Banking Solution

If you want to fix banking, you can throw out all of the banking laws and replace it with three things.
1) Mandate that banks have 100% banking reserves at all times so that they cannot lend out others people money.
2) Mandate that people have ownership rights over their own deposits so that banks cannot consume and speculate with other people deposites.
3) Mandate that all banks act only as loan intermediaries for those individuals whom want to lend out their own money, which is tied directly to a loan.

Everything else will fall in place.

It is that simple.

Have you ever pulled out a dollar bill from your pocket and ever wondered, how it came into being?  If not, you are not the only one.  But ponder this.  Currently, there is no one able to print this.  Well, not legally anyway.  And yet here it is in your hand.

Many people falsely claim that central banks print this money and give it to banks in order to be lent.  Many believe that the money that you see in your hand is not even owned by the government.  It is owned by the federal reserve who holds bonds as collateral or some such scheme as this.  These ideas are complete nonsense.

No,  in the US money is not printed out and handed to banks.  If this worked there would not be any capital markets.  Central governments would have replaced them a long time ago, which would solidify political power.  And the Soviet Union would be here today.

Physical dollars are created by the bureau of engraving, not the Federal Reserve.  It prints dollars and furnish them to banks based upon withdraw demand, not lines of credit. Basically, bank buy physical dollars with their reserves.  You can read about it here.


But where do the banking reserves come from?  They come from deposits.  Money is created through the fractional reserves system when a loan is created.


The St Louis fed came out with a publication called Money Mechanics years ago.  In it, it showed how a simple $10,000 deposit can generate up to $90,000 worth of loans assuming a 10 to 1 reserve ratio,.  Yes, that is right. Go ahead an Google it and you will see.

For the most part, money today is nothing more than digital lines of credits between banks that reside within a closed banking loop. This is why central banks exist. Central banks exist so that other banks will except checks from member bank.  And central banks exist so that all domestic money stays within the closed loop.  Otherwise, money can leave from nation to nation, like it would if gold coinage was traded as money.  This is why such things are taxed.

This idea is foreign to most people.  For most people, they have to earn their money,  They never thinking of where it came from. In order for money to enter circulation, someone must borrow it form a commercial bank.

You see money is created with loans.   The more deposits (reserves) a bank has, the more it can lend.  As a loan applicant  gets a new line of credit, a line of credit is established on the banks book entry.  Then, the consumer simply writes checks From one bank to  bank to another a book entry is adjusted at the central bank.  Existing Money simply changes ownership.

But the dirty secret is that when one with draws there money, after it has been lent, any loans made with this money is not recalled.  It is not tied directly to the loan. And this despite is redeposited in another bank, it gets lent again.  So, in essence you can have multiple loans on the same money.  This is where inflation comes from.

The actual transfer of the check is nothing more than a line of credit from one bank to another, not physical dollars.  If it were physical dollars, when one were to withdraw the cash, money would leave banking reserves and not lent until it got redeposited.  But today everything is done electronically, not cash.

Banks are encouraged to make loans  to inflate the money supply.  Inflation gives rise to an artificial boom, jobs, industries, and, most importantly,  is a source of additional tax revenue which means more government spending.  And in this way government can pay for things that normally could not be afforded, like social security, and welfare.  And is paid for by the poor who must feel the effects of inflation.

In essence new money created and lent causes a boom as the money supply expands.  But money that is lent must be paid back, which causes a bust as  money flows back into banking reserves waiting to be lent again.  As long as there are more people are borrowing more money, the boom is continued.  This is why we have the housing crises.  Houses produce a lot of new money in the economy, which is taxed.  At some point people are unable to borrow enough money to support the economy.

This is why that without consumer debt, there is no economy.

If gold is such a good value, then why are people selling it for dollars?

Most of those pushing gold never answer this simple question. There are a lot of people who push hyperinflation in order to paint a picture of economic collapse so they can sell you gold. But in who’s interest are they pushing for? Theirs our yours?

The common statement that “Gold in fact has not been value for thousands of years everywhere” is misleading. If anything it is silver that might be able to make that claim but even that is a stretch. However, there are some areas of the world that have used this in one form or another for a long time, but it always has varied from place to place.

