Public banks can fully fund infrastructure NOW with ‘self-paying’ negative interest loans

Imagine this: because banks legally create credit out of nothing rather than “lend money,” a public bank on one computer could fully fund local schools by creating a “loan” to fund their entire school-year expenses with an interest rate of -100%, with the loan due within ten seconds of the district superintendent signing the document.

What happens?

If you don’t know, better read the first link above.

What happens: a 100% negative interest rate means the so-called “loan” is self-paying. In this example, after ten seconds the loan is extinguished, and the public bank is again fully capable of extending more credit.

And yeah, it’s legal for banks to set whatever interest rate they choose.

The point is this: creating credit and money is a public benefit that can and should create no long-term debt, full-employment, the best infrastructure we can imagine, and because infrastructure contributes more to economic output than cost of inputs, we also have falling prices. The difference between credit and money (only lawful to create at the federal level of government) is just a negative sign and positive sign on a computer, and both can work as money. The amount of what we use for money should be managed transparently so the value is as we wish.

In contrast, we have debt-based “money” created by private corporations to maximize their own profit while creating increasing and unpayable debt. It’s massive criminal fraud of our 1% in government, money, and media that our current system is “good” for us, compared with public banking benefits.


Public Banking Institute’s 2013 conference explains, documents, and proves that economic solutions for deficits, debt, and full-employment are structurally:

  • easy to understand and self-evident upon inspection
  • easy to implement
  • would improve our economy amazingly quickly and thoroughly



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • gozounlimited

    Stop global genocide… Truth in climate change can open truth everywhere…
    “Global geo- engineering programs are literally ripping the atmosphere/climate, and Earths life support systems apart.
    The lethally toxic fallout from these same programs is poisoning every breath we take, and the entire web of life. If you think this sounds absurd, or impossible, take the time to examine the points made in this presentation, then investigate for yourself.” ….

  • Tonto

    Populist drivel

    Twisted hyperbole buckshot logic

    Logical positivism as an excuse for delusions of grandeur

    Humanitarian/scientific circular reasoning (If it’s humanitarian, it must be good. And if it’s scientific, it must be godly! This is the extent of the reasoning here. One claim reinforces the other in a faked logical statement.)

    Effect on inflation? LoL!

    Look how happy the Zimbabwean kid is in the picture. Having learned what he learned in his youth, can anyone imagine what this kid does for a living now that he is grown?

    He probably writes about his genius-dreams of ruling the world on the Internet like Carl Herman.

    • Carl_Herman

      tonto: thank you for the opportunity to contrast your strawman argument with what we present: public banking and/or monetary reform can allow government to become employer of last resort for infrastructure investment.

      That means:
      1. Full employment.
      2. The best infrastructure (hard and soft) that we can imagine.
      3. The opposite of inflation: we’d have falling prices because infrastructure returns more economic output than cost of input.

      Thank you also, tonto, for once again allowing the public to consider in greater detail the first area of propaganda (inflation) used to support our current system, and the tone that’s usual in such strawman arguments.

      • guest

        The “full employment” goal ignores the fact that the lack of employment was caused by prior artificial credit expansion, as well as Minimum Wage laws.

        It also ignores the fact that leisure is an end, and that the point of working isn’t to work but to obtain.

        We don’t need government for infrastructure, and if the unregulated market doesn’t want it, stealing other people’s wealth through taxation or through currency debasement or artificial credit expansion is not preferable to the billions of individuals who are the source of correct pricing.

        The reason artificial credit expansion wouldn’t create more economic output is, first of all, we only know what is economical, as far as output goes, when individuals choose certain goods and services – including leisure – over others; So the artificial credit expansion would not give you the price signals you would need to determine economic output.

        Second, you would be stimulating activity which involve resources that are currently being used for other things. Your stimulus would cause a bidding war for those resources and those who took out loans to start those projects would find that they were unsustainable due to rising prices.

        Your proposal is the source of the business cycle, and in fact not essentially different from what the crony bankers are already doing to us. It’s the same thing:

        Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

        Answering the Same Old Arguments Against Sound Money | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

        • Carl_Herman

          You choose the private market for infrastructure rather than representative government? I don’t think you’ll have the votes for that choice compared with what’s possible for locally-controlled schools, roads, sidewalks, parks, etc.

          Also and importantly, you miss the points of the employment: people won’t have to work, but can to improve infrastructure which causes overall prices to fall. That’s a public benefit.

          I appreciate your thinking and speaking-up. The public need to consider options, and figure out ways to test them in pilot projects so we can see real-world outcomes rather than our good-faith theorizing. Thank you for engaging in these issues 🙂

  • notthere56

    I have read much by Ellen Brown, Michael Hudson, Stephen Zarlenga, Carl Herman, etc., and have been persuaded in favor of the argument for public banks. EXCEPT that I have been unable to find any mention of how this system would be less prone/subject to corruption/fraud than the current usurious one, and how that would be guarded against. What’s to stop politicians or bureaucrats from gaming the public bank, for personal or political gain? Greed and corruption are unlikely to go away under any system; I think that these writers/activists need to be more frank in their acknowledgment of this ever-present danger.

    • Carl_Herman

      You’re right that any system can be gamed, notthere56. We all have written that any system for the public MUST BE TRANSPARENT. The projects, amount of funding, results all must be subject for public consideration and economics departments’ study as a big part of teaching economics.

      And we know, we know: this is unimaginable faced with a history of sadistic 1% asset-hole lying sacks of spin. Yet, we offer the mechanics of solutions.