1. If the government and it's chartered banks accepted gold and silver for payment of taxes and debt, would gold and silver still be considered "free market" currency? Would such action by government be considered corruption of free markets, especially in the commodity markets for gold and silver?
2. Would you prefer a 5% flat tax on income (or if possible zero taxes) or a 95% land value tax?
3. What is worse? Deflation or inflation?
4. Should public infrastructure, roads, and other right of way easements be privatized?
5. Is commercial banking an institution of usury? Is insurance an institution of usury?
Gardner provides his insightful answers in his article.
Follow the Money...by Creating it
Michael Hudson can speak for himself, but he also believes in Land Value Taxation as a way of wringing this rent from those who now own most of the Land, currently the banks, and has even advocated it for China, now that it is experiencing a Land bubble of its own (Michael is an adviser to the government of China).
Max Keiser posted it on his site (some of you might remember that Max interviewed me about Greenbacking and Georgism a couple of years ago: http://maxkeiser.com/2010/03/19/ote46-on-the-edge-with-max-keiser-and-scott-baker-19-march-2010/ - of course, neither solution has been picked up by the elite-controlled politicians, but that's hardly news to us...). Poverty is far worse than when Obama took office, it's dragging down the former middle class and destroying cities and lives in nearly every strata. The movie makes several erroneous mainstream assumptions - like there being "no work" when we know from George that demand is essentially endless ( effective demand is another thing, but that has to do with monetary power and who has it, and why). Certainly, they do point out in graphic detail our crumbling infrastructure and cities. Anyone who hasn't seen Detroit lately is in for a shock.
Another movie, which I just bought on DVD, is Dive - which makes the point that Americans throw away more food than they eat - P&P could also stand for (food) Produce and Poverty.
In any case, we have plenty of food, just like we have plenty of houses (the new report from Picture the Homeless makes this clear: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/new_york_has_mo_1.php and http://picturethehomeless.org/ ), or at least vacant land that could be used for shelter if it was properly taxed to move it into the market. The private collection of rent allows for all sorts of waste, while the elite get richer while they sleep.
It still comes down to incentives.
Last minute addition - I couldn't pass this one up. Roger Mitchell gives about as lucid a description of monetary sovereignty as I've seen, here:
He correctly says that those who do not understand monetary sovereignty will forever confuse sovereign debt with personal debt. Politicians, including the president, do this all the time, saying things like "we must balance our federal budget just like every America family does." Wrong. American families cannot create their own money. Nor should they, since money should exist to meet the productive capacity of the nation, not the family (though everyone should be able to find a job and EARN money - that is something else).
On his personal website, Mitchell has a neat succinct little chart:
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1998-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 9%. Recession began 2001
2004-2008: Deficit Growth reduced 40%. Recession began 2008.
The measure of an Economy is money. A large economy needs a larger supply of money than does a small economy. Therefore, a growing economy needs a growing supply of money. All money is a form of debt. Therefore, a growing economy requires a growing supply of debt. (SB - Substitute the word Money instead of debt here, and Mitchell is on to something 99% of economists and politicians miss).
The only other place I disagree slightly with Mitchell is in his proclamation that we have true monetary sovereignty. If we did, we would owe no money to a Federal Reserve Bank at all. We have constitutional monetary sovereignty, but we are not following the constitution. See my new petition above. If you agree after reading it, please sign!