Narrowing the scope of reform measures

["John Gelles" <indexed-savings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

After a decade of wanting broad reform to introduce
government direct spending of money into circulation
-- as a means to end poverty, unemployment, damage to
the environment, and inadequate attention to national
public needs -- I've changed my mind.

Broad reform of money systems has been advocated
for centuries. Recently I re-read Stuart Chase's "Money
to Grow On" (a brilliant 1967 story that says it all-- but
recommends broad reform) , and I read much on Harvey
Barnard's www.nesara.org   website (which also says it
all and also wants broad reform), I decided to believe
Stuart Chase:

        Broad reform is a century away in the future --
        and I'll not live to know if it worked.

Meanwhile narrow reform, by way of financing urgent
needs, is a tried and true approach to gain the same ends:

        Hoover's Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
        The FHA, the FDIC, the Resolution Trust corp.
        that corrected the savings and loan insolvencies.
        These banking and insurance operations did
        much and with little resistance.

A bank for full employment, as I proposed in 1984,
can borrow all it would take to have full employment
from our central bank.

A bank to finance environmental protection can do
its job the same way.

Congress can always butt in, as it does with other
independent agencies. But the job can be accomplished
before its too late. And, as independent banks, working
with individuals and firms, they can avoid the concerns
of people who think congress is no place for these
detailed financial operations.

Strategic industrial protection is another critical area
presently worried by the Department of Defense. If
they need a bank I'd be in favor of it.

Education and health care are two more areas of concern.
We have a cabinet level department worrying them. They
rely on local taxes, endowments, the insurance industry
and patent law. I think they need two banks too advance
the public interest ahead of the interests other helpful
investors and industries (to be retained -- with reduced
ill effect on the public interest).

It's not that we're giving up on fiat money -- but that's
what central banks currently use.

        We may have won the war but never noticed it.

Given their charters and laws, narrow scope develop-
ment (reconstruction and reform) banks can ensure all
the spending and lending we will need will be possible.

The problem of compound interest on debt-based money
can be finessed by application of very low (even negative)
interest rates -- for each bank -- based in law and not
likely to face the mountain of resistance that broad
and radical money reform has faced.

Inertia and enemies killed the greenbacks I'd like to see.
Nobody killed the Resolution Trust corporation -- my
local bankrupt S&L is back in business.

John Gelles