Showing posts with label credit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label credit. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Monetary Justice

 
 
 
 
 
Economic Democracy
True political democracy can only be built on the foundation of true economic democracy. It is the duty of democratic government to secure the results the people want from the management of their public affairs as far as such results are physically possible and morally right. Whatever is physically possible is financially possible through appropriate democratic and just transformations of society’s economic institutions.
Money is created out of nothing!
It is not widely understood that, at present, around 97% of the new money supply is fiat credit money created out of nothing by the private banking system which then adds a demand for interest of which administration cost is normally but a component. Government creates the remaining 3% as coins and banknotes.
Thus the inherent power of government to issue money has, in practice, become a private banking monopoly. Which might not matter too much if the monopoly were being used to serve the purposes of the whole of society and large amounts of interest were not involved.
But the banking monopoly (contrary to the daily propaganda issued by banks and governments the world over) is not used to serve the purposes of the whole of society. It does not allocate resources in the most efficient way; it does not allocate resources in the fairest way; it is anti-democratic, and it always tends towards inflation.
The addition of interest, moreover, is generally a worldwide device for shifting wealth from the poor to the rich. The way the interest mechanism works is complex but interest is a considerable part of every price that we pay! So, even though people may get part of their income from interest, they still lose overall. Generally, 80% of the population loses as a result of interest; 10%, on balance, neither loses nor gains – and the last 10% most definitely gain!
Servitude of nations
Furthermore, country after country is being oppressed by the banking system which, demanding billions of dollars of interest forever, thinks nothing of crushing a society and its people. The complete imbalance of power between the banking system on the one hand and countries, corporations and individuals on the other happens because the world has been bamboozled into thinking that newly-created money has to be borrowed from the banking system with interest added. That interest, particularly in the case of poor countries, soon compounds to become astronomically large. The result is that the total debt becomes unrepayable.
The situation is then considerably worsened by corrupt elites who finagle the borrowed money into Swiss bank accounts, leaving the repayment of principal and interest the responsibility of their impoverished, politically crushed populations. And this essentially happens because countries do not yet understand that they do not need to borrow money for their capital investment with interest added. Instead, governments can create their own money – with no interest added!
Mother of all ‘stings’
The really extraordinary thing about the situation is that it is an obscene fiction – the Western banks doing the lending never have the money in the first place because the lent money is created out of nothing by pressing computer buttons! The obscenity becomes particularly perverse because the debts are imposed on impoverished populations by banks who practise predatory lending. Such lending happens when a bank, knowing that the likelihood of full repayment within a short period is most unlikely, still goes ahead with the lending. It does this because, in that way, it can batten on to the borrowing country for, not years, not decades, but generations!
This results in the situation of the Pakistan haris – debt-slaves whose original debt (maybe a hundred or more years before, to pay for a funeral) would have been a few dollars but because of poverty, unrepayable at the time. Then, with compounding interest over the years, the debt becomes larger and larger and the obligation to repay an ever-increasing amount is passed down from father to children for generation after generation.
Another version of predatory lending occurs today when the banking system lends large amounts of credit (repayable in dollars) to a country’s corporations and institutions. Then the hyping begins – Hooray! What a splendidly burgeoning tiger economy! (And it is burgeoning because of all the newly lent credit). A flood of hot, reckless money soon follows.
A crisis then happens and there is a run on the local currency (and its devaluation) as repayment in dollars becomes impossible. The crisis is probably deliberately engineered so that the international vultures can move into the country and buy up the assets of corporations at distress (and devalued) prices.
Yes, deliberately – that was the case with Malaysia in 1998. There was no reason for the run on the Malaysian ringgit: it was the result of corrupt conspiracy. Fortunately, the Malaysian government, showing extraordinary courage, resilience and new thinking, imposed currency controls and resisted the demands of the IMF. A mere two years later, the IMF had to admit (it was a grudging admission) that Malaysia had got things right………..
All of which tells us the truth – a mother of all stings is going on. A truly successful sting happens when those who are stung do not realise that they are being stung! That is the situation today because countries do not yet realise that they do not have to borrow at interest for their capital spending but can create the needed interest-free money for themselves.
Until they realise how money is actually created and that they can create it for themselves, no country or society can ever be free and will always, economically, politically and socially, be in hock to others.
Interest is not necessary!
However, once it is understood that, today, all dominant monetary systems are fiat systems, (yes, creating money out of nothing), then all the lies and propaganda that at present govern the world are soon exposed for what they are – lies.
Thus, contrary to the lying propaganda put out by the banks and governments, the addition of interest is not generally necessary (although administration charges and some other possible cost may be). This is a subject of the greatest importance to Muslims whose religion forbids the imposition of interest.
Financial savings are not necessary for capital investment
To take another crucial example, the propaganda always says that financial savings are necessary before capital investment can be made. That’s another lie which results in only the rich being able to invest.
The truth is that, since money is nowadays created out of nothing, financial savings are not necessary before investment can be made. There may be a need for some form of security against the possible loss of the investment, but that’s another matter. And there may be a need to pay a higher price for different physical materials, or use different physical materials, or even wait because of a labour shortage but, again, those are other matters.
Furthermore, it is already possible, lawfully, for communities to create new currencies which have no interest attached. See Complementary, Community and Ecological Currencies.
Debt Cancellation
Because countries right the way round the world have allowed themselves to be bamboozled into believing that money always has to be borrowed from someone else, a disastrous situation has arisen. Many countries now have astronomical levels of debt – a debt that that is often illegitimately created because, in the first place, there never was a reasonable prospect of the debt being able to be repaid. Thus interest on the debt compounds for evermore. That’s the cynical way the banking system lives off the poor.
So, if the poor of the world are to have lives imbued with the five Justices, they must be allowed a fresh start by having existing debt cancelled. Anything less, would be a betrayal of hope and decency.
Negative effects of the debt-based money system
Any nation, therefore, should realise the consequences of its failure to understand how it is ripped off, controlled and impoverished. Consider this list:–
1. Goods and services are needlessly expensive
The cost of borrowing is in the price of all goods and services. This includes the borrowing costs of the suppliers (and the borrowing costs of the supplier’s suppliers) as well as the borrowing costs of government (which make for unnecessarily high levels of taxes all of which, in one way or another, are included in the price of a good or service).

2. Consumers are impoverished
Separately from having to pay for the cost of borrowing in goods and services, consumers are impoverished by the cost of their own borrowing be it for a mortgage or a credit card. People have to borrow when they have insufficient income.

3. Inadequate demand
As a result of the above, the economy has inadequate demand with consequences for jobs and prosperity.

4. Effects on business
The inadequate demand holds down wages, causes job losses, encourages cheap imports and leads to jobs going abroad.

5. Inflation
Interest, and the effects of interest, is the biggest cause of inflation. This is usually ignored because people have been conned into thinking that nothing can be done about interest. When interest rates go up, there may be a temporary lessening of inflation as demand is reduced but, in the long run, increased interest rates mean increased inflation.

6. Effects on international trade
Exports bring in foreign currency which, for the exporting nation, does not have debt, and interest, attached to it. But when a nation imports, the money used to pay for the imports usually does have interest attached to it. Therefore exports are not mere opposites of imports but, somehow, in order to pay the added interest, every nation must export more than it imports – which is impossible.

7. Third World debt
The funds of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are created out of nothing whereon interest is added. A nation in financial difficulties, therefore, soon ends up repaying (if it can) much, much more than it originally borrowed! Today, the poorest nations borrow and then have to export everything in an endeavour to repay the interest, rather than paying for their own needs. Inevitably, they then have to cut back on their own health and education programmes with disastrous long term effect.

8. National debt
In the UK, the National Debt is around £400 billion (and £26 billion in 1960) with an annual repayment of interest of around £20-25 billion. This is such an appalling – and yet, quite unnecessary – sum that little else can be said except that the total National Debt, and the interest payable on it, can be expected to rise steeply, if not exponentially.

9. Insufficiently productive consumers
The debt-based money system inevitably ends up concentrating the ownership of productive wealth. A widespread ownership is essential for prosperity and a deepened democracy.

10. No secure income
The system does not, and cannot, have a secure income for all individuals.

11. Money is used for speculative purposes, not production
Most money today is not created for the purposes of production and new wealth. Rather it is used for speculative purposes building unsustainable bubbles which, when they burst, cause disaster for millions of people.
Ignorance
The negative effects of the debt-based money system will continue while, around the world, people are ignorant of how they are deceived. Yet people of good faith who understand the deception and who understand how money is created out of nothing and interest added have a responsibility to others to press for change. They should, for example, ask why the example of the New Zealand in 1935 is not being followed today. At an interest rate of only 1%, hydroelectric projects and public housing were financed. Why not today?
Furthermore, apparently small things – like the existence of tax havens, for example – might not seem too important. Yet, such havens are often the means by which corporations (using fictitious expensing) deny tax revenue to their host governments and manipulate prices to the disadvantage of suppliers and others. Another example which people often think unimportant is the 100% borrowing allowed for the acquisitions of real property and companies, resulting in inflated asset prices and the dangers of a speculative collapse in which everybody suffers.
The Emperor has no clothes!
Acknowledging the undeniable truth that money today is created out of nothing reminds us of the child’s story of The Emperor Who Had No Clothes. Yet, as is well understood, the child’s story is also profoundly true of adult life – untrue fact can be supported by everyone, or certainly by all the powerful, until some innocent waif points to the obvious and undeniable, thereby, to the relief of most, collapsing a lying structure.
From the acknowledgement of the truth, moreover, the outlines of new policy soon become apparent. Some of that new policy is set out below. To understand it, please remember:–
• Money is society’s money and its creation, and the full benefits of that creation, should not be a privilege granted only to the few.
• As a universal and fundamental right, every citizen must be allowed to play a full part in economic production which, in practical terms, means being allowed to participate in the ownership of future productive assets. The issuance of credit for capital investment must be democratised so as to spread widely the ownership of self-financing productive assets.
• There is a sharp distinction between:–
i) credit extended for producing wealth, and
ii) credit extended for consuming wealth (today people are bombarded with invitations to borrow, at interest, of course).

The former is designed to increase the productive power of the borrower (a good thing) while the latter creates artificial purchasing power that has historically weakened and enslaved the borrower economically (in the long run, a very bad thing).
• The wealth gap between rich and the non-rich must be narrowed.
Differential interest rates
In referring to interest-free money, it should be understood that associated with the issuance would be a small cost for administration expenses and, in certain circumstances (private sector wide ownership), a possible cost for loan insurance. That said, in the Justice economy, there will be two broad types of interest rate:–
a) interest-free (as qualified by the paragraph above) for Justice purposes
b) interest-bearing for those parts of the economy not covered by the Justice proposals.
Debt-free money, of course, is money that has no interest attached to it and is not repayable.
 
So Monetary Justice demands that the state:
1. End the monopoly of the private banking system
In practical terms, this means increasing the proportion of the new money supply that is issued directly by the state (with relative decrease issued by the banking system) and then using the increase for specific purposes including those of the private sector. The newly created money can be either repayable or non-repayable.
At this point it should be noted that a common trick of the lying propagandists is to allege that any proposal for monetary reform (as in the GJM) means the endless printing of non-repayable money with a resulting huge inflation. “Like Germany in 1923!” they scream.
However, the first main GJM proposals are for the issuance of interest-free (plus administration cost) repayable and cancellable money for use in capital investment and so there will be no inflation. Rather, there will be counter-inflation as newly productive capital assets come into existence while the money that helped create them is repaid and can be cancelled. The essential point is that using state-issued repayable interest-free money for capital investment results in a cost one half of that at present.
Such investment can either be:
• public capital investment, or
• private capital investment
N.B. Over time, in the Global Justice economy, interest-free money will come to replace interest-bearing money and not be in addition to it. Since it is replacing, it cannot be inflationary.
see
"Seven Steps to Justice"
by Rodney Shakespeare & Peter Challen
Published by
NEW EUROPEAN PUBLICATIONS LIMITED 2002
188 pages 215mm x 140mm Paperback
ISBN 1 – 8724 – 1027 – 8 Price £10-95
This book is available at www.amazon.co.uk or through UK bookshops
or by mail order –

£11 including postage to:
Peter Challen,
21, Bousfield Road,
London, SE14 5TP
Tel: 020 7207 0509
The Seven Steps form the theoretical and moral basis of the GJM. The Seven Steps are:—
• There must be public acknowledgement that the present banking is an unjust monopoly that creates 97% of the money supply as interest-bearing debt.
• State-issued interest-free loans (plus a small cost for administration expenses) should be used for public capital investment thereby halving the present cost.
• State-issued interest-free loans (plus a small cost for administration expenses and a possible cost for loan insurance) should, on market principles, be used for private capital investment if such investment, using the mechanisms of binary economics, creates ownership stakes and property incomes for all income groups, including the poor.
• State-issued interest-free loans (plus a small cost for administration expenses and a possible cost for loan insurance) should be used for loans to start-up and small business.
• Since the Steps above are counter-inflationary and ultimately diminish the money supply, debt-free non-repayable money should be issued for individual secure incomes to the extent necessary to keep a stable level of prices.
• That, in addition to the Steps above, the position, role and economic position of women in the world be specifically addressed.
• That the Steps above be implemented as the only possible long term solution to get peace in areas such as the Middle East, Kashmir and Iraq.
N.B. Over time, in the Global Justice economy, interest-free money will come to replace interest-bearing money and not be in addition to it. Since it is replacing, it cannot be inflationary.
 