For the most part of world history people have traded on lines of credit, domestically, in local villages. However, Gold and silver allow these markets to expand new lines of trade and with more people whom they did not know and did not trust, over greater distances. It was a form of credit that could be carried from market to market in ones pocket. Of course they carried other commodities, but this was simpler to handle and account for.

If you believe in hyper inflation, then ask yourself what happened to the soviet union? And why is North Korea not inflating away? If anything, goods and services in such places are shrinking. In fact, the problem in the soviet union was that there were nothing to spend your money on. People has less choices. It suffered a form of deflation.

But creating a “gold standard” today is not the same as free trade. It only means that the current debt gets replaced by gold. And this would mean that the same banks who are inflating the economy would now own the gold. In other words it is not a liberator but a wealth concentration tool.

Even so, there would still be a desire to leverage their gold reserves as they have done before on countless times. Just like today with the money supply and current lines of credit, banks would still sell more notes than gold in existence. Why? Because despite the rhetoric, without inflating the money supply, the worlds current nations would not be able to exist nor could they pay benefits. And people care more about benefits. Leveraged (inflating) the money supply allows for higher tax revenue collections and thus more spending.

People confused money with production. Money is nothing more than a medium of exchange and a accounting mechanism for government collected taxes. But in the absent of government regulations, it can be anything that two or more people decide upon. Legal tender laws levy property in order to force people to use the government approved currency, by having to pay taxes. even today, you can buy gold, but you must still pay the taxes in dollars.

Now, I not saying that gold is worthless. And it is certainly better than what we have now. But to assume that Gold gains value because of hyperinflation, is simply wrong. It could and probably will is some markets, but not all. People that say this do not understand banking or free trade. Money’s value is subjective and determined by those whom trade it, not by governments. Government can set artificial prices and force assets to be valued in legal tender, but that only distorts its true value for those who are willing to trade things with it.

But instead of trading, most people want it to rise in value in terms of dollars. They want the price of gold to inflate so that they can get a return. They see it not as currency but as a means to acquire more dollars; hence making a profit. And this is speculation, not a wealth hedge. They don’t realize that if Gold did get that valuable, then it would be because of nations that are declaring default in one way or another. And this would change the everything that most people thought they knew. It would mean that a lot of governments would go away and banks too. And it would take away markets with it. But this claim of hyperinflation is nonsense. The problem currently, is that not enough people are borrowing enough money to support the current economy. The money multiplier is dropping; hence deflation. Of course this will not always be the case.

But what would this mean to the local markets? How many people have gold to spend? How many can provide the change? Some do, but not many. And unless the community produced things themselves, how would they have a market, assuming that the banking went under and the deliveries stopped. And what would happen to large corporations and those that depend on some type of government subsidy. For them it would be end game in such a scenario. Because hyperinflation not only destroys governments but destroys banks, which is why it is not going to happen.

There will be government default long before this. And without finance, everyone would be accountable for diminishing returns. Everyone would have to live within their means, including large businesses and governments, which many cannot do and as such would end. But this would mean that many global distributions centers would shut down as well as no more welfare checks or food stamps. So, what happens to these people who have have nothing to buy anything with. How will they get out. After all what do they produce? Even warlords in Somalia must have a market for their plunder. If not, they disappear too.

And even if a state decides to accepts gold and silver as legal tender for taxes, what does this really mean? It means that they now the state will have the gold and silver. Will these states pay people in gold and silver? No. Why? Because these people are believe in mercantile economies that depend on inflating the money supply. And more importantly, they lose political clout and an endless supply of money to spend on their campaigns. So, this would not be in their best interest, politically.

Realize also, that if a state did decide to pay in gold and silver, then there is no way to make sure that gold and silver stay within the state. This is the reason why nations were created in the first place. They were created in order to keep money within borders. They were created in the west when various land barrens realized that people were buying silk from china taking gold out of there kingdoms. But they had nothing that foreign markets wanted. So, gold was leaving and not returning. Remember Robin hood? They could not collect enough taxes.

A nation exists solely for the concentration of wealth for political power, not for a common good as so often quoted. And it keeps competition out from friends and allies and those it deems not worthy through regulations. In this way it can collect larger tax revenues from fewer people and enrich themselves in the process. And it keeps people money from leaving even if they go from place to place. Domestic currencies only change ownership but never leave the country. It is liken to a lock and key. Us dollars allows others to buy US goods and vice versa.

