The Purpose of an Economy

Posted on 25 min read 2053 views
Casino Capitalism Rules 

What is The Purpose of an Economy

Fundamental Questions need Fundamental Answers

This is part of a series of articles that question some of the fundamental ideas we have about our economies. I assume that if you are reading this article you have not been put off by the word “economy”. That is a good start, for many people are put off trying to get to grips with the subject at all. Following is a quote by Sir Reginald Rowe that exemplifies the challenge faced by writing about this topic that I used in the introduction to my book Hijacked [i] that I feel is worth repeating:

The ordinary person shies like a frightened horse at the word “economics,” and the moment a technical term is used, bolts from a path which threatens to lead to unfamiliar thought, “I must leave that to the experts,” he protests, and in consequence plays into the hands of those whose interest it is to encourage exactly that attitude. And yet the economic problem is perhaps more important than any other in the world today, and only common sense needed to grasp it. [ii]

It is, however, bringing understanding to this subject, I believe, is crucial to our healthy development and future prosperity, a subject that has been deliberately obfuscated and certain aspects of it (particularly with regard to money, economic history of real relevance, and especially the aspects of banking that are relevant to our lives)—deliberately underplayed or hidden. Such is the case, that there are numerous economists out there who have little knowledge of economic history or monetary history, and many who are unaware that modern banking creates money out of nothing. Hijacked is a glimpse into this story, starting from its early beginning with the introduction of feudalism in Britain (commencing with William the Conqueror, 1066 AD.) and economic growth leading to the industrial revolution and taking us up to our current period. It tells a different story of the history of England than that of the pageantry and intrigue in royal circles, it tells it more from the viewpoint of an invaded populace that was subjugated, had their land taken away, and left impoverished. It shows how the ruling elite, and their descendants, created an economy based on this subjugation and impoverishment, and then exported this model to the rest of the world.

Obviously there has been significant developments and changes as our modern economies have evolved to where we are now (some of which are discussed in Hijacked), but, nevertheless, there are aspects of it that are still with us today, such as the debt creation process that manifests as the national debts of most countries.

It these articles I hope to appeal to you to consider whether it is safe or even advisable to leave this subject to the ‘experts’, particularly in light of the 2007/8 collapse, that, without intervention on a massive scale, could have collapsed the global economy, and with it, the entire banking system. I suggest it is important to understand some basic principles of economic theory, and that to do so, does not require a degree in economics, but simply the realisation that these matters are of such utmost importance and relevance to our lives, that it is worth a little of your indulgence and time. As Rowe suggests, all it needs is a little common sense to understand the basic principles involved.

What is the Purpose of an Economy?

What is the purpose of an economy? Most economists can discuss the various types of economies, whether it is a market-based economy or whether it is command-based economy etc. Many are able to discuss many of the elements that make up our economy. What, however, should an economy do for us? In an ideal world what functions would we require it to fulfil? I believe that by asking these fundamental questions we can assess whether our current model is fit-for-purpose, or whether we need to make some fundamental changes.

So, what are the requirements of an ideal economy? Let us suggest some basic requirements:

  • To facilitate the trade of material resources, goods, and services between populations, both in the context of within domestic surroundings, i.e., within a country’s boundaries and also between differing countries and states.

This can be considered one of the basic requirements for an economy in its broadest sense. But it raises a number of questions, such as: does this trade need to be fair and equitable? Does it need to actually benefit humanity? Does it need to be sustainable?

What if it has a negative effect, in that it actively encourages destruction of the earth as a resource?

What if it has a direct negative effect in some unforeseen way on our health?

By posing these questions, we of course touch on the way that political and social policies of governments, can affect the functioning of any economic system, as would the taxation and monetary policies. Nevertheless it is worth indulging in answering the question as to what our highest aspirations are for humanity. If we add a provision that suggests something better, what would we wish for?

  • To facilitate beneficial and sustainable trade between people.
  • To facilitate trade that is equitable between people.

These additional qualifications should not be deemed unreasonable if we are a race of people who aspire to evolve into a better society of people. It seems fundamental that if we aspire to create a sustainable economy, it would not be one that actively leads to the destruction of the very resource that sustains us all, i.e. the earth. A healthy economy should not actively support this destruction, but should actively support its protection and even its improvement—assuming we aspire to the idea that we are a race that wishes to improve and evolve as a species, and actively entertain the idea that we wish to see our race flourish and we wish to leave the world in a fit place for our children to inhabit.

These assumptions introduce the idea that the very nature of capitalism is not in itself destructive. To accept this premise we have to believe that the creative potential of humanity can find expression in the trade of goods and services that actually do provide positive benefit, and can be freely traded on an equitable basis. Whilst much of our society has a mind-set that believes everything has to be in competition, the question then arises “Does this always have to be the case?” Is there no place for a more cooperatively-based trade relationship that can exist between populations? Surely if we wish to evolve we must acknowledge that capitalism and cooperation must be able to co-exist. Personally, I believe that this principle union is fundamental to a prosperous and sustainable global economy.

There are other characteristics that should form the basis of a properly functioning economy:

  • It should provide a stable and inflation-free environment
  • It should provide a framework that encourages long-term investment

Let’s take the first point, a stable and inflation-free environment. I assume that most people would agree that these criteria would be considered as optimum for a healthy functioning economy. Lurching from crisis to crisis, is not something anyone would wish for, nor does the effect of continuous inflation seem to be of benefit in an economy in the long-term. The way, for example, house prices have been inflated has rendered them almost impossible for younger people to obtain. Inflationary pressures reduce our spending power even further, when wage levels stagnate.

Casino economy or long-term investment?

As regards the provision for a framework that encourages long-term investment, we know that government policies, fiscal policies and banking interests all affect the extent of long-term investment. But, does the basic structure of an economy also contribute to this?

In my second book, Hijacked—How the Banking Industry, Finance, and Corporate Interests, Have Hijacked Our Economy and Corrupted Democracy, as I mentioned,I trace the development of the UK economy from the time of the conquest of England by William the Conqueror, in 1066 until present times. We review how the taxation system was moved from a predominantly based land-tax that was paid by the land owners in proportion to their holdings—to a system of taxation that transferred the burden onto the general populace, and taxed their consumption of goods. In fact very much like the current situation in Europe, with Value Added Tax, and income taxes—income tax being introduced in England to deal with the ever increasing size of the national debt, and servicing the ever-increasing requirements of the interest payments.

In Hijacked, we trace the development of banking, finance and investment, and the creation of the first major expression of a bubble economy, that of the ‘Southsea Bubble’. This was really the beginning of our casino-style economy that would come to dominate financial investing. We followed subsequent developments, such as, the abandonment of the gold standard, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and many other significant changes. What we trace is how our current economy evolved into what it is today. Of course there is discussion about more recent developments, the 2007/8 crisis, the shadow banking system, the massive explosion of the use of tax-havens, the growth of instruments like collateralised debt obligations and so forth.

This book challenges the assumption that our economy is fit-for-purpose. It reveals a fundamentally different view of our history, a story, in my view, not adequately dealt with before. It discusses some of the reasons that economic history has been ignored and underplayed, and argues that this information can better inform our judgement of how to create a more stable and better-serving economy. 

Following is a quote from Tom Johnston, Secretary of State for Scotland (1941–1945) that encompasses my own thoughts on this narrative:

A democracy ignorant of the past is not qualified either to analyse the present or to shape the future; and so in the interests of the High Priests of Politics and the Lordly Money-Changers of Society, great care has been taken to offer us stories of useless pageantry, chronicles of the birth and death of kings, annals of Court intrigue and international war, while withheld from us were the real facts and narrative of the moment, the loss of our ancient freedom, the rape of our common lands and the shameless and dastardly methods by which a few selected stocks snatched the patrimony of the people.[iii]

Current Economy Not Fit-For-Purpose

Now you have a little better understanding of where I am coming from let us continue with our enquiry into what would make a good basis for an economy. Here are two more features that most people would feel are well-justified:

  • The economy should not provide any mechanism that unfairly transfers wealth to any one group of society
  • The economy should not unreasonably burden governments and society with debt

Obviously transfers of wealth can occur inside an economy, what we are referring to here are unintentional transfers of wealth, as opposed to normal financial transactions, where wealth is not transferred because of any inherent dysfunctional nature of an economy. As regards to the point about unreasonably burdening governments and society with debt—this does not refer to taking on debt by choice, which in a truly democratic economy would be available. No, what I am referring to here is the idea that a truly democratic economy would not automatically create debt to the state.

I argue in Hijacked, that one of the great flaws in our current debt-creation-monster of an economy is the inherited idea that allowing private interests, such as modern commercial banks to create money out of nothing—is a great fundamental flaw. That this principle which many economists are not even properly aware of—needs to be restored to the sovereign state, where it rightfully belongs. I make further suggestions in Hijacked for improving our economic conditions, but they are beyond the scope of this in this short article.

Suffice it to say, that I firmly believe that our current economy that we have inherited has come to us with fundamental flaws that I believe we need to address. I further believe that these changes are a matter of some urgency. We have arrived at a situation where debt levels in most major economies are at astronomical levels, so-much-so that simply funding the interest payments takes such vast sums of money, that simply trying to maintain basic services is a real challenge for most governments—particularly for those governments that are completely wedded to the idea that it is ok to let private corporate interests create money out of nothing, and lend this fictional money at interest to their respective governments—which unfortunately is the way most major economies operate. More on this subject below.

Reform on the Agenda

Is this really the best we can do? Just because we inherited this system from the previous generation do we have to accept that this is “just the way things are?” At best, I refer to our current economic system as a pseudo-feudalistic casino-styled neoliberal economy. I my view it is totally unfit for purpose, and is totally unsustainable.

We may have inherited it. But if you inherit a dangerous rabid dog, do you keep it and let it play with your children: No, you have it put down. Of course, reforming an economy is not that simple, particularly one that has evolved over time into the beast it currently is. What is useful, however, is to recognise that it is failing and not fit for purpose. A system that is effectively built on unsustainable levels of debt that can only increase the money supply by further debt creation is unsustainable. We are at the end of the road. We are in a period that is so constrained by debt, and over-taxation of the general populace that economies are seriously struggling. Such are the huge payments made to service the enormous national debts, most governments are struggling to maintain adequate services, leaving their infrastructure to deteriorate, and services facing serious shortfalls of funding.

 Economists like Professor Michael Hudson, believe we have finally entered the period of debt deflation that he believes is at the end cycle of our debt-creation monster. In his book Killing The Host—How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy, he relates how earlier reformers wanted to change the direction of our economy so that it would become a more useful economy:

A century ago socialists and other Progressive Era reformers advanced an evolutionary theory by which economies would achieve their maximum potential by subordinating the post-feudal rentier classes—landlords and bankers—to serve industry, labor and the common weal. Reforms along these lines have been defeated by intellectual deception and often outright violence by the vested interests Pinochet-Chile style to prevent the kind of evolution that classical free market economists hoped to see—reforms that would check financial, property and monopoly interests. [iv]

In Hijacked, I discuss a number of economists who were trying to push for reform of our economic system, such as the movement that called itself the New Economics, based in the 1930s. People had been trying to raise awareness amongst the general populace to ways that we could steer the economy in a different way than it was headed, as they realised,  it was headed not just in an unsustainable direction, but also leading us into further crises, and even leading us to a further war.

One of the problems with introducing the idea of economic reform, it is not an idea that grabs many people’s interest,  until the economy collapses into turmoil, and then it can provoke more people take an interest. The question then arises as to how much turmoil is required before you take an interest? A comparison can be made with our health. People on a seriously deficient diet create such metabolic disturbance that their bodies deteriorate, eventually illness such diabetes of cancer eventually manifests in the body. It is known that these major illnesses were incubating over many years before the actual manifestation of the illness became apparent. Economies are much the same, as evidenced by our debt-creation system—it’s only as the impossibility of meeting the interest payments, that the drain on resources becomes so much more obvious—that the insanity of the system becomes apparent. Have you noticed that politicians never reveal the extent of the interest payments paid to private banking interests and private bond holders? Have you ever seen it discussed in the national press? Don’t you think it ought to be discussed?

As I mentioned, there have been attempts to introduce various reforms from time to time. Here are some voices from the 1930s, when things were not so great. Sir Geoffrey Clarke, at the thirteenth Congress of the Chamber of Commerce of the British Empire, spoke regarding the problem of monetary reform, which he maintained must be to increase purchasing power, and with this resolution called upon the Governments of the Empire to concentrate upon finding a monetary system, “which would enable the peoples of the world to enjoy the vast abundance which technological improvements had made available”. [v]

This followed on the heels of a resolution proposed to the British House of Lords, the previous December (1932), by Lord Melchett:

That since under modern scientific conditions productive capacity is unlimited, and since the existence of indigence and unemployment throughout a large portion of the population demonstrates the fact that the present monetary system is obsolete and a hindrance to the efficient production and distribution of goods, in the opinion of this House the Government should bring forward immediate proposals for economic reform necessary to enable subjects of this Realm to enjoy the benefits to which their present productive capacity entitles them.

Money Creation

The resolution by Lord Melchett was unfortunately defeated by 14 votes to 10, due, no doubt, to the landed aristocracy and banking interests holding sway in the House—people who were not disposed to be very concerned about the unemployment or the impoverishment of the working population. In the USA, distinguished economists rallied behind President Roosevelt, to introduce radical change in the face of the failing economic situation. Among them was one of the more vigorous and independent economists, Stuart Chase, who was quoted in the New York Nation, August 1933:

The creation of money, the allotment of purchasing power, is a social function of the first importance and should be restored to the Federal Government, in whose hands the Constitution placed it. It is forever impossible for the private banker, working for private ends, adequately to finance the consumer…The consumer, therefore cannot adequately consume until the private banker, as the chief executive of the nation’s credit, is lifted gently but firmly out of the picture. It is unfortunate that Mr. Roosevelt did not seize the unparalleled opportunity to lift him out, to the applause of a grateful nation.

As regards to the creation of money, a subject that I discuss further in Hijacked, another economist from the period, Professor Frederick Soddy, who referred to the money creation as ‘virtual wealth’, and made the suggestion:

‘Let everyone with money that is his own—borrowed from of lent by nobody—present himself at the bank at the same time and ask for it. As everyone knows, they would be lucky if they got 2s. in the £ (or ten cents on the dollar).

As the owners of it have not got the money they own, and as the banks have not got it, and as the people who borrowed it have not got it, where is it? Obviously nowhere. It is imagined to exist for the purpose of charging interest upon it.’

An interesting point, however, I wouldn’t recommend doing what Soddy suggested, you will find out that they have much less than that in their current liquidity reserves. You would find a new meaning in the statement ‘The Emperor has no clothes’. With regards to the ‘safety’ of such banking practice Soddy suggested: ‘The only way banking today can be made safe for the banker and the nation, is for the nation to be the banker.’

Jeffrey Mark puts it succinctly: ‘In the true sense of the word, the public do not own any money at all, and the phrase bank “deposit” is a legal euphemism…In the face of this “discovery”, the “line” still taken by bankers when publicly explaining any new move in policy, is that they have done so to protect their depositors’ money. This is sheer technical hypocrisy. [vi]

Such is the confusion of the way banks create money, out of nothing. It makes little sense to most people. Many people believe the money actually exists. Following are suggestions from economists who would have us replace our current system for one where the money actually does exist, and the banks would then be able to lend this—as most people believe—already happens. But before we review this, I offer you a quotation by Abraham Lincoln, at the end of his presidency, a few weeks before he was assassinated, when he expressed clearly his appreciation of the importance of bringing this creation back under sovereign state control:

The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.

Abraham Lincoln. President of the United States, 1861–1865

As we know, he was assassinated, and this dream was never realised, the money power that he referred to still reigns supreme. Goldman Sachs alumni have a significant role in the Trump administration, the European Union etc., as do other powerful banking interests.

No matter, the possibility still exists to create a more sensible and stable economy and it is not an unreachable or impossible goal. The idea, for example, of 100 Percent Money (which is one of the changes I argue for in Hijacked), was supported by numerous economists such as, Professor Frederick Soddy (1926), Henry Simons (1933), Irving Fisher (1935), and more contemporary economists such as the Financial Times writer, Martin Wolf, and Sir Mervyn King (Governor of the Bank of England 2003-2013). All of these people supported then and more contemporaneously continue to support the idea of having a real and full monetary backing for our economy. Such a backing that can only be rightfully created by each of our sovereign countries, a full reserve that would be backed by the entire creative potential of the country’s respective citizenry and the country’s resources, and by mandate.

With regard to the issue of money, I am stealing one more quote from Hijacked, another American President, this time Thomas Jefferson:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered … I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies … The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, 1801–1809

What’s the Difference?

Some may wonder what a difference this would make, reverting to a system 100 percent backed by real money. I must stress at this point, that I raise these questions to provoke dialogue, to hopefully generate further debate amongst our citizenry that will lead to the creation of positive change in the world. It is beyond the scope of these dialogues to create a detailed analysis, of each point raised. Some topics I might delve into more deeply than others, I hope simply to give you enough information to enable you to be able to realise that we can all contribute to changing the world for the better. I hope to inspire some of our bright young economists to further develop some of the ideas we discuss, and together help generate real change. Many of these topics are discussed further in Hijacked.

We can, however, examine some of the fundamental benefits of restoring money creation to its rightful place, that of the state, which will also enable us to have 100 percent backing to our current banks.

Most people already believe that our banks back their current loans with real money. As I revealed in Hijacked, this is not the case. Sir Mervyn King, former Governor of the Bank of England, revealed how banks leading up to the financial crisis had been reducing the amount of liquid assets that the banks carried to support their loans, this was following the revelation that the banks were facing large losses regarding the enormous bets they had made on whether the loans that they had already made would be repaid:

As some of those loans went bad, the bets generated large losses. To cap it all, banks held only small quantities of liquid assets on their balance sheets, so they were utterly exposed if some of the short-term funding dried up. In less than fifty years, the share of highly liquid assets held by UK banks declined from around a third of their assets to less than 2 per cent. In the US the share had fallen to below 1 per cent just before the crisis. [vii]

“Liquidity”, used to refer to assets that could be easily converted to cash. These days it can refer to different products, only a small proportion being actual cash in the form of notes.

Obviously one of the huge advantages of having 100 percent backing of all bank loans, would mean, the days of worrying about their being a run on a bank, and subsequent worries about contagion to the whole banking system and the fear of bank collapse would not exist. There would be no reason for a run on a bank again.

Some people would argue, that even if we did give a 100 percent backing to our banking system, at least the non-investment side of banking, would not prevent it being debt-based, as banks would still loan money, and give credit, which would effectively produce a debt, as every credit has a debt. This is a valid point which is important to clarify from the start. The important difference is that the money that they would now loan out, would no longer be created by them out of thin air, it is now real money, 100 percent-backed by the state. This money, however, would be now debt-free, issued directly by the state. No longer would the state uphold the ridiculous farce of going cap in hand to private banking asking them to create money out of nothing, and then be faced with massive interest charges into the bargain—effectively renting the economy from private corporations for no sensible reason.

Restoring the right of money creation, back to the state, would end that sad farce of the national debt, and the immense interest payments made simply for the privilege of borrowing that which would be better created by the state in the first place.

Current Calls for Reform

Why has this not been done before, if this is such a simple way of protecting banking, and reducing government debt, which would have immense positive consequences for all of us, I hear you ask? Good question, the simple answer is it has been done before, sadly not enough though. I reported on a number of examples in Hijacked that I won’t repeat here. Ellen Hodgson Brown, gives a number of examples for those interested, in her book The Public Bank Solution. [viii] One of the public banks that she discusses is the Bank of North Dakota, information on that, aside from in her book can also be found online. [ix] Another useful source regarding monetary reform is the American Monetary Institute. [x] This site is supported by Stephen Zarlenga, the author of The Lost Science of Money, a brilliant book on monetary history for any serious student or economist. [xi]

For those people based in the UK or Europe a useful source of information is the organisation, Positive Money, which advocates total reform of the monetary supply and restoration of money creation to the state. [xii] Ben Dyson, Graham Hodson & Andrew Jackson, in their book Modernising Money, supply a useful critique of modern banking and they helped found Positive Money, which also provides a wealth of useful information. [xiii]

As regards to our proposal for a 100 percent backing, Dr. Michael Kumhof , an economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has described how the 1930s “Chicago Plan” could help achieve monetary reforms. Dr Kumhof produced a paper in August 2012 supporting the proposal of the 100 percent money solution as proposed by Irving Fisher (1935), which is generally referred to as the “Chicago Plan”. It is interesting for he basically agrees with our own analysis of its intrinsic benefits, he suggests six benefits, (four originating from Fisher in 1936 and two from his own conclusions after his extensive analysis):

Four advantages identified by Fisher:

  1. Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt.
  2. Dramatic reduction of private debts.
  3. Complete elimination of bank runs.
  4. Much better control of bank-lending-driven business cycles.

Two further advantages identified by his paper:

  • Large output gains, during the transition, approaching 10 %.
  • No liquidity trap problems, zero long-run inflation attainable.

Kumhof also suggests that: ‘Output gains approach 10% and steady state inflation can drop to zero without posing problems for the conduct of monetary policy.’ He goes further and suggests that according Fisher’s claims and current research on debts, we should give serious consideration to reform:

We take it as self-evident that if these claims can be verified, the Chicago Plan would indeed represent a highly desirable policy. Profound thinkers like Fisher, and many of his most illustrious peers, based their insights on historical experience and common sense, and were hardly deterred by the fact that they might not have had complete economic models that could formally derive the welfare gains of avoiding credit-driven boom-bust cycles, bank runs, and high debt levels. We do in fact believe that this made them better, not worse, thinkers about issues of the greatest importance for the common good. But we can say more than this. The recent empirical evidence of Reinhart and Rogoff (2009) documents the high costs of boom-bust credit cycles and bank runs throughout history. And the recent empirical evidence of Schularick and Taylor (2012) is supportive of Fisher’s view that high debt levels are a very important predictor of major crises. The latter finding is also consistent with the theoretical work of Kumhof and Rancière (2010), who show how very high debt levels, such as those observed just prior to the Great Depression and the Great Recession, can lead to a higher probability of financial and real crises.[xiv]

As I mentioned earlier it is not the intention of this brief article to enter into in depth analysis of monetary reform, but simply stimulate interest and debate. For those who would like to further explore these topics I refer to some of the sources here. I, of course, would like to interest some of you in my own work Hijacked, which gives some of the background story of how we developed an economy that is obviously very destructive, is in dire need of reform, and needs to be brought into the twenty-first century—and made truly fit-for-purpose. Kumhof’s paper is an in depth assessment of the 100% money solution, he also can be found online discussing his findings on this paper at the London School of Economics, amongst other sources.[xv] 

In the UK, the organisation called Positive Money, are working to promote awareness of the fatal flaw in allowing private interests to create money out of nothing, and argues that it threatens the very nature of democracy. They question the idea that if money is power, then having the ability to create money must be absolute power, and as that power has been shifted from the democratic state to unaccountable corporations—we should be seriously concerned. To illustrate their point, they supply a graph showing the dramatic rise in their money creation from 1969 – 2010 (which I have copied below), revealing how 97% of money creation by the banks is now simply electronically. They also produce a number of useful publications available from their website. Their publication Banking VS Democracy—How Power Shifted from Parliament to The Banking Sector, whilst it refers to the UK sector is typical of all sectors which have adopted this banking practice. [xvi]


Figure One: UK Money Supply- Comparing government and commercial money creation.


In keeping with my intention to both raise awareness and provoke constructive debate for change on these important issues, I have posted further links and resources on this site, which also includes films and videos that I feel are helpful and instructive. [xvii]

I write this to help provoke debate on these issues, and offer you the idea that I believe we can create a better world, a better economic system that is fit-for purpose, but to do this we need to embrace our past not ignore it and be condemned to continue to repeat mistakes of the past. It is time for change, and we can do better.

Andrew A D Burgoyne, writer and independent researcher.

[i] Andrew A D Burgoyne, Hijacked—How the Banking Industry, Finance, and Corporate Interests, Have Hijacked Our Economy and Corrupted Democracy, Fundamental Press, 2018

[ii] Sir Reginald Rowe, The Root of all Evil, 1941.

[iii] Andrew A D Burgoyne, Hijacked—How the Banking Industry, Finance, and Corporate Interests, Have Hijacked Our Economy and Corrupted Democracy, Fundamental Press, 2018, p4. Tom Johnston, Our Scots Noble Families,1909.

[iv] Michael Hudson, Killing The Host—How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy, ISLET- Verlag, 2015, p21.

[v] London Times, July 8th, 1933, reported by Jeffrey Mark, The Modern Idolatry—An Analysis of Usury & the Pathology of Debt, Chatto & Windus, London, 1934, p257.

[vi] Jeffrey Mark, The Modern Idolatry—An Analysis of Usury & the Pathology of Debt, Chatto & Windus, London, 1934, p85.

[vii] Mervyn King, The End of Alchemy—Money, Banking and the Future of the Global Economy. Little Brown, 2016.

[viii] Ellen Hodgson Brown. The Public Bank Solution: From Austerity to Prosperity. Third Millennium Press, 2013.

[ix] Ellen Hodgson Brown. What are Public Banks and How Do They Operate? An Introduction.

[x] American Monetary Institute:

[xi]Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money—The Mythology of Money – The Story of Power. American Monetary Institute, New York. 2002

[xii] Positive Money:

[xiii] Ben Dyson, Graham Hodson, & Andrew Jackson, Modernising Money: Why Our Monetary System is Broken, and How it Can Be Fixed. Positive money, 2012.

[xiv] Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof, The Chicago Plan Revisited. IMF Working Paper, International Monetary Fund WP/12/ 202. 2012.

[xv] Michael Kumhof. The Chicago Plan Revisited, London School of Economics and Political Science.

Published on Nov 22, 2013

[xvi] Andrew Jackson, & Ben Dyson, Banking VS Democracy—How Power Shifted from Parliament to The Banking Sector. Positive Money, 2012.

[xvii] 97% Owned-Economic Truth Documentary. Positive Money. 2012 (This is 2 hours 10 mins, there is also a short version available)

How the rich get richer – money in the world economy. DW Documentary (A German public broadcast service)

What do you think?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

No Comments Yet.