2. Issue repayable, interest-free money for public capital investment
Every day, a colossal and absolutely amazing rip-off takes place and only the brave few (such as the GJM) have the courage to protest about it.
It happens because all governments require money for their own capital investments – things such as hospitals, schools, roads, bridges etc. Yet, at present, instead of governments creating their own money for these purposes (and then getting it repaid and cancelled) they borrow from the banking system which just creates the money out of nothing and then adds, over the years and decades, seemingly endless amounts of interest!
This causes a horrific level of National Debt. In order to repay the Debt (or, rather, to try to stop it increasing exponentially), vast amounts of interest have to be annually paid – and such amounts are a large proportion of the income tax we have to pay. What a rip-off!
Yet that rip-off is not necessary (although the defenders of the present system like to claim that it is). Public capital spending can, and should, be financed by state-issued, interest-free money (which, in practice, only has a tiny administrative cost). It is only lack of political will (because the political system is controlled by vested interests) which prevents the use of such money
Please note that the proposal does not mean that the government necessarily has to construct the public capital investment, nor manage it – in both cases, that can be done by the private sector, if wished. It only means that the capital cost is much, much cheaper.
Moreover, the GJM does not propose an increase in the total amount of public capital spending. However, since public projects will become hugely cheaper, the same amount of money will buy much, much more! Get it?
The proposal also has regional implications. Thus the Alberta (Canada) Social Credit Party sees the virtues of local Treasury Branches providing a strong Alberta-based alternative to out-of-province financial institutions. In this way, the benefits of the financing go to local people rather than outsiders. People such as Dr. Shann Turnbull vigorously promote this sensible idea.
In sum, the purpose of the first GJM proposal is simple – state-issued repayable interest-free money (plus a small cost for administration expenses) reduces the cost of public capital investment to one half, even one quarter of what it would otherwise have been. Malaysia is believed to be experimenting with such money.
See the Canadian website of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform: COMER has a particularly helpful video - The Creation of Money and its Consequences:

3. Issue repayable, interest-free money for private capital investment if new owners are thereby created.
Just as state-issued, repayable interest-free money can be used for public capital investment, so it can also be used for private capital investment. Whereon an objection arises – if interest-free money is allowed for private capital investment, the existing rich would become astronomically rich. Which is true.
However, the GJM proposal has a big difference – the use of interest-free money (plus a small cost for administration expenses and a possible cost for loan insurance) for private productive capital investment would only be allowed if it results in new owners of that capital. Generally, this would take place only in large, well-established corporations (e.g. in the USA the 3000 largest corporations) not new or small businesses.
And new owners – millions and millions of them – are what the GJM demands. Every person – in work, out of work, female, male, old, a student, a baby – should have a first secure income coming from the ownership of an independently owned capital estate (paying out its full earnings, after retention for research, development and depreciation). The first secure income will start small (for a baby) and then, gradually, over time, on market principles, as new productive investments are added, get bigger ……… and bigger…….AND BIGGER!
The mechanisms for achieving this are those of Binary Economics. It uses a trust mechanism similar to those of existing ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans) but without their disadvantages, and with safeguards against abuse. The existing banking system would administer the money. Over time, on market principles, everybody comes to a proper ownership of productive capital and its income.
Market principles include a requirement that a project should be able to pay for itself and, in practice, there will often be a need for a substitute for collateral. Binary Economics provides that substitute with Capital Credit Insurance. See Binary Economics — the new paradigm, Robert Ashford & Rodney Shakespeare, obtainable from Amazon.com
Again, the proposal has regional implications. Local Treasury Branches would ensure that the benefits of the financing go to local people rather than outsiders.
See also the website of the Center for Economic and Social Justice Washington, D.C.
 
4. Issue repayable interest-free money for farms, small and start-up business
Farms, together with small and start-up businesses, are the seed corn of an economy. They, too, should benefit from interest-free loans (plus a small cost for administration expenses and a possible cost for loan insurance) rather than pay huge interest charges as at present.
For any large interest-free loan, collateral (i.e., some form of security to be put up against the possible loss of the loan) would still be necessary. See Binary Economics. But the key point is that interest-free loans could be used for small businesses in exactly the same circumstances as today (e.g. the money being administered by the present banking system) except that the small business would not be suffocated by interest payments. As with public and private capital, the overall effect would be counter-inflationary. Farms, small and start-up businesses would not be subject to a wide-ownership requirement.
 
5. Issue non-repayable, debt-free money for a second secure income
Since interest-free repayable money for public, private (wide ownership) and small business capital investment is counter-inflationary there will be increased wealth but lowered prices. In order, therefore, to maintain a stable level of prices, the issuance of debt-free money will become necessary. Such money has no interest attached and is not repayable.
Looking at things from another viewpoint, that of Social Credit, the economic system always has an insufficiency of demand. Social Credit proposes a National Dividend to correct that insufficiency.
However, whichever way the situation is viewed, a second secure income becomes possible (in addition to any income a person gets from labour).
The use of debt-free money is discussed in Creating New Money, James Robertson & Joseph Huber.
 
See also the websites of the following organisations:
 
 
6. Use interest-free money for green capital investment
Windmills and solar energy-generating systems are examples of investment projects that can, and should, be done with interest-free money. However, while, as at present, all such investment has to be made with interest-bearing money, the projects have a borderline, or no, viability.
With interest-free money, however, they become economically feasible. Getting such technologies into operation is now environmentally urgent. Indeed, unless it happens within about five years, it may be too late.
There is hope, however, because some mind-bending alternative energy and other technologies are now on the verge of practical possibility. Examples are the MEG Motionless Electromagnetic Generator and various processes for using hydrogen obtained from water. It is utter madness not to give these new technologies a chance to save the planet. The use of interest-free money would be that chance.
Unfortunately, at present, vested interests and fossilised mindsets have induced a deep paralysis.
 
7. Encourage complementary, community and ecological currencies
Perhaps the main difficulty preventing the spread of complementary, community and ecological currencies is the cost of administering them. At present, this has to be done by volunteers. However, if Global Justice secure incomes are introduced, that problem will be largely, if not completely, solved. See Complementary, Community and Ecological Currencies.
 
8. Keep wealth local
If credit is issued locally, the benefit of that issuance and its repayment stay locally – put simply, wealth stays locally and is not ripped off elsewhere.
 
9. Cancel the debt of poor countries
If the poor of the world are to have lives imbued with the five Justices, they must be allowed a fresh start by having existing debt cancelled. Anything less is a betrayal of hope and decency.
 
10. Review of tax havens
Too often, tax havens are centres for allowing corporations to rip off others through fictitious expensing and other forms of white collar crime. A review of the situation is urgently required.
Remember – the world has the technology and productive resources to eliminate misery, poverty and injustice and save the planet (particularly if the MEG Motionless Electromagnetic Generator and other new alternative energy sources become commercially viable).
So let’s demand the Five Justices!
Monetary Justice
Social Justice
Economic Justice
Environmental Justice
Peace Justice
Join the Global Justice Movement!
See those who have joined the GJM! Compare Global Justice with present Capitalism and Socialism!
For links to other pages, Latest Developments, Discussion Forum, Registration and Donations :
Global Justice – the true, fair, democratic and efficient solution to poverty. Global Justice means Inclusive Justice!

Thursday, 9 May 2013

"....Banks actually create credit (ie. code for money!)..

Published on 7 May 2013
"We are not in a corn economy where banks serve as an intermediary between farmers who have excess seed and farmers who want more seed. We are in an economy where banks actually create credit. And that makes a very big difference."
http://www.imf.org/external/mmedia/vi... @34:23

Towards a New Paradigm in Monetary Economics (2003)
http://www.amazon.com/Paradigm-Moneta...

