Thursday, May 31, 2012

#OWS Alternative Banking Working Group RFP (Request for Proposal)

Those complaining about lack of demand and proposals from Occupy, here's your chance.

Read it at # Occupy Wall Street
Alternative Banking Working Group RFP (Request for Proposal)
by chris wroth


Clonal said...


Bill Mitchell's presentation to National Skills Conference, June 29, 2011 Making Australia a 'full employment' economy

From Bill Mitchell's YouTube site

Clonal said...

Might OWS may also make a similar demand

Clonal said...

Another thing based on the above presentation that OWS could push for, is to get teeth for the Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act. They could utilize the expertise of Dr. James Galbraith in developing it.

Clonal said...

I think Matt Franko raised the topic if Humphrey Hawkins and OWS here

Clonal said...


Have you seen Conyers HR 870?

Also, HR 870 Thomas page

This is a bill for the JG - OWS should push for its passage!

· The Act establishes of a “Full Employment and Training Trust Fund” with two separate accounts. These two accounts will direct funding to job creation and training programs.

· If at the beginning of each fiscal year, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve determines that the economy is not operating at a level of full employment, 90 percent of the funds in each account will be automatically disbursed.

· 67 percent of all revenues deposited into the trust fund will accrue in the job creation grant program account and 33 percent of the total funds will accrue in the job training account.

Dual Job Creation Focus: Direct Jobs Grants and WIA Training Programs

Anonymous said...

This is what I posted:


Well, I have a proposal, but before presenting it I must say I am both dismayed and perplexed by the strange restriction you want to place on the proposal. You say:

“So, to offer a starting point: Can we discuss the possibility of making the proposal about the federal budget and federal fiscal/monetary policy – ignoring the private banking/investment sector? If we focus on the money that is held in common and owned by the people, then we are focusing on the money that is legally held in common, not held by individuals. By law, government (public) money is the only money that MUST be used for public purpose. (Private money can be voluntarily offered for public purpose, but not expropriated without an eminent domain ruling or some other court action.)”

Frankly, this passage reveals deep confusion about our monetary system. The dollar system is essentially a public utility. Every dollar in our system is in one way or another created by the public’s monetary authority. Whether a dollar ends up being privately or publicly held is a question of public policy and public choice; it does not reflect any deep distinction between the kinds of dollars involved. Similarly, the private banking system is a network of institutions that are chartered members of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System is a public institution created by Congress under the monetary authority granted to Congress by the US Constitution, whose governors are appointed by political leaders in Washington, and which is required to report to Congress on its actions. It is a mistake to attempt to draw some sharp line between the public institutions and the private banks, or between the public’s dollars and private dollars. The banks exist to serve public purpose.

Also, the notion that private money can only be “expropriated by an eminent domain riling or other court action” seems bizarre. Every time Congress passes a new tax law it expropriates privately held money and transfers it to the public treasury. That’s a a routine, core process of democratic government.

Honestly, what kind of “radicals” are the Occupy movement when they are captive to such conservative, laissez faire notions about sanctity private property and the of private banks?

[cont. below]

Anonymous said...

Here is my proposal:



1. The dollar is the people’s national currency, and the dollar system exists to serve public purpose, so monetary policy must be subject to direct democratic oversight and direction. It is time to end central bank independence, and replace the outmoded and unaccountable banker’s technocracy known as the Federal Reserve system with a more democratic and accountable system.

2. The wealth and prosperity of the nation depend on the engaged commitment of its people and their willingness to take charge of the nation’s real resources and invest them in the future they will bequeath to posterity. We call for an end to the fatalistic passivity of neoliberalism and laissez faire economics, and call for a second New Deal era of activist government. The New New Deal will organize large-scale public investment in projects whose vision and ambition is equal to the spirit of an industrious, ambitious and hopeful people. These projects will include lifelong education of all of our people, saving our environment from the ravages of climate disorder, and radical and visionary transformations of our energy system.

3. Democracy cannot survive in an environment of profound economic inequality. We must take firm and deliberate steps to restore social justice and broad prosperity, build social solidarity based on democratic equality, and end the grotesque exploitation, inequality and economic hierarchies that have poisoned our democracy and destroyed security and prosperity for millions of Americans. We didn’t ask for class war, but we will fight the war that has been taken to us.

4. Social solidarity in a democratic society is based on a contract of mutual obligation among the society’s citizens, a willingness of all to dedicate their talents and industry to others for the good of their society, and a corresponding willingness to provide the means and opportunity for each citizen to participate their labor to the pursuit of the common good. The United States must therefore commit itself to a national policy of true full employment, anchored in a guaranteed job for each American able and willing to work.

Anonymous said...

In #4, where I said, “participate their labor to the pursuit of the common good”, I should have “participate with their labor in the pursuit of the common good.”