I believe our National debt is nothing more than a fraud by the Bankers against the People. And I support bringing back the Bradbury pound as promoted by UK Column and The British Constitution Group, to wipe out our Nation’s debt and reinvigorate our nation’s wealth.

The Bradbury Pound.

bradburyIt is the centenary of the Bradbury Pound, which, while it could only have come about because of the First World War, represents an historical precedent which offers an opportunity for an optimistic future.

Let’s remember how the Bradbury came about: in 1914 the banks, feaful of a bank run as a result of nervousness over the coming war, demanded action from the government of the day to prevent their impending insolvency. The government issued interest free Treasury Notes in order to keep the banks afloat, signed by Secretary to the Treasury Bradbury, hence the name.

We should be under no illusions that the Bradbury Pound was a bank bailout. But what it did was set a precedent for government issued money, free of the interest payments attached to money raised from private bankers. So while we are not calling for another bailout of this insolvent banking and financial system, we are calling for the use of that precendent as the basis for rebuilding a nation which has been so destroyed the the policies of successive governments over the last 40 years, that it might as well have faught a World War.

This is exactly the opportunity for optimism that we need. Instead of following a path of “austerity” which leads to ever lower living standards, education standards, health care standards and infrastructure standards, we could use the Bradbury to fund an economic rebuilding plan not seen since the end of the Second World War.

The Treasury’s main excuse for not backing the Bradbury policy is that it is, they say, tantamount to “printing money” in the hyperinflationary style of the Weimar Republic. It isn’t, of course. The Weimar hyperinflationary policy is best expressed by Quantitative Easing, which is money printing in exactly the Weimar style.

What is the difference?

Well, one (QE) represents a backward looking, “we must pay the bankers and speculate, speculate, speculate” approach. The past debts must be paid, even thought they were mostly created through fraud and corruption, no matter how many people have to die in order to pay them. So we shut down hospitals, we reduce the quality of our food, we turn our education system into a chaotic mess, because we “can’t afford” to pay.

The other, the Bradbury, is forward looking. The debt in this case is to future generations. We spend newly created money now on things which provide our children and grandchildren the futures they deserve. We spend the money to provide high quality economic infrastructure, health care, education, training. This is the debt we owe. Not to disgustingly corrupt bankers who understood absolutely the implications of what they were doing, but to our children and their children who had no say in whether or not they were born into this mess.

So the Bradbury must not be used to bail out the financial system. It must only be used to build a real productive economic infrastructure which can support a real productive workforce. There really are no downsides, so long as the money is spent on the correct things.

That is why we also need a full “Glass Steagall” style separation of retail and speculative investment banking. While the mess of the financial system is still hanging around our necks, not even the Bradbury policy can help us. We must deal with the present banking system, and in the process deal with the debt which is notionally outstanding. Glass Steagall would see most of that written off, much to the chagrin of the bankers, which is why they are lobbying so hard against it right around the world.

In 2013 the Bring Back The Bradbury Campaign succeeded in getting an Early Day Motion into the House of Commons calling for its reinstatement.  Let’s see if we can “encourage” enough support among MPs (who badly need to be reminded who they work for) to see the policy debated in full before the middle of the year, and implemented by the centenary in August.

To get behind the campaign for the reinstatement of the Bradbury Pound.
Please see http://www.ukcolumn.org/bring-back-the-bradbury for more information.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Bring Back The Bradbury Pound!

  1. Isn’t the Bradbury Pound the same as Positive Money? They both advocate the state issuing our money free of debt instead of the banks profiting from their debt money. If they are the same why not amalgamate?

  2. Only when a case of PD has stabilized, having not improved or worsened for at least
    six months to a year, will any surgical outcome be thought of as the best opportunity in most
    cases. ‘ Condoms must be used when taking anti-biotics.
    Peyronie’s condition impacts 1 to 3% of the men’s population and it is regarded amongst the typical
    factors that cause shortening of male organ, male organ shape
    penile deformation and impotence problems.

  3. I’ve been browsing online more than 4 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It is pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all webmasters and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be much more useful than ever before.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s