Is it enough to use Bitcoin and Nostr or do we still need to take away the “credit creation” power from the banks?

"Banking was conceived in iniquity, and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen, they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." - SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

In the long run, yeah.

What do you think about Josiah Stamp’s assertion that banks can just buy up property, including Bitcoin and alloidal title to land? Isn’t Black Rock and JPM’s ETFs and Strategy a banker’s play to buy it all up? Are you saying that in the long run Bitcoin will outlast the endless banker’s gambits?

I do think that as long as banks don't buy up the mining industry, bitcoin can remain uncorrupted.

I ultimately don't think banks could print enough to buy up all the bitcoin. They'd collapse under hyperinflation before that happened.

I do also agree with you that it's essential to reform/abolish the state monopoly on credit creation.

Actually every single bank loan is credit creation. This is the big open secret and also the much bigger problem with Stamp’s challenge. Ending credit creation means changing how every single bank in existence treats loans on their books.

Right. I'd be in favor of a 100% reserve requirement. I might be okay with allowing banks to engage in fractional reserve lending as long as there were strict laws (maybe constitutional prohibitions) against bailouts. Let banks stand or fail on the basis of their own policies, and let consumers take on the level of risk they think is appropriate.