The English Parliament debates on money creation by commercial banks (credit). BBC video

By Daniele Pace*

Yesterday morning the British Parliament has spoken on money creation through credit by commercial banks. The debate was very long and took out what the Auritian school says now for a long time, and reiterated with my speech in Montegranaro. Commercial banks create 97% of the money through credit.

Unfortunately, the debate did not reveal some evidence proposed by the late Professor Auriti long ago. It has not put emphasis on the fact that this creation is a fundamental debt for the society, and that in this way the banking system is attributed legal ownership of the money. The speech is moved anyway very quickly on interesting topics, mostly concerning the opportunity to leave the banks the power to create money in consideration of the use that these have made in recent decades, in particular by creating asset bubbles and economic crises. Some mention was also made on the high profits derived from the creation of the credit, while in its response the government has answered with some reform proposals for greater control over the allocation of credit, without questioning the system.

In the debate yesterday emerged all the limits of monetary reform promoted by Positive Money, which, although based on careful research on the mechanisms of monetary creation, it is unable to get out of a purely economist and accountancy, leaving room to classic objections on the opportunities by governments to control this creation.

How Auritians, we know instead that not only the government should control the issue of money, but this, being the ownership of its citizens, must legally belong to the bearer. It is not a question of "opportunity", but of jurisprudence, being the currency a legal case. The currency and the economy are social phenomena to be adjusted with conventional law and until you do not address the issue in the legal case, citizens can never enjoy their property as well as the economy can not be truly free as long as they will have to use a debt to exchange their productions.

In November last year I met Ben Dyson to congratulate for his excellent work but also to highlight the next step, that one philosophical and legal, accomplished already by Auriti, to make its proposal really unassailable. Let's take time to Positive Money, especially considering the article of few years ago published in The Guardian in its signature by Ben Dyson where he headlined "The money was privatized by stealth".

The act of privatise is only a legal case, determined by a political will absent today in the reform proposals Anglo-Saxon for a lack of knowledge of the Auritian's theory of value.

Yesterday was accomplished a small but historic step in the British parliament, hoping that sooner or later the title "The money was privatized by stealth" becomes the theme of the search for English friends of Positive Money.

*Daniele Pace, independent researcher and writer, Author of The Utopian Money and translator of The Utopian Country