139 Comments

Hi Tree, very nice post. The privately owned nature of our central banking system is a big part of the world's problems. If you havn't already read it, I highly recommend Stephen Mitford Goodson's "The History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind." Goodson had impeccable establishment credentials as he was a director of the South African central bank, and his recommendations are very similar to yours. His wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Goodson . The book was banned on Amazon (which should be a mark of pride) but can be read here for free: https://ia801703.us.archive.org/26/items/a-history-of-central-banking-and-the-enslavement-of-mankind-pdfdrive/A_History_of_Central_Banking_and_the_Enslavement_of_Mankind__PDFDrive_.pdf

Expand full comment
Sep 13, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe

This looks like a solid plan, particularly as it can also function as a halfway house to returning to a commodity-based money supply.

That said, having read this I never knew you had information that would lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.

Expand full comment

This plan has my full support and I will endorse and even vooot for any candidate promising to enact such. I should also say that this third way is better than commodity money because it recognizes a truth that commodity money often fails to see through muddied waters of treating money as both means of exchange AND store of value.

Namely, Money Is Not Wealth. Money Is Only A Means of Wealth Exchange.

Expand full comment
Sep 13, 2023·edited Sep 13, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe

I have not yet finished reading all the papers (regarding the Chicago plan) linked up; but so far it passes the "Smell Test" and looks quite viable. I will come back on this comment (upon finishing everything in full) and opine on it more thoroughly.

The final point made (re: moving to Commodity Money from Equity Money being easier) is Correct as per Professor Michael Hudson's research (Historical & Economic) on various Human societies these past few millenia and the manner in which they organized Exchange in general:

Namely, the adoption of Gold &/or Silver has always been preceded by a "transitionary" period in which the King/Chieftain, etc decreed (by force of course) that *insert object here* has intrinsic value and is henceforth going to be doled out by the "state".

Expand full comment
Sep 13, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe

reserving for comment later, but this, singularly, makes me wish that I had some sort of local group who actually thought about things.

```

Today’s essay is therefore an exploration of the first plank of the physiocratic platform: ending the Federal Reserve System, escaping the petrodollar, and eliminating fractional-reserve banking.

```

I do not personally know anybody besides myself who has ever mentioned, in the last 10ish years since I thought it would be a good idea, in either casual or deep conversation, eliminating fractional-reserve banking. I'll be back after I finish reading the post. Blessings.

Expand full comment

This is interesting because it is still a fiat currency (not backed by anything except the full faith and credit of the American government), but at least its no longer a fractional reserve fiat system, controlled by shadow-entities that are hostile to our way of life. Simply the act of being able to "audit the treasury" via FOIA requests would help keep the banks more honest.

Expand full comment

The fractional reserve banking system has been around for a very long time, far before the Fed, Wilson, and other boogiemen. It emerged organically, not at the behest of some government diktat. Many other important institutions are connected to it in ways we can't understand. We should tread carefully here.

Expand full comment
Sep 13, 2023·edited Sep 13, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe

Fascinating! You need to get together with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez with this. You have described a synthesis of Austrian Economics and Modern Monetary Theory! Talk about a creative coalition!

This Chicago Plan looks like a very interesting way to pull off a jubilee, but that Chicago Plan 2 diagram bothers me. It has banks limited to lending treasury credit and equity. Why would a bank ever bother with deposits? Can checking fees justify the effort? And what of new banks? Where do they get money to lend?

A bank *can* make loans using deposits without maturity transformation iff the loan maturities match the deposit maturities. That is, lending demand deposits is a definite no-no. You have to put money in a CD in order to earn interest.

Financing mortgages gets tricky. Who is going to put money into a 30 year CD? One solution is to continue letting FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC do the actual financing. Another possibility would be for banks to offer Individual Retirement Accounts and use the locked funds to finance mortgages.

Yet another possibility would be to break mortgages into time based tranches, as described here:

https://conntects.net/blogPosts/GreenandFree/68

Expand full comment
Sep 17, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe

Hello fellow physiocrat. Your explanation does a great job in explaining the basics but it is also very succint. The Kumhof paper you link to is long and unintelligible. So...

Do you have any idea where one can find an explanation that is both longer than yours but shorter (and more intelligible) than the "Chicago Plan Revisited"? I am asking for a friend.

Thank you

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe

Thanks for this one and your running on empty series by the way

Expand full comment

Correct, it has not, but it has allowed the US to print dollars excessively without making them worthless. Unfortunately for us, nothing lasts forever.

Expand full comment

In prior essays you mentioned “your book” - what is the title of your book? Is it on Amazon or other provider?

Expand full comment

Once there was a group of mice who were tired of being ambushed and eaten by a cat. So the mice got together and brainstormed ideas. One of the mice had a brilliant idea. He said, "lets just put a loud bell on the cat so we always know where he is." The other mice cheered him, until 1 of the mice asked, "so who bells the cat?"

In the 'what should we do' thread I (and a few others) recommended talking about what we can actually do to make things happen IRL. This post is an excellent example of why.

I see such suggestions all the time, going back decades. They take the form of, "I have a brilliant idea! All it takes is to convince those with power to voluntarily give up some of that power!"

OK. It probably is a great idea. But who bells the cat?

Almost by definition, solutions to current problems require those in power to give up some power. Because those current problems were intentionally created by those in power to take advantage of; current problems aren't problems to our elites, they are opportunities. For example, you said:

"This time, this crisis, we must succeed in ending the Fed, because the alternative is the end of America in everything but name — the end of America as a First World country with a middle class."

I agree.

However, do you see any signs that those in charge want America to continue as a 1st world country? That they want anything other than the destruction of the middle class? The end-goal of those in charge is a global Soviet Union. A cohesive nation that might resolve not to be part of that, and have the ability to stay out of it, is exactly what they don't want.

You are recommending that we petition our leaders to abandon their reason for existence. That they give up power so that in the future they won't have even more power. Might as well try to convince a hungry cat to let mice tie a bell to it's neck.

Expand full comment

I suspect this article is pitched slightly above my IQ. Nonetheless I've got a couple of questions.

What would be your objection to CH Douglas and social credit? Do you think it would be incapable of expanding the money supply rapidly enough to meet the needs of mass society?

One for the libertarians: why not just fully nationalise the banks? Doing so would eliminate the profit motive, so that 'incentives' for banks to lend money would be a non-issue.

Expand full comment

Addendum: The main issue (assuming the "Equity Money" adoption goes through properly) is with regard to International Relations. Many nations have already begun the move to "Commodity Money" & have made it clear that the Muricans are persona non grata.

If you're sitting on "Equity Money" & the rest of the world are on "Commodity Money" AND they have made it clear "you're not welcome"... :

The Murican government would need tight controls of goods &/or services and their "flows" (in & out) otherwise the nations with "Commodity money" now adopted successfully will chip away & cause Havoc across the Economy. By "sheer numbers" they will prevail.

And therein lies the Achilles Heel of this whole matter... because this is a "highly probable outcome" (i.e. Murica being unwelcome & chipped away at in said manner) the "Elite" will use this as an excuse to not adopt the proposal AND "double down" on their "War with Everyone" plan.

Expand full comment