiktionary:wooden language. At any rate, it doesn't matter so much here but I didn't want anyone thinking that I was necessarily blocked for modifying the entry on fractional reserve banking. It was a bogus sanction and by all rights the user harassing me should have been blocked for obstructing and rolling back my edits on several entries, even locking me out of an entry I made myself after they've edited it in a way they knew I'd be bothered by, considering the notes I meticulously wrote on the corresponding talk page: wiktionary:propaganda laundering. I feel I have to say this since they continue to misrepresent my intent in my absence. Sometimes when I get a lot of grief like that, I'm amazed when I go back and see that I was actually in the right. Such abuse and harassment seems to work its way into your head when the memory fades and you start thinking you must have said something wrong, but then when you look at it again you see that you were very reasonable, or at least as reasonable as anyone could be expected to be to a point. My point is that the reader should not be discouraged by such things if they find themselves in similar circumstances. I also made an argument against pure descriptivism (wiktionary's 'philosophy') on my userpage there, and also a few other minor dissenting opinions in various places. I might republish it as an essay here with some improvement. It's not that they couldn't understand my arguments or that those arguments didn't make sense. If they made no sense at all they could have just ignored me, as I was not disruptive (though they'd tell you otherwise after rolling back and defacing some edits right after I had spent days working on them, but not before). It's because my arguments generally made good sense on the whole but for whatever reason, they felt they had to oppose them anyway and naturally one loses face when they put themselves in the position of having to quash a voice of reason. Just look at how they've debased so much of my work, if you read between the lines you can see the vitriol in many of their edits and comments, both before and after, and not even in just those pages that I've linked. What frame of mind would make one this resentful toward someone they've already thrown out unfairly? Hard to understand. In my naivete, I expected that they'd listen to me, but I'm still glad I did the work I did there. While I don't feel it was perfect in every way, I think it was positive on the whole and certainly it was well-intended. See also [4]. I asked for a neutral mediator and was instead blocked. I don't think the definition was quite there yet either but I was perfectly willing to work with them. Really the definition should not mention deposits at all, or if it must, then it should be explained that loans are counted as deposits or "deposit liabilities" as well as assets for the bank. I should have just replaced the whole definition from the beginning with a practice wherein banks lend out more money than they hold in reserve and started with that. I did get that far, but it was reverted and is now far worse than it was to begin with, quite clearly (and likely intentionally) opposite the direction I was trying to take the entry. As the article and paper I cite earlier up above suggest, banks aren't really lending out the money we "deposit", which is exactly what anyone (including myself) would think if they read "deposit liabilities". I also should have linked one of those articles on the page. Now that I look at it, the lede in wikipedia:Fractional-reserve banking is just as bogus as the present definition on wiktionary. They actually cite the two policy discussions as a reason for the block ("Nov. and Dec. BPs"), which are these: [5], [6]. Some editors agreed with me, in both the first and second threads. Several others tried to derail the threads or misrepresent the essential argument. The latter is presently filling up with question-begging sophistry, though I am glad that they wrote those search queries (which I had asked for in the previous thread, not knowing how to write them myself), for instance those terms with the context label "offensive" [7]. Now that I see it I can say what I've suspected; that at least half of those terms don't even belong in a halfway decent dictionary, being just obscure, profane slang. It looks like a sampling of urbandictionary's worst. This is what strict, all-inclusive descriptivism gets you. The entry I made for tacit collusion was summarily removed as SoP despite the social, economic and academic relevance of the concept, yet there are countless asinine entries like wiktionary:niggerologist and wiktionary:Holocaustianity and wiktionary:transmaxxing. (Two of which the blocking sysop has made contributions to. I wonder if he puts that on his resume.) So yes, I think their policies do need a look. I'm reminded of several quotes from Orwell's essay The Prevention of Literature, including an observation he made after attening a meeting of the English P.E.N. club and listening to the speakers: "Moral liberty — the liberty to discuss sex questions frankly in print — seemed to be generally approved, but political liberty was not mentioned." and a bit later in the essay, "Here I am not trying to deal with the familiar claim that freedom is an illusion, or with the claim that there is more freedom in totalitarian countries than in democratic ones, but with the much more tenable and dangerous proposition that freedom is undesirable and that intellectual honesty is a form of anti-social selfishness." All my edits were within policy and I have never been even half as rude to an editor as they have to me. Though I am critical of some some of the rules and conventions, I was not breaking them. I was simply trying to contribute honestly. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Doylist