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2013/05...

"The importance of credit

We would, for instance, have asked what the fundamental roles of the financial sector are, and how we can get it to perform those roles better. Clearly, one of the key roles is the allocation of capital and the provision of credit, especially to small and medium-sized enterprises, a function which it did not perform well before the crisis, and which arguably it is still not fulfilling well.

This might seem obvious. But a focus on the provision of credit has neither been at the center of policy discourse nor of the standard macro-models. We have to shift our focus from money to credit. In any balance sheet, the two sides are usually going to be very highly correlated. But that is not always the case, particularly in the context of large economic perturbations. In these, we ought to be focusing on credit. I find it remarkable the extent to which there has been an inadequate examination in standard macro models of the nature of the credit mechanism. There is, of course, a large microeconomic literature on banking and credit, but for the most part, the insights of this literature has not been taken on board in standard macro-models.

But failing to manage credit is not the only lacuna in our approach. There is also a lack of understanding of different kinds of finance. A major area in the analysis of risk in financial markets is the difference between debt and equity. And in standard macroeconomics, we have barely given this any attention. My book with Bruce Greenwald, 'Towards a New Paradigm of Monetary Economics' was an attempt to remedy this. [...]

Should monetary policy focus just on short term interest rates?

In monetary policy, there is a tendency to think that the central bank should only intervene in the setting of the short-term interest rate. They believe "one intervention" is better than many. Since at least 80 years ago with the work of Ramsey we know that focusing on a single instrument is not generally the best approach.

The advocates of the "single intervention" approach argue that it is best, because it least distorts the economy. Of course, the reason we have monetary policy in the first place—the reason why government acts to intervene in the economy—is that we don't believe that markets on their own will set the right short-term interest rate. If we did, we would just let free markets determine that interest rate. The odd thing is that while just about every central banker would agree we should intervene in the determination of that price, not everyone is so convinced that we should strategically intervene in others, even though we know from the general theory of taxation and the general theory of market intervention that intervening in just one price is not optimal.

Once we shift the focus of our analysis to credit, and explicitly introduce risk into the analysis, we become aware that we need to use multiple instruments. Indeed, in general, we want to use all the instruments at our disposal. Monetary economists often draw a division between macro-prudential, micro-prudential, and conventional monetary policy instruments. In our book Towards a New Paradigm in Monetary Economics, Bruce Greenwald and I argue that this distinction is artificial. The government needs to draw upon all of these instruments, in a coordinated way. (I'll return to this point shortly.)

Of course, we cannot "correct" every market failure. The very large ones, however—the macroeconomic failures—will always require our intervention. Bruce Greenwald and I have pointed out that markets are never Pareto efficient if information is imperfect, if there are asymmetries of information, or if risk markets are imperfect. And since these conditions are always satisfied, markets are never Pareto efficient. Recent research has highlighted the importance of these and other related constraints for macroeconomics—though again, the insights of this important work have yet to be adequately integrated either into mainstream macroeconomic models or into mainstream policy discussions.

Price versus quantitative interventions

These theoretical insights also help us to understand why the old presumption among some economists that price interventions are preferable to quantity interventions is wrong. There are many circumstances in which quantity interventions lead to better economic performance."   Ref YouTube Source


For the video below press the link in which Stiglitz makes the remark that banks actually create credit..! RS




Friday, 1 March 2013

Critique of Innes’ Theory

 

On June 12, 2012, in Research & Articles, by AMI

Critique of Innes’ Theory

To view or print this piece in PDF format, click here.
The following critique, written in 2002, points out many of the faults with Innes’ theory. This is part 5 of a 33 page essay by Stephen Zarlenga titled “The Development of United States Money.” That essay plus another 45 page essay by Mr. Zarlenga from the March, 2005 issue of The American Review of Political Economy titled “Moving Monetary Reform to the Front Burner” is available from AMI on CD or DVD, postage paid, for a $28 donation. Please mail your check, or credit card info, and mailing address.
You can also order it by email or telephone.



Part 5:
CRITIQUE OF INNES’ “CREDIT THEORY OF MONEY”

The American Monetary Institute’s research (including that just presented) finds several points of agreement, and many of disagreement, with A. Mitchell Innes’ work and theory:
First – regarding method, Innes’ professed emphasis on and use of historical study is a refreshing departure from the typical political economists’ reliance on mainly theoretical reasoning, or mathematics. Stressing the importance of history automatically elevates elements of the empirical approach, and should tend to ground research in fact and reality. He wrote:
“Now there is only one test to which monetary theories can be subjected, and which they must pass, and that is the test of history. Nothing but history can confirm the accuracy of our reasoning, and if our theory cannot stand the test of history, then there is no truth in it.” (art. 2, p. 155)
Second – it is primarily this historical approach which allows Innes to draw the most important (and in our view the most accurate) conclusion of his work – the rejection of Adam Smith’s metallist theory of money. To his “credit”, Innes realized that the nature of money is abstract, not material; that coinage, even “precious metal” coins, are really tokens. This was no small accomplishment in 1914, when the body of political economists, as well as international monetary arrangements, were in the gold camp. But they rarely gave a theoretical justification for their definition of money; it is usually assumed, or even obscured.
For example, Adam Smith does not clearly present his position; it takes some digging to ascertain it. Indeed, Ludwig von Mises, writing in The Theory of Money and Credit in 1912, attacked monetary theorist George F. Knapp for clearly identifying Smith’s position as metallist:
“Knapp … describes the monetary theory of Adam Smith … as entirely metallistic. The mildest thing that can be said about this assertion is that it is entirely unfounded.”1
But is it really unfounded? To find Smith’s definition of money, one must sift through dozens of pages of the most obtusely written passages of economics – in the section of his The Wealth of Nations on how money gets its value – and be careful not to skip over the one important sentence (and even it is not explicit enough):
“By the money price of goods it is to be observed, I understand always, the quantity of pure gold or silver for which they are sold, without any regard to denomination of the coin.”2
Thus, von Mises’ 500-page book did not achieve the level of understanding reached by Innes’ brief presentation, as regards Adam Smith’s viewpoint, and the abstract nature of money.
Third – Innes correctly understood that the period of Kingly control over coinage systems, with their frequent alterations and debasements, was not a question of cheating their subjects, but of taxation:
“But the general idea that the Kings willfully debased their coinage is without foundation …” (art. 1 p. 386)
Del Mar referred to this period of monetary history, from roughly 1250 AD to 1450 AD, as the “period of Kingly abuse”, and also pointed out that it was usually not a question of stealing from the populace through the monetary mechanism. Some market ideologues still advertise these 600-700 year old cases of monarchs “debasing” their coinage as a reason why modern governments should not control the monetary system.


