Ben’s reply and mine to his are in the @PositiveMoneyUK post earlier today but I thought readers may wish to see his in case they miss it
Ben Dyson says:
Just a few points to clarify. Firstly, the film was made by a couple of independent film producers, and we were just interviewed for it, so we didn’t have any editorial control. That means the film doesn’t explain the details of our proposals particularly clearly. If you’re interested in the details, they’re explained in more detail here: http://www.positivemoney.org/our-proposals
With regards to this: “They want an ivory tower grouping to decide on the level and type of lending”, this is not what we’re proposing (although it’s a common misunderstanding).
We want to leave the lending to banks, and the money creation to the state. We’re advocating that banks continue to decide what they lend in, using money that people have lent to them specifically for investing. We want the risk to be shared between the bank and the investors, so that we no longer have governments guaranteeing private risk taking (ending the socialisation of losses by banks).
Then interest rates WOULD be set by the markets, rather than by the Monetary Policy Committee. (The point of setting interest rates centrally in the current system is to encourage people to borrow more or less, allowing banks to create more/less money.)
The only role of the MPC is then to decide whether to increase or decrease the money supply, depending on the needs of the economy on a macro-level. Banks can lend and invest where they like, but if they mess up, there’ll be no bailouts or taxpayer-funded rescue packages. We’d be removing the safety net. Banks would be forced to operate like any other business, without all the safety nets and socialisation of losses.
So that’s possibly not as Marxist as you first thought! If you get chance have a look at one of the papers here, and feel free to fire over any questions.