Well, I've been thinking these last months on money ....
If money is the mean of exchange that everybody uses to buy, to sell, to work, to pay, etc .... as a resume to create and exchange wealth .... what would happen if the supply of the mean of exchange was controled by some few private entitities???
Banks issue the 97% of money available, while Govt only issues the 3%. That means that banks de facto control the supply of money, so they can expand and contract the amount of money at their will. Needless to say that as banks are private entitities, they look for getting the maximum profit from their manipulation of money, looking for their private benefit, damaging the general welfare.
As a resume, when someone goes to a bank to ask for a loan, the bank does not give him money that the bank as a deposit, but the bank CREATES money, issues money adding a new figure into the book/account of that man. Then the bank demands also a given interest for that new figure.
For example, a man asks a bank for a loan of $100,000 ... The bank just writes in the book/account of that man this: +$100,000 ... no matter the bank have not those $100,000. Then in the future, the man will have to pay the bank back those $100,000 plus a given interest. When that's done, the bank erases off its books the principal, -$100,000, and gets the interest.
I would call that process as FRAUD = the bank never lended anything to that man, cause the bank had not it. And the fraud doubles when the bank demands an interest for something it never lended.
The years before the recession we have today, banks issued mountains of money (always linked to interest) that they had not, provoking a season of false prosperity. Then, banks decided to shut the tap of money, bringing the issuing recession. People are poorer today than before the expansion.
The Revolution that I wonder would be about getting rid of the banking dictatorship on money:
1. Banks would not be allowed to issue money, to commit fraud lending what they have not adding to their fraud an interest.
2. Banks would only be allowed to lend what they have, so, fractional reserve lending would be forbbiden.
3. Govt must be the only one to have the right to issue money (I believe that is in the US Constitution too).
4. As banks did fraud, lending Govt and lending people money they had not, they must get in return what they deserve: NOTHING ... they lended NOTHING, so they must be paid NOTHING.
5. Then Govt would simply issue all the money it pleases to cover the debt, and pay bankers with that. Bankers could say "your new money has no value!", Govt and people would reply "and you lent us NOTHING."
6. From then on forward Govt must not be allowed, never again, to borrow money from bankers.
7. Many would be sued for having intentionaly colaborated to ruin a country: bankers, central bankers and politicians must give explanations.
I believe that money, since it is a general and public utility, its supply must be under the control of Govt "for the general welfare", not under the control of some individuals for their personal and only benefit.
Then of course, some could say that what I want to do is to NATIONALIZE banking .... no,no,no, LOL, I am not communist (the nationalization of banking is one if the items of the Communist Manifesto). What I wish is to nationalize MONEY, which is very different. One thing is money and another thing are banks.
Because if Socialism is that system of social organization based on the Govt control over the means of production... this system of today, that is usualy called as Capitalism, is the system of social organization based on the Bankers control over the mean of exchange ... and then I dislike them both ... we only have to see the results of both systems.
What do you think ??