Prosperity: Freedom from Debt
Slavery, is a four page monthly journal on Money Reform.
follow this link
Thomas Edison on Government Created Debt Free Money
Prosperity, September 2000
In December 1921, the American industrialist Henry Ford and the inventor Thomas Edison
visited the Muscle Shoals nitrate and water power projects near Florence, Alabama.
They used the opportunity to articulate at length upon their alternative money theories,
which were published in 2 reports which appeared in The New York Times
on December 4, 1921 and December 6, 1921.
Objecting to the fact that the Government planned, as usual,
to raise the money by issuing bonds which would be bought by the banking and non-banking sector --
which would then have to be paid back with money raised from taxes, and with interest added --
they proposed instead that the Government simply create the currency it required
and spend it into society through this public project.
This is also the Prosperity proposal.
Thomas Edison made it plain in the following excerpt from The New York Times, December 6, 1921 issue ("Ford Sees Wealth In Muscle Shoals"). Here, the reporter is quoting Edison:
"That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth
we are compelled to add to the national debt.
"Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 -- that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.
"But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.
" ... if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt.
"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.
"Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interest-bearing bonds?"