Currently, there is about 10.4 trillion dollars in the money supply with over $56.3 trillion in lines of credit according to federal reserve estimates which is fueling the economy. And this does not include over $220 trillion dollars in unfunded, unaccountable obligations, as Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University points out. How can any of this exist or even get paid. it is an impossibility unless the base money supply grows, not the money multiplier, which grows upon loans.

Economist refer to this type of default as a collapse of the division of labor. And by the way, I mean individual production (individual labor), which is more diversified than by large corporations. Corporations would not exist if it were not for the way money is created ether. But this is a different matter. And labor not as physical labor but as a good or service created, which offers choice. Companies, industries, economies that would otherwise not exist, cannot after the great default occurs.

Today, everyone knows everyone and the same system is everywhere. And new ideas spread like wildflower through the internet. So, to assume that gold currency will be the natural outcome of all of this is naïve. At one time tobacco was the currency of choice in the early colonies, not gold. Gold is often desired by mercantile economies. But the mercantile economies are collapsing.


People do not realize that living under a strict “gold standard” will force people to live within their means. And most people have no idea of what this means. Nor, do they want to do this. Thus, the money problem is really a political problem. It is a problem of theft as it legalizes the plunder in order to pay for another person’s benefits. Without inflation, there are many people whom would not get their benefits. The world economy is all artificial.

What people really need is to find an alternative source of income. They need to be able to own and define their own labor and compensation. In this way they could charge for gold or whatever they deem worthy, not others. And people need to understand that in a deflationary times, the value of gold as well as assets will reduce in terms of dollars, not inflate as so many commonly believe.

The inflation that you see today is the result of the ending of various subsidies and shutting down of markets which had, up to this point, artificially reduce prices. They are not a result of more money in circulation. It is the result of diminishing returns and natural cost that rise over time. Without regulations, new products would emerge that would reduce costs. And at some point the economy will get better. Then, people will start to borrow which can lead to massive, but not hyperinflation. But there are so many people burned, who knows how many. But it the borrowing would return. But this still will not be enough to fund government obligations.

In order to fix this, Governments should not declare legal tender laws nor levy property, but only accept the form of money from the population for things like taxes.

And banking reform only needs this:

1) mandate 100% banking reserves so that banks cannot loan own more money than they have.
2) mandate ownership rights are granted to deposits so that banks cannot lend out other people money
3) mandate that banks that act as loan intermediaries only so that people, who want to speculate, can decide to whom to loan their for profit.

Everything else will fall into place in time. It is that simple.

Many people confuse money with production. They fail to understand that money is only a medium of exchange, not the reason why you have an economy.   It is nothing more that a Universal Barter Card.

Free trade is what creates economies. The more individuals are able to trade freely the more prosperity in terms of choices that they have which creates more satisfaction. The more restrictive upon free trade, fewer choices that they have which creates less satisfaction. You can clearly see this in central run economies.

Economies come from people making things that other people would like to trade their possessions for. Money only helps to facilitate that trade and helps to better make more goods and services.   However, it is innovation and creativity that create new goods and services and is how markets can overcome diminishing returns (rising cost)  and limitations of the land.

If one were to increase or decrease the money in circulation, it would only means that more people have more or less of it to buy things with.   But the things that they buy are independent.  Of course more money means more things, but inflated money also means  more ways of creating restrictions which limits production in few hands.  Unless of course, you have access to easy created in which you temperately overcome restrictions.

But restriction on trade (regulations) also restrictions innovation and creativity which diminishes production.  Historically, this is why central run governments depend on inflating the money supply.  Because they do not produce wealth but consume it,  they cannot overcome diminishing returns.  So, over time wealth is concentrated in few and fewer hands as competition is restricted.  Both Government and corporate entities face this dilemma as over time as bureaucratic layers are created which is costly and stifles innovation and creativity.

So, Banks are encouraged to inflate the money supply, creating artificial booms and lots of new revenue that is often confused with prosperity.  For example, new money interjected into the money supply means that a lot more people can afford steak dinners. But eventually it all ends the same as cost rise and those people whom could not afford it before cannot afford it now.  And all of those new people who the restaurant hired to take care of artificial demand have to be let go and equipment sold. Instead of reducing cost and causing a natural boom so more people have the money, money was inflated and in this way, bureaucrats can keep their jobs too.

