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.

Advertisements

Brexit: the unilateral free trade option

 

As the British and the Europeans renegotiate the European Union following a British referendum a number of options are being considered.  What will not be considered is the option which would in the long term give the best standard of living – unilateral free trade.

For a long time this blogger has believed the best way to do free trade is for a country to do it on its own by removing all barriers to imports.  “Free trade” agreements are not free trade, they are negotiated trade.  To get the full benefits of the law of comparative advantage there must be no barriers to imports. There should be no import duties, no quotas and health and safety restrictions should be genuine rather than to restrict imports.

Unilateral free trade could easily be done by any country as each country has the right to control its imports.  This will leave them open to “dumping” or subsidies by trading partners.  If another country wants to subsidize our standard of living, then we should say, “Thank you very much”.

The case for free trade is based on the law of comparative advantage which says that two countries will be better off if they specialize in their most efficient production and trade even if one of the countries is more efficient in all trading items.  With our background we generally think of better off as meaning more economic growth but it could also mean more leisure time.  The law still applies.

There are two major problems with unilateral free traded – our  commitment to economic growth and the difficulty in making employment changes.

This blogger believes there will be little if any future economic growth because we have used up the easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  There are lots left on the surface of this planet but they are so difficult to extract they are mostly useless.  I also believe many people are aware of this economic uncertainty even if they do not understand what is happening.  This is probably behind the British vote for Brexit, the United States election of Donald Trump,  the increasing popularity of extreme left and right wing politicians and the rise of dictatorships around the world and a lot of other unpleasant developments.

The fear of losing one’s job is highly emotional and this is the second big problem with free trade.  Free trade means changes in production and this means some people will lose their jobs and have to find new employment.  The other side of this problem is that economic changes are a fact of life and will happen regardless of free trade.  We try to deal with changing market conditions with subsidies, import quotas, health and safety restrictions on imports and other trade restrictions. In the long term market forces usually win.

Under current economic conditions a lot of people are likely to lose their employment and a lot of people are going to suffer.  The challenge should be to facilitate the changes and reduce the suffering.  Most people are going to have to accept a lower standard of living.  This blogger believes the best way to adjust is to introduce a basic income plan.  For more discussion of this please see the rest of this weblog and my book Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy.

This guy believes the British and the Europeans would benefit if the British were to use the referendum as an opportunity for unilateral free trade.  I also would not want to be a part of the negotiating team as there is unlikely to be a consensus as to what degree of trade to negotiate.  There is so much fear, so many emotions and so many conflicting interests that it will be difficult to come up with something most people will be able to accept.  There is likely to be a lot of turmoil.

 

 

Some concerns about the Swiss money creation referendum

The Swiss are going to hold a referendum on a proposal to change the way in which money is created by transferring this function from private banks to the central bank.  The more I think about this the more I see it as an attack on banks by people who do not really understand what money is and how the financial system functions, or should I say by people whose understanding of money is different from mine.

I believe there are some serious problems with the current fractional reserve way of creating money and anything which might lead to reform is to be encouraged.  However, I would like to see some debate rather than letting those who would tell the rest of us how to live win by default.  I want to see a libertarian reform in which decision-making is by all individuals rather than a select few.

Here are two links to information about the referendum. One, two.

Money is a tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services and is backed by the agricultural surplus of which we have a huge amount although its continuation is somewhat precarious.  The fractional reserve way of creating money gives great power to bankers who create money each time they make a loan.  The Swiss critics are right about that. Money represents purchasing power for people who hold it and those who create money can decide to whom they will transfer that purchasing power. Transferring the money creation function to the central banks would be transferring power from one small group to another. I am not certain bureaucrats would be any better at making decisions in the public interest than private bankers.

A more libertarian approach would be to combine monetary reform with a universal income scheme and to call money agricultural surplus credits.  This is explained in my just released ebook Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy.  The book also talks about the problems with fractional reserve banking. (You may get a free copy of this book from Smashwords until March 19, 2016. See previous post.)

In reforming the way in which we create money two other factors need to be considered.  The total amount of money available needs to be flexible up and down as the quantity of good and services exchanged varies. If it is not flexible we should expect inflation or deflation, both of which rob people of their savings.  The Swiss proposal says the central bank would use its statistics facilities to help in this.

The other concern is interest.  I believe the charging of interest on loans is a Ponzi scheme which leads to periodic financial crises.  This too is in the book. I did not see anything in the proposal to indicate how interest would be handled.  It could be the people who crafted the proposal do not see that interest is a problem in money creation.

I fear that not too many people truly understand how money works in the economy and how the fractional reserve way of creating money is a serious problem.  Reforms are needed although I can not see that transferring money creation from one small group to another small group will be a satisfactory reform.

Crises, referendums and impossible questions

Leaders don’t always speak for the people they claim to represent.  Therefore the Greek referendum may be a good idea.

The question is can the financial crisis which is threatening a number of countries around the world be resolved.  One doesn’t want to be defeatist but if we really are using resources at 150 per cent of the sustainable rate, then there is bound to be some serious economic problems.  Is it realistic to think we can beat the odds?

If we can’t beat the odds, should we then be looking at an orderly wind down in the hope we can minimize the human suffering?

Some times there are no answers.

%d bloggers like this: