there's somebody funding the independent media that's pushing hard for public banking. the arguments they provide are largely based on historical inaccuracies, probably not accidentally, and the whole thing is consequently just a big elaborate lie. i've tried to argue against these inaccuracies, and tried to argue against the bad economics...

at the end of the day, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter. it may be a little easier for the elites to control public banks than private ones. who owns the banks, how much money is printed and all these other things aren't actually valid questions if you're actually interested in changing anything, they're just distractions from a legitimate class analysis. will public ownership of banks make it harder to manipulate stock crashes? no, it would make it easier to co-ordinate.

so, i'm shifting to ignoring it. there isn't anything more substantial underlying the public banking thing than there is underlying the abolish the fed thing. they're variations on the same theme of channeling dissent to a harmless outlet.

it is enraging, though, to read through this stuff. it's logically incoherent at it's high points.

the problem isn't who owns the currency or how much gets printed, it's the idea of basing society on a concept of market exchange. do we have to run through every possible combination of possibilities before we get it and just stop placing arbitrary values on things in order to exchange them?