The real economic driver is individual production, not production based upon loose loan standards and money created out of thin air. All that does is to create things, that otherwise would not exist, and things that cannot exist when the correction occurs leaving loss jobs, loss wages, empty building, and spiritual destruction in its wake. Again, there is always a natural limitation of money due to the limitations of the land and diminishing returns.

The current problem is wealth concentration. There are too many restrictions placed upon people whom produce and too many consumers who do not produce.   So artificial money fills in the vacuum for a while offering false hope, until the bust, the result of which creates a lot of people who do not have the skills to produce anything. What is needed is the decentralization of wealth and the ending of lots and lots of government restrictions.

However, this is what governments exist for. Government exists to concentration money, and thus production. This is why we have national currencies and borders. It keeps money and wealth from leaving nations. IF this were not the case, people could go to other places with their money leaving national coffers dry.

Domestic currency forces people and nations to spend their money domestically and allows for the government collect to levy property and collect taxes. It keeps people from competing with political friends and allies by placing various rules and restrictions. And allows for more things to come from fewer companies which is good for tax collections.

This is what mercantile economies are all about. inflate the domestic currency, restrict the domestic production, and export to another nations so that those things that people need can be imported, leaving resources in the hands of the ever-increasing size of the state.  The Egyptians population riots because they do not export to the US and gain American dollars which means that they cannot buy American food to feed their population.  Farmers only take US dollars.  And America does feed most of the world.

What is really needed is for people to determine their own from of money based upon private contracts. There should be no monopoly upon money.  And for a government that only decide what form of money it can collect, and not levy private property for taxes. How else do you hold a government in check in which it can print, borrow, and take an unlimited amount of money?  What is not needed is for the common “we” to decide what money is as if they how the power.

Today, people are buying gold not as a currency hedge but as an investment alternative. But, if governments would mandate a return to gold, it would be the end for them and almost all international distributions channels. It would also be death for a lot of people whom live in inner cities which is why they keep printing money. The world would change overnight as shelves go bare, until enough people have access to gold. But of course would just go locally for their needs assuming that there are people producing things. OF course, fiat money and the thinks that you propose only create more people that produce less and less leaving them with no alternative to violence. This is how little Somalia are created.  But even a Somalian  must steal from someone who has money, otherwise without producing,  they cannot sustain themself.

But if you really wanted to fix everything and put the country on the right path then all you need are three things.

1) 100% banking reserves so that banks cannot lend out more money than they have.
2) ownership rights over deposits so that banks cannot speculate with other people money
3) and banks that only act as intermediaries with those people who want to speculate with their own money and who money is tied directly to the loan.

Implement this and everything else will come together. Eventually you will have sound money, low if any interest, and money that buys more things, not less (inflation) over time


Bonds issued for public projects are the bread and butter for established politicians. This is what keeps the “old boys club” in power and keeps new blood in check. There is no cleaning up politics without dealing with this, especially on a local level. This is where real reform should be focused as it is the cause of local corruption, special favors, and high taxes. Without ending this, there will be no reform.

If you really want to end “bond issuance” and the corruption that comes with it, you need to end the monopoly of the government in such areas as education, roads, utilities, bridges, and many other things deemed as a “public good”. This would require a sift to a laissez-faire environment, which does not seem to be envisioned by anyone, including the tea party.

If anything, such entities that require such bonds need to be able to stand on their own merit otherwise they should not exist. But how do you convince people who think it is not ok to plunder their neighbor for a public good? How do you teach them that plundering is not a Christian principle or even American for that matter? I suppose that the artificial expansion of currency has done its damage.

But in absence of this artificial expansion and because of heavy regulations, the economy may be painful enough for a new vision. After all an argument can be made that everyone would be better off with the complete separation from government funding and non accountable regulations since people are “feeling” it or will with government default. Without new loans to circulate, the illusion of prosperity is lost.

And I see new debt issuance for such projects as no different than bailing out the banks with free money who, after all, underwrite a lot of such debt obligations. Why create or fix anything if you can “refinance”, especially if there is no accountability and backed by other people money. This is one of the main reasons why most of the current infrastructure is unsustainable. There is no accountability when you can just issue debt with no recourse and on the backs of others. But the real question remains; how can new debt be issued and sustained given the state of the economy today. And what happens when it defaults. So again, economics may force a change and provide such motivation.

