In a recent Working Paper entitled "The Chicago Plan Revisited" (WP/12/202), IMF staff members  Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof spoil an otherwise interesting paper by giving an account of the monetary ideas of Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham which conflict directly with Bentham's own writings on the subject matter. In my view, the point at issue is of fundamental importance as the world community searches for answers to the monetary chaos that has evolved in the post-Bretton Woods era of the past forty years: Do we seek answers in resurgent STATISM in monetary matters, as in the United States (Federal Reserve Board) and the European Union (European Central Bank) at present, or should we first seek to UNDERSTAND the flaws in post-Bretton Woods world monetary arrangements for which STATE and PRIVATE sector agencies are jointly responsible? – Yahoo Groups, Gunner

Dominant Social Theme: If we just give government the money power, we will be free.

Free-Market Analysis: Parts of the alternative Internet media are aflame with excitement over an IMF study recently released, entitled, "The Chicago Plan Revisited" (WP/12/202), by IMF staff members Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof.

As we can see from the above Yahoo Groups note, there are likely considerable problems with the IMF analysis from a historical perspective. But in this article, we will try to deal mostly with the modern argument and show once again, as we have before, why private sector money competition is the easiest and most effective way to solve the boom-bust money problem.

We never expected that many of those propagating freedom in the alternative media would suggest that the government should control money. But we've watched what we consider to be this dominant social theme build and build.

It began with Stephen Zarlenga and was advanced by Ellen Brown and her Web of Debt and then more recently a number of blogs attacking Austrian-based free-market economics.

Now, we would not maintain that every one of these actors is controlled by Money Power but the power elite is advantaged by anything to do with government dictats. The elites control the Western world and pursue their goal of world government via mercantilism, the use of government to support private interests.

The most powerful among us control government. The idea that "the people" can "take back" government is probably a canard. It is much more sensible to assume Money Power, one way or another, is BEHIND these suggestions.

Money Power does not care whether its control is exercised publicly or privately. It doesn't care whether a "bankster" is in charge of the money supply or a politician. Both can be controlled and bought.

"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?" – George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 5

"Government" money is a default position of the powers-that-be. If "they" cannot control the money supply directly through facilities like the quasi-public/quasi-private Federal Reserve, they will control it through public facilities and make arguments via their surrogates for this sort of remedy.

Read more: http://thedailybell.com/4267/Black-Is-White-Up-Is-Down-If-We-Want-t...