Money creation by bankers, central banks or individuals

That the Swiss are going to have a referendum on changing the way in which they create money is great news. That the referendum is certain to fail is even greater news.

(First link and second link.)

As regular readers of Economics 102 will know this blogger is extremely committed to reforms in how we create money. You will also know that I am strongly opposed to state control over the economy. I also believe there is an urgent need for reforms in the way we produce and exchange goods and services. There is a 99.99 percent probability of economic turmoil as the economy continues its downward decline and without major changes there will be a lot of human suffering.

CurrencyThe Swiss proposal is that the creation of money be restricted to the central bank rather than the current fraction reserve process in which money is created when banks make loans. The authors of the proposal should be lauded for recognizing that there are big-time problems with money based on debt and that charging interest on money created makes our economic problems even worse.

My problem with the proposal is that it wants all money creation to be in the hands of the central bank. The central bank would have direct control over lending. “The money created by the monetary authority would be transferred to the Treasury and would come into circulation by public spending; thus, it would benefit the public purse and contribute to the reduction of national debt. ” Money creation and this type of spending would also mean a lot of economic control by the government.

The essay about this proposal lists private control as one of the problems with the current system. Control is a major economic issue and I can see where a lot of people are strongly opposed to anything but “public” control.  However “public” control is just control by different people with slightly different interests from the bankers. They will still be acting in their own interests – such as getting re-elected. I want an economic system in which control and decision-making is by individuals and I believe the way to get this with a true competitive market economy which we do not have. I also figure the current system is marginally better than money creation in the hands of a government agent.

The authors also point out there is a need to “secure the independence of the monetary authority.’ This is a serious concern as the people who control money creation get to determine which economic projects go ahead and by whom. There are very few prime ministers of any political leanings who would allow that kind of power into any hands but their own.

There is an alternative to money creation by a central bank and that is to combine money creation with a guaranteed annual income scheme. This would solve the problems of lots of people without jobs and it would put primary economic decision-making into the hands of all of us as individuals.

This guy has written extensively about this on this weblog and in an e-book Funny Money: Adapting to a down economy. The book is available free by following the link on the sidebar.

Any changes in how money is created, whether to a central bank or to an income scheme, would hit the profits and power of bankers. Expect them to be more than just vocal in their opposition if either becomes a serious threat.

I figure economics is largely about relationships and to be satisfactory relationships need to be based on a more or less equal two-way exchange. I also believe money should be considered a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services and it should encourage good relationships rather than be an instrument for exploitation. To maintain good relationships money should not give power to some people over others. I fear that giving a central bank the sole right to create money would make it easy for governments to exploit their citizens.

There are lots of serious problems with the fractional reserve way of creating money and there is an urgent need for reform. The big question is what the reforms will do to the way in which we exchange goods and services and how we relate to each other.


Capitalism – a meaningless concept in which we can believe

As one surfs the economic forums of Medium and other media one often sees the word “capitalism” in the headlines but mostly I ignore these items because the word’s definitions are generally so vague the word is meaningless.  Because capitalism is such a meaningless word it is something in which we can believe while ignoring a less pleasant reality.

When we study economics we can try for an honest understanding so we can solve problems and reduce human suffering or we can seek rationalizations for things which will make us rich in spite of exploiting others, destroying the environment and overusing scarce resources.  If I were the chief executive of a large corporation or a politician I would want the second approach to economics.  Guess who pays the salaries of most economists.  This blogger makes no money out of his study of economics, so he can take the first approach.

The main feature of the economic organization with which most of us are familiar is that a lot of it is based on legislation which restricts competition.  Patents, copyright, licensing and subsidies all work to restrict competition  and/or distort prices.  These are so pervasive that we cannot say we have competitive market economy.

The problem with a perfectly competitive economy is that it does not allow for profits.  Competition reduces profits until each firm makes wages and a return on investment but no profits.  If one wants profits one needs government to pass legislation to restrict competition and most current  governments are happy to oblige.  Once upon a time this blogger used to make pottery.  I suggested that in order to make a good living we should form the Canadian Potters Association and get the government to pass legislation that all the people in Canada should eat only from dishes make by members.  Other potters laughed but lots of other occupations have that legislation: teachers, doctors, lawyers, septic tank installers, most large corporations (patents and copyright), etc.

Like lots of other people I would like to see an economy with more equality and less exploitation.  I believe the best way to get it would be to have more competition.  To get there we should repeal or at least reduce copyright, patent and licensing legislation and drop all subsidies.

This would leave many people exposed to economic adjustments which often cause suffering. A guaranteed income scheme would be a better way of coping with these problems than restricting competition.

A guaranteed income – another impossible dream

I believe the arguments in favor of a universal income scheme are overwhelming.  The problem is this belief is not shared by everyone.  I would go even further than an income scheme and say there is an urgent need to reform the way in which we create money and the two reforms should be combined.

Our survival and our enjoyment of life depends upon our being able to provide ourselves with food, shelter, clothing and smart phones.  The way in which we do this involves a lot of complex relationships with people we do not know.   As, for the most part,  we do not understand how these relationships work,  any attempt to change them will be a threat and arouse a lot of fierce emotions.  On top of that a lot of people have a vested interest in the current way of exchanging goods and services and will resist change.

It may be impossible to overcome these problems, but is that a good reason to not discuss them and to not try?  With current economic trends it could be that changes will be forced upon us and maybe we should try to influence them rather than just let them happen.

The essay “LETS go to market; Dealing with the economic crisis”  on this weblog deals with a proposal for a guarantee income scheme and how it could be combined with a different way of creating money.  Do have a look at it.

A major question around an income scheme is how much work needs to be done.  Modern technology has reduced the amount of labor needed for survival.  I think we are at the point where a lot of work is just for the sake of working to satisfy the work ethic.  The work ethic allows a lot of people to build empires to fulfill their own ambitions.  The work ethic is unnecessary and makes a lot of people into slaves.

A guaranteed income scheme would be a major transfer of decision-making power to individuals because having money allows people to make decisions.    No longer would people be dependent upon an employer for their total income.  No longer would we be slaves to employers.  We would be able to decide what we want to do with our time.

An income scheme would deal with problems of poverty, inequality and economic inefficiencies.  With an income scheme there would no longer be a case for subsidies to producers and this would remove a lot of price distortions from the economy.  The result would be a more efficient economy.

Value is determined by supply and demand.  As all of us have a limited lifespan time should be the most valuable thing we have.  Therefore we should by trying to use modern technology to give us more time in which to do the things we most enjoy.  Instead it seems modern technology is mostly being used to sell us more smart phones which are used to sell us more junk.  That’s stupid.

Subsidies distort prices

Here is a  news report that the Quebec government is giving a $58 million subsidy to an asbestos mine in that province.

I am opposed to this subsidy because I believe subsidies should be given to consumers rather than producers.

Subsidies given to producers distort prices and encourage us to make poor purchasing decisions.

The article says there are “predictions that worldwide demand for asbestos would increase — especially in India — while the supply would drop.”  If this is correct then prices would go up and the mine would be able to reopen without subsidies.

Subsidies should be given to consumers in the form of a guaranteed income scheme or a negative income tax,


If you liked this post your are invited to comment, press the like button and/or click  one of the share buttons. If you disagree you are invited to say why in a comment.  While I like the idea of sharing this platform, my personality is such that I don’t reply to many comments.

A guaranteed income scheme

This writer has long been in favor of a guaranteed income scheme in part because I believe subsidies should be given to consumers rather than producers.

Therefore I am pleased to provide you with this link to a report on a recent congress on a basic income guarantee.

Not only is there a need for an income scheme there is also a need for  changes in the way we create money in our economy. The two should go together.

I have tried to show a way in which the two could be combined in my essay “LETS go to market: dealing with the economic crisis.”

At a time when the economy is clearly going down there is a need to provide support for everyone.  There is also a need for economic efficiency and an overwhelming need to fix a sick financial system.

Jobs or a guaranteed income

The Huffington post has started a series entitled 20 ways to put America back to work.

Politically, economically, and morally, there is no issue of more importance in this country right now than jobs. One in 10 American workers is officially unemployed, not even counting another 7 percent or so who’ve given up looking or can only find work part-time. More than a third of the unemployed haven’t had work in more than six months.

I suggest the real problem is to ensure everyone has a reasonable standard of living as it may not be realistic to say there can be jobs for everyone. Subsidies should be given to consumers rather than producers possibly through some sort of guaranteed annual income scheme.

Funding for the arts

We have recently had a little spat here in British Columbia over funding for the arts with the government cutting back and then restoring some of its funding.

The basic principle that subsidies should be given to consumers rather than producers applies here as elsewhere. Some sort of guaranteed income scheme would allow those who want to be artists to pursue their dreams as they see fit. Is’nt there an old saying about paying the piper and calling the tune?

Following are links to an article and a column dealing with this in Saturday’s Vancouver Sun.

The article

The column

%d bloggers like this: