GLOBAL MONETARY FORUM Newsletter March, 2015
INTRODUCTION
For those who would hear it, this first issue of the Global Monetary Forum newsletter is, or
represents, one of the most important things happening in the world of economic
journalism this week. Why? In these dozen pages, a dozen highly
influential monetary experts – some with recent books on every Economics bookshelf
and some with organizations making a stir among government leaders across the
globe – here join as members of a united international movement. Many forecasters predict a global recession
this year will drag the US into it along with other advanced nations with much
more painful senses of déjà vu. This time, we have the makings of a political
“perfect storm” in that patience has run out with what we all know have been past
unnecessary mistakes in the financial system, unnecessarily uncorrected. This
time, our most aware and purposeful thinkers are no longer of a mind to
tolerate what history shows us to be unnecessary debts and austerities in the
face of increasing challenges to our basic
securities in a time of climate change, multiple cases of infrastructure
failure, global terrorism and the inability of the middle class to sustain its
standard of living, let alone keep open the path to progress that makes a free economy
work. Those who jauntily suggest new
austerities (Europe), taxes (Japan) and budgetary sleights of hand (the US)… so
that ways can be found to lavish new payments on lenders for money the
government can just as easily issue debt-free for itself… are not finding the
same sanguine reception as in the past when they are encountered by monetary
experts current in their field, increasingly aware politicians, and citizens
who now know better.
In order to be prepared for the more focused questions now arising in
this realm of public debate, let’s preview what the core of this debate will not involve…the old, casual throw-away
lines:
IT WILL NOT INVOLVE INFLATION. In its simplest and most
easily-implemented form, we have a proposition before us of using historically
familiar government-issued rather than government-borrowed money to fund some
or all of our already-approved budget
deficits. This would not involve
governments spending one cent more
and thus would not have any inflation-causing effect whatsoever. In fact, by
generally accepted economic theory, it would limit inflation if our governments
avoid raiding the capital markets.
IT WILL NOT INVOLVE WEAKENING OF OUR CURRENT CENTRAL-BANK SYSTEMS. If the US federal government spends the same
amount of money whether it borrows money it or issues it, then the Federal
Reserve system can issue the same amount of money and credit either way,
business as usual. There are some who
would like to ultimately reform the Fed using some or all of the ideas of the
Chicago Plan, but we can solve enormous immediate crises today without making
that part of the core debate. As Scarlet
O’Hara so well said in Gone With The Wind:
“Tomorrow is another day!”
Government-issued money (United States Notes) were issued in the US
from 1862-1971. Canada’s version was
last issued in 1974. With the exception
of a brief respite in the US during the 1990’s, both nations have endured increased
peacetime debts ever since. Who
financially benefits from the selling of government debt paper? In many cases it is the banks now licensed to
create the government’s money “out of nothing” the way the government used to. In other cases, it’s everyday bond
sellers. The tax-paying public gets no
dividend, the way it used to, only ever-increasing debt burdens. If we’re smart enough to see the present system
for what it is, then we are smart enough to understand what the experts writing
here point out is a way to escape what economics writer Ellen Brown famously refers
to as the Web of Debt. That is our view,
but we welcome all future opinions and questions from any not-yet-persuaded
readers as well as those quite ready to join forces and do it now.
Keith Rodgers, Editor, Global Monetary Forum Newsletter
GATHERED COMMENTS, SECTION I:
REGAINING BASIC FREEDOM
Comment of Prof. Timothy Canova
Timothy Canova,
Esq., Professor of Law and Public Finance at Nova Southeastern
University, has practiced law on Wall Street, served as an aide to Sen. Paul
Tsongas and served on a committee on Federal Reserve reform. His writings include publications of The
American Prospect, Dissent, New America Foundation, Oxford University and
others - see bio at https://www.nsulaw.nova.edu/faculty/profiles.cfm?pageid=361
“Central bankers today impose an austerity model that hampers
governments from long-term investments and putting unemployed resources back to
work. Reforming central bank governance to include more diversity of
perspectives and interests could prod these institutions away from the
austerity path and allow elected governments to once again use active fiscal
policies, such as public infrastructure and jobs programs. But the central
bankers claim that such strategies only add to public borrowing, thereby
contributing to potentially higher interest rates and future sovereign debt
crises. One solution to this austerity trap is to break the monopoly of
central banks in the issuance of currency by funding some government operations
with money created and issued by treasuries and finance
ministries — money that would not add a penny to public debt.
This is what President Abraham Lincoln did by issuing more than $400 million in
U.S. Notes, the so-called Greenback, to pay the huge costs of the American
Civil War and national economic development programs. A century earlier,
colonial Pennsylvania enjoyed 52 years of non-inflationary growth by issuing
and lending its own currency into circulation, thereby financing major
development of infrastructure without incurring debt or high tax burdens.
Adam Smith, in his classic work Wealth of Nations (1776), praised
Pennsylvania’s success with government-issued money. Such proposals have
been introduced in Congress over the years, but Wall Street lobbying has
prevented such legislation from getting out of committee.”
Comment of Prof. Steven Keen
Steven Keen
is Head of the School of Economics, History and Politics at Kingston
University, London. He was formerly Professor of Economics at the
University of Western Sydney. For information on his 2011 book, Debunking
Economcs-The Naked Emporer Dethroned? see http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Economics-Revised-Expanded-Dethroned/dp/1848139926.
He blogs at www.debtdeflation.com/blogs
and is Chief Economist for IDEA Economics (www.ideaeconomics.org).
“Governments are one of the
three institutions that can create money in our modern world; the other
two are private banks, and a country’s international trade position if a trade
surplus is monetized by a country’s central bank. The latter necessarily sums
to zero across the planet; private bank credit creation can be positive, but
comes with the liability of increased private sector debt. By putting the
entire burden of money creation on the private sector over the last 40 years,
we have allowed private debt levels to grow to unsustainable levels. So yes we
should consider the reintroduction of government issued money, since its
absence in many ways helped contribute to the debt and austerity crises we now
face.”
Comment
of BILL STILL
Bill Still
(www.billstill.com) is a former newspaper editor, author, and documentary film
director. He has written for USA Today, The Saturday Evening Post and
the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, OMNI magazine. His latest book
is titled: No More National Debt
(2011). In 2011-12 he ran for the nomination of the Libertarian Party for
President of the United States.
Yellen Maintains Confusion
There is a single central question that looms over
the money system of every flavor of democratically-elected governance on earth
– but it was not part of the discussion in the U.S. Senate Banking
Committee interrogations of Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen Feb. 25-26
in Washington.
In stark contrast to an excellent discussion by a few
well-informed members of the British Parliament last November, the
newly-elected Republican majority wasted
little time transmitting the anger of their constituents towards the Federal Reserve Chair, but seemed clueless on the nature of
the core problem as they attacked on three main lines that range from
moderately-germane to inane.
Let’s start with least relevant of these lines:
1. Auditing
the Fed
Ms. Yellen was well prepared for the Ron and Rand
Paul line of thinking:
She deftly brandished a copy of the Fed’s audited
financial statements before the committee to make the point that the central
bank was already thoroughly audited annually by Deloitte & Touche.
Senator Rand Paul insists that there is much to be
gained by allowing the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, to audit the
Fed’s monetary policy and report to Congress.
I disagree. Despite
the fact that a few additional scandalous hand-outs might be uncovered, so
WHAT? The numerous scandals uncovered from 2008 to date have brought no
convictions of major bank players and will continue to have near-zero effect on
the ONE CORE problem.
The Audit-the-Fed issue is one Senator Paul uses
because it helps him raise money, when he knows it is as useless as rubber lips
on a woodpecker.
2. Interest
Rate Debate
This is the core of Central Bank monetary policy. The
Fed has been holding interest rates at near zero for years. This floods money
into the economy – but primarily one section of economy – the top 1%.
It’s been great for the stock market, great for the
biggest banks; but not so good for the rest of us.
The problem is,
this money is all being added as debt – interest-bearing debt. In a debt-money
system where banks create all money as debt, raising interest rates will have a
direct impact on the amount of money in the nation – greatly reduce it.
The Fed has
done a pretty good job of keeping the public mesmerized by debate over this
shady carnival trick, but underneath it all the debt is growing exponentially
and so is the interest. This is a dangerous and ever-growing drag on the
economy.
Nothing the Fed can do will impact this underlying debt balloon
significantly.
So, in the end, the monetary policy debate – is a non-sequitur at best
– mere academic meat to keep the economics chattering class employed and
diverted.
3. End the Fed
Ending the system of the Fed altogether is certainly the most germane
of the three issues, but still woefully inadequately framed.
This, of course
was Congressman Ron Paul’s issue. To Ms.
Yellen, this, or even any further expansion of Congressional oversight of the
Fed’s monetary policy is the ultimate in crazy talk. Even Republican
Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee has criticized this as allowing Congress to
meddle with monetary policy.
There are good
arguments on both sides of this issue. Giving
Congress the monetary power gives them too much power to spend more to get
themselves re-elected. But continuing to
leave this in the hands of the Fed is not the answer.
Truth is that
the Fed is a private corporation. Its
only stockholders are the commercial banks. The Fed can never serve the
interests of We, the People. As a
corporation, the Fed can only serve the interests of the banks, and that is
exactly what they have been doing.
But here is the
problem. If you ended the Fed tomorrow,
with what would you replace it? Some version of Congressional authority? Would
that fix the problem? No.
The Problem
The problem is
too much debt – too much personal debt, too much corporate debt, and most
significantly, too much government debt
.
Ending the Fed
would cure none of this.
To the surprise
of most, virtually ALL our national money is created as an interest-bearing debt. Banks create
virtually all money when they make loans. Banks do
NOT loan money they have – they create money at the instant the loan is issued
– quite literally out of nothing – out of thin air.
Would ending the Fed end this practice? Not in a
million years.
As Professor
Milton Friedman explained to me upon reviewing my 1996 documentary, The Money Masters:
“If you end the Fed and do nothing about fractional
reserve lending, you’ve done nothing.”
Why is the debt money system bad? Well, first, it is
counterfeiting. Counterfeiting national
money is illegal.
Would ending the Fed stop the counterfeiting?
Second, the debt money system gives the banks the
power to decide who wins and who loses economically. This is counter to the
incentive-driven society we all know works best.
Would ending
the Fed end this?
Third, in the case of lending to governments –
sovereign lending – it gives the bond buyers (the majority of whom are the
biggest banks and related financial entities) a subtle but powerful influence
over all the carefully-separated powers of sound self-governance.
Ending the Fed
would accomplish none of these necessary goals to effect true economic reform.
Nothing Radical
The solution is not radical. We need legislation to
slowly increase debt-free, government-issued money into the system and
gradually decrease bank-created money.
The necessary
instruments are at hand. They are called U.S. Notes, as opposed to Federal
Reserve Notes.
Fed Notes are created as an interest-bearing debt by
banks buying government issued bonds.
U.S. Notes – are simply created without such debt and
spent into existence by the government for the benefit of all citizens equally.
As we gradually change the ratio of U.S. Notes to
Federal Reserve Notes over the years, we will eventually find a balance point –
between the monetary powers of the Congress and those of the banks that will
maximize prosperity equally for all our citizens – all nations, worldwide.
In short, eventually we must start talking about THE
core issue of our time – the re-introduction of some portion of our national
money supply as debt-free, government-issued U.S Notes, and eliminating the
notion of sovereign debt all together.
Comment of Ellen Brown, Esq.
Ellen
Brown is the founder of the Public Banking Institute and the author of 12
widely-read books including the classic Web of Debt. One of America’s most influential writers on
monetary and banking reform, her investigative articles have broken vital
stories on banking and monetary practices throughout the global financial
system. Her web site is found at: http://ellenbrown.com/
“Yes, the government should issue money -- and could do it
without creating price inflation, up to the point of full employment. The
Milton Friedman dictum that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary
phenomenon” is not true (or true only in the obvious sense that inflation is phenomenon
involving money). Adding money to the real economy -- as opposed to
merely swapping it for assets on bank balance sheets in the sort of
“quantitative easing” done today -- creates “demand”, which prompts the
creation of “supply” to meet it. The shoe salesman blessed with new customers
does not raise his prices; he clears his unsold inventory and puts in orders to
the manufacturer for more shoes. The manufacturer hires more workers, who have
more money to spend on other goods and services; and this demand too is
accommodated by increased production. The overall effect is simply to
stimulate the economy. Only when the economy is at full employment, or
when resources or supplies are scarce, are prices driven up. Congress has the
power under the Constitution to “coin” money (including trillion dollar
platinum coins, if need be); but the amount is limited by the budget, which is
determined by congressional vote.”
Comment
of Scott Baker
Scott
Baker is Economics editor for
Opednews, NY Coordinator for the Public Banking Institute, President of the
Georgist advocacy group Common Ground (NYC), a participating scholar in the
World Economics Association, and an advocate for monetary reform in TV, radio,
web and print media. His recent book, America
Is Not Broke, is reviewed at http://bit.ly/1AjREpQ.
“Money should exist in sufficient
quantity to meet the productive capacity of the nation. If private
financial entities won't create debt-money in sufficient quantities, then
government must step in to create debt-free money. aka Sovereign Money,
instead, as it has in the past such as with Lincoln Greenbacks, and as it is
allowed to do under the coinage clause of the constitution, upheld by the
Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman (1884).
Banks must convince us of the scarcity of money, or else we would not pay for the use of it. But Congress and Treasury can create debt-free money at any time, for any reason, in any amount, and this new money need not be inflationary if it is used to create the things that represent actual wealth (e.g. infrastructure).
History shows it is government, not the private banking system, which has been the more responsible and least inflationary money-issuer. “
Comment of Prof. Ronald Davis
Ronald Davis is an Associate Professor at
San Jose State University, teaching topics in management science and decision
analysis which he has applied to the subject of monetary reform. A detailed legislative proposal to
re-introduce government-issued money including multiple modeling and policy
integration procedures to safeguard against inflation are found on his web
site, http://www.monetaryreform-taskforce.net/.
“As soon as the Treasury Department would start reissuing
debt free (and interest free) money, whether in the form of Legal Tender
"greenbacks" or US Notes, or in the form of modern electronic bank
account credits, there will be knee-jerk objections that this new government
created money will be inflationary and should therefore be stopped.
Therefore, in order that the experiment with government created money be
successful in the long run, it is necessary to couch the legislation providing
for the reissue of debt free money within an institutional structure and a
theoretical framework that will have as its purpose the prevention of
inflation, or, what is the same thing, the stabilization of the purchasing
power of the dollar.
For this purpose we propose that a new Monetary Control
Authority be created to set monetary aggregate targets as well as monetary
creation rates for both the Federal Reserve System and the Treasury Department
so that expected total money supply growth rates stay below upper limits chosen
to keep inflation rates down to approved inflation tolerance levels. This
new institution would be comprised of experts who are independent of political
pressures as well as insulated from the private profit motive, so that they can
make recommendations based on the premise that their purpose is to promote the
general welfare by stimulating employment and real growth while keeping
inflation within explicitly stated limits.
These
monetary authorities will make informed policy decisions supported by the
results of scientifically constructed and empirically validated optimal control
models that include the "inflation prevention inequality" presented
in my white paper that is derived using the methods of calculus. For more
details on how money creation policy can be put on a scientific basis
guided by the twin economic goals of full employment and stable prices, go to monetaryreform-taskforce.net.
“
GATHERED COMMENTS, SECTION II: POTENTIALS TO GO FURTHER
Comment
of Ben Dyson
Ben
Dyson is the founder of Positive
Money, a rapidly-growing monetary reform group based in the UK and active
internationally. His bio is found at www.bendyson.com/about/, which includes a link to the
Positive Money web site. He has
co-authored the highly influential book, Modernizing Money, about which
information is found at https://www.positivemoney.org/modernising-money/.
“To the question, ‘Under any set of limitations or restrictions, should
we consider the re-introduction of government-issued money?
‘:
Yes,
we should urgently re-introduce government-issued money. The creation of money
through Quantitative Easing shows that the government can create money.
However, this money was wasted when it was injected into the financial markets
instead of being injected into the real economy. As a long term measure,
Positive Money argues that the power to create money should be removed from the
banks that caused the financial crisis, and transferred to a democratic,
transparent and accountable body that works in the public interest. Banks would
still exist, and would still make loans, but they would not have the power to
create 97% of the money we use. This would prevent future debt-fueled bubbles
and remove the need for taxpayer funded bailouts. In time, this change would lead
to a significant fall in the amount of household debt, a smaller (and less
dangerous) banking sector, and the direction of more money into the real
economy rather than financial markets and bubbles. If money is power, then
should we really leave that power in the hands of the large banks?”
Comment of Uli
Kortsch
Uli Kortsch, German-born
international finance expert and president of Global Partners Investments, Ltd,
is a director of Real Money Economics, a research and advisory initiative
growing out of a 2013 Global Interdependence Center sponsored conference attended
by a group of leading economists titled Fixing
The Banking System For Good. He compiled the proceedings in The
Next Money Crash and How to Avoid It.
See http://www.amazon.com/dp/1491739509/ and http://realmoneyecon.org/
Infrastructure Without Debt
President Obama said ‘infrastructure’
five times in his 2015 State of the Union address. Both sides of the aisle continue to
acknowledge capital underinvestment in U.S. infrastructure and tout the
importance of capital investment in U.S. infrastructure. To date, legislators and the president have
been unable to agree on long-term federal transportation funding. (Wells Fargo Securities, Municipal Securities Research, 01-26-15)
1. Explanation
Treasury (not the Fed) would issue
money value-matched to the cost of infrastructure construction and repair, both
federally and by direct payment for states’ infrastructure projects. This has multiple advantages over our current
system: (a) this is money not originated through debt-matching issuance as 100%
of our money currently is, (b) it is value-matched to real production, (c) it
is controllable in real time, versus the current system’s long lead times (up
to two years) by varying the aggregate money supply through Fed interest rate
changes, and (d) it is counter-cyclical, meaning that it will reduce the swings
of the business cycle creating a more stable national production.
2.
Political
Aspects
a.
The title is a simple and easily understood
phrase.
b.
It provides jobs and GDP growth.
c.
It does not increase the federal debt and will
decrease the deficit
d.
It backs onto a previous congressional bill
introduced by Rep. Ray LaHood, who later became Pres. Obama’s Sec. of
Transportation, in spite of being a republican.
The bill had more than 20 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.
e.
The unions would be in favor of this bi-partisan
initiative
f.
The governors would back this in a heartbeat as
it would fund many of their infrastructure funding needs
g.
It is broadly known that QE was used to help get
the general economy back on its feet after the 2007/2008 Great Recession. What is less understood is that this was the
biggest cause of the increase in inequality in about 100 years. The general population “feels” this and is
angry. Here is a “QE-type” program which
will go toward reversing some of this as the effects will benefit all,
especially the middle class.
3.
Infrastructure
Aspects
a.
These benefit all residents
b.
Provide long-term growth and efficiency aspects
to the national economy
c.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has
given the US a grade of D+ for deteriorating infrastructure
d.
“Infrastructure” needs to be carefully defined
so that money does not get splashed around carelessly. Specifications would need to include
suggested items such as:
i.
Overhead limited to 5% of each project;
ii.
Copayment by state/municipality of 20% of each
project to minimize profligacy.
4.
Economic
Aspects
a.
100% of the money would be matched to
infrastructure value instead of the current system in which it is all issued
through the creation of debt.
b.
This action would naturally become a teaching
session on how money is created, what the negative aspects of the current
system are, and what better methods can be used to stimulate and stabilize our
economy.
c.
The amount of money issued would be
automatically limited to a small part of the $18 Trillion economy, so limiting
the overall impact
d.
It would provide good academic study material
for further actions
e.
We have a unique time window now to enact this
due to the QE programs during which the Fed created $3 trillion worth of
reserves. If desired, up to $3 trillion
could be matched by this program and the Fed could sterilize these funds
through the sale of its currently enlarged portfolio of paper assets by selling
these back into the market.
f.
Our economy continues to exhibit strong
deflationary properties making this action easily sustainable for the next
several years.
5.
Actions
a.
For questions and further input please contact
Uli Kortsch at ukortsch@global-partners.com
b.
For a more detailed discussion of the principles
behind this approach, read my book: The Next Money Crash—And How to
Avoid It
Comment of Prof.
Nicolaus Tideman
Nicolaus Tideman (PhD, Chicago) is a professor of
Economics at Virginia Tech. He started
his career as an Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard, served as Senior
Staff Economist of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors and served as a
consultant at the Bureau of the Budget and at the Treasury’s Office of Tax
Analysis. At Virginia Tech since 1973,
he has published some 100 articles and the book, Collective Decisions and
Voting: The Potential for Public Choice.
“There are two main areas in which monetary
reform is needed. The first is to end fractional reserve banking.
Fractional reserve banking leads to instability as banking fluctuate in their
beliefs about the levels of reserves that they need. It also misleads
customers who commonly do not understand that they cannot all retrieve the
money they put in the bank. It leads to systemic risk when bankers make
correlated errors, as with the sub-prime mortgage crisis, generating a
combination of massive failures and costly bail-outs. We need to require
that money that banks accept either stays in the vaults or is invested in
mutual funds, so that banks simply cannot fail and money deposited in a bank
account really is in the bank.
We should also reform the way money is created. Now money is created predominantly by the loans that banks make. This source of money creation would be eliminated if fractional reserve banking is ended. While money could instead be created by governments, replacing taxes and borrowing, I favor a system in which money is created by having the central bank (the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S.) lend money to all taxpayers. These loans would be partly a uniform amount of all taxpayers, and partly "tax-deferral" loans that would have a magnitude of a specified fraction of the taxes that the taxpayer had paid over a period such as the last five years. The use of this mechanism for money creation could be expected to make long recessions a thing of the past, since stimulation of any desired magnitude could be instantaneous. It would also permit the money supply to shrink in a reasonably comfortable way, when necessary, by telling taxpayers, with some notice, that they would be required to make additional repayments on their tax-deferral loans.”
We should also reform the way money is created. Now money is created predominantly by the loans that banks make. This source of money creation would be eliminated if fractional reserve banking is ended. While money could instead be created by governments, replacing taxes and borrowing, I favor a system in which money is created by having the central bank (the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S.) lend money to all taxpayers. These loans would be partly a uniform amount of all taxpayers, and partly "tax-deferral" loans that would have a magnitude of a specified fraction of the taxes that the taxpayer had paid over a period such as the last five years. The use of this mechanism for money creation could be expected to make long recessions a thing of the past, since stimulation of any desired magnitude could be instantaneous. It would also permit the money supply to shrink in a reasonably comfortable way, when necessary, by telling taxpayers, with some notice, that they would be required to make additional repayments on their tax-deferral loans.”
Comment of Kaoru Yamaguchi
Kaoru Yamaguchi (PhD,
Economics - Berkeley), is the Director of the Japan Futures Research Center,
which is devoted to policy development for a more complete economic recovery in
Japan. He has served as a professor at
the Graduate School of Business, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan and has
developed new macroeconomic models based on accounting system dynamics for
monetary reform (which are available from his Web site: www.muratopia.org).
“The current monetary and financial
system is not working, and is indeed heading toward a dead end (or, as we might
say, ‘debt end’!).
To
address our current dilemma, Lord Adair Turner, former chairman of the UK
Financial Services Authority, has written of ‘overt money finance’ (OMF) in his
paper: Debt, Money and Mephistopheles, Occasional Paper
87, May, 2013, by the Group of Thirty, Washington, DC. The Group of
Thirty is a core supporting group of the current financial system. OMF is similar to the Chicago Plan monetary
reform in 1930s suggested by eight University of Chicago economists,
Prof. Irving Fisher of Yale and others,
except that it would not go to the extreme 100% reserve system as the Chicago
Plan did.
In action, the OMF plan would be like
running water from two faucets; a government printing faucet and bank faucet of
credit creation. Accordingly, it could over-flood the economy, if implemented.
Yet, Turner played the important role
of bringing the Chicago Plan of monetary reform out of the “taboo box”.
Comment of Prof. Mark
Joób
Mark Joób (PhD, Zurich) is an
Economics Professor at West Hungarian University and a Researcher at the
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, Institute for Business Ethics. He is a co-founder and member of the managing
committee of the Swiss Association for Monetary Modernization (MoMo), and
co-author of the Swiss Sovereign Money Initiative launched in June 2014. His
summary "10
Reasons for Reforming the Current Monetary and Banking System" can be
found on his web site: www.joob.org
Sovereign Money, Democracy and Private Property
With evermore complex regulations,
governments have been trying to compensate for the fact that electronic money
is outside their monopoly on issuing money. These regulations consist of the
fractional reserve system, deposit insurance and equity rules (Basel I-III). Instead of establishing a transparent, well -ordered
system, governments are attempting to straighten out the existing bad system
with a multitude of rules. The results have been modest.
Now, only cash is legal tender for
all of us except banks. In contrast,
electronic money is only a substitute for money, a legal promise to pay the
bank customers cash on demand. If bank
customers deposit cash in their accounts they exchange legal tender for private
substitute money. In other words, they
lend their money to the banks and their money becomes the possession of the
banks. The credit to their accounts is
nothing but a confirmation by the banks that
they owe the customers that amount of money. So there is a fundamental legal difference
between electronic money and cash.
It is clear from this background
that the replacement of cash by electronic money is not simply a question of
technical development. Ninety percent of
the money circulating in the economy is electronic. This undermines private
property and therefore our individual autonomy. It also undermines democracy, our collective
autonomy. Electronic money gives the
banks power over our private and government finances. The keywords are
indebtedness and "too big to fail". These are dangerous tendencies.
This is exactly what the sovereign
money concept wants to change. We want
electronic money to be declared legal tender and remain in the possession of
the bank customers. Thus a sovereign
money reform would strengthen private property. We also want the central bank to have the
exclusive power to issue electronic money as it has the monopoly over the
issuance of cash today. This way the
monetary system could serve democracy and the common good with the possibility
of reducing national debt and financing the social safety net.
For further information see: http://sovereignmoney.eu/chapter-1-intro-to-cnm
GATHERED COMMENTS, SECTION III: FOSTERING A PUBIC DEBATE
Comment of Prof.
Richard Striner
Richard Striner, Professor of History at Washington College, is an
authority on the history of government-issued money. His ten books include Lincoln’s Way: How Six Great Presidents Created American
Power, which deals with the history of the Greenbacks. His latest book, How America Can Spend Its
Way Back To Greatness: A Guide To
Monetary Reform, is described at:
Statement by Richard Striner
Those of us who understand the
possibilities of government money-creation are revolutionaries.
We can see and understand things
that other people don’t, which puts us for a while on the margin of things
until we find ways to teach what we know.
And it appears to me at this point that the advocates of our method in
America are far behind their British and European counterparts in this respect.
As an American, I find this
distressing. So I devote some time in my
forthcoming book How America Can Spend
Its Way Back to Greatness to the issues of advocacy. Here in the United States, a great many of
the transforming movements in our history —— both good and bad —— achieved
their political power over time through a fundamental and indispensable
method: grass-roots organizing. The anti-slavery movement, the labor
movement, the civil rights movement arose through the work of gifted
mass-organizers who fanned out and brought their ideas, their proposals, their
methods, their strategic concepts to people in different walks of life.
In our own day and age, reformers
often turn to the digital media. That’s
fine, but only up to a point. When the
subject matter is monetary reform, the overwhelming challenge is teaching: intelligent laymen need to
have the subject explained. And for this purpose there is no substitute
in my opinion for a hands-on
workshop. YouTube performances are all very well, but
they can never be as good, as definitive, as convincing as face-to-face
encounters through which spontaneous questions can elicit targeted answers.
So in my book I challenge America’s
philanthropic super billionaires: I
challenge them to get out their checkbooks and fund such a movement.
We advocates of monetary reform
understandably debate with each other to a certain extent since we represent
different schools of thought. But there
are certain things we all have in common.
One of them is our common commitment to the principle of state-issued money. But there’s something else that we obviously
share, something almost as basic: a
desire to change the course of history.
And I lay it down as a proposition
that to change our world we must find a way to enlighten (and energize) the
better part of populations.
Without that, all the theoretical,
conceptual, and legislative action in the world will simply go in circles.
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
There is an apt expression - “stand
up and be counted.” It applies even to
those not yet arrived at a position on the core issue discussed here. Consider the alternative: Behind closed doors, Congress is being
lobbied every day about how “hard choices” must be imposed on our
still-struggling real economy so that payments can be made for
government-borrowed rather than government-issued money…money to fund every
penny of the budget deficit Republicans as well as Democrats have voted into
place. Those of us who have walked down
the halls of Congress a few times and seen the aftermath of confusion left by
those lobbyists cannot help but be aware of the reality of their presence, nor
who really plays that role these days. But
the world is not comprised only of faceless people quickly darting away to shun
civilized discussion.
Because of such groups it took
centuries to outlaw slavery even when it made no economic sense for society at
large, and it took 50 years to get seat belts installed in cars for allegedly
“economic” reasons. The elite could have
changed things, but they so often didn’t say a word. When Michael of Edwardian Downton Abbey is killed in a car crash at the end of one episode, do we
consider it unrealistic that the gentry of the house don’t passionately discuss
the need for seat belts in the next? No,
we see the depiction of their reactions as completely authentic. Is it that because they are so much like us,
or because we so aspire to be like them?
Those who have written here do so
out of concern for the public good. They are the graying William Wilberforce’s
and the young Ralph Nader’s of our day.
It is right for them to know that they are reaching their colleagues
rather than an unknown void of cyber-space.
There is, therefore, a practical reason for asking our readers to
respond by affirmatively requesting to be put on the regular mailing list for
this complimentary newsletter. We invite
our future readers to respond with questions or comments, noted as for sharing
in print or not. Our contact information
is provided on the first page of this newsletter. -Ed.