| 
 Al-Jazeerah History
 
 Archives
 
 Mission & Name
 
 Conflict Terminology
 
 Editorials
 
 Gaza Holocaust
 
 Gulf War
 
 Isdood
 
 Islam
 
 News
 
 News Photos
 
 Opinion 
	
	
	Editorials
 
 US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
 
 www.aljazeerah.info
 
	  
           |  | Out of the Mouths of Babes:
 Twelve-Year-Old 
	Money Reformer Tops a Million Views
 
 By Ellen Brown
 
 Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, May 30, 2012   The youtube video of 12 year old
	
	Victoria Grant speaking at the Public Banking in America conference in 
	April has gone viral, topping a million views on various websites.  
 Monetary reform—the contention that governments, not banks, should 
	create and lend a nation’s money—has rarely even made the news, so this is a 
	first.  Either the times they are a’changin’, or Victoria managed to 
	frame the message in a way that was so simple and clear that even a child 
	could understand it.
 
 Basically, her message is that banks create 
	money “out of thin air” and lend it to people and governments at interest.  
	If governments borrowed from their own banks, they could keep the interest 
	and save a lot of money for the taxpayers.
 
 She said her own country 
	of Canada actually did this, from 1939 to 1974.  During that time, the 
	government’s debt was low and sustainable, and it funded all sorts of 
	remarkable things.  Only when the government switched to borrowing 
	privately did it acquire a crippling national debt.
 
 Borrowing 
	privately means selling bonds at market rates of interest (which in Canada 
	quickly shot up to 22%), and the money for these bonds is ultimately created 
	by private banks.  For the latter point, Victoria quoted Graham Towers, 
	head of the Bank of Canada for the first twenty years of its history.  
	He said:
 
 Each and every time a bank makes a loan, new bank credit 
	is created — new deposits — brand new money.  Broadly speaking, all new 
	money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans.  As loans are debts, 
	then under the present system all money is debt.
 
 Towers was asked, 
	“Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give 
	that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament 
	can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?”  
	He replied, “If Parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking 
	system, then certainly that is within the power of Parliament.”
 
 In 
	other words, said Victoria, “If the Canadian government needs money, they 
	can borrow it directly from the Bank of Canada. The people would then pay 
	fair taxes to repay the Bank of Canada. This tax money would in turn get 
	injected back into the economic infrastructure and the debt would be wiped 
	out.  Canadians would again prosper with real money as the foundation 
	of our economic structure and not debt money. Regarding the debt money owed 
	to the private banks such as the Royal Bank, we would simply have the Bank 
	of Canada print the money owing, hand it over to the private banks, and then 
	clear the debt to the Bank of Canada.”
 
 Problem solved; case closed.
 
 But critics said, “Not so fast.”  Victoria might be charming, but 
	she was naïve.
 
 One critic was William Watson, writing in the 
	Canadian newspaper The National Post in an article titled “No, 
	Victoria, There Is No Money Monster.”  Interestingly, he did not 
	deny Victoria’s contention that “When you take out a mortgage, the bank 
	creates the money by clicking on a key and generating ‘fake money out of 
	thin air.’”  Watson acknowledged:
 
 Well, yes, that’s true of any 
	“fractional-reserve” banking system. Even before they were regulated, even 
	before there was a Bank of Canada, banks understood they didn’t have to keep 
	reserves equal to the total amount of money they’d lent out: They could 
	count on most depositors most of the time not showing up to take out their 
	money all at once. Which means, as any introduction to monetary economics 
	will tell you, banks can indeed “create” money.
 
 What he disputed was 
	that the Canadian government’s monster debt was the result of paying high 
	interest rates to banks.  Rather, he said:
 We have a big public debt 
	because, starting in the early 1970s and continuing for three full decades, 
	our governments spent more on all sorts of things, including interest, than 
	they collected in taxes. . . . The problem was the idea, still widely 
	popular, from the Greek parliament to the streets of Montreal, that 
	governments needn’t pay their bills.
 That contention is countered, 
	however, by the Canadian government’s own Auditor General (the nation's top 
	accountant, who reviews the government’s books).  In 1993, the Auditor 
	General
	
	noted in his annual report:
 [The] cost of borrowing and its 
	compounding effect have a significant impact on Canada's annual deficits. 
	From Confederation up to 1991-92, the federal government accumulated a net 
	debt of $423 billion. Of this, $37 billion represents the accumulated 
	shortfall in meeting the cost of government programs since Confederation. 
	The remainder, $386 billion, represents the amount the government has 
	borrowed to service the debt created by previous annual shortfalls.
 In 
	other words, 91% of the debt consists of compounded interest charges.  
	Subtract those and the government would have a debt of only C$37 billion, 
	very low and sustainable, just as it was before 1974.
 Mr. Watson’s 
	final argument was that borrowing from the government’s own bank would be 
	inflationary.  He wrote:
 Victoria’s solution is that instead of 
	paying market rates the government should borrow directly from the Bank of 
	Canada and pay only token rates of interest. Because the government owns the 
	bank, the tax revenues it raises in order to pay that interest would then 
	somehow be injected directly back into the economy. In other words, money 
	literally printed to cover the government’s deficit would be put into 
	circulation. But how is that not inflationary?
 Let’s see.  The 
	government can borrow money that ultimately comes from private banks, which 
	admittedly create it out of thin air, and soak the taxpayers for a whopping 
	interest bill; or it can borrow from its own bank, which also creates the 
	money out of thin air, and avoid the interest.
 Even a 12 year old can see 
	how this argument is going to come out.
 _______________________________
 
 Ellen Brown is an 
	attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute,
	
	http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.  In Web of Debt, her latest of 
	eleven books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create 
	money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her 
	websites are http://WebofDebt.com and
	http://EllenBrown.com.
 
 
 
 |  |  |