@AP295: What does "Doylist" refer to? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Synonymous with extradiegetic, i.e. "outside the narrative". AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

AP295: Is this slang? Is "doylist" in dictionaries online other than Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

See https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WatsonianVersusDoylist It's really just a more conversational synonym for "extradiegetic". I suppose one could say the title is slightly pretentious but I'm not going to lose any sleep over that in particular, considering that most (but not all) other sources lie about the subject matter outright and I've done my best to be truthful and honest. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Really I could have just called it "An extradiegetic perspective on National Debt" or "An independent perspective on national debt" or some such thing. Wiktionary's practice of documenting every last attestable piece of slang or profanity is not essential to the title, much less the argument, if that's what you're trying to imply. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

My point, I guess, is that An independent perspective on national debt the best; I do not know the "doylist" word and nor do I know "extradiegetic" (which my browser underscores as a misspelling). Surely titles should speak to the readers. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That most people don't know the word is entirely the point. It's a hook. Readers can look it up but it's not all that important. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

My another problem is perhaps with the word "narrative", appropriate for novels but not for theories and positions. In any case, there is no "the narrative" no national debt, but rather, there are different political and philosophical views, articulated and available for inspection. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There most certainly is a narrative, namely that of mass media. I sense you are teasing me. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

1) The thing you are referring to as "narrative" is not narrative (story telling); 2) the presentation of the subject of national debt is not a single or monolithic one but rather differs between different political parties and economic philosophers, and it is unlikely that you are stepping outside of "narrative", whatever that word is supposed to refer to. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you say so. Have you read the essay? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

More comments

(Outdent) I started to, having read first two paragraphs. I find it unconvincing. For a start, I tried above to improve the title, but it fell on deaf ears. A key statement of the essay is "The only way to solve this is by changing monetary policy", but this does not seem to be convincingly argued. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep reading. I'm finished editing it for now, so feel free to review the present version in full. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: I will eventually add an explanation of how the fed creates money by selling bonds and flesh it out a bit more. I don't think most money is created by The Fed itself though, but by other banks loaning out money. I do take your remark about it being unconvincing seriously. I also think it needs a bit more explanation, and I'll get to it eventually. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What I would like you to do--but of course I am not your boss--is to improve the coherence of the essay. One instance: para 2 says "The only way to solve this is by changing monetary policy". Instead of substantiating that claim in the following sentences, it says things that do not need to be said and that do not support the thesis: "The obstacle is public ignorance; people must understand how USD is presently created in the USA. It is not the public's fault as they have been deliberately misguided. Those who understand the problem have an obligation to educate the public." These statements do not substantiate the starting thesis of the para, and also themselves are in need of substantiation, e.g. that the public was deliberateůy misguided. I would thus propose you tighthen up para 2 by splitting it up to para and making sure each para is about one point and that point is properly substantiated. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll probably cut or move some of those parts. The gist is essentially this: If public government were in control of the USA's money and had the public interest in mind, then it could pay off the debt instantly by just issuing that amount of money, thereby saving the public trillions of dollars in interest payments. The problem is that they've delegated that privelage to a private bank called "The Fed" and by extension other private central banks. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit, per your suggestion. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But eliminating all public national debt by money printing (on paper or via an electronic analogue) is likely to create huge inflation (increase of various price levels of various goods or commodity buckets), which would negatively impact all the unfortunate sub-middle-class souls who hold their savings in currency, while the large capital holders would see relatively little impact. That cannot be a good thing, I figure. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That part is a reductio ad absurdum argument, not so much a policy I'm suggesting. Later on I explain how this can be avoided in two ways, one of which was suggested in Bill Still's documentary. Even if it did cause inflation, it would be better than debt in perpetuity. Read the whole thing once and then tell me what you think afterward. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 11:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe I am wrong, since: what is the ratio of U.S. national debt to the total volume of USD in circulation? (For some value of "circulation".) If that ratio is relatively favorable, the resulting inflation could be tolerable. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

About "people must understand how USD is presently created in the USA": does your article explain how USD is created? I do not find the answer in the article.

