The draft Bank of England Act (PBoEA) is fundamentally similar to our draft Monetary Reform Act (MRA – see themoneymasters.com). The principal goals of both are to prohibit money creation by private banks; to restore that power to government. Both make the critical distinction between deposit accounts and investment accounts – in slightly different ways.

The differences are several. The PBoEA: allows Treasury to determine monetary growth targets (to be implemented by a “Monetary Policy Committee”); allows the BoE to make loans; allows newly-created money to be used for various purposes other than retiring the national debt and rebating taxes to tax-payers; does not formally raise the rrr (required reserve ratio to 100%) thus it tacitly allows fractional reserve banking.
The MRA suggests a fixed monetary growth of 0-3% to end the manipulation of indices such as of consumer prices, inflation, etc. which are constantly manipulated by various government agencies for political purposes – this cannot otherwise realistically be stopped; the MRA prohibits the government from making loans – that is purely a function of free markets (Hitler and Lenin both wanted government origination of loans for political control and influence); the MRA requires that the rrr be raised to 100% and that the funds to do so be used to pay off the national debt (in other words, paying off the national debt with new money does not cause inflation as those same funds, once deposited, will be used to comply with the higher rrr) thus reducing interest expenditures (by $400b+ per annum in the US ); the MRA addresses the growing threat of the IMF and BIS which are rapidly usurping all national money-creation authority.

There are other differences. I think the 18 sections of the MRA is a more thoroughly though Act (being drafted in 1996 and edited by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman), and addresses the foregoing differences better. Neither Act sufficiently addresses the recent, unprecedented glut of deficit spending and resulting money creation in the Western democracies. That would require a commodities-based money (either gold, or a basket of commodities), which should be added. But the fundamentals of the Acts are reasonably sound and somewhat similar, even if I much prefer the MRA for the reasons stated.

Regards,
Patrick S.J. Carmack, JD

The existence of money in any form promotes hoarding of money. But it is the maldistribution of money that leads to poverty and starvation. With all the effort over all the years more people are in poverty and starving than are living comfortably. That is because they have no money or way to obtain it.

The world now produces more calories in food than is required to feed all humans adequately — 3200 calories per human vs. 2000 calories. The potential for even greater food production is available.

What we need is community by community analysis of the local food production and horticulture learning programs for many of the unemployed. Local LETS systems would stimulate local exchange and LETS to LETS reciprocity would stimulate the shipment of food and other goods and services locally, regi0nally and globally. Each LETS could have a service to advertise their surpluses and their needs in LETS directories. And an executive committee could bargain for the best exchanges for all.

If our dialogue was on good and services instead of money could we find a solution ?

IMHO
Bill Ellis

If its OK with you I’ll kick in about here with the MPE™ model, maybe we all should consider a new solution…. adopt Mathematically Perfected Economy™ [Google]

Remember Banking was conceived in iniquity, and born in sin. Bankers own the
earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create
money, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money
to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them, and
all great fortunes like mine will disappear. And, they ought to
disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to
live in. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of the
bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let
bankers continue to create money, and control credit.

SIR JOSIAH STAMP (21 June 1880 – 16 April 1941)
FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND

Money doesn’t have to come from a Bank..!!!!! Remove the Central Banks, and their purported High St Buddies and their ability to issue *OUR PROMISE TO PAY* …. we can then STOP living in Unsolvable ever escalating DEBT…

After which we can get on with living, not worrying about the future.!!!

warm regards

MLG

The point i am trying to make is that without real solution you can only extend your own failure by taking measures against the possible outcome, but failure is still inevitable due to the compounding effect of interest.
It´s easy to market products and services based on the ¨underbelly feelings¨ most people have , but it´s a total different ball game to come up with real solution and to have that accepted up to a critical mass.

I know off one person that offers real solution. I studied his material for months (and still do) and his theory is the only one i found that makes perfect sense. But it goes against the most powerfull interests in the world.

His name is Mike Montagne from http://www.perfecteconomy.com

Or visit: http://endtheecb.ning.com or http://endtheboe.ning.com for more video´s and information.