BUT TOO MANY FACTUAL ERRORS IN INNES’ “HISTORY”
 
 
While it would be healthy for Innes to draw on historical cases, the way he did so is generally too loose and assumptive. We often see phrases like this:
“To remedy this the kings of France attempted, probably with little success, to introduce …” (art. 2, p. 153) or,
“And when we find, as we surely shall, records of ages earlier than the great King Hammurabi … we shall, I doubt not, still find traces of the same law …” (art. 1, p. 391)
These remarks are more than a stylistic problem, and belie a less than ideal attitude toward the facts. In our view, questions central to his theme should have been checked or answered more definitively before publishing the paper. (I have recently read and notated 1,500 pages of obscure writings on early Roman numismatics, in order to get 4 or 5 paragraphs correct in my book, and have little patience with Innes on this.)
There is also a very inadequate presentation of the evidence that he thinks he actually has, as opposed to evidence that he is sure will someday be found. While the articles are brief, this should not have stopped him from presenting some of his sources, and we generally see a lack of dates and names.
But more serious are the large number of factual errors – enough to allow a critic to characterize the articles more as an abuse of history, than a use of it.


THE MANY ASSERTIONS ABOUT PRIVATE MONEY
 
 
Innes makes many unsubstantiated assertions regarding the existence of extensive private coinages. On page 382 (art. 1) he writes:
“(U)nder the Frankish Kings, who reigned for three hundred years (A.D. 457-751) … coins … were issued by the Kings themselves or various of their administrators, by ecclesiastical institutions, … or by merchants, bankers, jewelers, etc. There was … during the whole of this period, complete liberty of issuing coins without any form of official supervision … There can be no doubt that all the coins were tokens and that the weight or composition was not regarded as a matter of importance.”
But other than the state issuers, and the occasional ecclesiastical issuers which are encountered in historical research, none of this is grounded in fact.
Another example on page 389 (art. 1):
“…England and France (and I think, in all countries) there were in common use large quantities of private metal tokens.”
That is the first I’ve heard of it, and no citations are given for such assertions. Which museum would claim to have any samples of such “extensive” private token issues?
Also, on page 393 (art. 1):
“… archeologists have brought to light numbers of objects of extreme antiquity, which may with confidence be pronounced to be ancient tallies …”
Pronounced by who? No citations given.
On page 396 (art. 1):
“As a general statement … all commerce was for many centuries carried on entirely with tallies.”
I sincerely wish Innes had mentioned some sources, as I’d like to know more about this.


NOT TRUE THAT THE VALUE OF MONEY NEVER INCREASES
 
 
Innes makes the following statement on page 159 (art. 2):
“But while the monetary unit may depreciate, it never seems to appreciate. A general rise of prices … is the common feature of all financial history.”
This belies an ignorance of the history of the Greenbacks and the Greenback battles and the great 19th century deflations described above in parts 3 and 4. If Innes can be excused for this lack of knowledge about “foreign” countries, what about the ignorance of his own nation’s deflation after the 1810 bullion report was taken seriously and the Bank of England adopted a restrictive monetary policy, dramatically increasing the value of the Pound for some years.


MONETARY WORKS AVAILABLE TO INNES
 
 
Knapp’s The State Theory of Money3 was published in German in 1905 and was not translated into English (at the urging of John Maynard Keynes) until 1924. Had Innes read Knapp, he could have seen that his “credit money” was only one among several subsets of money described by Knapp. Innes might have realized that to conclude that this limited subset is the full definition of money, in effect, does away with the concept of money, and substitutes the concept of credit in its place.
Other key works, which were available to Innes, were Alexander Del Mar’s History of Monetary Systems, and his Middle Ages Revisited, published in 1895 and in 1900. Both works would have given Innes a much firmer grasp of the history and nature of money, as based in law. Had he found Henri Cernuschi’s books: Nomisma or Legal Tender or Anatomy of Money, published in 1877 and in 1886, he would have learned a great deal about the legal nature of money.
Had Innes read Sir William Ridgeway’s classic The Origin of Metallic Currency and Weights Standards, published in 1892 by Cambridge University, he would never have made this erroneous assertion on the early ancient coinages:
“So numerous are the variations in size and weight of these coins that hardly any two are alike.”
In fact, Ridgeway had found a remarkable consistency around an ancient standard of 130-135 grains, identical to Homer’s “Talanton”4. In other words, Innes should not be cut much slack in his neglect of these available works on his subject, just because the economists generally avoided historical studies.

PROBLEMS WITH INNES’ THEORY:
 
 
Considering the number of factual problems, it will be no surprise that we find fault with several aspects of Innes’ theory of money.


CONFUSION OF THE MEASURE OF VALUE, WITH THE MEANS OF EXCHANGE
 
 
Innes confuses the standard – the legal measure of value – with the legal medium of exchange, and transfers the known inconsistencies and problems in the coinage, on to using metal for the measure:
“The monetary standard was a thing entirely apart from the weight of the coins or the material of which they were composed …” (art. 2, p 382), and that there is “no evidence of a metallic standard of value” (art. 2, p. 385).
But he is not thinking clearly. That a coin, whether of gold or copper, is merely a token medium of exchange, does not mean that the Legal Standard – the measure of value – cannot be a designated amount of metal by law, imperfect as that system would be.
Innes argues that:
“The frequent use of the expressions ‘money of account’ and ‘ideal money’ in older writings show that the idea was familiar to many.”
But historian Raymond de Roover, a specialist in the medieval period, would later write:
“The chief fallacy which pervades most of the work on money in the middle ages is the mistaken notion that ‘money of account’ was some kind of ideal or imaginary money which was used as a basis of the valuation of real coins. This valuation, the theory runs, could be changed arbitrarily by the monetary authorities. The ‘money of account’ was thus some kind of standard suspended in mid air … In reality facts do not lend support to the theory of ‘ideal’ money or of an independent standard … medieval monetary systems were pegged either directly or indirectly to gold and silver. They were based either on a real coin … or on a coin which had ceased to circulate; but which still represented a definite weight of gold or silver.”5


THE ELEVATION OF BANKERS AND BANKING
 
 
Throughout both Innes articles we encounter an elevation of bankers and banking:
On page 158 (art. 2), describing an inflation in England in 1810, he says that the Bank of England “having just been started” could not have been responsible. But in fact the Bank had been founded 116 years earlier in 1694, and Parliamentary investigations eventually determined that they were indeed the responsible party.
On page 403 (art. 1), claiming that banking is only a circulation of debits and credits, Innes asserts that it is “Shown to be so from the study of the ancient banks”. He also claims that such studies would show that the idea that a depositor in the ancient banks could withdraw his money “is wholly erroneous”. But such studies actually show him to be wrong; that withdrawals often placed these banks in trouble. See for example J. G. van Dillen’s sections on the Bank of Amsterdam in his History of the Principle Public Banks6. Even Adam Smith’s extensive discussion of the Bank of Amsterdam in The Wealth Of Nations should have given Innes pause before making this statement. Redemption in coinage at the Bank of Amsterdam was generally not practiced, because bank money was at a premium over the coinage. But when this “agio” went negative, coinage redemptions were sued for, and again given. The bank was placed in distress, until it found a way to replenish its ‘reserves’. (see van Dillen)
Another problem – on page 162 (art. 2) he writes:
“The Bank of England (which is really a government department of a rather peculiar kind) …”
But that was not really true until it was nationalized in 1946, at the urging of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Until then it was a privately owned and controlled central bank.


CREDIT ALONE IS MONEY? ALL MONEY IS CREDIT?
 
 
Our most significant disagreement with Innes’ theory is his viewpoint that:
“Credit and credit alone is money” (art. 1, p. 392).
Reiterated in different form on page 402 (art. 1):
“Money then is credit and nothing but credit.”
He then gives this simplification of commercial activity:
“The constant creation of credits and debts, and their extinction by being cancelled against one another, forms the whole mechanism of commerce” (art. 2, p. 393).
No one would deny that it is an exceptionally important mechanism of commerce, but Innes’ intent is to exclude all else. To reach his conclusion, Innes first asserts that money is a debt:
“By issuing a coin the government has incurred a liability towards its possessor just as it would have done had it made a purchase – has incurred that is to say an obligation to provide a credit by taxation or otherwise for the redemption of the coin and thus enable its possessor to get value for its money” (art. 1, p. 402).
And again:
“A government dollar is a promise to ‘pay’, a promise to ‘satisfy’, a promise to ‘redeem’; just as all other money is. All forms of money are identical in their nature” (art. 2, p. 154).
And again:
“A government coin is a promise to pay, just like a bill or note” (art. 2, p. 155).
But in fact there are very substantial differences between credit and money. That’s one of the reasons we have two separate names for them. And Innes’ view that coinage is a government debt results from muddled thinking (see below). In fact, he “slips” from time to time in the article, showing that he realizes there is a difference. For example:
“There is no question but that credit is far older than cash” (art. 1, p. 396). Thus he knows they are different, yet keeps asserting they are the same.
Dear readers, do you now see why it was so important to the bankers to remove the example of real money that the Greenbacks provided every day? Government money that was not debt, that was not redeemable in anything else, that was issued independently of the banks!
While we can agree that credit is much older than cash (money), and that both credit and money are abstract rather than concrete, we must disagree that bank credits are essentially the same as government money, and we disagree that they are as good as government money.


THIS IS ALSO A PROFOUND MORAL QUESTION
 
 
We point out that money is more than an abstract power, it is an abstract institution of society based in law. For corroboration we offer the ubiquitous historical examples of the efforts of private bankers, central or otherwise, to be sure the LAW made their private notes acceptable for payments to government. Several such cases are described in parts 1-3 above. We have seen what happened to their “money” when this privilege was revoked (in Part 2 above).
They knew Knapp’s rule two centuries before his book was written!
The moral element arises because a society depending on private bank credits in place of government created money, is operating in moral quicksand. For that society has established a special privilege of power and money for bankers, which cannot but harm the population as a whole.
When monetizing private credit is done by law, it necessarily confers special privileges on those privates issuing the credit. This is contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and if one considers that this privilege amounts to the formation of an aristocracy (as Martin Van Buren pointed out in Part 1 above), then it is also contrary to the letter of the Constitution.
This immorality leads to serious troubles. Excepting warfare, properly constituted government money tends to be spent more for those things and items of infrastructure of concern to the state – the broad interest of the citizenship such as bridge and road and water infrastructure; public health and education.
Private credit tends to go for fast profit, defined in its least productive manner. Particularly for quickly getting back more than one gives, in terms of shuffling paper instruments.
Monetizing credit – in particular private bank credit – can lead to such poor results (e.g. the Great Crash and the connected warfare, or the more recent savings and loan debacle), that it can even make the primitive practice of monetizing so called precious metals look good!
We regard the provision of the money mechanism to society by the government as a major advance over the prior private credit/barter arrangements. We’d agree with Knapp’s evaluation of this step:
“The most important achievement of economic civilization, the chartalism (using tokens for money) of the means of payment.”
For Knapp, the determination of whether something was money or not was:
“Our test, that the money is accepted in payments made to the States offices.”7
Thus, under Knapp’s classification, bank credit, when privileged in law, is a form of money.
But what Innes would do is substitute bank created credit for government created money. It is not difficult to see to whose benefit that would work.


WHERE INNES’ THEORY RUNS INTO A WALL
 
 
One sees the cracks in his theory, and then its breakdown in his proposals that clients not be allowed to withdraw money (cash) from their bank accounts:
“Too much importance is (placed on) … the amount of lawful money in the possession of the bank … In fact it cannot be too clearly and emphatically stated that, these reserves of lawful money have … no more importance than any other of the banks assets. They are merely credits like any others and it is unfortunate the United States has by legislation given an importance to these reserves which they should never have possessed. Such legislation was, no doubt, due to the erroneous view that has grown up in modern days that a depositor has the right to have his deposit paid in … lawful money. I am not aware of any law expressly giving him such a right, and under normal conditions, at any rate, he would not have it.” (art. 1, p. 403-404)
He proposed to:
“Make everybody realize once he had become a depositor in a bank he … was not entitled to demand payment in coin or government obligations” (art. 1, p. 405).
The bankers must have loved him! This is remarkable, but it follows directly from his definition of money: how will they be able to withdraw money, if in fact all money other than bank credit, has been defined out of existence?
One could point out that this is exactly what the New York banks did, in the Panic of 1907; one could also argue that the present Federal Reserve system, when it pays cash, does not pay out coin or government obligations, but rather Federal Reserve Notes. Yet within our financial system, the law has made these notes cash. The law, and afterwards the custom arising out of that law, has made them money. This denial of withdrawal rights is where the “rubber hits the road” within his theory, and it fails.
Money is of a higher order of payment and value than credit. That it is institutional in its origins and in its present most perfect form, is obviously a thorn in the side of those intent on making money a creature only of markets. Furthermore, to distinguish between money and bank credit as “high powered money” and lesser powered money, misses their essential differences and further confuses the concepts of both money and credit.
The acceptance of private credit (unless immorally monetized by law) is conditional on the creditworthiness and liquidity of the issuer. Government money is a near unconditional means of payment; and a far more suitable instrument for “advancing the common welfare”.


THE BELITTLING OF GOVERNMENT
 
 
Throughout Innes’ articles one discerns, along with the subtle praising of banks, a related monetary “put down” on government. For example, on page 152 (art. 2) he asserts that the association of money with the government is a recent development:
“So numerous have these government tokens become in the last few centuries and so universal their use … that we have come to associate them more especially with the word money.”
Well, in order to make that statement he had to ignore about 2,600 years of the history of money from Greek and Roman times.
He continues on page 153 (art. 2):
“Nor did government money always hold the pre-eminent position which it today enjoys in most countries – not by any means.”
He gives an undated French example of this, and relies on the examples of three banks with money supposedly superior to government money:
“In countries where there was a dominant bank like Amsterdam, Hamburg and Venice, the higher standard being known as ‘bank money’ and the lower standard as ‘current money’ … the wholesale trade which dealt with the bankers followed the bank standard, and the retail trade (followed) the government standard.”
But Innes seems to be completely unaware that these three banks were government operations – were owned by the government. Even Adam Smith knew that!8After Innes’ many repetitions along the lines of:
“With every coin issued a burden or charge or obligation or debt is laid to the community in favor of certain individuals” (art. 2, p. 161), I realized that not only is this false for government money, because the community first received something for that money, through their government; but in fact, Innes’ repetitions tend to rhetorically obscure that his charge does hold true when the money is created in the form of a long term bank credit. Because, to the extent that reserves are fractional, that almost always represents a transfer of wealth from the general public, to private parties, by private parties.Thus, Innes’ assertion that “the more government money there is in circulation the poorer we are” (art. 2, p. 161), is false, unless one has substituted banker’s credits for money.


