If you ask the typical left-leaning voter for an example of Democratic Socialism they will likely place Denmark high on that list. The same question posed to a right-leaning voter will include a choice of only Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and Cuba. That is because their choices are thought to support their political positions and attitude toward money. Those leaning right assume the money to originate from the banking system and then multiplied by profits from capitalism, with the government acting as a “competing” user of money that must be funded by taking money from the economy to cover its cost. That the right’s assumptions about money have become the common consensus, even among many on the left, only shows how successful proponents of capitalism have been in promoting their propaganda.

Money can only originate from the issuing government, even if the currency is pegged to a commodity with fixed exchange rates. Otherwise, we would still function with a global gold standard, which we wisely left behind in ’71. Sans a gold reserve, the nation’s “net” money supply that can retire private debt and provide a store of value for profits and savings can only come from the government spending more than it collects in all forms of revenue. Business and private sector banking can only shuffle that money around between winners and losers.

A system that views its own monopoly issuer of currency as a “cost” to the economy and not the source of its funding for growth, will eventually concentrate any such high power money with just a small fraction of the population and force the rest to fund their own survival with bank debt and suffer frequent periods of collapse when growth slows for any reason. During those collapses, the oligarchy will collect the real property and resources of the 99% via default of that debt, making the population, including any small business, subservient to its whims.