I have been looking into and communicating with some of those involved with PositiveMoney.org of late.
The Princes of the Yen documentary that was featured here the other day was produced by some fellows that are also involved with this movement, although that Positive Money message did not permeate the documentary. There was no clear solution promoted, and most of the documentary was devoted to exposing how Central banks shape policies and real world economies, not only in Japan but around the world through the IMF.
The Positive Money movement is based in the UK. Their idea is to change the manner in which money is created, taking it out of the hands of the private banking system and putting it back into the hands of the government, to be brief.
Their proposals are a bit lean in some aspects. They posit a transparent authority to determine the creation of money. But in the light of the abuses of the BOJ in the Princes of the Yen piece, it is obvious that such an enormous power must be safeguarded by something a little more stringent than ‘transparency.' But it is a step in the right direction.
And it is not lost on me that this movement sounds so similar to the Modern Monetary Theory group in the US. Both would like to remove the money power from the central banks and their affiliates and return it to the government/people.
But it is often lost on the MMT crowd that this is within the essence of Jacksonian Democracy, which is also adamantly opposed giving the sovereign power to create money to a cadre of ‘independent' bankers.
Why then cannot these groups find common ground and unite in their efforts?
I think it comes down to power and ideology.
Much of the nonsensical we are reading these days about gold from economists is because they are arguing from a pre-established premise. That premise about the characteristics of gold refuses to allow their mind to go where reason might lead them. And so in their gyrations to avoid an external standard, to not potentially limit their power and discretion while maintaining some sort of ongoing discourse, they appear almost comical. It is the credibility trap.