HOW THEN TO EVALUATE INNES
 
 
Remember Aristotle’s admonition on evaluating a person’s actions – that in order to judge correctly we must know what their intent was.
How then is Innes to be evaluated? Getting it right about money being an abstract power and Adam Smith’s metallist monetary error, and the importance of history, but getting so much else wrong? Particularly troubling is that he missed that money is an abstract legal power, and thus the consequent necessary role of the government.
Well, I certainly would not cite him for support regarding either Smith, or history. Rather, I’d place Innes with the English “experts” Walter Bagehot and Bonamy Price, discussed in Part 3 above.
So with the above points made, we say goodbye to A. Mitchell Innes, then Consul of the British Embassy in Washington, D.C.
Lest the objection be made that I too have neglected to cite sources in this brief section on Innes, I can inform the reader that every point discussed here is dealt with in much greater detail, with full citations, in my book The Lost Science of Money, available from the American Monetary Institute, at www.monetary.org.


Notes

1. Ludwig von Mises; The Theory of Money and Credit; 1912, Jonathan Cape, 1934; p. 474-75.
2. Adam Smith; The Wealth Of Nations; (1776) Great Books Collection, Encyclopedia Brittanica, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39, 1952; p. 20.
3. George F. Knapp; The State Theory of Money; (1905), published on behalf of the Royal Economic Society by Macmillan, 1924.
4. William Ridgeway; The Origin of Metallic Currency and Weights Standards; Cambridge University Press, 1892; pp.155-56.
5. Raymond de Roover; Money, Banking and Credit in Medieval Bruges; Cambridge University Press, 1948; pp. 220-21.
6. J. G. van Dillen; History of the Principle Public Banks; International Committee for the study of History of Banking and Credit, 1934, A.M. Kelley reprint, 1965.
7. Knapp; cited above; pp. 92-95.
8. Smith; cited above; p. 358.

Saturday, 8 December 2012

Credit Theories of Money

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


Single and split tally sticks in the Swiss Alpine Museum - similar items may have been used in debt based economic systems thought to pre-date the use of coinage.
Credit theories of money, also called Debt theories of money are concerned with the relationship between credit and money. Proponents of these theories, such as Alfred Mitchell-Innes, will sometimes emphasize that credit and debt are the same thing, seen from different points of view.[1] Proponents assert the essential nature of money is credit (debt), at least in eras where money is not backed by a commodity such as gold. Two common strands of thought within these theories are the idea that money originated as a unit of account for debt, and the position that money creation involves the simultaneous creation of money and debt. Some proponents of credit theories of money argue that money is best understood as debt even in systems often understood as using commodity money. Others hold that money equates to credit only in a system based on fiat money, where they argue that all forms of money including cash can be considered as forms of credit money.
The first formal Credit theory of money arose in the 19th century. Anthropologist David Graeber has argued that for most of human history, money has been widely understood to represent debt, though he concedes that even prior to the modern era, there have been several periods where rival theories like Metallism have held sway.

[edit] Scholarship

The earliest modern thinker to formulate a credit theory of money was Henry Dunning Macleod, with his work in the 19th century, most especially with his The Theory of Credit (1889). Macleod's work was expanded on by Alfred Mitchell-Innes in his papers What is Money? (1913) and The Credit Theory of Money (1914),[2] where he argued against the then conventional view of money arising as a means to improve the practice of barter. In this alternative view, commerce and taxation created obligations between parties which were forms of credit and debt. Devices such as tally sticks were used to record these obligations and these then became negotiable instruments which could function as money. As Innes puts it in his 1914 article  :
The Credit Theory is this: that a sale and purchase is the exchange of a commodity for credit. From this main theory springs the sub-theory that the value of credit or money does not depend on the value of any metal or metals, but on the right which the creditor acquires to "payment," that is to say, to satisfaction for the credit, and on the obligation of the debtor to "pay" his debt and conversely on the right of the debtor to release himself from his debt by the tender of an equivalent debt owed by the creditor, and the obligation of the creditor to accept this tender in satisfaction of his credit.
Innes goes on to note that a major problem in getting the public to understand the extent to which monetary systems are debt based is the challenge in persuading them that "things are not the way they seem" [3]
In his 2011 book Debt: The First 5000 Years, the anthropologist David Graeber asserted that the best available evidence suggests the original monetary systems were debt based, and that most subsequent systems have been too. Exceptions where the relationship between money and debt was less clear occurred during periods where money has been backed by bullion, as happens with a gold standard. Graeber echoes earlier theorists such as Innes by saying that during these eras population perception was that money derived its value from the precious metals of which the coins were made,[4] but that even in these periods money is more accurately understood as debt. Graeber states that the three main functions of money are to act as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; and a store of value. Graeber writes that since Adam Smith's time, economists have tended to emphasise money as a medium of exchange.[5] For Graeber, when money first appeared its primary purpose was to act as a unit of account, to denominate debt. He writes that coins were originally created as tokens which represented a unit of account rather than being an amount of precious metal which could be bartered.[6]
Economics commentator Philip Coggan holds that the world's current monetary system became debt based after President Nixon suspended the link between money and gold in 1971. He writes that "Modern money is debt and debt is money". Since the 1971 Nixon Shock, debt creation and the creation of money has increasingly took place at once. This simultaneous creation of money and debt occurs as a feature of Fractional reserve banking. After a commercial bank approves a loan, it is able to create the corresponding amount of money, which is then acquired by the borrower along with a similar amount of debt.[7] Coggan goes on to say that debtors often prefer debt based monetary systems such as Fiat money over commodity based systems like the gold standard, because the former tend to allow much higher volumes of money to circulate in the economy, and tend to be more expansive. This makes their debts easier to repay. Coggan refers to Bryan's 19th century Cross of Gold speech as one of the first great attempts to weaken the link between gold and money; he says the former US presidential candidate was trying to expand the monetary base in the interests of indebted farmers, who at the time were often being forced into bankruptcy. However Coggan also says that the excessive debt which can be built up under a debt based monetary system can end up hurting all sections of society, including debtors.[8]
In a 2012 paper, economic theorist Perry Mehrling notes that what is commonly regarded as money can often be viewed as debt. He posits a hierarchy of assets with gold [9] at the top, then currency, then deposits and then securities. The lower down the hierarchy, the easier it is to view the asset as reflecting someone else's debt.[10]

[edit] Advocacy

The conception that money is essentially equivalent to credit or debt has long been used by those advocating particular reforms of the monetary system, and by commentators calling for various monetary policy responses to events such as the Financial crisis which began in 2008. A view held in common by most recent advocates, from all shades of political opinion, is that money can be equated with debt in the context of the contemporary monetary system. The view that money is equivalent to debt even in systems based on commodity money tends to be held only by those to the left of the political spectrum. Regardless of any commonality in their understanding of credit theories of money, the actual reforms proposed by advocates of different political orientations are sometimes diametrically opposed.[8]

[edit] Advocacy for a return to a gold standard or similar commodity based system.


Former US presidential candidate Ron Paul has spoke out against Fiat money, partly on the grounds that it encourages the build up of debt.[11]
Advocates from an Austrian School or Libertarian perspective often hold that money is equivalent to debt in our current monetary system, but that it need not be in one where money has inherent value, such as a gold standard. They have frequently used this view point to support arguments that it would be best to return to a gold standard, to other forms of commodity money, or at least to a monetary system where money has positive value. Similar views are also occasionally expressed by Conservatives. As an example of the latter, former British minister of state The Earl of Caithness made a 1997 speech in The House of Lords where he stated that since the 1971 Nixon Shock, the British money supply had grown by 2145% and personal debt had risen by almost 3000%. He argued that Britain ought to move from its current "debt based monetary system" to one based on equity.[12] In the early to mid 1970s, a return to a gold anchored system was advocated by gold rich creditor countries including France and Germany.[13] A return has repeatedly been advocated by Libertarians, as they tend to see commodity money as far preferable to fiat money. Since the 2008 Crisis and the rapid rise in the price of gold that soon followed it, a return to a gold standard has frequently been advocated by goldbugs.[8][14]

[edit] Advocacy against the gold standard

From centrist [15] and left wing perspectives, credit theories of money have been used to oppose the Gold Standard while it was still in effect, and to reject arguments for its re-instatement. Innes's 1914 paper is an early example of this.[3][8][14]

[edit] Advocacy for expansionary monetary policy

From a moderate mainstream perspective, Martin Wolf has argued that since most money in our contemporary system is already being dual-created with debt by private banks, there is no reason to oppose monetary creation by Central Banks in order to support monetary policy such as Quantative easing. In Wolf's view, the argument against Q.E. on the grounds that it creates debt is offset by potential benefits to economic growth and employment, and because the increase in debt would be temporary and easy to reverse.[16]

[edit] Advocacy for debt cancellation

Arguments for Debt forgiveness have long been made from people from of all political orientations; as an example, in 2010 hedge fund manager Hugh Hendry, a strong believer in free markets, argued for a partial cancellation of Greece's debt as part of the solution to the Euro crisis.[17] But generally advocates of debt forgiveness simply point out that debts are too high in relation to the debtors ability to repay, they don't make reference to a debt based theory of money. Exceptions include David Graeber, who from a radical perspective, has used credit theories of money to argue against recent trends to strengthen the enforcement of debt collection, such as greater use of custodial sentences against debtors in the US. He also argued against the over zealous application of the view that paying ones debts is central to morality, and has proposed the enactment of a biblical style Jubilee where debts will be cancelled for all.[6]

[edit] Relationship with other theories of money

Debt theories of money fall into a broader category of work which postulates that monetary creation is endogenous.[18]
In the forms commonly held by those to the left of the political spectrum, Debt theories have some overlap with Chartalism[19] and are opposed to Metallism and often to the Quantity theory of money. Conversely, in the forms held by those with a Libertarian or Conservative perspective, debt theories of money are often compatible with the Quantity theory, and with Metalism at least when the latter is broadly understood.[3][6][8][20]

[edit] Notes and references

  1. ^ Credit is understood as the mirror image of debt. As Innes mentions in What is money? (1913), whenever he uses the word credit or debt, "the thing spoken of is precisely the same in both cases, the one or the other word being used according as the situation is being looked at from the point of view of the creditor or of the debtor."
  2. ^ Originally published in The Banking Law Journal, since reprinted in books such as Wray (2004) and made available online by the CES
  3. ^ a b c Randy Wray, ed. (2004). "See esp Chpt 1 7". Credit & State Theories of Money. Edward Elgar. ISBN 1843765136.
  4. ^ This is the classic Metallist view.
  5. ^ Polanyi goes as far as to say Ricardo "indoctrinated" economists into viewing money just as a medium of exchange - see chapter 16 of The Great Transformation
  6. ^ a b c David Graeber (2011), "passim, see esp Chpt 2: The Myth of Barter", Debt: The First 5000 Years, ISBN 978-1-61219-181-2
  7. ^ The new debt will generally soon exceed the newly created money due to added interest.
  8. ^ a b c d e Philip Coggan (2011). "passim, see esp Introduction". Paper Promises: Money, Debt and the New World Order. Allen Lane. ISBN 1846145104.
  9. ^ In the Financial sector, gold is often said to be the only financial asset that does not represent someone else's liability to pay.
  10. ^ Perry Mehrling (2012-01-25). "The Inherent Hierarchy of Money" (PDF). Columbia University. http://www.ieor.columbia.edu/pdf-files/Mehrling_P_FESeminar_Sp12-02.pdf. Retrieved 2012-07-10.
  11. ^ Ron Paul (12 Sept. 2003). "Fiat Paper Money". LewRockwell.com. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul125.html. Retrieved 16 July 2012.
  12. ^ Malcolm Sinclair, 20th Earl of Caithness (1997-03-05). "Our Debt-Based Money System Will Break Us". Prosperity UK. http://prosperityuk.com/2001/06/our-debt-based-money-system-will-break-us/. Retrieved 2012-07-12.
  13. ^ Helleiner,, Eric (1995). States and the Reemergence of Global Finance: From Bretton Woods to the 1990s. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8333-6.
  14. ^ a b Izabella Kaminska (31 May 2012). "Debunking goldbugs". The Financial Times. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/05/31/1023571/debunking-goldbugs/. Retrieved 16 July 2012.
  15. ^ During the two centuries leading up to WWII, it was mostly only those those who leaned towards the left who opposed the Gold Standard, but this has since became a centrist position.
  16. ^ Martin Wolf (9 Nov 2010). "The Fed is right to turn on the tap". The Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/93c4e11e-ec39-11df-9e11-00144feab49a.html. Retrieved 16 July 2012.
  17. ^ Courtney Comstock (2010-02-10). "Watch Hedge Funder Hugh Hendry Fight WIth Joe Stiglitz". Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-hedge-funder-hugh-hendry-say-he-wants-the-euro-and-greece-to-tumble-fight-with-joe-stiglitz-2010-2. Retrieved 2012-07-18.
  18. ^ Simply put, this contrasts with exogenous creation where money is created by events such as new finds of gold occurring outside of a narrowly conceived economy.
  19. ^ Chartalists will sometimes say money derives it value by virtue of being the legal way to pay ones debt to the State as taxes. Debt theories can be broader in scope - Graeber, Innes and others have argued that organic debt based monetary systems that did not involve the state continued to operate well into the 19th century.
  20. ^ Stephanie A. Bell and Edward J. Nell, ed. (2003). "Passim". The State, the Market, and the Euro: Chartalism Versus Metallism in the theory of money. Edward Elgar. ISBN 1843761564.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links



The Blogger Ref Link http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics