Skip to main content

Do you need to be an expert to talk about money?

Debates tend to bring together expert researchers and politicians arguing on the steps forward for the future of humanity. Experts have always good arguments and counter-attack to keep the discussion going and confuse us in the midst of details and jargon. But us, lambda individuals, what can we possibly do?

Learn and share

Ian Tennant from Positive Money Uk explained today at the Leicester secular society how money is created by commercial banks and the consequences this have on the rest of the economy and our state of democracy.

Did you know that 3% of the money available is cash (coins and notes) and 97% is money created by commercial banks?

Did you know that between 1970 and 2012 the money supply increased from £25 billion to £2050 billion?

What shocked me was the idea that a non elected body (commercial banks 80 board members) decide how the 2.9 trillion created by them will be spent. The government has 650 parliamentaries and 2.1 trillions to allocate. Isn't there a more ethical way of doing it?

The bank of England this year acknowledged the creation of money by commercial banks. It confirms furthermore the need for our debtocracy to be changed.

More need to be done and it is our role as citizens to put pressure on our government for change!

In the meantime, reading 'Modernising Money' by Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson give a good graps on how the money system works. Organising talks and debates keep the ball rolling. Finally, writing to our MPs to put get those questions debated. We do not need to be expert to do those things: just read, speak and write.

Once the debate starts, the experts can be present to develop and put in place a better system with the consciousness that we are watching them.

I am pleased that positive money is a strong voice encouraging individuals to look more into those issues. The majority of followers are no experts but only care.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Criticism of Utilitarianism - link

https://www.utilitarian.org/criticisms.html http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/jcanders/ethics/outline_of_some_classic_criticis.htm Problem : Consider the following two cases: 1. Elderly Aunt Molly is ill. Nephew Tom visits her and helps her because he loves her. Nephew Bob visits her and helps her because he hopes to be rewarded in her will. Nephew Dave visits her and helps her not because he desires to help but because he believes it is his duty. (Modified Version of case by Bowie and Beauchamp,  Ethical Theory in Business  (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1979) 16-17. 2. A two-year-old is drowning. Ruth flings caution aside because she desires to save the child and jumps in, but she cannot swim. Thus, she fails to save the child. Sue can swim, but is afraid that the child will pull her under. She does not save the child. The consequences were the same in each case, but the motives of the agents were different. According to utilitarianism, each person's action was of...

Jump In

 "You can't cross the sea merely by standing and staring at the water"  Here are the beautiful words written by Rabindranath Tagore, painter, poet, composer, playwright, philosopher and social reformer. I read them in the preface written by Albert Chaitram Persaud, Founder CAREIF for the report "Improving the Mental Health of South Asian Populations in the United Kingdom" written by Gnanapragasam S.N. and Menon K.V. (2021) on behalf of CAREIF and Ethnic Inclusion Foundation. One of the key recommendations in the report is to ''provide a culturally competent workforce with appropriate cultural competency training so that care provided appreciates cultural (religious/spiritual/faith), historical and gendered influences of South Asians''. While further training is always welcomed, it should not stop organisations to jump right in engaging with communities from various ethnicities, cultures and backgrounds. As humans, we have the innate ability to cr...