Mssrs Veeder and Wilmerding,

I hope you are willing to put up with an untutored comment or two
regarding your subject. You wrote,

>> I am still trying to clarify the idea of democratic banking.

>How about equitableness in economics & the distribution of wealth?
>Distributive justice?

Is not the essence of democracy seen in a rational banking system?
Properly devised, an individual VOTES democratically with his dollars.
Candidates offering products or services in exchange for these dollars
prosper or perish according to the "let's make a deal" VOTES they get.
But what is a properly devised banking system and one which will
facilitate this scenario?

Long ago, the ruling class aka TWIT’s (Those Who Install Tyrants) learned
that as long as they control at least the police and the money supply,
they control the population.  By now everyone here knows my views on
police and the use of force, threat of force and deceit.  May I venture
to contribute some amateur views on achieving a democratic banking
system?

How did the primitive people avoid the difficulties of 1) physical
barter, that is carrying large things around with them to exchange,  and
2) trust, that is, once a bartered deal is struck, will the other party
to the agreement complete the exchange as agreed?  The community agreed
that a note expressing the value of the exchange may be held by the
parties until the exchange was satisfied.  In extended transactions,
these notes became "script" and in themselves a value to be traded.

So, left unharassed, reasonable people in a village or state will print
local script to facilitate exchange among themselves.  Their mini-economy
will succeed or fail, in part, according to the degree of respect given
the script and the resulting confidence therein.  One principle is that
the paper be exchangeable for something tangible which has real value,
something fairly scarce, durable, safe to handle and hard to manipulate
and over the centuries, gold has become the standard of choice.  It fits
so well that the TWITs had to outlaw it as a standard for the populace to
use  (but you can bet your bottom dollar the TWITs were very busy
collecting as much as they could) in order to regain control of a
flourishing (ups and downs but mainly ups) economy.

The government has no business knowing what I own unless I voluntarily
want such ownership publicly recorded or what agreements I have made,
unless I want them recorded, too.  Once the TWIT’s can convince the
populace to give up these freedoms, the degree to which they will meddle
and skim the cream is endless.

If you truly want to facilitate a democratic banking system,  first,
eliminate all banking regulations.  Not an absurd notion if you have
confidence in the civil courts (to arbitrate disputes over money and
agreements) and in the criminal justice system (to define criminal acts
and then to detect, investigate, adjudicate and incarcerate criminals).
Second, promote (do not force) gold as the best choice for a global
standard.

Too simplistic? Not enough flexibility to allow for meddling and control
by the social engineers?

Don Brayton
[log in to unmask]