You may increase self-discipline as for coherence by introducing relatively highly granular headings, e.g. "How USD is created"; and then, the section is on that and nothing else. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of it is there. My hands are getting tired so I need a typing break for a while. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I cannot find the ratio; can you help? Skimming and search for "ratio" find nothing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I should mention that this isn't going to be a comprehensive treatise on banking and monetary policy. I have a rather simple message to communicate, and the essay need not include every last detail. It's fine so long as there are no serious, relevant omissions or errors and it presents a credible picture. I'm not an expert on the subject, but one does not need to be to make this argument or to show how the public is exploited. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The essay states: "If congress repealed the federal reserve act and gave the Department of Treasury the authority to issue USD as treasury notes then the debt could be paid off instantly and directly by issuing that amount of currency and using it to pay the debts", italics. That matches the previous description of a solution: issue enough new money to eliminate all national debt at once. Surely an essay worth reading would be serious enough to describe the likely negative consequences rather than attack various parties' assumed bad intentions? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The two paragraphs are a bit similar. I will probably merge them at some point. Again, this is only part of one solution. As I said, that part is a reductio ad absurdum argument, not so much a policy I'm suggesting. The real solution is to relocate exploitative creditors and charlatan politicians to the bottom of the nearest asbestos mine, but I haven't figured out how to put this in a cordial manner. There are no negative consequences except for creditors. No offense intended, but I don't like having to repeat myself. It's hard. Even when typing. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be some kind of colloquial use of reductio ad absurdum; in mathematics and logic, reductio ad absurdum refers to a kind of argument or proof in which one assumes the negation of what is to be proven, and deduces a contradiction (or at least an absurd consequence) using strictly deductive methods. By that terminology, you are not doing "reductio ad absurdum".

I am sincerely curious about the ratio I have asked about, so if you know the answer, I am all ears.

If you are not sure about the validity of your argumentation, especially since you admit to be no expert no macroeconomics, it would be advisable to use less certain and perhaps less accusatory tone in the essay. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite certain. If you believe otherwise, then explain why, but it seems odd to second guess my argument (which cites several sources) when you haven't presented any evidence or reason to the contrary. I explain what the argument refutes in the essay, in the same sentence. Again, here I am repeating. I don't mind making the effort if I'm having a good conversation but you're making me explain the same few things I've already explained in the essay. Anyway, the ratio is pretty bad, over ten if I recall from a cursory search, but you can google it easy enough. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then: 1) what is the actual policy you propose (not a hyperbolic policy you do not actually propose, and 2) what is the expected inflation in terms of consumer prices that would result from that policy? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Still's plan, suppose. Raising reserve requirements would mitigate inflation because the amount of USD in circulation would end up more or less the same. They couldn't simply lend it all back out because they'd be in violation of reserve requirements, as I understand. They'd have to put it into the economy or keep it as reserve, presumably the latter. If they try to use it to wreck the economy, plan B becomes not so hyperbolic. I'd like to point out that this is already in the resource. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) So the proposed policy is not to print money but rather to raise mandatory bank reserve requirements? Okay, the mandatory reserve the bank has to keep should be raised from, say, 8% (lazily from my memory) to what percentage? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Both. The money is printed and winds up in the banks as a real reserve, which doesn't presently exist. What percentage? 100%, full reserve. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. Does it mean the bank can lend out only that which is its capital? Thus, if I lend the bank 100 000 USD (if I deposit that amount), none of this can be let by the bank to borrowers? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Can the bank still issue shares and thereby increase its capital, and by doing so, increase the amount of money that it can lend out? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you mean shares as in stocks, then I don't see why not. Note that at this point the entire business model of 'The Fed' itself would be obsolete. The Department of Treasury would be in charge of currency issuance. For ordinary banks, I imagine that they would raise capital in exactly the way you suggest. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, I mean shares of stocks. How would the abandonment of fractional reserve baking alone abolish the national debt, that is, reduce the money owed by the U.S. federation to banks, corporations, U.S. citizens and foreign governments to zero? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

In exactly the manner stated. The debt is paid off with debt-free 'notes' issued by the treasury. I noticed that Still credits Milton Friedman for part of this plan. I've not read Friedman, but perhaps he's who I'd cite in this instance. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But that means that you are going to increase the volume of circulated USD by the value of current federal national debt, right? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Or what are 'debt-free 'notes' issued by the treasury'? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

US dollars, not issued as federal reserve notes but as money that the treasury would create directly rather than as the byproduct of a loan. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, and then, that means that you are going to increase the volume of circulated USD by the value of current federal national debt, right? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We've been through this. It all ends up in the banks as the reserve requirements are raised. The banks issued all of the money as a loan in the first place, remember? That's the key part to understand. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me. You cannot print money without increasing the volume of circulated USD. Say, I had a promisory note issued by the U.S. federal government with the nominal value 100 000 USD. After the proposed operation, I will no longer have the promisory note but I will have 100 000 USD instead. Thus, the volume of USD has increased. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You paid/lent money for that note, right? That money was created when someone borrowed it from a bank. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, to obtain the note, I originally payed somewhat less than 100 000 USD so that I gain interest. Then, someone else, not me, had that (somewhat less than) 100 000 USD. After the operation, that other entity has originally mine 100 000 USD but now I also have 100 000 USD. The volume of USD increased. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The banks must collect their loans to make the reserve requirements, at least as I understand it conceptually. Some or other bank issued that money as a loan, and that money is possibly (temporarily) put back into the economy, but must end up in some or other bank to help it meet the reserve requirements. This whole operation would be spread over a few months or a year or so, implemented gradually over a window so as not to create a large, transient increase in circulating currency. For the real, pragmatic details I'd have to do some more reading, and I do plan to do more research. Again though, as in the papers I quoted, all deposit liabilities are actually also loans. That's the important part that I've stressed over and over. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(outdent) The above does not seem to respond to my example in any way; it is as if you were responding to some other post. It all smells of a financial equivalent of permetuum mobile: erase all debt with no fiscal (federal budgetary) intervention and without increasing USD volume. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's how Still explains it in the documentary. Maybe you'll understand him:

"1. Pay off the debt with debt-free U.S. Notes.

As Thomas Edison put it: if the U.S. can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. They both rest purely on the faith and credit of the U.S. Government. This amounts to a simple substitution of one type of government obligation to another. One bears interest, the other doesn't. Federal Reserve Notes can be used for this as well, but cannot be printed after the Fed is abolished as we propose, so we suggest using U.S. Notes instead.

2. Abolish Fractional Reserve Banking.

As the debt is paid off, the reserve requirements of all banks and financial institutions would be raised proportionally at the same time to absorb the new U.S. Notes which would be deposited and become the bank's increased reserves. Towards the end of the first year of the transition period, the remaining liability of the financial institutions would be assumed or acquired by the U.S. Government in a one-time operation. In other words, they too would eventually be paid off with debt-free U.S. Notes in order to keep the total money supply stable. At the end of the first year or so, all of the national debt would be paid and we could start enjoying the benefits of full reserve banking. The Fed would be obsolete and an anachronism.

3. Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the National Banking Act of 1864.

These acts delegate the money power to private banking monopoly. They must be repealed and the money power handed back to the Department of Treasury, where they were initially under President Abraham Lincoln. No banker or person in any way affiliated with financial institutions should be allowed to regulate banking. After the first two reforms, these acts would serve no useful purpose anyway, since they relate to a fractional reserve banking system.

4. Withdraw the U.S. from the IMF, BIS and the World Bank.

These institutions like the Federal Reserve are designed to further centralize the power of the international bankers over the worlds economy and the U.S. must withdraw from them. Their harmless function such as currency exchange can be accomplished either nationally or in new organizations limited to those functions. Such a monetary reform act would guarantee that the amount of money in circulation would stay very stable causing neither inflation nor deflation." - Bill Still

AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What make you think this Bill Still guy has the first idea of what he is talking about? Who is he? Did he publish anything in writing?

How is step 1 above not going to increase the volume of USD, or if not of USD, then of "U.S. Notes"? What is going to be the impact on inflation at that point? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Does it not at least make perfect sense to you that increasing reserve requirements would absorb the money in circulation and therefore mitigate inflation as money is issued to pay the debt? (Assuming the federal reserve act is repealed and The Fed can't simply issue the money to banks for them to meet reserve requirements) This concept is incredibly simple. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It does not make sense as long as the increase of reserve requirements is ensured by federal government printing money. Nor do I understand how this operation affects e.g. my 100 000 USD that I have under my mattress. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Your first sentence is not understandable. Your 100,000 USD can remain under your mattress if that's within your means. In aggregate, the money issued will be roughly proportionate to the money absorbed. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll need to think about the above deeper, but the above does not concern item 1, in which the USD volume massively increases--from what I can see-and to which I see no satisfactory response. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As for the money absorption, if I read item 2 correctly, newly printed notes are being "absorbed" in step 2, that is, the govt is handing out new money to banks so that they can meet their new reserve requirements (100%). In that case, newly printed money ends up in the treasuries of the banks, who gain a lot of money without losing any. Thus, the banks become enriched unlike anyone else, and in the process, the USD volume gets increased even beyond what happened already in step 1. Thus, both steps 1 and 2 increase the USD volume in circulation. On the other hand, one can argue that money added in step 2 do not really enter circulation since the banks now need to keep it as 100% reserve, and therefore, step 2 does not create any inflationary pressures; that is somewhat plausible, but step 1 still does create inflationary pressure. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Suppose it would cause inflation. Aren't A) repealing the federal reserve act and paying back the debt but with inflation, and B) repealing the fed reserve act and not paying back the debt at all, both better options than paying trillions per decade in interest in perpetuity? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me assume that step 2 causes no inflationary pressure (somewhat plausible) but step 1 does. Now, is the inflation worth no longer having to pay interest on federal debt? To see that, we need to get quantitative: what scale of inflation are we talking about? What percentage? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Now, is the inflation worth no longer having to pay interest on federal debt?" Yes, of course. In the long run the public still save money, but your assumptions aren't true. 2 mitigates the inflation from 1. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm done for now. I might try to find Milton Friedman's reference later, surely you'd take his word for it, no? In the meantime, give the documentary a look. You can watch it online, just follow the link in the resource. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

a) Item 1 does not mitigate item 2. New money is needed in item 1 to pay govt debt; then, in item/step 2, more new money is needed to hand out to the banks to ensure they can have 100% reserves. There is no connection/flow between items 1 and 2 that I can discern. b) "Yes, of course" is nonsense if one has no idea what level inflation we are talking about. Put differently, the statement "hyperinflation is worth immediate abolishing of govt federal debt" is as unobvious as anything. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

