Also the basic universal income was very interesting too. Now if we could just get China and India to join in with that notion there might be some hope for the future. (On the basis that Africa and SA would follow suit). I am also presuming that there would be some mechanism of linking the income to some sort of reformed Consumer Price Index.

The above post didn't go through with the others.

I was trying to connect the idea of the universal citizen income with monetary reform.
I know we normally we balk at the thought of governments printing their own money. Voices start screaming, are they nuts? Here comes currency devaluation, inflation & increased national debt. However, as I understand it, with real monetary reform, if the money is debt free(national debt does not increase) and they print moderate amounts(no more inflation than normal – to date banks contributed to inflation through debt based fractional reserve money and other leveraging practices), and if directed on public service initatives(not bailing out banks), then much of the money returns to the exchequer via taxation while communal wealth is accrued instead of short term speculative investments.

Have I been hopelessly hoodwinked by the monetary reform mob?

The only oversight I feel they make is that ultimately international currencies must be based on energy & other resources, a la Richard Douthwaite's proposal.

On the subject of "Positive money", I get the impression not all monetary reformed money is made equal.

For one readable explanation of a UK proposal, I think http://www.positivemoney.org.uk does a good job. Sure they are promoting it, at least they get into some detail, especially with their submission to the Independent Comission on Banking – http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/NEF-Southampton-Positive-Money-ICB-Submission.pdf

Another readable explanation, from stateside, is by the American Monetary Institute:
http://www.monetary.org/32pageexplanation.pdf
http://www.monetary.org/houseoflordstalk.pdf
I particularly like their historical narrative crediting Aristotle with recognising that “Money exists not by nature but by law.”, demonstrating the success of government issued fiat currencies in the past and arguing persuasively that advanced money systems are an abstract social power based in law and counter to the claims of Ron Paul, Max Keiser, et al in the goldbug element, money need NOT be gold based.

How the above organisations' proposals play out in a larger international scene monetary scene and whether it somehow consolidates the prevailing status quo of inequitable distribution of wealth I am still unclear.

And as a reader of this blog I immediately wonder how exactly the above proposals prevent the bankers from continuing to leverage and create their own currency a la securitization (http://golemxiv-credo.blogspot.com/2010/08/securitization-ruptured-heart-of-shadow.html)

I think there is a lot to be said for the universal citizen income. It has been advocated by the Green Party here for a long while.

It cuts right across amost all of the way we currently run things so people have a hard time with it. But I think it is the core of a good idea.

Any thoughts?

I guess you know I would like to see any global 'reset' result in more smaller local producers, more artisan businesses, more co-operatives and a globally agreed base level of workers rights, where people working on shop/factory floors could earn a living wage in a timeframe that stills allows them to parent their own children/have a life outside of work/move on in their education. I don't actually understand how imposing this would subvert capitalism, or lead to any kind of 'inefficiencies'. But while I could go on a about this subject indefinitely I really wanted to use this space to ask about 'positive money'. It comes up alot in discussions about possible resets. I understand the concept but I'm not sure I understand how it would actually work at the macro/state level.
Also wouldn't a switch to that kind of money really result in a sort of solidification (I'm sure there is a better word but anyway) of the present wealth distribution. Would it make it ten times harder for small businesses to get loans at reasonable rates.
You see on the one hand I think the idea is popular because of Zeitgiest but while I enjoyed that programme as a sort of provocative conversation starter, I definitely know the research in religious part was sketchy at best, so I am wary of taking the financial history part at face value also.
Then there is the fact that positive money is championed by people like Ron Paul, who in all other respects fits my idea of a loon. (a qualified doctor who doesn't beleive in evolution)
Anyway does anyone know of any good sites where positive money is explained in a readable way? All I have found so far are very academic papers written on it and then sites promoting the idea while failing to give any real detail on what it would mean to implement it.

That is an excellent analysis by Reggie Middleton. Thanks for that.

HERE is a convenient link for everybody.

Please Do Not Feed The Greedy.