But I would think that this would lead into ideas such as privatizing the roads, infrastructure, utilities courts, etc. So, I think economics can provide the seeds for such a movement. But there needs to be a vision, not new regulations and partnerships with government. Otherwise it is doomed to fail. If you want to stop the problem, you must get to the root cause. And this would require the protection of private property rights, including the removal of the government shield for government employees.

If you think about it, such things should be privately owned, whether through individuals investors, customers, or through some type of self-contained cooperation. In this way, people are not plundered, are able to hold others accountable, and have some say in the matter. And government can still exist and set up protections of individual private property rights, which will lay a basic foundation and standards for such projects. But regardless, such projects need to be completely separated from government, especially the funding and agency regulations that derived revenue from such projects. I would think that this would be key in the matter. Funding for such projects should come from these entities own savings, revenue streams, private investors, and/or individual loans and not commercial banks.

If you notice, many local governments are “partnering” up with businesses and implementing regulations that keep competitors away. Why? Because governments needs the revenue, which mean these things have stopped working. But government should not be allowed to partner up with anyone, nor derive revenue from things like inspections, permits, taxes on services, regulations, penalties, and fees.

The only revenue source should be from direct taxes, which should be leveled equally on a per person basis based on needed revenue, but be voluntary. This would make government more accountable and help restore liberty, while ushering a new era of innovation and creativity that creates real prosperity for all, especially the poor. If you take away the ability for local government to collect revenue from such things, you take a huge step in the right direction.

Illusion of prosperity

In order to understand the financial crises, you must understand how money is created and circulated through the economy.  It is all done through consumer loans with money created out of thin air.   For the longest time, the illusion of prosperity has been brought to you by loans not buy wealth and production.  Inflate the money supply and it seems like initial prosperity until the bills come do.  Take away the creation of credit out of thin air and very few things that exist now can be sustained.   This is what is really going on.   An entire economy with lots of industries that would otherwise not exist, have been built on a house of sand.

The united states died a long time ago but with hardly a notice.  For the longest time the us has been built on property confiscation, counterfeit money, and phony IOUs.  We have actually become a socialist nation masked by  loans.  In actuality the government owns just about everything in our lives and our future all because people just want to get along for the “common good”.  Individual Liberty has been replaced by economic freedom and high paying jobs.  And wealth has been replaced by the accumulation of ever depreciating dollars.   But none of these things can be sustained as economies are driven by innovation, creation, and the pursuit of profit.

But sadly, this has all been an illusion.  Currently, the creation of money leads to the destruction of wealth for the masses and concentration for the elite few.  It has all been a big lie. Debt based on nothing leads to nothing.  Afterall, what do you collect?  It is the same as building castles in the sand.  Until recent history, money was based on tangible things because fiat currency destroys nations.  It has all happened before although not on such a grand scale.

The financial crises is really a crises of government because government refuses to shrink.  But the real fault lies with the population who decided a long time ago it was just to plunder their neighbors.  Who really cares as long as one has government benefits.  You see as more and more regulations and payroll taxes are passed, both businesses and consumers are forced to deal with higher cost.  And how do they deal with it?  WIth more loans.  But for those on fixed incomes and no access to loans, like the unskilled and elderly, eventually cannot even pay for things like food, which means more government programs.  And the government collects higher taxes revenues from those who did get the loans.  For them, it is nothing more than a revenue generating machine, concentration and growing more government.  But again, who really cares if it is for the common good, right?

But what about the government?  What about the debt? Why does one have to pay taxes if the government can just print the money?  If I were you I would ask this question to every politician, afterall what is QE?  And if printing money is so bad, why is the government and bankers allowed to do it?  It all has been a big lie.

The debt is lager than anyone can comprehend.  If the united states prints the money, it means massive inflation.  If it continues, there is not enough money to collect from taxes.   Currently, the debt is so large that even if it collected all the money in the world, it still could not pay off the debt.  So, it seems that at some point their will be strategic default.   But who will get defulted upon?  This will be the Great question. There also could be war which would, sadly, eliminate entire populations and with it obligations.  This has historically been default of choice, but who can other governments plunder to pay their debt.  It is a new ball game now.

However, what if the dollar replaces the Euro?  Afterall, without a bailout many European banks will disappear.  This is not good for the leadership and dependent populations.  Mabey then could the US print out the money and replace this currency?  This might temporally balance things out.

In ether regard in the long run, the problem will not go away.  The problem is the inflation caused by the it is the artificial creation of money.  For those that say there is not enough gold to support the economy, how much wiser is it to support an economy with debt created out of thin air?  Afterall there is a natural limit to money.

1. A constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade, followed by the criminalization of abortion as murder at the state and local levels.

2. The abolition of all tax funding and regulation of education at all levels, including compulsory attendance laws, beginning with the closing of the U.S. Department of Education as a symbolic act

3. A constitutional amendment repealing the 16th amendment: the income tax, which would include Social Security (FICA) and Medicare

4. The closing and then sale of all military bases outside the territorial limits of the United States within 12 months

5. The abolition of the Federal Reserve System and a prohibition against any replacement organization

6. The abolition of fractional reserve banking and its replacement by 100% reserve requirements

7. The repeal of legal tender laws

8. The systematic restoration in practice of Article III, Sect. 2 of the Constitution: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

9. The elimination of Civil Service protection for U. S. government employees

10. Withdrawal from the United Nations Organization and the removal of diplomatic immunity of its members

The justice system should be privatized, thus allowing judges, juries, and private district attorneys to compete with each other for clients in both criminal and civil cases. Not only would this make it a more efficient and pleasant experience, but it would save a lot of money, get rid of frivolous lawsuits, allow for specialization, and make for efficient rulings based on law and not politics. It would be up to the victims or their families to hire and prosecute a case, instead of seeking the DA’s acceptance, currently. However, the pubic DA still could prosecute cases that have no voice. Competition and private market forces will keep judges, juries, and DA corruption in check. As of now, there is little way of stopping abuse and political motivations. And, they can be funded privately or through legal insurance. Both the plaintive and defense lawyers can duke it out as they do today with the same arguments, but common law should be abolished. And one still should be able to appeal their cases to a higher level private judge that can over turn bad convictions. In fact, the model can mirror and compete with the current system with private judges, juries, and DAs. If this were the case now, both district attorneys and judges would be held accountable for gross negligence and be held accountable, unlike today. So they will not be able to ruin the lives of others for political gain like the duke case.

For Goldman sachs legal convictions are nothing more than a necessary business expense, nothing more. And for government it is nothing more than a campaign. They are all in bed with each other. If you doubt this just look at Obamas cabinet. Look at other past presidents. You will see. This is the price they have to pay to earn such large profits. The penalties may seem large to the uniformed, but in reality they are meaningless. Sure, they will place blame on a mid level manager or an executive, but afterward they will move on and nothing changes. Even if some of these people get jail time, they would have still have earned 100s of millions in compensation. For them, it is not a bad return. And what would happen to the economy to places like New York if wall street collapsed? The gov is not going to let this happen. It is nothing more than a revenue stream and walking around political campaign money, at the expense of the masses. Government is the reason why they are so corrupt. So, if you cal for the end to wall street, forget it. It is not about the people. For Primary dealers it means benefits like immunity and clout and operation above the law. However, the Obama administration may actually be trying to bankrupt the city and state just like the country which is new. It is all about power, corruption, and money, but wall street is only a result of something more sinister, but is the result of big government and taxes.

Public schools are nothing more than a holding pen for children within a fake world. Officially the purpose of such schools is to teach kids, but the real purpose is to keep kids locked up in one place for a big chunk of the day so adults can get things done. In other words, adults have no economic use for them. and they have abandoned children to spend years cooped up together with nothing real to do, under the guise of education. It would be far better for young teenagers to receive an apprenticeship or get a real job in the real world along with adults. In this way, they are learning real things, gaining real life experience, and committed to something that is real not something that becomes a popularity contest among other children. Mandatory Public education is nothing more than a prison for most kids subjecting them to the cruel whims of other children. If one was really concerned about their well being, there not be any such thing as mandatory public education, especially when there is so much free, more accurate, and far greater education created on the internet. Thanks to the internet, children who want a specialized education has access to a far greater amount of knowledge than any dull and dimwitted public curriculum. So this is hope for the future. In fact, public education is already obsolete, especially for the poor.. But if they wish to still take classes, they should pay for it.