Thomas Edison once said:
It's true that this would be inflationary. But 100% of the proceeds would be used (presumably) towards the public's benefit, whereas with the issuance of debt "twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%" (more or less) would go directly to private lenders.
One method benefits the public in its entirety, while putting the burden on the price system, the other method benefits private lenders unnecessarily, given the aforementioned right to create money, while putting the burden on the direct tax system.
So, why should we allow governments to borrow money on our behalf?
Clearly, as I've proven in other threads, money creation is simply a less understood form of regressive taxation (at best). Given that governments presumably have the right to create money, why don't they simply create money to fund many of their expenses, rather than borrow money, or worse yet, borrow money that was created for private benefit?
“People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold.”
It's true that this would be inflationary. But 100% of the proceeds would be used (presumably) towards the public's benefit, whereas with the issuance of debt "twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%" (more or less) would go directly to private lenders.
One method benefits the public in its entirety, while putting the burden on the price system, the other method benefits private lenders unnecessarily, given the aforementioned right to create money, while putting the burden on the direct tax system.
So, why should we allow governments to borrow money on our behalf?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2lRDrBZ
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire