lunedì 31 marzo 2014

China: Zhou Yongkang ensnared in a corruption investigation

China seizes $14.5 billion assets from former leader

Sunday, 30 Mar 2014 | 5:18 AM ET
Chinese authorities have seized assets worth at least 90 billion yuan ($14.5 billion) from family members and associates of retired domestic security tsar Zhou Yongkang, who is at the centre of China's biggest corruption scandal in more than six decades, two sources said.
More than 300 of Zhou's relatives, political allies, proteges and staff have also been taken into custody or questioned in the past four months, the sources, who have been briefed on the investigation, told Reuters.
The sheer size of the asset seizures and the scale of the investigations into the people around Zhou - both unreported until now - make the corruption probe unprecedented in modern China and would appear to show that President Xi Jinping is tackling graft at the highest levels.
Zhou Yongkang
Daniel Velez | AFP | Getty Images
Zhou Yongkang

Greece's Parliament has passed away

Greece passes reform bill, government majority shrinks to two seats

ATHENS Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:03pm EDT
Greece's Prime Minister Antonis Samaras (R) and Finance Minister Yannis Stournaras (L) attend a parliament session before a vote for an omnibus reforms bill in Athens March 30, 2014. REUTERS-Alkis Konstantinidis
1 OF 3. Greece's Prime Minister Antonis Samaras (R) and Finance Minister Yannis Stournaras (L) attend a parliament session before a vote for an omnibus reforms bill in Athens March 30, 2014.
CREDIT: REUTERS/ALKIS KONSTANTINIDIS

RELATED TOPICS

(Reuters) - Greece approved on Monday a contentious reform bill to secure bailout aid but the government was forced to expel a dissenting lawmaker, reducing its majority in parliament to just two seats.
A total of 152 lawmakers backed the bill, which incorporates into Greek law hundreds of reform measures Athens agreed earlier this month with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund after more than six months of tough negotiations.
The passage allows Athens to obtain loans to repay 9.3 billion euros of debt maturing in May, but left the fragile pro-bailout government with a new headache as three deputies refused to vote or voted against key articles in the bill.

domenica 30 marzo 2014

SRM: Banking Union Time Bomb

Banking Union Time Bomb: Eurocrats Authorize Bailouts AND Bail-Ins

As things stand, the banks are the permanent government of the country, whichever party is in power.
 – Lord Skidelsky, House of Lords, UK Parliament, 31 March 2011)
On March 20, 2014, European Union officials reached an historic agreement to create a single agency to handle failing banks. Media attention has focused on the agreement involving the single resolution mechanism (SRM), a uniform system for closing failed banks. But the real story for taxpayers and depositors is the heightened threat to their pocketbooks of a deal that now authorizes both bailouts and “bail-ins” – the confiscation of depositor funds.

venerdì 28 marzo 2014

Terrorism & Macroeconomics in Italy (graph)


Banking reflux: the giant GAP in GAAP !

The Bank Reflux as a Systemic Phenomenon

by Pierre Parisien


Even if every loan-created reserve left the lending bank as cheques drawn by borrowers are deposited in other banks, these assets would not leave the private commercial banking system: they would simply keep shifting from bank to bank. Some days, Bank A would lose reserves in the game and, some days, it would gain; but in the medium or long run all banks would share in the growth of assets.

If we mentally consolidate all the private commercial banks as though they were one Big Bank, the bank reflux becomes simple and easy to understand:

1.  Changes in liabilities and changes in assets must always mirror each other in quality (increase or decrease) and quantity. Borrowing form Albert Einstein we may call this the principle of equivalence.

2.  Whenever liabilities are subtracted from the Big Bank through payments by cheques, credit cards or debit cards, an equivalent amount of assets must leave the system.

3.  This can be effectuated in one of three ways:

    a) The subsidiary branches of the Big Bank (the Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, etc.) use their virtual eraser and erase the equivalent sum from their reserves. (If a sum of money can be created by writing a number with a plus sign in front, it can be destroyed by writing the same number with a minus sign in front. BUT YOU’VE GOT TO DO IT!)

    b) The bank of Canada, our central bank, uses its big virtual eraser and erases the equivalent amount from the reserves that every commercial bank must keep in their account at the central bank. This is an extremely simple thing to do: most of the required numbers are calculated daily by our clearing house, the Canadian Payments Association.

    c) The central bank takes the equivalent sum from the account of the concerned bank and passes it on to the treasury who uses it to pay for government expenses, thus considerably reducing the tax bite (Economists call this profit from the creation of money seigniorage).

But, do the above institutions really erase the equivalent reserves every time they erase a liability?
The burden of proof is on those institutions. Some public supervising authority, such as the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, must check the books of the banks to make sure that the subtractions are done. This information should be included in the banks’ annual reports. Outside auditors should be mandated to include this dimension in their audits. The banks must not be allowed to use the tradition of bank secrecy to hide this information.

Although the present paper makes reference only to the Canadian banking system, there is little doubt that the same mutilation of double-entry bookkeeping is prevalent in all the banking systems of the developed world. If banking is thusly corrupted, then the economic system of which it is such an important and basic element must also be unsound.
Clearly, something fundamental is missing in "generally accepted accounting principles."

PERSONAL NOTE:
For four years, off and on, I’ve been pursuing this investigative line. Not being an academically trained economist, and having never worked in the banking sector, I have been aware of my limitations and I have kept in mind the old saw that "The Devil is in the details."
Therefore, seeking confirmation or infirmation, I have sent dozens of letters and e-mails, and made many phone calls to the accounting and economics departments of banks, to the Bank of Canada, to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, to the Canadian Bankers’ Association, to the Ordre des comptables agrées du Québec, to some professors and textbook writers, and to a few chartered accountants in private practice. Throughout I have asked to be proven wrong: if I’m barking up the wrong tree, I want to be taken out of my misery and saved embarrassment! Many have asserted that I must be wrong – somehow – but all have failed to identify what actual book entries or accounting algorithms would effectively erase the matching assets when liabilities are erased.

My challenge to the above institutions and individuals is thus: "Show me the money!" Or rather, show me the book entries – the actual book entries that kill the ghost money that banks create for themselves when they create or accept a liability. 

giovedì 27 marzo 2014

JPMorgan Chase Bets Billions on Death of Own Workers

Document: JPMorgan Chase Bets $10.4 Billion on the Early Death of Workers

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: March 24, 2014
(Left) JPMorgan's European Headquarters at 25 Bank Street, London Where Gabriel Magee Died on January 27 or January 28, 2014 Under Suspicious Circumstances
Families of young JPMorgan Chase workers who have experienced tragic deaths over the past four months, have been kept in the dark on many details, including the fact that the bank most likely held a life insurance policy on their loved one – payable to itself. Banks in the U.S., as well as other corporations, are allowed to make multi-billion dollar wagers that their profits from life insurance policies on employees will outstrip the cost of paying premiums and other fees. Early deaths help those wagers pay off.
According to the December 31, 2013 financial filing known as the Call Report that JPMorgan made with Federal regulators, it has tied up $10.4 billion in illiquid, long term bets on the death of a large segment of its employees.

#WaveOfAction For A New Economic Paradigm

fuller2

#WaveOfAction For A New Economic Paradigm

By , March 26, 2014
Written by Daniel Schmachtenberger, Critical Path Global in support of the Worldwide Wave.
https://waveofaction.org/waveofaction-for-a-new-economic-paradigm/
Economics, Values and Our Collective Fate
Underneath and driving all of the major problems in our world is the fact that people are more financially incentivized to perpetuate them than to solve them. As long as killing a whale confers a million dollars of advantage to a fishing company, while leaving it alive confers none, we will continue to hunt whales towards extinction. As long as a millennia old redwood tree is worth no specific amount to us alive, but worth $100k as timber, we will continue destroying the tiny percentage of old growth forests we have left.
Based on a very old, primitive and barbaric dominator worldview, our economic system doesn’t ask if they are ours to take, and doesn’t factor whose balance sheet the costs show up on.

Keiser Report: Seigniorage and Money out of Thin Debt Air

martedì 25 marzo 2014

How the North Marginalized the South in the History of UN and Trade

How the North  Marginalized the South  in the History of UN and Trade
 
Monetary and Financial Issues in UNCTAD under Gamani Corea, by Dr. Michael Sakbani* 
 
Speech on  Gamani Corea , by Chakravarti Raghavan**                     
 
Gamani Corea (4 November 1925 – 3 November 2013) came of age as an economist at the time when the International economic system, as we know it, was established. It was clear to him and his generation of economists, hailing from the South, that the Bretton Wood Conference produced institutions with incomplete mandates designed with no reference to development problems. Corea, I.G. Patel, Manmuhan Singh, Amartya Singh, and Mahbubul Haq wrote and spoke about the shortcomings of the system throughout their careers.
 
In order to understand their stands, a little history might be in order.
 

Putin loyalist points finger at ‘global financial oligarchy

Russia being squeezed by the New World Order

On my way back to the U.S. from Kuala Lumpur, I picked up a copy of the Financial Times (March 7 edition) in Tokyo while waiting for my connecting flight. As expected, I found numerous articles relating to the Ukraine situation, but one stood out amongst the rest. It was titled “Putin loyalist points finger at ‘global financial oligarchy.’”

Wells Fargo Caught Forging Mortage Documents - No Jail Time ?

Democracy Now! / By Amy GoodmanJuan González

Wells Fargo Caught Forging Mortage Documents — Will We Finally See Jail Time for the Bankers?
Photo Credit: BeyondPixInterviews; Screenshot / YouTube.com
A new internal report says the Justice Department massively overstated its successes in targeting mortgage fraud while in fact ranking it as a low priority for investigation. The Justice Department’s inspector general says despite playing a central role in the nation’s financial crisis, mortgage fraud was deemed either a low priority or not a priority at all. This comes as a recently revealed internal Wells Fargo document appears to guide lawyers step by step on how to fabricate missing documents to foreclose on homeowners. Wells Fargo is the country’s largest mortgage servicer and services some nine million home loans.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

TAIBBI: There's no price the big banks can't fix (2013)

Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever

The Illuminati were amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There's no price the big banks can't fix

Illustration by Victor Juhasz
April 25, 2013 1:00 PM ET

Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.

sabato 22 marzo 2014

Putin: A New Financial System Free from Wall Street

The Ukraine Crisis and Vladimir Putin: A New Financial System Free from Wall Street and the City of London?

angloUSflag
Approximate Transcript  of Interview
The Ukrainian crisis? It is basically the opposite of what the media and politicians keep repeating both in the US and Europe. They say that the so-called International community have isolated Russia and Vladimir Putin.
In fact it is the real sponsors of the coup d’état and the violence in Ukraine who are isolated not only morally but also strategically.
And it is Putin, the first leader who resisted and defeated the strategy of world domination, who is enjoying the enthusiastic support of his people and the growing admiration of the world. The well financed media and politicians do not want to hear this, but this is the reality. Without exaggeration, one can compare this resistance to that against Napoleon and Hitler…
Only few know precisely how dangerous the situation has been. How close to a real war.

venerdì 21 marzo 2014

Basic Income: USBIG NewsFlash Vol. 15

USBIG NewsFlash Vol. 15, No. 72, March-April 2014

The USBIG NewsFlash is both the newsletter of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee (USBIG) Network and the U.S. edition of the Basic Income Earth Network’s NewsFlash. The USBIG Network (www.usbig.net) promotes the discussion of the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) in the United States. BIG is a policy that would unconditionally guarantee at least a subsistence-level income for everyone. If you would like to be added to or removed from this list please go to: http://www.usbig.net/newsletters.php.
For questions, contact the editor, Karl Widerquist .

Table of Contents

1. Editorial: The Goals of BI News
2. Volunteers needed for BI News
3. Former Treasury Secretary Endorses BIG calling it “almost inevitable”
4. Basic Housing Grant in Utah shows promise
5. BIG news from around the world
6. Events
7. Recent Features on BI News
8. Recent BI literature around the world
9. Audio-Video
10. New links
11. More news, links, and other info

Alles Schall und Rauch: BOE bestägt, Geld wird durch Schulden geschöp

BOE bestägt, Geld wird durch Schulden geschöpft

Donnerstag, 20. März 2014 , von Freeman um 12:00
Die Bank of England (BOE) hat in einem Dokument erklärt, wie die Geldschöpfung funktioniert. Sie findet genau so statt wie ich und einige andere es schon lange erklärt haben. Neues Geld wird durch Schulden erschaffen. Wenn ein Kunde einen Kredit von einer Bank bekommt, dann wird durch diesen Prozess neues Geld geschöpft.

Bank of England: Geld ist nur ein Schuldschein

Bank of England: Geld ist nur ein Schuldschein

21. März 2014 von Bürgender

Was zahllose Blogger und freie Journalisten seit Jahren melden, ist nun endlich keine Verschwörungstheorie mehr: Mit ungewohnt deutlichen Worten beschreiben Analysten und Ökonomen der Bank of England in einem mehrteiligen Artikel das heutige Schuldgeldsystem.


Bank of England, Bildquelle: Wikipedia
(c) Adrian Pingstone, Lizenz: public domain
Henry Ford, einer der größten Unternehmer seiner Zeit, sagte in den 1930er Jahren: “Würden die Menschen verstehen, wie unser Geldsystem funktioniert, hätten wir eine Revolution – und zwar schon morgen früh.” Die Bank of England lässt es scheinbar drauf ankommen und erklärt mit erstaunlich deutlichen Worten, dass Geld von Geschäftsbanken geschöpft wird und nicht mehr ist als nur ein Schuldschein, der auf Vertrauen basiert.

giovedì 20 marzo 2014

Warren’s Post Office Proposal: Palast is wrong

Warren’s Post Office Proposal: Palast Aims at the Wrong Target

Investigative reporter Greg Palast is usually pretty good at peering behind the rhetoric and seeing what is really going on. But in tearing into Senator Elizabeth Warren’s support of postal financial services, he has done a serious disservice to the underdogs – both the underbanked and the US Postal Service itself.

To INTOSAI: A giant black hole is engulfing the EURO

A giant black hole is engulfing the EURO
March 20, 2014

ATTN: INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS

TO: CHAIRS

From: Marco Saba, Head of Research at the Italian Center of Monetary Studies


A question to INTOSAI: what is an "irredeemable liability" ? 


Dear Sirs/Madams,

what is an "irredeemable liability" ? It is a masked profit, isn't it ?

What happens if you consider a gain as a liability in a corporate balance sheet? You don't pay taxes on it, you don't give shareholders a fair share at the end of the year AND you must fill the fake loss in the balance sheet with REAL PROFITS. I.E. : 2 + 2 = - 4 (minus four) instead of 2 + 2 = 4 (plus four). The difference is easy to spot: it is the double of the SUM INVOLVED, it is 8 in this case.

You must work very hard to cover for the false liabilities, but, in the case of banking, you can insist that the government of the state where your banking business is done must provide for filling the gap...taxing citizens to pay for the BIGGEST PRIVATE TAX AT ALL called banking SEIGNIORAGE, twice !

Banking "irredeemable liabilities" are morphing the black hole that is engulfing all the EURO-ZONE (and many others occidental countries).

"The solvency constraint of the Central Bank only requires that the present discounted value of its net non-monetary liabilities be non-positive in the long run. Its monetary liabilities are liabilities only in name, as they are irredeemable" - Willem H. Buiter, Seigniorage, Discussion Paper 2007-8, page 20, March 1, 2007

The same happens when commercial banks write the credit lines created as a liability in their balance.

My message here is just a plain question: how and when do you think to expose this biggest fraud before your High Institution risk to be marginalized or even ridiculed by other agents pointing at it?

Thank you for an answer, in the mean time this email is published here awaiting for your reply (which will be published as soon as possible:

Best regards,

Marco Saba
Centro Studi Monetari

P.S. IN THE FOLLOWING CHART YOU SEE THE SEIGNIORAGE DISTRIBUTION IN ITALY WHERE THE STATE GET SEIGNIORAGE ONLY FROM COINS, THE CENTRAL BANK GET THE SEIGNIORAGE ON BANKNOTES WHILE COMMERCIAL BANKS GET THE SEIGNIORAGE FROM CREDIT CREATION. IT IS EASY TO SPOT THAT THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT GET JUST A 1:35,000 SHARE OF TOTAL SEIGNIORAGE (furthermore, the italian central bank is a privately owned corporation):
What if the Italian state could tax the banking seigniorage revenues on credit creation that exceed 50 times the official public debt ?

More reading:
The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it
The Bank of England's dose of honesty throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window
David Graeber
theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 March 2014

Definitions:

DEFICIT:"...An accumulated deficit over several years (or centuries) is referred to as the government debt. Often, a certain part of spending is dedicated to paying of debt with certain maturity, which can be refinanced by issuing new government bonds. That is, a fiscal deficit leads to an increase in an entity's debt to others. A deficit is a flow. And a debt is a stock. Debt is essentially an accumulated flow of deficits. Any deficit must, ultimately, be repaid, either through taxation, or seignorage."

MEANING OF SEIGNIORAGE (SEIGNORAGE, SEIGNEURIAGE): THE GAIN THAT ARISE FROM THE COST OF CREATING THE MONETARY MEDIUM (COINS, BANKNOTES, CREDIT LINES) AND ITS OFFICIAL MARKET VALUE. 
I.E. IN THE EURO-ZONE, AN EURO-BANKNOTE COSTS 0.12 EUROS + V.A.T. WHILE ITS BUYING POWER DEPENDS ON THE NUMBER WRITTEN ON THE SAME BANKNOTE (FACE VALUE). IN THE CASE OF A 100 EURO BANKNOTE, THE GAIN IS MORE THAN 99 EUROS.
IN THE CASE OF A CREDIT LINE, THE SEIGNIORAGE IS THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE BANKING PAPERWORK NEEDED TO CREATE THE LINE AND THE NOMINAL AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT LINE.
WE ASSUME THAT THOSE COSTS ARE ZERO BECAUSE ANY BANK CAN PAY THOSE COSTS WITH CASHIER CHECKS THAT CREATE NEW MONEY EX NIHILO.

SEIGNIORAGE MISLEADING DEFINITION RE-ARRANGED BY BANKING INTERESTS:
"Seigniorage derived from notes is more indirect, being the difference between interest earned on securities acquired in exchange for bank notes and the costs of producing and distributing those notes." Bank of Canada "Backgrounders: Seigniorage". Retrieved 2 January 2013

The craziness of this last definition is evident if you consider the case of a counterfeiter: the gain of spending the counterfeited money is the difference between interest earned on securities acquired in exchange for counterfeited money OR the WHOLE face value of the money counterfeited ? It must be told that the usual counterfeiter don't double seigniorage revenues by writing them AS A LOSS in a balance sheet...

WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION: Seigniorage (/ˈseɪnjərɪdʒ/, also spelled seignorage or seigneurage) is the difference between the value of money and the cost to produce and distribute it.

The bankers behind FDR

The bankers behind FDR and the Glass-Steagall Act

March 19, 2014: 12:53 PM ET
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/19/the-bankers-behind-fdr-and-the-glass-steagall-act/
Big bankers in the wake of the Great Depression were more inclined to regulate the U.S. financial system than today.
By Nomi Prins
The late U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt  sitting at his desk in 1935.
The late U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sitting at his desk in 1935.
FORTUNE – It was a quintessential October day in upstate New York. By the banks of the Hudson River, a torrential downpour drenched the fall foliage, obscuring otherwise glorious shades of amber and gold, and forming pools of bubbling mud by the road sides.
My boots soaked, I trudged from the local Quality Inn off the main (and only) thoroughfare of Hyde Park, crossed the street, and headed down the quarter of a mile path to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library. There was an irony to my mission. I was halfway through investigating presidential archives around the country for my forthcoming book, All the Presidents' Bankers, but my trip to the Roosevelt Library was as much an exploration of my own childhood as it was of the man who shaped so much of the country's trajectory. I grew up in Poughkeepsie, near the railroad station whose trains had whisked elite families like the Roosevelt's, Vanderbilt's and Rockefeller's between New York City and their country manors.
As a kid touring Roosevelt's home, I just thought he was a rich man who became president. After more than a decade of working in international  finance, I came to realize that his views on banking reform were more liberal than his grand abode on the Hudson river banks would have suggested. As an author, I wrote books about FDR's signature financial legislation, the Glass-Steagall Act, from the perspective of his populist stance, describing how he saved the American people from a Great Depression incurred by a collection of rapacious, criminal bankers who played the markets, made their money, and hung ordinary citizens out to dry (FDR was the crusader that beat the banks; he was famously called a 'traitor to his class'). There's more to the story; as it turns out, some of the most powerful bankers at the time, with close connections to FDR, were behind the landmark act.
History says a lot about what we see today. In the wake of the most recent financial crisis, we have had no such patriotic or populist alignment, not from presidents Bush or Obama, nor from bank leaders who routinely converse directly with them. Rather than creating anything as stabilizing as the Glass-Steagall Act, or being a world leader in addressing and restricting unnecessary systemic risk, our political-financial complex has promoted an unprecedented, anti-free market, bank-assistance program. Scores of lawyers and lobbyists with marching orders from Big Six bank chairmen rendered the most recent attempt at banking reform, the Dodd-Frank Act, all but useless. JPM Chase (JPM) chairman Jamie Dimon publicly denounced reform, in stark contrast to his predecessor Winthrop Aldrich, who wisely saw it as a way to solidify the country, the currency, and its bankers. Aldrich's brand of national support has been replaced by mulish irresponsibility, lack of culpability and blatant disregard for patriotism.
There's a fascinating through line that runs from the Big Six banks of today back through those of the 1929 Crash and the Great Depression, all the way back to the Panic of 1907. Today's Big Six banks, those that hold more than 40% of our nation's deposits and control 95% of its derivatives trades, are largely derivations themselves, legacy combinations of the a few firms and the same families or friends that ran them.
[That day in Hyde Park, the FDR library archivist inadvertently bequeathed me my book's title. When I explained that I was there to examine the stories behind the presidents' key bankers and how their relationships impacted history, her face lit up and she said, "All the Presidents' Bankers. Yes, I immediately understand it."]
With that, I dug in, determined to better understand FDR's true character. And I found what I sought. From the correspondence between FDR and two of his friends, bankers James Perkins, chairman of National City Bank (now Citigroup) and Winthrop Aldrich, chairman of Chase (now JP Morgan Chase), I began to understand how FDR became known as a bank reformer and that it wasn't really the will of the population that pressed FDR to reform banking as he did; it was the will of these men. They had more in common with FDR - from status to money to yachts - than any of them had in common with farmers, or shopkeepers, or factory workers.
More than any other Washington insider or progressive, it was Wall Street financier Winthrop Aldrich who helped FDR reform banking. Blue-blooded, Republican, and pedigreed, Winthrop's father Senator Nelson Aldrich had organized the select group of bankers that drafted the first Federal Reserve Bill at Jekyll Island in 1910. His nephew, Nelson Rockefeller, would become New York Governor and Vice President of the US, while his other nephew, David Rockefeller, would become a future chairman of Chase. I discovered that it was Aldrich who pressed for a more rigid set of regulations than even the banking-reform bill's sponsor, Carter Glass, envisioned. In premonitions of 'too-big-to-fail,' Aldrich condemned establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on the basis that government deposit support might inadvertently foster recklessness at less prudent banks.
To be sure, Aldrich's reasons for pushing bank separation contained self-serving elements, but they were also logical and patriotic. He and Perkins publicly announced the split of the trading and commercial sides of their formidable banks days after FDR took office, and months before the Glass-Steagall Act that made the split the law of the land was ratified. Aldrich secured the front page of The New York Times to make his case for bank reform. Perkins traveled to the White House to secretly meet with FDR to jointly strategize ways to augment FDR's popularity with an anti-banker nation by showing stability could stem from their joint efforts, in the thick of the Great Depression.
In the process, Aldrich and Perkins saw a way for their banks to overtake a chief competitor, the immensely influential Morgan Bank (whose leaders were also friends of FDR), by robbing them of their ability to both underwrite securities and take deposits. But Aldrich also saw that the Great Depression and bank runs were detrimental to America as a whole. He recognized that broad economic solidity was critical to manifesting a strong country. On this, he and FDR agreed.
FDR expressed his private gratitude to his banker allies for their pre-emptive support in casting off their banks' trading arms. As he wrote Aldrich, "I want you to know that I appreciate your action in regard the affiliate. What you and Jim Perkins have done will make for a better feeling in every direction." To that, Aldrich replied, "I find myself lost in admiration of the courage and wisdom you have shown in dealing with the problems created by the immediate banking crisis." What a difference 80 years makes.
Current ties between bankers and presidents support only the bankers at the expense of the population. We can do better than this. We have. Past political and financial leaders have worked together. To disrespect and shun such history is to fall prey to its more heinous fallout in the future.
Nomi Prins is author of the forthcoming book, All The Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power, which is scheduled to be released on April 8. She is currently a senior fellow at Demos, a New York City-based public policy think tank, and previously worked as a managing director at Goldman Sachs and as a senior managing director at Bear Stearns. 

mercoledì 19 marzo 2014

The truth is out: money is just an IOU

The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it

The Bank of England's dose of honesty throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window
British banknotes – money
'The central bank can print as much money as it wishes.' Photograph: Alamy
Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

Post in evidenza

The Great Taking - The Movie

David Webb exposes the system Central Bankers have in place to take everything from everyone Webb takes us on a 50-year journey of how the C...