c) Milton Friedman is famous a controversial monetarist economist. I will accept his statements on a case-by-case basis rather than treating him as some kind of infallible authority. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You asked earlier how much circulating currency there was as a ratio, but the figure I recalled must not have included most of the m2 money supply, which is much closer to the debt than the 10:1 figure I offhandedly mentioned earlier. My mistake. I will have to do a bit more reading on this. You didn't really mention the ratio in your arguments though and I didn't think to look into it further. I should probably remove that sentence from my intro, since it might be misleading. I'll have to do a bit more reading on this too. Was that ratio what your concern was based upon? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's call it a day for today. I hope to get back to you tomorrow. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I just had one more note in the meantime. Bill Still or Milton Friedman's plan to avoid inflation and pay back the debt is something I understand but haven't really read into very much beyond what I've quoted and understand from the rest of what I've read. I don't really doubt that they're correct, at least in principle, however my line of reasoning was/is that there's little reason to pay it back regardless. The whole scheme is exploitative and anti-social, ergo those with a vested interest in it should not be paid for their exploitation of the public and some of them probably belong in jail. Even if the public owns some of the debt, I see little point in repaying it. I suppose this is merely an excuse for not having a satisfying answer for you, if indeed it was the question of ratio that threw you off (in which case it's my mistake and I apologize). I will have to look more closely at how the money supply is measured and see whether there's not such a large difference between the actual money supply and the debt that inflation would be unavoidable. Or perhaps I'm missing part of his argument. I should probably remove the sentences about debt exceeding money if it's not the case according to whatever measure is compatible with Still's repayment plan (assuming there is one). At the very least though, it seems that plan would pay off debt equal to the real amount of money in circulation before inflation became a factor. That alone would probably save us a good amount of money. I'm not entirely sure of those details yet, but I'm damned sure that it's not necessary to have our entire government and public beholden to moneylenders and paying interest in perpetuity. That's the point I was originally trying to make. It seems almost like the more one gets into the details and argot of finance, the more one misses the point. I want this essay to be correct, but also accessible to readers without having to know a bunch of obfuscating finance jargon. The moral argument does not depend on any of that. If it can be repaid without inflation, great. If it can't, then we tell creditors, bondholders and other people profiting off the continual robbery of the middle class to hit the bricks, and if they don't like it they can take it up with the men in uniforms and M4 carbines. The alternative is perpetual debt and corruption. Anyway, thanks for your comments. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick look through Still's book (which I haven't really read yet) doesn't seem to say much more about that solution, but as I said, it would at the very least require banks to absorb as much as they've lent out, which is quite a bit more than they're required to hold "in reserve" If that doesn't cover the whole debt, then it still puts a good dent in it. It would be worthwhile at any rate, so the point of ratios is somewhat moot but I concede that it would still leave a problem if it doesn't cover the whole thing. This topic is hard to research due to the tremendous amount of disinfo around. Just look at the lede of wikipedia:fractional reserve banking. It's precisely the same myth identified and lamented in the two papers I cited in paragraph two of the article. There it is, right there. An outright falsehood, right on Wikipedia. It might not be intentional, but I can't do anything about it, I'm blocked (allegedly an insincere 'alt-right' troll, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). AP295 (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: It looks like the debt is mostly in the form of treasury bonds, bills, and notes. [8] Someone must have had the money to buy them. Doesn't this imply there should be enough money in circulation for Still's plan to work (at least sans the interest/profit on those various bonds) and that the ratio doesn't really matter? USD is inflationary anyway. If banks had collected back all this money in the meantime, we'd have no currency left. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here's the full proposal from the documentary website, which also includes references to the relevant Friedman papers: [9]. The whole plan was put together in 2008, it looks like, and the math worked out then according to endnote three. I am not certain that it still works out, but it really doesn't matter. If there's so much debt that raising the reserve requirements fails to cause the new money to be fully absorbed, then the government can nationalize one or more of these central banks or their assets as needed. Problem solved. Someone more familiar with the treasury's debt and the balance sheets of central banks can work out the details to see if that's necessary or not. A lot of money and grief could probably be saved by nationalizing the biggest or worst of them regardless of whether we can pay them or not. If you don't mind I'll collapse the discussion above, because the page is getting quite long. Feel free to undo it if you like though. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As for "If there's so much debt that raising the reserve requirements fails to cause the new money to be fully absorbed,": Wrong idea, as I tried to explain: raising the reserve requirement does not contribute in any way to elimination of debt; again, new money for step 1 and new money for step 2 are non-overlapping.

As for "USD is inflationary anyway": that is not a serious statement to make: there is a huge difference between, say, 10% inflation per year, and hyperinflation, say 50% per month. Proposing to eliminate all fed govt debt by printing money without saying what level of inflation it is going to cause is not a for a serious discussion.

"As for "USD is inflationary anyway": that is not a serious statement to make" Yes, that particular statement was weak reasoning, but it can be disregarded. It's as I explain just above. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The solution discussed here makes no sense, and its rejection is not caused by a conspiracy between Democrats and Republicans. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

For our reference, from the link you posted, http://www.themoneymasters.com/monetary-reform-act on Web Archive:

"Step 1: Directs the Treasury Department to issue U.S. Notes (like Lincoln’s Greenbacks; can also be in electronic deposit format) to pay off the National debt. Step 2: Increases the reserve ratio private banks are required to maintain from 10% to 100%, thereby terminating their ability to create money, while simultaneously absorbing the funds created to retire the national debt. [...]"

That is the nonsense I was trying to refute. Again an example: I, a private creditor, have a fed govt note in 100 000 USD. As a result of step 1, I, a private creditor, now have new 100 000 USD. Step 2 does nothing to take those 100 000 USD away from me. The line of argument above seems to be some kind of equivocation in the term "money". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Suppose reserve requirements are changed to 100%. Commercial banks would need more money then, right? Where are they going to get it? If they can't get it from a central bank, it must come out of circulation, which would be deflationary. Maybe I'm missing something but that seems crystal clear to me. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Are commercial banks going to confiscate my 100 000 USD? No. To meet the 100% requirements, commercial banks cannot take money away from circulation at will. (I think if you carefully read again all that I already said, you could get the idea.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You're almost there now. Commercial banks made the money in circulation. They are owed that money because it's created exactly when they lend it.[10],[11] AP295 (discuss • contribs) 08:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That is some kind of nonsense. If I have 100 000 USD in paper bank notes on my hands, they are mine, regardless whether there is some kind of curious sense by which these bank notes were somehow "made" by commercial banks. I do not owe these 100 000 USD in bank notes to the commercial banks. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You may not owe that 100,000 to a bank but someone does. From [12], "In today’s modern economy, most money takes the form of deposits, but rather than being created by a group of savers entrusting the bank with holding their money, deposits are actually created when banks extend credit (i.e., create new loans). As Joseph Schumpeter once wrote, “It is much more realistic to say that the banks 'create credit,' that is, that they create deposits in their act of lending than to say that they lend the deposits that have been entrusted to them.” " AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That disregards my example. But even so, the commercial bank cannot go to the borrower and say, you know, we gave you a loan with a repayment schedule to last 20 years, but since we now have a new 100% reserve requirement, you need to repay the loan immediately (or within a year). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Tough nuts for them I guess. Though it could still be done over a longer time period, couldn't it? Sorry, I don't know where Still gets the one year timeframe from. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As for "deposits are actually created when banks extend credit (i.e., create new loans)": that is some kind of nonsense or equivocation. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly the same thing you replied with earlier. I've already responded. Or rather, I didn't say that. It's a quote from the investopedia article and similar in the Harvard paper I cited. I suppose I'm taking these two sources for granted, but what more do you want? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Still's documentary (and presumably also some of Friedman's work, though I haven't read it) also corroborates this, FYI. You could probably find more sources if you're unconvinced. Still also has a book on the subject, though I've not really read it yet. I'm quite inclined to think these sources are correct. Though there are a few minor historical flaws in Still's documentary, which he does own up to and has published an errata on the website, I believe his general thesis is correct. Humans are not infallible and I suppose it's everyone's prerogative to decide which sources they place their trust in. I cannot tell you that you must trust one source or another. Like I said, I'm not involved in banking myself nor am I an economist, yet this is a public problem. It's suggestive of a severe conflict of interest in government. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And prima facie, banks have everything to gain by obfuscating this information and being dishonest, while conversely Still and the other sources I've cited would have relatively little to gain from telling tall tales. In this instance, it's pretty easy for me to decide who's telling the truth and who's giving me bullshit, personally. Sure, there are plenty of professional, high-profile 'nutjobs' but I don't get the sense that my sources are acting in this capacity here. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money" [13]. Well, there you have it. The bank of England say so themselves. If you ask someone who works at a bank, they'll probably say the same thing. Convinced? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: I've made a few refinements. I think altogether it fairly well addresses both your concern about inflation and (also by way of the added citations) your doubt about statements like "deposits are created when banks extend credit". I can understand that one might find that statement (which is not mine) somewhat odd. It could be called doublespeak, but that's precisely why I'm clarifying it here, and its meaning becomes obvious if one reads between the lines or once someone makes it clear, as I hope I have done. Now that I have the quote from the BoE (which says essentially the same thing as the others, in almost exactly the same words), you should be able to figure its interpretation. From this, it's fairly easy to extrapolate a collusive relationship between major political parties and the rest of the political BS utterly withers in turn. The message of this essay is extremely corrosive to the propaganda of the two-party fraud. It's magnificent. Socialism/Bipartisan fraud is something of a "companion" to this essay, further expanding upon the hypothesis of collusion. I suppose one could say it's more speculative, but really I'm no less confident in it as this essay is directly substantiative. It is presently incomplete and less refined than this essay, but most of the important points are there. Once it's sharpened up, it should be fairly potent. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Of the two, I suppose this is probably what I'd want a reader to look at first, since the gist of this essay is so well-supported by citations and calling BS on misinfo/disinfo is relatively easy. On the other hand, Bipartisan fraud is much harder to write. The lead has to be flawless in order to do its job. The rest of the essay needs reordering. The works by Hitchens are enough to disillusion anyone who bothers to read them, he even very nearly spells out the hypothesis directly in the one essay, albeit in an indirect style, on top of his usual (and sometimes grating) I-write-for-harpers diction. The linguistic element is something I have a hard time describing and I might end up rewriting a lot of it, but that would mostly be for the sake of presentation, structure, coherence, etc. The message is already there and perfectly accessible. It might turn out a slightly longer essay, but I hope to keep it compact. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Unconvincing to me. What I see is an unworkable proposal and then assumption of ill intent on part of those who reject this unworkable proposal. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? Your main objection is refuted in a paper from the Bank of England themselves. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

For today (and perhaps tomorrow), let us see whether someone else wants to try to explain what I said above. I had my try in the conversation above and I apparently failed. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm entirely prepared to defend the ideas in this essay. You didn't "fail", you were just shown to be mistaken. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello friends,

I have spent a long afternoon reading this fascinating sparring session.

Dan, thank you for opening a gap through which I can slip "a word in edgeways".

I give you Martin Wolf, "chief economics commentator at the Financial Times". https://www.ft.com/martin-wolf

Unfortunately I can not lay my hands of the references, but can state to you that Wolf had single-handedly forced the Bank of England to admit after — decades, if not a century, of denial — that banks create money and therefore, indirectly, deposits every time they make a loan.

The admission can be found in the Banks's quarterly Bulletin Autumn Issue some 5 years back.

Having stated undeniably the nature of the fraud perpetrated on civil society (see Finance As Warfare by Michael Hudson) through the doctrine of fractional reserve banking, the remaining task is to terminate it through a mechanism that causes minimal disruption. Janosabel (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies Dan, for my word in edgeways not supporting your arguments.

Janosabel (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I already have the source, is this it [14]? I quote it in the second paragraph. I was surprised to find this and wondered why they'd admit this in (relatively) plain language. I'll have to read up on Martin Wolf's involvement. Surely Dan understands this, I don't know why he doesn't concede the point. At any rate it certainly helps to have it straight from the Bank of England themselves. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding authors to references

It would be useful to add authors to references. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Answer the question above please. I've gone in circles with you for five hours now and I'm pretty sure you get it. It's rather upsetting when editors give me the runaround. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC) No longer relevant.

You do not need to respond to me. If you have a problem with me, I'll disengage and leave the "essay" as it is. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, if I sounded irritated it's mostly from my recent bad experience with editors stonewalling me at wiktionary. Thanks for your comments, they've been helpful. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)