I participated in talk on the overarching and less-understood workings of the monetary system at the US Social Forum in San Jose, California last week called Who’s Money? Our Money! We’re working on getting a draft of the talking points together into one document, but here is the list of references we draw from in our research (you know, to prove we’re not crazy):
Icelandic Proposal: http://tinyurl.com/pwzwzpo
Positive Money Website: http://positivemoney.org/
Positive Money “Creating a Sovereign Money System.”: http://tinyurl.com/kgkk8rv
Bank of London “Money Creation in the Modern World.”: http://tinyurl.com/nnd7wwq
IMF Working Paper: The Chicago Plan Revisited : http://tinyurl.com/9vuqh3p
Ellen Brown’s “Web of Debt.”: http://tinyurl.com/npsvkr4
Ellen Brown’s The Public Banking Solution : http://tinyurl.com/pj5vdkd
USPS Office of the Inspector General “Providing Non-Bank Financial Services for the Underserved.” : http://tinyurl.com/m6jufyf
USPS OIG “The Road Ahead for Postal Financial Services.”: http://tinyurl.com/l4ujhf4
Elizabeth Warren “Coming to a Post Office Near You: Loans You Can Trust?”: http://tinyurl.com/paslzfn
Bank of North Dakota: http://banknd.nd.gov/
Federal Reserve System: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
Strike Debt Bay Area:
Community Check Cashing, Oakland: http://communitycheckcashing.org/
We should not use ‘belief’ loosely, as if certain statements’s truth value depended entirely on cultural values and all of the emplacing phrases like ‘conceptual schemes’ and ‘web of beliefs’ for their becoming/being true or false. Something is not *made true by one’s believing it, something else is going on with the word belief. The import of the word ’belief’ comes from religion and the repetitive affirmation technique imbued in people during a particular historical periods and geographical locations. The practice of individualizing affirmation that the subject is made to express in public, private, and in dialogue according to prescribed rituals has as much to do with the meaning of the word ’belief’ as it does with forming subjects who are then led to thinking that they must confirm sentences into truthhood. The subject-object distinction is as much a product of these processes as it is a constant structure of language and sentence creation. The intensifying of religious practices has done nothing to subvert this basic function of meaning creation, it has only made us turn about from one side to the other in hopes that one day we will form a unified theory that is held steady from top to bottom.
The problem is neither with the relativism of subjectivism, as if we could each in our own person determine a meaning of a word and only by ourselves confirm a word’s relation to its non-linguistic object, nor is it the blankness of an objectivism that posits an outside world and fervently seeks to write about it in ever more detail. The problem lies with the word ’world’. As if it were a unified thing, yes, but also as if it were an ’external thing’ to something else, namely, our* personal minds or, to update the word, our experiences. It will remain the unknown noumena and forever beckons us* to discover it as an empty place (space) that we must fill up by going and checking to infinity until we are satisfied (which is never) by observation.
The more empowering thing to do (and not the more realistic or progressive) is to end that quest and proliferate words and concepts that impress upon us by our always expanding experience and the communication thereof. Science has never needed philosophy and philosophy can get along just fine without science, but the collaboration remains open and fruitful provided the logic does not remain in the dead-lock of equalization. Arguments and theories can proliferate at a rate never before seen and persuade more people to adopt their terminology and concepts without being held up to a singular standard. Students would be encouraged to explore all manner of concepts in a great many different procedures, which have never been nor ever could be all-encompassing. Feyerabend’s anarchy.
Metaphysically, (but that name is already so loaded with both a Physicalism that it adds to, comes after more strictly speaking, and a spiritual connotation) the move is from a contained whole that is both singular (the ’all’ and ’one’ in its attributes) with a single division (a split) to a multiplicity that only has attributes and an infinitely many of them (innumerable and infinite in the sense of not having number or discernible size).
Reading analytic philosophy can be helpful after all.