This interview with Clif High illustrates an ‘interesting’ state of knowledge or the absence of understanding the essence of the original purpose of ‘currency’ as ‘money’ to facilitate trade:
- accumulating material wealth is priority;
- ‘currency’ is not a medium of exchange but a ‘store of value;
- electronic ‘coins’ are being created for that very purpose – preferably by web bots.
www.klagemauer.tv [wailing wall], a remarkable global news agency, published in Switzerland, that presents online news very smartly in mainstream media style.
This video contains the following stories [the links take you to different but English stories]:
- Rothschild’s $200 million bet regarding the demise of the Euro
- The Bank of North Dakota as a state-owned bank for the state’s citizens
- A few families rule the World
- Who rules money?
Fascinating are the differences in language, implied by German and English. I.e. the German word for ‘citizen’ implies the ‘guarantee’ for debts! The German for ‘debt’ is the same as for ‘guilt’. The German for ‘interest’ is very different from paying interest and having an interest.
- Nice cartoons illustrate how 98% (rather than 97) Credit [created by banks at interest] and 2% (rather than 3%) Cash [created by governments interest-free] are the money in circulation.
Posted in Banks, Cash, Central Banks, Credit, Interest, Mass Media, Money, Money Supply, National Debts, News, Online activities, public debts
Tagged Bank of North Dakota, Business, English language, Financial Services, German, German language, Germany, government, interest, Johnny Cash, money supply, National bank, united states
This is the comment that I posted to Prof. Prem Sikka’s latest article in The Independent: I want the right to see Bob Diamond’s tax return.
Well written, once again, dear Prem!
But I’d go a bit further and deeper, of course. I’d like the right to see:
1. how much money from thin air is generated per month and per year by
a) the Bank of England (aka ‘quantitative easing’)
b) commercial banks (aka ‘credit)
c) other financial institutions such as trading firms offering ‘credit’.
2. who are the beneficiaries of the interest payments
c) current and former politicians.
3. regular statistics about the money supply as a whole
a) the percentage that the Government’s budget represents
b) the percentage that interest payments represent, compared with ‘capital creation’ [money from thin air].
Is that too much to ask for?
With best wishes for continued power to your writing elbows,
Posted in Banks, Cash, Credit, Financial products, Interest, Money
Tagged bank of england, Business, government, Independent, Monetary Policy Committee, money supply, Sabine
This letter in the FT recommends quantitative easing (the printing of Credit money by the Bank of England) and led me to Tim Congdon and his consultancy International Monetary Research Ltd.
It is most interesting how he watches and interprets the money supply and certainly knows how to distinguish between the Treasury and the Bank of England.
This is what I wrote to him:
Dear Prof. Congdon
Your letter in the FT sparked so much interest in me that I comment on it on one of my blogs here.
I have also studied your website and would love to add to your insights from my perspective as a mathematician and systems analyst, formerly at CERN in Geneva.
The fact that you watch the money supply and its growth is most intriguing to me. That you manage to turn it into advice to clients is downright impressive!
If you were to read Green Credit for Green Purposes which we submitted to the Treasury Select Committee in response to the Stern Review, you would see that we recommend the Cash : Credit ratio as a measure that needs to be taken and redressed. By Cash I mean M0 and Credit refers to M4.
The real problem is that nobody creates the interest necessary to pay for M4. Hence people need to borrow and borrow to pay interest upon interest.
If you were to take an interest in our perspective, I would be glad to hear from you!
A lawyer friend of mine has pointed me to Sections XXVI and XXVII of this act which have not been repealed (yet).
If I translate correctly, it means the following in nickel words:
- the act was written with the intention that their Majesties’ subjects may not be oppressed by the Bank of England
- the Bank of England may not monopolize or engross any goods, wares or merchandize
- the Bank of England may not deal or permit to deal or trade with any of the ‘stock-monies’ or ‘effects’, i.e. ‘deposits’ or ‘collateral’, to buy or sell any goods, wares or merchandize
- should anybody do so anyhow, or by order or directions, such dealings or tradings are prosecuted and punished by treble the value of the goods and merchandize traded, if ‘victims’ sue for action in the High Court.
I read the ‘stock-moneyes’ and ‘effects’ to pertain to the ‘financial economy’, while goods, wares and merchandize belong to the ‘real economy’.
Hence I wonder whether “we, the taxpayers” could construe such a High Court Action on the back of the national debt and the money supply, since ‘effects’ are used for the national debt and ‘effects’ are used to pay bailiffs to engross people’s homes and other assets?
But maybe my German / analytical mind thinks around too many corners here…
The following letter by Alistair McConnachie, editor of Prosperity UK was the lead letter in The Scotsman newspaper on Monday 12 January 2009, and was published under the headline, “Folly of relying on corporate banking sector for money supply into society”:
The fact that we need to “stimulate lending”, that is to say, stimulate indebting people, in order to provide our economy with new money, demonstrates the reality of our debt-based economy and the folly of relying upon the corporate banking sector for the supply of money into our society (“So what if nothing works?” 9 Jan).
The real solution lies in enabling the Bank of England to take responsibility for creating our money supply directly and publicly, free of debt, rather than relying on the corporate banking system to create it out of nothing as a debt for its own private profit.
This reform, promoted by the Bromsgrove Group in the UK and the American Monetary Institute in the United States, will only work if the money is created debt-free and invested directly into society.
The corporate banking system will then compete to attract this money into its savings accounts and build up its capital reserves in this way.
This will be done at the same time as private banks are either forbidden from creating money completely, or have severe credit controls imposed on their ability so to do, thereby ensuring that inflation is not possible.
From today’s mailman:
Dear Ms McNeill
Thank you for your letter dated 26 July 2008 about the supply of money, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We apologise it has taken this length of time to reply. The Chancellor receives a very high volume of correspondence and so it is not practical for him to respond to all the letters he receives. Therefore, I have been asked to reply on his behalf.
Your question is related to the operation of monetary policy, which is run independently of Government by the Bank of England in accordance with the Bank of England Act 1998. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for Government to comment on the Bank of England’s actions.
The Government has no plan to investigate the impact of the current composition of the UK money supply. However, we continue to monitor the situation.
Macroeconomic & Fiscal Policy Directorate