Private money ‘printing’ takes off again

In the debate around monetary policy, it is often forgotten that the default position is that the private banks create most of the money and lead the increase in the monetary supply. They then charge interest to the users of the money that they have created.

The public authorities create very little money. The notes and coins created by the Reserve Bank are only a small fraction of the ‘money’. See this interesting Seven Sharp story if you want to see a MSM story about how this works – essentially banks can lend out far more money than they have as deposits.

So quantitative easing, or as John Key likes to call it “money printing”, is simply government extending to itself the right that it has given to the private banks to increase the money supply – except doing it for public purposes rather than simply private gain.

So what is happening with money supply in NZ?

We can measure the increase in the money supply by looking at two indices produced by the Reserve Bank – M3 and M1. M3 is the broad definition of money and M1 is the narrow definition (official definitons at the end of the post). They are graphed here (also CPI):

M1 M3 CPI 1988 2013

 

 

The first point to note is that all of this huge increase in the money supply, what Key would call ‘money printing’, happened without the government engaging in any kind of government led increase in the money supply. It was private led increase in money supply.

Secondly, as you can see there was a huge increase in money supply through the early 2000s – it peaked at an annual 17% increase in the 2006 year alone! Presumably the big increase in bank lending into the housing market (partly funded offshore) through the early 2000s let to this surge in money supply  This lending was grossly irresponsible by the banks and led to a doubling of house prices in 5 years.

Thirdly, this growth in M3 dropped off as the GFC hit and it shrank through 2009.

And fourthly it has now taken off again and has been increasing at an annualised rate of around 7%, linked to the new housing bubble as the banks create money to expand the bubble.

So the debate shouldn’t be whether NZ should be ‘printing’ money, in fact the private banks are increasing the money supply dramatically (partly funded offshore) – our money supply (M3) has increased by $28.5 billion in the 2 years to March 2013.

The debate should be: what constraints should apply to the private creation of money given the banks’ irresponsible behaviour in the past; and should the public institutions be expanding money supply as a policy tool, to what extent, and to what purpose? Should the state be allowed to also increase the money supply for public purposes such as refilling the Natural Disaster Fund and to see what effect it can have on reducing the very damaging high NZ dollar?

The answers to these questions aren’t black and white but for my pick I think we need to restrain the banks lending into the housing bubble and use a trial public creation of money to restock the Natural Disaster Fund – both to be prepared for future disasters and to see what impact it would have on the dollar.

It is of course difficult to have a rational conversation around these issues in the current political context (ie Key’s scaremongering) but it is an important conversation for rational adults to have. We do have an out of control current account deficit and if we want to be masters of our own destiny we need to change policy settings as under Key’s plan our deficit and debt increase dramatically.

Notes

M1 – Includes notes and coin held by the public plus chequeable deposits, minus inter-institutional chequeable deposits, and minus central government deposits.

M3 -The broadest monetary aggregate. It represents all New Zealand dollar funding of M3 institutions and any Reserve Bank repos with non-M3 institutions. M3 consists of notes & coin held by the public plus NZ dollar funding minus inter-M3 institutional claims and minus central government deposits.

285 thoughts on “Private money ‘printing’ takes off again

  1. We should print money because there are a lot of things we need.

    We can have a clean, green Aoteroa if we create lots of wind farms and invest in sea generation. We should close all polluting industries and pay the workers to transition to good, clean kiwi industries, like organic farming and being artists. If we need more money to fund it – simple – we print it.

    Why can’t John Key see it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 15 (+4)

  2. Theres a few things in this story that mke for more confusion rather than less.

    The first is the question of “what is money”?

    Today, money is numbers in computers, nothing more. “The notes and coins created by the Reserve Bank are only a small fraction of the ‘money’” noted by Russel are just that, notes and coins, and they represent the numbers that ultimately are held in computers. Thus the actions of minting and printing coins and notes doesn’t actually create money, just tokens that represent money; the real money is in computers.

    Yes, the world is on its head from some centuries ago.

    Now on to what is the central thesis; why is QE and “printing money” not a good thing?

    Because it is money that comes from nowhere.

    But wait a dog-gone minute. Isn’t that exactly what the commercial banks do?

    No. Well, not quite. The difference is time.

    The banks are lending you money that you haven’t given them back yet. The money is real, it represents work done, but from a time in the future. When governments print money it comes out of thin air.

    And that is the essential difference that most protagonists fail (or wilfully avoid) to understand.

    Now if fractional reserve banking didn’t exist, then yes, things would be very different…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 (+5)

  3. Looks like the CPI has a very weak relationship to M3. CPI has been increasing more or less in a straight line while M3 varies significantly.

    Is CPI a useful measure of inflation?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. Bjchip has been telling us about the problems with fractional reserve banking for years – if you lend more than you have or ever have a hope of getting back then you go bankrupt.

    Money represents work done – hmmm, John Key’s money represents gambling on the relative value of currencies.(Some 98% of global trading is in currency.) Not exactly work in the sense that something useful was created or a service was done. And some work is frankly bad for people and planet – plenty of examples of that.

    Since money is mostly notional anyway, creating money and investing as a society in education, health, welfare, rebuilding, clean energy etc is no more fanciful than banks creating money to make obscenely rich corporations even more obscenely rich.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 (+9)

  5. D-Buckley. The difference is the banks charge us for “printing money”.

    It still represents work done, either now or in the future who ever “prints” it.

    It seems to have been rather buried inn history that, printing money for public works and employment schemes, work done, now! was how New Zealand got itself out of the 30’s depression. Before the countries that did not, by the way! They required a war.

    Much of the infrastructure the idiots are selling off now, was built with “printed money”.

    The USA did the same. It laid the infrastructure foundations for their continued prosperity after WW2.

    It was also “printed” US dollars backing the Deutschmark, also “printed” which enabled Germany to become the economic powerhouse it is now.

    The problem with “printing money” is that, in New Zealand at present, it is unlikely to cause enough inflation to restore the balance of trade and the overvalued dollar. We have too many underutilized resources, especially workers.

    It puzzles me that some people are so opposed to the State “printing money” but are happy to live with the effects of banks unbalanced “printing money” into house and land price inflation, and our dollar inflation against trade competitors currencies..
    Well, I suppose it is not a puzzle really. they are happy to take wealth off the rest of us, in interest.

    Objections to “printing money” show either a fundamental misunderstanding of the economic role of money, or a cynical desire to foster public ignorance to keep the banks gravy train in operation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 (+15)

  6. Kerry:

    Objections to “printing money” show either a fundamental misunderstanding of the economic role of money…

    I’d argue exactly the same, in reverse :)

    Heres the thing. If it’s OK to just “print money”, then I’d like some of that printed money please. Just give it to me (and everyone else), no questions asked. Job done. I’m not greedy, say $100 a week would be fine. $100 a week x population is about $400m a week, an additional $20b a year circulating in the economy, a few percent of GDP. Good news all round.

    It puzzles me that some people … are happy to live with the effects of banks unbalanced “printing money” into house and land price inflation

    it is absolutely true that “something need to be done about house prices”. But that “something” has little to do with “printing money”, and certainly should not act as a trigger to say lets print money for everything. Stacking wrongs does not make a right.

    (And the what that should be done about house prices is a limit on lending based on a multiple of salary, thus fixing house prices to salaries, thus again making housing “affordable”.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 (+8)

  7. Secondly, as you can see there was a huge increase in money supply through the early 2000s … Presumably the big increase in bank lending into the housing market … through the early 2000s … was grossly irresponsible by the banks and led to a doubling of house prices in 5 years.

    Absolutely.

    Had this not happened, then housing would still be almost affordable. In very short supply, yes, but affordable.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  8. How do you think we have money in the first place?

    Depends on what you mean by “in the first place”, ie how far back in history you want to go, as its changed several times over the years.

    People still get shocked when I point them to the debt is money video.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  9. Thank you Russell for explaining this in detail for us, I understand your position more clearly now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  10. How do you think we have money in the first place?

    Government “printing money” enough, to allow the economy to function is not the problem. That is part of a governments role.

    Neither is banks doing what used to be their function, and what many people think still is, allowing people to forgo some of the present value of their work by saving to invest capital in increased productivity for the future. Which is the same thing as Governments “printing” money for capital works and/or investments with future returns, such as education.

    Banks ‘printing money” ad infinitum pushing up prices in only part of the economy is bound to end in tears.
    What is good about an “investment” in financial gambling in the USA or in NZ pushing up a land price bubble. This simply relies on the “bigger fool ” principle, like all ponzi schemes. I don’t think a small country like NZ, or small pension funds are going to be left on a chair when the game stops.
    Boomers will find that out as they try to spend money back ,into an economy which has less capability than it has at present, because of lack of productive investment.

    We have Mighty River power because a past Government “printed” money to build it.

    If Government printing money causes excessive inflation they have the option of taxation to withdraw it.

    How are we doing with banks pushing up house prices?

    Muldoon got us in the pooh because instead of borrowing from our own future directly we used an intermediary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 (+4)

  11. House prices. Some options.

    Limit the money that banks get from a mortgagee sale to the proportion of the original valuation they have lent.

    Tax on new lending on land when prices get overheated.

    CGT. A real one. I can see the political value in exempting the family home and agree with exempting family homes under a certain value, but it makes it much more difficult to administer. Gareth Morgans imputed wealth tax is easier.

    Nationalise banking. Social credit. Much cheaper and easier to regulate.
    If the private banks really think they are more efficient than the public sector then they will not object to State competition. Ha Ha.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 (+5)

  12. How are we doing with banks pushing up house prices?

    That can be fixed. But does anyone have the will to do so? I honestly think not, and even Andrew Aitken has indirectly expressed doubts on this issue.

    So if the question is “are we fucked”, then yes, we are. I think it is BJ who notes most often that you can’t have infinite growth in a finite world, which I think agrees with you comment that some “are going to be left on a chair when the game stops.” Though I think you are referring to musical chairs and that they’ll be left without a chair and thus out of the game, but close enough.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  13. We are getting new 20 billion in the economy from the insurance payouts from the Christchurch earthquake.
    It is stimulating economic activity and GDP. One of the things National are trying to take credit for.

    Do you think that is “real” money? Any different from the Government putting 20 billion in for repairs to Christchurch?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  14. To Rimu’s question above: The CPI is an appallingly bad measure of inflation because it leaves out the biggest item that most households (and many businesses) pay for on an everyday basis: land. If you put the price of land, which is at the root of housing affordability, back into the calculation, then you would see an entirely different picture.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  15. Whenever er anyone talks about the “magic of compound interest” I want to choke them.

    It is just that, “magic”.

    Infinitely expanding compound interest pre-supposes an infinitely expanding money supply.
    Only possible, in a world with finite resources, if, inflation keeps pace with the expansion in money supply.

    In a steady state economy money making money is impossible.
    You can only make money by adding value. Work!

    It becomes what it was in the first place. A token representation of work.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 (+2)

  16. This is why I vote for the Green party. A realistic look at the economic situation is often missing from the larger parties. I definitely agree that public institutions should be expanding the money supply as it is needed. There are many proposals for how to go about this, but leaving it up to private institutions who expand and contract the money supply as they see opportunities to extract a profit has to be one of the worst.

    Private banks lend out money and collect it back in. Publicly owned banks could do exactly the same thing but with more emphasis on minimising the harm caused by a fluctuating money supply. They would probably be less profitable than private banks, but that wouldn’t be the point. The point is that money is a necessary addition to keep the productive factors of the economy growing. Financial institutions can justify some profit for themselves if they help the productive elements of the economy grow, but if they fail to do that part of their job then there is no need for them and their excessive profits.

    Governments also collect taxes. So a government could increase the money supply by giving everyone $1000. Watch it flow through the economy and then collect it back as taxes when/if the money supply ever needed to shrink. Another option is just to make the money expire after a certain amount of time. It’s easy for a public money creation system to introduce a time aspect and not to rely on creating it out of ‘thin air’.

    CPI is a decent measure of inflation but tends to be on the low side. I like RPI better as it starts to take into account cost of accommodation which is a big part of the average consumers yearly spend but is left out of the CPI calculation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 (-2)

  17. “Looks like the CPI has a very weak relationship to M3.”
    Does that mean there are really two currencies, the everyday one and a housing capital (or more generally futures commodities) one? In housing capital the exchange rate between them has got worse, so that it used to take 2 years of income in everyday $$s to buy a house but now takes 6. That has pushed CPI inflation a bit, but housing is only one component of CPI.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. Russel says “So quantitative easing, or as John Key likes to call it “money printing”, is simply government extending to itself the right that it has given to the private banks to increase the money supply – except doing it for public purposes rather than simply private gain.”

    Wrong – they are completely different.

    When a government prints money, there is no extra work done, no extra value. Nothing of value has been created.

    All it is doing is cutting the pie into more pieces. Effectively it’s stealing a little bit off everyone else, because governments printing money is highly inflationary.

    If it was that easy Mr Mugabe would be a genius and Zimbabwe would be the richest country on the planet.

    The difference when banks loan money, it that the money has a value (and the value of the whole pie is increased) because of all the future work required to pay the loan back.

    Anybody formulating monetary policy should be well aware of such fundamental differences.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 (-3)

  19. In the 30’s we “printed money” to pay people to build dams and plant forests.

    We have been getting it back in power supplies and timber ever since.

    Or we did, until some Phot-wits sold them.

    Now, we let the banks “print” money to push up the price of existing assets, and charge us interest for it, which we will have to pay back by extra work/exports in future.

    See the difference!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 (+3)

  20. Kerry says “See the difference!”

    You obviously don’t. When a govt prints money, it has created nothing, zero, nada, zilch.

    What it does is create inflation, devaluing what everybody owns, by the same amount of money that it prints.

    Effectively it’s theft.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 (-2)

  21. See the difference!

    You obviously don’t. When a govt borrows money, it has created nothing, zero, nada, zilch, except an obligation to repay it all, with interest added. Who, in their Right mind, would do that? Oh yes – THIS government. How much, photonz1-figures-at-her-fingertips, is THIS government borrowing, week in, week out. I don’t believe I’ve heard you howling about that, have I?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 (+1)

  22. If a government prints money and builds a power station it has in fact created nothing, zero, nada, zilch. Quack.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 (+4)

  23. Print $100, the recipients will spend it here, contributing to the economy.
    Borrow $100, the recipients will spend it here, contributing to the economy, but then there’s the interest to pay, isn’t there.
    Russel’s plan is a very good one. It’s not the blunt process photonz1 describes and clings-to for the sake of his wafer-thin argument. Russel’s plan is nuanced, subtle and has depth. Naturally, photonz1 can’t grasp it at all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 (-3)

  24. solkta says “If a government prints money and builds a power station it has in fact created nothing, zero, nada, zilch. Quack.”

    Solkta joins the queue of greens who don’t comprehend the fundamental difference.

    Whoever builds a power station, it is CREATED from the labour of those who build it.

    If I take a loan to build the power station, my asset is paid for with the work I do to pay back the loan.

    If the govt prints money to build a power station, the asset is never paid for. Printing money is merely stealing from everyone else through inflation.

    If printing money really worked, then Zimbabwe would be rich, and no government anywhere would ever have to tax anyone.

    I see greenfly also puts his hand up to be on the list of the financially ignorant.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 (+3)

  25. The dams that were built here in the ’30s were never paid for!!!
    OMG
    O
    M
    G
    !!!!

    Call out the Fraud Squad!
    Release the ducks!
    QUACKKKKKKKKKKK!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 (+5)

  26. Greenfly says “Russel’s plan is nuanced, subtle and has depth”

    Hillarious – printing money is “nuanced, subtle and has depth”

    You’ll find your utopia in Zimbabwe – have you applied for your residency yet?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 (-1)

  27. You clipped the end off my statement, photonz1,
    ” Naturally, photonz1 can’t grasp it at all.”
    and elegantly proved me correct.
    I’m not looking for Utopia, but Russel’s proposals to ease quantitatively, are sensible and (we know now that you can’t see this), subtle, nuanced and deep and mean we could have a rational, fair and successful system here in New Zealand, something we all want. Call that Utopia if you will. I have to ask, your Zimbabwe obsession – were you badly let down by a girl from that county when you were young? Perhaps you fell for a ‘wonderful financial opportunity’ offered by an on-line Zimbabwean man? There’s some thing you’re not telling us! Out with it, photo!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 (+1)

  28. Heck greenfly, have you no memory at all? Photo went to Zimbabwe and brought back a banknote to the value of (if my memory is working, and it helps if adopt the Dr Evil pose and voice for this) 100 trillion dollars.

    Thats what happens when you print money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 (+4)

  29. Did NZ print money in the 1930s? It certainly devalued sometime round then.

    The increase in generating capcacity in the 1930s was about the same as the decade either side. No blip on the graph.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  30. dbuckley – your memory is correct – $100 trillion dollar notes.

    It’s unbelievable that people can’t see that if printing money was a good idea, governments everywhere would be doing it all the time.

    Instead tehy only do it as a last resort when they are totally desperate because everything else has failed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 (+2)

  31. It’s pretty sad that a serious leader of our third largest political party actually subscribes to such dribble.

    Banks don’t just print money.

    It’s called the fractional reserve system and any econ 101 student could tell you banks can’t just print their own profits.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 (-2)

  32. Zimbabwe is what happens when you close down all the productive industry, scare away all the workers, and THEN “print money”.

    NZ and USA in the 30’s, like now, and Germany after WW2, on the other hand, had an excess of underemployed resources, especially workers.

    Zimbabwe has Absolutely no relevance to NZ.

    Unless we stay under National, and the remainder of the skilled workforce heads for Australia, leaving only the bean counters.
    Then we will be like Zimbabwe!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 (+2)

  33. Did NZ print money in the 30’s?

    Yes and for a long time afterwards. Remember the DFC.

    And in the USA it was the Tennessee Valley Authority among other infrastructure projects.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  34. Photo, Even RWNJ economists know that what is valid for a household is not necessarily valid for a lot of households, or a country!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  35. Printing money is highly inflationary. The results are –

    – higher petrol prices
    – higher car prices
    – higher prices for anything that it transported i.e. everything
    – higher interest rates so..
    – higher mortgages
    – higher rents

    – loss of value of savings
    – loss of value of kiwisaver
    – loss of value of govt bonds
    – govt having trouble borrowing cause no one wants their debt bonds
    – govt has to pay much higher interest rates to attract money
    – businesses unsure so don’t invest
    – money shifted away from NZ investments

    And after all the higher costs, the vast majority of people don’t get a pay rise to compensate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 (+1)

  36. “Printing money is highly inflationary”.

    Sometimes. depends on the relative balance of money and what it can buy.

    Banks “printing money” are pushing up house, and farm, prices because land is limited and they refuse to lend for anything else.

    With more than 12% unemployment, from the numbers in work and available for work, not the somewhat dubious WINZ stats, there is plenty of excess workers to mop up first.

    Lots of possible construction to be done, especially in Christchurch before we start adding inflation.

    Incidentally, borrowing, or insurance payments, from offshore adds the same amount of money and will fuel any inflation equally. Is that stealing too, Photo?

    And, unlike banks, Governments always have the option of cooling inflation with taxation and regulation.

    Wasn’t it you Photo that was claiming a while back that Russel’s QE would not drop the value of the dollar enough? I.E. Would not cause enough inflation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 (+4)

  37. Kerry ask “Photo. How is your no tax and no Government spending society going?”

    That’s a pretty stupid question considering neither aspect is anything I’ve advocated for….ever…..anywhere.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 (0)

  38. Kerry, interesting you support monetary policy that screws anybody who saves and strongly rewards anyone who goes massively into debt – when the country needs to do the very opposite.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 (+2)

  39. Photonz1 – quick question. How much money has to be ‘printed’ (proportion of new) before it’s categorically inflationary and under what macroeconomic conditions?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  40. So far, billions poured into Christchurch has not noticeably affected inflation.

    It has, however, increased total economic activity.

    In any case, as far as inflation is concerned, 20 billion poured into Christchurch is going to have exactly the same effect on inflation regardless of the source.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 (+2)

  41. Borrowing represents work done, but in the future? What? That’s not “real” money, it represents a hope that the debt can be paid back, with interest. Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn’t. Debt has to be paid back, with interest, which means that the economy has to grow. It grows by banks loaning even more money, which has to be paid back with interest. It’s a positive feedback loop, ending in disaster.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 (+6)

  42. You make an interesting comment that the increase in money supply is driven privately. It bugs me that any “new” money gives power to the first recipient of that money.

    If your bank gives you a mortgage of $500,000 it means that they have nominated you as a member of the “nouveau riche” – your house/property gives you a status you did not have before that purchase. The course of your whole life will likely be improved

    Those who are not nominated by their banks as recipients of such monetary injections are pushed so much further down the social order than is justified. Sometimes the difference between joining the “nouveau riche” and missing out is only a few thousand dollars of annual income – or maybe just that your personality did not impress the mortgage broker.

    And this magnified social differential is all based on the artificial value of land stolen from Maori – even when the mortgage money is controlled by immigrants. (seen any white ASB tellers lately????)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 (-4)

  43. “anything I’ve advocated for….ever…..anywhere.”

    And we have never advocated “printing money” to the extent Zimbabwe has, while destroying the productive sector. Either!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 (+4)

  44. Kerry – you repeatedly show you fail to understand the difference.

    Insurance money represents actual work done in the past, debt represents actual work done in the future, printing money represents nothing.

    That’s why printing money has a a very high inflationary effect and debt and insurance payments have a much lower impact on inflation.

    Effectively by printing money you’re just cutting the pie into smaller pieces. But with debt or insurance payments, you’re actually increasing the size of the pie.

    If you REALLY believe what you are saying, why not just get the government to print money anytime it needs funds for anything?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 (-3)

  45. Sorry Photonz, your understanding is more flawed than Kerry’s. Debt does not represent “actual work”. It inherently contains counterparty risk and issues of trust. You can’t even START to put it where you just put it.

    Moreover, any government “printing” of money is exactly the same in terms of debt as the printing done by the banks EXCEPT THAT THERE IS NO INTEREST PAID TO THE BANKS.

    If there were anyone here I would reckon completely gormless with respect to the reasons and rights of a sovereign state to control its own currency you’d be my first choice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 (+2)

  46. Solka says: that if a government prints money and builds a power station it has created nothing, zilch, zero.
    Absolutely correct, but the power station is creating plenty of money and that of course goes back to the government via tax.

    Some would call that theft? Or is this a circular argument?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  47. bj says “Sorry Photonz, your understanding is more flawed than Kerry’s. Debt does not represent “actual work”.”

    I presume you deliberately missed off the end of the quote to misrepresent what I said.

    If I build a dam with debt, my asset is paid for by the work I do to pay back the loan.

    If the govt prints money to build a dam, the asset has never been paid for with anything of real value.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 (-2)

  48. That can be fixed. But does anyone have the will to do so?

    I don’t think such optimism is justifiable. The nature of the Fractional Reserve system puts the control of GOVERNMENT in the hands of the bankers/lenders who create the money. This isn’t a primary function in terms of the money creation, but it is certainly primary in the minds of the bankers. The result is that the government CANNOT force the issue. It will be hamstrung, hogtied and gagged.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  49. BJ – fractional reserve banking has been around for centuries and full reserve banking would never work, for several reasons.

    1/ There’s nowhere near enough savings for the amount of money businesses and people want to borrow (so any economic growth would be strangled)

    2/ Interest rates, for the elite few who could afford to get loans, would astronomical compared to the rates we’re used to.

    3/ A bank could not give me a 20 year mortgage unless it had the same amount of deposits guaranteed for a 20 year term.

    4/ No on-call money could even be used for loans.

    5/ If you had on call or short term money in the bank (i.e. they couldn’t use for mortgages) depositors would have to pay the bank interest for looking after their money – instead of receiving interest.

    6/ No bank in the world uses full reserve banking – the last one to try it went bust in 1790.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  50. “The debate should be: what constraints should apply to the private creation of money given the banks’ irresponsible behaviour in the past; and should the public institutions be expanding money supply as a policy tool, to what extent, and to what purpose?”

    When a private institution creates new money they enrich the specific recipient they choose to offer that money to.

    Since there are few controls on how much bank money is created and who it is given to then it is necessary for the government to balance the ledger by creating money (or other “free” resources) to give to those who are disenfranchised from the banks.

    None of this would be necessary if our monetary values were separated from land values. (ie: if private property rights ended and land was returned to Maori the banks ability to enrich specific borrowers would evaporate)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 (0)

  51. Photonz – Understanding the nature of money is important. Your failure is the same as that of thousands of other “professional” economists and I will not hold it against you.

    Real money ALWAYS represents work done. Work done ALREADY, not work promised. It has zero counterparty risk.

    Full Reserve banking with the money supply limited to the amount of work the society controls may indeed “limit growth” to the natural “organic” growth rate (referring to growth coming from the society itself doing more work) of the society. That is not a bad thing, except to economists and bankers. It IS slower than you are used to.

    You postulate a scenario in which Fractional Reserve is abandoned as the method by which money is created and distributed but NOTHING ELSE IS CHANGED? What sort of nonsense are you peddling?

    Well no… if the banks do not “create money” then the government MUST, and does, and the supply is properly limited to the net work available/controlled by the society.

    Moreover, there is no “interest” involved in its distribution. Instead we’d reintroduce the principle of “demurrage”. IF you borrow you “use it or lose it”.

    Finally, you are wrong about the Fractional-Reserve vs Full Reserve arrangements. Fractional-Reserve HAS been around a long time but it did not completely drive out full-reserve banking until the early 1900’s.

    “Bad money forcing out good”

    The full-reserve banking system had several resurgences.

    If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson

    History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison

    If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson

    “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

    “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.

    “Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”
    – Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)

    So… as you can see Photonz, your very popular perversion, and I do grant that it IS very popular as a means to secure growth so rapid that it beggars the PLANET, and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of undeserving parasites in the bargain… was never quite as popular as you imagine.

    In particular it turned out to be anathema to the people who thought most deeply about government and liberty and the continued freedom of a Republic. Such deep thinkers appear to have disappeared from the landscape, but I think only that their musings go unreported in the popular press… (which is of course, beholden to the moneyed interests).

    However, the main point I would make here is that your litany of troubles are predicated on an invalid assumption, that nothing ELSE would change, and that sir, is quite impossible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 (+2)

  52. Greengeek

    Print money and give it away. Ever considered what this will do to your KiwiSaver funds?. Not to mention ACC savings, SuperFund savings, etc.

    Obviously you dont have any term deposits as the value of those would drop to zero pretty quickly.

    As for returning land to Maori. Yep, all that printed money will be used for is to buy weapons and munitions to fight the civil war that will ensue.

    You can get the bit of pavlova paradise with my name on the title, from my cold dead hands.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  53. “Real money ALWAYS represents work done”

    BJ – When you mention “Real” money are you including newly printed money?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  54. “Ever considered what this will do to your KiwiSaver funds?”

    Gerrit – yes, printing money destroys the value of savings (which is why the next 20 years will be a bad time to count on accumulated savings rather than assets. It’s also why no-one should believe in the false Kiwisaver promises).

    However, if the private institutions dilute the value of savings by “printing” money shouldn’t the government also feel free to maintain the parity of non-savers and non-landowners by printing money of it’s own?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  55. greengeek,

    Yep print money to your hearts content and give it out to all and sundry. I will take my share as well, cheers.

    After all why save for ones future, why develop land, why own a business that employs people, why bake a loaf of bread for resale, why do anything as the government will print your money.

    Your money will not be able to buy anything as no one will do anything.

    No need to do anything to “earn” money, as we have all the money you can ever need (though you cant spend it as there is nothing to buy!!).

    Hence BJ reference that money represents “work done”.

    Printing money means that NO work is done and hence, the ultimate outcome, nothing to spend your printed money on.

    Simple really.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  56. In fact money does not equate with “work done”. That is the whole point here. Money is simply a token that is unfairly manipulated by the clever and the unscrupulous.

    The new token (instead of money or stolen real estate) needs to be the hourly unit of labour. Then we will see who REALLY deserves to be called wealthy.

    Do you seriously think you could accumulate all your assets and savings if “financial leverage” was outlawed and you had to build those things by the sweat of your own brow? Whenever I see a wealthy person I amuse myself by trying to calculate how many other people have had to sweat unfairly to build that wealth.

    The government could print masses of money and give it to the poor to buy tractors and gas with so they can all become rich farmers. I’ll join the queue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 (-3)

  57. greengeek

    The government could print masses of money and give it to the poor to buy tractors and gas with so they can all become rich farmers. I’ll join the queue.

    Problem one is that the land you returned to maori is no longer available to the government to hand out to you to farm.

    Problem two is the tractors you want to buy may not be sold to you as the money offered to the manufacturer of the tractor will be of such low value to the manufacturer that you cannot afford the tractor.

    Remebering that the tractor manufacturer has to use your worthless money to purchase raw materials, fabricate, assemble and distribute the tractor you want. Even a barrow load of your trillion dollar notes may not be enough to conclude a deal.

    He may well sell the tractor to someone whose currency he can TRANSACT with to run his business and pay his staff.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 (+5)

  58. “If the govt prints money to build a dam, the asset has never been paid for with anything of real value.”

    Even the “conventional” economists disagree with you on that one.

    The dam, like any sensible capital investment, is paid for with the value it adds to the future economy.

    It enables more “work” in future.

    Actually BJ, having taken economics 101 and a few other papers as well conventional economists are in agreement with the pair of us on the nature of money.
    Gerrit and Photo both show a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of money.

    Gerrit. Nationals lack of investment in sustainable future productivity, overseas borrowing with nothing to show for it, except for cheaper Hawaii holidays, and selling all the income producing assets, are going to devalue your Kiwi saver funds far more certainly than anything the Greens intend. Why are you not complaining about, their, stealing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  59. Kerry,

    I’m not a National supporter so why do I need to comment on their errant policies?

    Note I was commenting on greengeeks policy of handing out printed money to anyone. That is a mistake.

    Now the state “printing” money to invest into infastructure has merit as the payback is as you say in future benefits to society.

    I think it is how it is spent and reabsorbed in the future is the key to printing money. Would prefer it called “state asset investment”.

    So again my argument is with greengeek re printed money distribution. Lets call it “state asset investment” instead of printed money.

    The notion that one can distribute printed money for “no work done” is stupid.

    Money is a means of transaction and yes we (as a society) have given away much control of the power to control the transactional aspect.

    All for taking it back by limiting fiat banking.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  60. I think all this debate reflects the mess we have got (or allowed) society into by focusing on money as the key to an economy when land/resources and the effort required to make them useful to us are really the key. Climate change events are going to tip the money system over as the only way to pay for the floods, tornadoes, and droughts will be to create more money. The production is being flattened.
    The inflation will be massive or hidden in mass unemployment which will bring mass dissatisfaction and disruption as people try and get a share for their families. Look around the world now? The money system cannot frunction under this weight so those with investments loose anyway. Even land holdings loose value as they are less productive.
    Surely an enlightened elite, rich or academic would make the sacrifices and effort to ensure our resource use and distribution adapts to the need to keep social order. Only those who are meglamaniacs or so insecure in there real ability to produce results would want to continue the status quo.
    New money needs to be pegged back to the ability of the resources and workforce to provide what is needed, and this hinges also on the value we place on the collective holding as well. A lot of money and asset devaluation is purely as a result of producing new money, private or public, that is based on a theoretical value of the present holdings. Totally destabilised by the environmental damage that is effecting our ability to produce – health or ecosystem.
    We need a new calculation of what the productive resources really are, and much of this is still in the common, eg. natural ecosystems that create our food, energy, or shelter,so all need to be recognised in the distribution of the money, probably more in the way we tax the system, but certainly in the way we constrain the creation of money. Private monopolisation is antisocial and in the model I make it is destructive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  61. What do you think is going to happen to Kiwi saver, the NZ super fund and other monetary investments, which are currently propped up by the USA “printing” money when the fact that none of the US printed money has been invested in infrastructure or anything concrete which adds to future productivity/work, hits home.

    Just like borrowing, the future effects of QE are dependent on what it is spent on.

    “BJ – When you mention “Real” money are you including newly printed money?”
    If it is “spent” to buy work which contributes to the economy, grows capability now or in future, yes.

    Adding to the money supply does not always cause inflation. It depends on the spare capacity. The USA has so much unemployed workers at the moment that even adding trillions has not caused inflation.

    What will definitely cause inflation, devaluation of savings, in future, is the boomers trying to spend all their savings back at once into an economy whose capability has remained static.

    If it is spent on something that adds to real capability, not necessarily money income, in future, then it can be paid back.

    In that there is no difference between QE and borrowing, except with borrowing you have the added expense, of interest.

    We must, stop borrowing and spending ever increasing amounts on simply changing the owners of existing assets, invest in capability building, especially sustainable energy and import substitution, stop trying to keep unneeded trinkets from overseas cheap and work towards a steady state economy.

    Because ponzi schemes which rely on exponentially rising interest cannot continue in a world of finite resources.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  62. Kerry says “The dam, like any sensible capital investment, is paid for with the value it adds to the future economy. It enables more “work” in future.”

    This is where you are continually confusing the benefit the dam provides, with how it is paid for

    The dam provides this benefit whether the dam is paid for with cash, loans or printed money.

    How it is paid for is by work done previously (cash), work done in the future (loans), or no work done at all (printing money).

    Printing money is effectively stealing a small inflationary slice off everyone else’s pie.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  63. Gerrit.

    Agree.

    You are getting to understand what we are banging on about.

    State asset investment is a good term.

    You and Photo are correct in simply giving away money, to the banks, for nothing, as the US have done, is simply pushing up market bubbles. Shortly there will be a big correction. Which is unfortunately going to hit the NZ super fund and Kiwi saver, hard.

    Giving it to workers in return for building dams, or Christchurch houses, is a different matter.

    State asset investment, in fact, describes what we want to see, rather well.
    “Printing money” used to build future capability, is not giving it away for nothing, it is giving people money in return for their work building dams etc, and is paid back in the increase in our future capability.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  64. Photo. If it builds up what the country can earn in the future, or cuts down what we have to pay for imports. It ADDS to everyone’s pie!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  65. Currently. All the accumulating interest paid on loans, for swapping existing assets around, and tax cuts we couldn’t afford, are removing the whole pie.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  66. BJ – if you go to full reserve banking you can forget about 95% of the population ever owning houses.

    They’d need to save pretty much 100% of their house price while renting.

    There would be very few people with money in 20 year term deposits, and full reserve banking cannot lend out money deposited for less than the term of the mortgage (otherwise it’s fractional banking again – not full reserve banking).

    Only the super rich would benefit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 (-1)

  67. exactly, money only being a tool for sharing the pie, so as long as the creating of unfair shares is avoided, it doesn’t matter how it is circulated. I see private creation of debt being abused as most of the value of the investment is in inflated value, and probably being paid for by the renting of a resource that is increaing in value simply because it is finite. I feel this process is as socially wrong as giving money away.
    The effect of these processes on the sharing of the following years pie is distorting. When new reesources were plentiful it didn’t create such a distortion but now things are getting scarce the pie is becoming crumbs to those who can’t corner the resources.
    I have never liked Retirement funds for this reason. It seems to me a tax based system allows better for fluctuations in the resaource base, including population trends.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  68. Kerry says “Photo. If it builds up what the country can earn in the future, or cuts down what we have to pay for imports. It ADDS to everyone’s pie!”

    Bank of England says nearly half of the massive shift of capital because of quantitative easing went to just 5% of the richest families in the UK.

    And as the programme finishes the government is about to see 80 billion pounds wiped off the value of bonds it now owns.

    There are huge negative ramifications with printing money – you stick your head in the sand and pretend none of them exist.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  69. there are huge negative ramifications for allowing our pie sharing to be manipulated by foreign investments that have a history of inflating the value of the resources of the locals, to the point where it supresses local production.
    All systems have strengths and weaknesses, thats why we need leadership that is not idealogically blinkered, and can see the way forward in differing circumstances.
    An understanding of money is a small proportion of the skills needed to manage a system of production that has finite ecological and resource aspects. The market can only be a part of the management, and unlike the financial marketeers, a government can’t just dump or sell the elements that effect the profit for the investors. Cleaning up the consequences of bad previous choices becomes the reponsibility of a good government, and if this can be placed at the feet of those responsible, then all the better. Those investing in bad money management should not benefit over those who also share the pie.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  70. Clutching at straws now, Photo.

    Already said that the massive gifting of money to bankers, to gamble with, and push up asset bubbles, is not what Russel intends with QE.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  71. “Now the state “printing” money to invest into infastructure has merit as the payback is as you say in future benefits to society.”

    Gerrit – this is exactly what I am referring to by my suggestion of having the government hand cash to the poor to buy tractors.

    You may not consider humans as infrastructure but I do. Why invest in a new motorway overbridge when you could spend that money on making a poor family productive by offering an opportunity to get into agriculture. Or even fisheries.

    As they say: teach a man to fish and things get better for everyone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 (-1)

  72. Kerry says “Clutching at straws now, Photo. Already said that the massive gifting of money to bankers, to gamble with, and push up asset bubbles, is not what Russel intends with QE.”

    Wrong.

    Green Party policy actually says that quantitative easing means more money will go into banks enabling them to substantially increase lending.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 (-2)

  73. Kerry says “Photo. If it builds up what the country can earn in the future, or cuts down what we have to pay for imports”

    It won’t. The whole point behind the Greens QE is that it will lower the exchange rate, meaning we pay MORE for imports – not less.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  74. Isn’t that the point. making our exports more competitive, encouraging local production and paying nearer the true costs of imports.

    However as you claimed some time ago, it probably will not be enough to make a difference.

    A bit contrary to your current claims that it will cause Zimbabwe type inflation.

    It could, however, make a difference in reducing the compounding interest rates our children will have to pay if we borrowed for Christchurch and other infrastructure.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  75. if you go to full reserve banking you can forget about 95% of the population ever owning houses.

    They’d need to save pretty much 100% of their house price while renting.

    You are STILL imagining that this has to be done the way it historically HAS been done, with the bankers getting their cut. You really are quite off base with this argument but let us consider an alternatives.

    The government loans, with NO interest attached to the loan, the money to construct a house. That money loaned has demurrage associated, it is used to purchase the house, it circulates at a very high velocity to boost economic activity, some of it returns to the government in even less time than the repayment takes as it is re-deposited in someone’s account, and it has repayment terms associated. Without the interest on the loan the repayment is prompt and less onerous for a typical income.

    In the meantime a house is built and a family, and subsequent families, have a place to live. Buying a house is similar, but arrangements for housing are such that the use of a house to attract untaxed and massive Capital Gains no longer are possible.

    Fundamentally Photonz, your assumptions are not valid. One does not do just one thing, indeed one cannot do “just one thing”. Full-Reserve banking is scarcely the end of the changes, it is merely one of several that all work together to correct the imbalances in this country.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  76. In fact money does not equate with “work done”. That is the whole point here. Money is simply a token that is unfairly manipulated by the clever and the unscrupulous.

    Greengeek – I usually say this as “real money represents work done” – and it does. The current debt-instruments that are exchanged in place of real money and we carry about in our pockets and deposit as electrons in banks, are not “real money”. They represent debt and have issues of both trust and counterparty risk.

    However, if you consider a transaction involving barter, the things exchanged are the products of work done. There is no counterparty risk nor trust involved. For money to be a viable substitute for barter, which is its primary and most important use, one has to keep the “work done” relationship real. For that reason I reckon that backing the dollar with renewable electrical power generation, payable in KWH delivered at standard points of access in NZ (preferably directly next to large publicly owned hydro dams), is a good idea.

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  77. Actually I err in the house building example, as the house BUILDING has the government actually “printing” new money for the new house. The house buyer borrows to buy the house, but not for the construction of the infrastructure or the house. The terms of ownership are somewhat altered.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  78. If ChinaQE prints enough money to purchase a billion NZdollars, and gives that money to a China national to come to Auckland and buy clusters of Auckland homes (which is what’s happening…), could we use NZQE to print off some NZdollars to make it easier for my step-son to get into his first house?

    If our “free trade” partners are printing cash (enabling them to directly and immediately purchase international assets) then we have to have some sort of response. NZQE would probably be too little, too late. So maybe direct action to collapse the “free trade” idea is what is actually required instead.

    International QE effectively rapes and pillages NZ, even when expressed via “legitimate” vehicles like energy company floats. We have to find some suitably effective response to dampen this effect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  79. By the way BJ – that “cavaliers of credit” link you provided is a very informative read. Most interesting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  80. “If I build a dam with debt, my asset is paid for by the work I do to pay back the loan.If the govt prints money to build a dam, the asset has never been paid for with anything of real value.”

    Photonz

    The loan is never paid back because nobody actually owns the dam. In fact it is owned by the community as whole. The money paid out can be recovered from taxation, but this is only necessary if the expenditure is considered to be inflationary.

    Money created and loaned by the banks however is always inflationary since it will need to be recovered from the prices which the borrowers charge for their product.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 (+4)

  81. Sorry. In the above post I should have said that the interest will need to be recovered as part of the borrower’s selling price.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  82. Try to remember that those notable socialists Henry Ford and Thomas Edison espoused OUR side of this debate back before you were born. There is NO excuse for the banker’s power over us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  83. mikesh – you miss the point.

    When a government prints money to pay for something, that money doesn’t represent any work done previously, or in the future.

    Using Zimbabwe as the extreme example, the government often printed money, regularly doubling what was previously available.

    The real value of everything in the country didn’t change, but the inflation went up 100%, so the value of everyone’s money halved.

    That way the government suddenly owns half the currency in the country, effectively by stealing it off the population by way of inflation.

    That’s what printing money is – theft – using inflation to steal from the population.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 (-3)

  84. Funny how you like it when the banks do it, but not when the people as a sovereign state do it. Has it EVER occurred to you just how internally inconsistent your biases make you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  85. that money doesn’t represent any work done previously, or in the future.

    Hmmm… what was that was built with it? Oh yeah… a dam. Hmmm… Maybe 4 to 6 megatons of concrete and steel, generating electricity for 100 years and there isn’t any work associated with it?

    Wow… You really do have that big blind spot working overtime there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  86. BJ says “Hmmm… what was that was built with it? Oh yeah… a dam. “:

    Duh!!!!

    If I pay for the dam with cash or a loan, the dam is still built and provides exactly the same benefit – that’s blatantly obvious.

    The whole point you continually miss, is whether the money paid to build the dam represents any real value (work done), or if it’s merely pieces of paper the government has printed that has no value previously.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  87. “That’s what printing money is – theft – using inflation to steal from the population.”

    How is it theft when all the population now have an extra asset they did not have before.

    Theft is when you remove an asset from all of us that we already own. Which National is glee fully doing.

    “The whole point you continually miss, is whether the money” borrowed “to build the dam represents any real value (work done), or if it’s merely pieces of paper the” BANK “has printed that has no value previously”.

    Fixed it for you.

    Your point, Photo, gets even more ridiculous when the banks “reserves” are money “printed’ and given to the bank for free, by the US Government.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  88. “If I build a dam with debt, my asset is paid for by the work I do to pay back the loan. If the govt prints money to build a dam, the asset has never been paid for with anything of real value.”

    This is both true and untrue, depending on your focus. Financially speaking – the money printing is not YET backed by anything of value. But look at the outcome: Large numbers of families have food on the table during construction, the country gets an “asset” (if it was properly planned). These outcomes have value.

    Thus, the printed money is backed by the labour efforts of people who might otherwise be sitting in front of the telly. However – if those construction workers were taken off privately backed construction projects or are sourced internationally the printed money can have a destructive effect.

    And always – the printed money eventually flows into the overall money supply and dilutes savings etc. The question is whether getting bums off seats justifies the dilution.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  89. it’s merely pieces of paper the government has printed that has no value previously

    Photonz – WHAT is the functional difference between your money “printed that has no value” whether it is printed by a bank or printed by the government? YOU MUST EXPLAIN THIS BEFORE YOU CONTINUE – YOU MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL!!!!!

    The problems you have are palpably obvious to anyone who has troubled to read through Steve Keen (I linked above)… Hell, the limit on borrowing represented by the reserve requirement is itself corrupted by the way the system currently functions. The banks are able to loan themselves the money to create the reserves. Go ahead and examine the numbers. The money supply rises in advance of the reserves. It is ENTIRELY unlimited fiat, unbacked and at the behest of the profiteers in the banks who control our government as a result. You are so completely misled you’d need a complete reboot just to be merely wrong.

    If you are objecting to anything at all that might make sense to object to, it is to the lack of any relationship to “work done” on the ability of either entity to create that money.

    Except that in the case of the government we’ve already made clear that the money creation IS limited to “work done”, and that the “borrowing from the future” that is done is explicit when it occurs… and far more real than the current illusion… and when the dam IS built the “dilution” and “inflation” is returned to the society… it isn’t even inflationary to do it.

    You persist in parroting wingnut talking points that have no relation to reality.

    Lets go back down to the individual who has NOTHING. Yet he can work, and he does so for nothing and as a result of his work he has something, and can sell it or eat it or whatever… where did the original money come from to pay for his work?

    Does THAT help to clarify things?

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C04E0D7103EEE3ABC4E53DFB467838A639EDE

    The Greens actually have presented a clear program that is still short of the actual reboot needed to fix the money and the economy of this country. You have misunderstood it. You have misunderstood the system you are defending.

    When and if you do figure out what we actually have now, you will know immediately. The clue will be that you become physically ill at the realization that the world economy is so completely controlled and distorted.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 (+5)

  90. It only dilutes savings if it causes inflation.

    If it expands the economic activity it may well grow the whole economy without causing inflation.

    In this case it only causes inflation if there are too few workers. hardly an issue at present.

    There is also the consideration at the moment that we could do with a bit of wage inflation. Wages are too low to stimulate demand. Something the Yanks are finding. Inflation in the USA is stubbornly refusing to occur, despite trillions in “printed” money.

    The inflationary effects are the same whether it is “printed or borrowed. Borrowing is more inflationary because there is always an extra interest component to be found.

    If RWNJ’s were really that concerned about inflation they would be advocating the method of paying for infrastructure, and building capability, which is least likely to cause inflation, more taxes!.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 (+4)

  91. “mikesh – you miss the point.

    When a government prints money to pay for something, that money doesn’t represent any work done previously, or in the future.”

    Photo

    It doesn’t actually matter whether it represents “work done”, or gold, or debt, or nothing at all. Money printed by government will function perfectly well as money as long as people accept it as money. The problem is not whether the money represents anything but whether its issue is likely to be inflationary. (Though in fact such money doesn’t function as money until it is put into circulation; and it is not put into circulation until it is used to pay for something eg the construction of a dam, or civil sevice salaries, or some other form of “work done”.)

    If it looks to be inflationary the government can remove it from circulation through taxation. Of course the government could first of all tax people and use the proceeds to build the dam, but if the former course of action is likely to be inflationary the latter course would be deflationary, which would be even worse since deflation tends to lead to depression.

    We as a people have a certain quantum of resources at our disposal – labour, raw materials etc. We pay for the dam by diverting some of those resources to its construction. Those resources are then no longer available for the production of other things. Unless we have resources that are not being used we will need to give up part of our purchasing power to limit the amount that we can spend on other things otherwise inflation will ensue. We give up purchasing power either by lending to the government or by paying taxes. If the latter course is chosen the government is simply takeng money from us and using it to build a dam. There are two ways it can do this; either tax first and build the dam, or print the money, build the dam, and recover the money by taxing the people after the event.

    However, if there are unused resources available it may not be necessary to tax people (or borrow) as in that case the expenditure on the dam will probably not be inflationary. All that is happening in this case is that we are paying for the dam by diverting resources that were not otherwise being used.

    Is the penny starting to drop?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  92. Ok, riddle me this.

    It is alleged that the government can print money to build things, and this is good because we end up with an asset.

    So, why can’t I print money, and use it to build something of value?

    (I accept there may need to be some controls to manage the practical aspects of this, but am interested in the principle)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  93. The equivalent for you is that you work for free to build something.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  94. “So, why can’t I print money, and use it to build something of value?”

    No reason at all why not. Though probably no one would accept your “money”. However some communities issue their own local currencies which have limited acceptance. Banks also are private institutions which create and issue money, although they do not issue their own bank notes or coins.

    If you were to discover a vein of gold somewhere you could use that as money, and people would probably accept it because gold has intrinsic value.

    I suspect that people accept Queen Elizabeth authorised money because they have to use something as money, and money issued under her authority is as good an option as any.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  95. Avoiding the question. No, I don’t want to do the work, I want others that I pay to do the work, just the same as the government would. I print the entirely legal money, and give pay several someones for materials and labour.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  96. No… you need to think about it harder. The government is US, not something/someone else. It is us doing together what we cannot do separately and MONEY is a convenient form of work which we exchange among ourselves, but you asked and it was quite clear, why YOU could not “print” money to arrange for work to be done.

    You are a single individual however, and the work available to you is the work you INDIVIDUALLY can do. You control the amount of work you do “the money” and decide when you are too tired to do more.

    The government/our society is us as a group and the work available to our society is what we can collectively do. We collectively decide what we can do, but as a society we use money.

    Money is a function of the society, not the individual. The solitary individual has no need of money whatsoever, does he? Realistically what good does it do unless there is someone else out there to trade with?

    You cannot really mix the two concepts the way you just did. Which is why a government/society can “print money” and an individual cannot.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  97. Ok, taking that as the case, and using the government/society as a descriptor for “us” or “we”.

    If we print some more money, then that dilutes the pool of our money, and as a result every individual dollar is worth as little less.

    So any new asset we may use that money for is just a fractional contribution from us all. There may be a new asset, but there is no new money, just redistribution of the value of our existing money.

    Thus there is no functional difference between reducing the value of my existing money by printing new money (to the same total value), or just keeping the value the same and taking a (bigger) portion of my money away through a mechanism such as taxation. In both cases, I end up with less.

    The difference is, of course, in the perception. Everyone understands “more tax”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  98. “Thus there is no functional difference between reducing the value of my existing money by printing new money [[(to the same total value)]], or just keeping the value the same and taking a (bigger) portion of my money away through a mechanism such as taxation. In both cases, I end up with less.”

    This is true, though I’m not about the bit I’ve placed in square brackets.

    However, money is worth only what can be bought with it. If the supply of purchasable goods and services increases along with the increase in the money supply money should retain its value.

    The Austrian shool argues that if the money supply remains the same and production increases prices generally should fall and the value of money would therefore increase, and we would all benefit from the increased production by being able to purchase more with the money we have.This certainly is a tenable argument, though deflation does have its disadvantages.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  99. In the end it comes down to what the collective we actually decides to do with its resources: create something that is useful to all (like a hospital) or hand it over to a few people to gamble with (like bailing out finance companies). All money is in a sense imaginary as is the interest that lenders charge.
    By “printing money” for the purpose of collective social good, creating outcomes that otherwise would not happen, you are harnessing the creative energy of society.
    By assuming that only banks have this ability, we are losing sight of the purpose of money as a symbolic means of exchange of labour and goods.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  100. If we print some more money, then that dilutes the pool of our money, and as a result every individual dollar is worth as little less.

    Temporary.

    When the thing we build with that money is completed we have added value to the same extent as we printed the money (approximately). What cannot be done is to print money to fund operational expense. One cannot “print money” simply to pay the continuing wages and other operational expenses and maintenance. THAT has to come from taxes, but there is no impediment to using government “printed money” to build the hospital or dam in the first instance.

    The asset is passed on to the society. This is in a sense, the exact reverse of the current government’s “asset sales” fixation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  101. bj says “When the thing we build with that money is completed we have added value to the same extent as we printed the money (approximately). ”

    Of course it is inflationary. You have the asset AND all the people and companies who built it ALSO have that amount of money.

    Otherwise building the same dam and paying the same people with money you already have would be deflationary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  102. BJC: “but there is no impediment to using government “printed money” to build the hospital or dam in the first instance

    If China ran the same “print money” policy (which I guess they do..) would it enable them to purchase hospitals, dams, houses or power stations in NZ?

    If NZ ran a “print money” policy, would it enable us to purchase foreign assets in order to offset foreign purchasing of our assets (just to balance the ledger??)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  103. Since when is a THING that has value, counted as money that is inflationary? You have created value and you have the money that represents it. It cancels Photonz, just as there is no goddammed inflation when you do work to create something that you can use youself.

    This is turning out to be one of the more revealing conversations we’ve had. You really cannot see it? It is so obvious I can’t imagine that anyone can miss it. Nor is it because you aren’t smart enough to understand. I think it reflects perhaps this?


    “The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled.” Galbraith

    The reality is that as outrageous as it seems, the truth is that the bankers and the economists who are in charge of this mess, are either conspiring actively to defraud the rest of the population or innocently but completely gormless when it comes to knowing what they are actually doing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  104. BJ says “You have created value and you have the money that represents it. It cancels Photonz, just as there is no goddammed inflation when you do work to create something that you can use youself.”

    Of course it doesn’t cancel.

    The input for a $1b dam is $1b of work and materials from the builders.

    The output is the $1b that they are paid, PLUS the $1b asset of a dam that the govt gets.

    The only reason the $1b of printed money they are paid has any value is because everybody else’s money loses a little bit of value through inflation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  105. A one billion asset is what you got for the one billion. It is “production” , which makes the MONEY not inflationary. Inflation is when the money increases for the SAME production. Are ye’ daft man?

    You CANNOT count the asset as inflationary. CANNOT!!! AIIIEEE !!!

    Leave out the money and look at the simpler example.

    I plant wheat and transform it into bread in my own kitchen. Is the bread counted as inflation? Is my work? You CANNOT COUNT THE DAM ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE MONEY!! Go ask someone else. Find yourself even an ordinary stupid economist and ask if the DAM counts as inflation.

    Great leaping toads !!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  106. GreenGeek – No. Different sovereign state gets the asset, different money. Real world rules vs the Economically Insane world rules. Sovereign State has right to do stuff for itself. Build an asset in ANOTHER country and you don’t really control it (or you are infringing on the sovereignty of that other country and intend to enforce your “ownership” with your military)… and your reason for doing so is all about profit in monetary payback. If it is a GIFT I would think it possible but to authorize it a country would have to have a referendum.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  107. Also, to enforce the difference, I defined the money somewhere in prehistory on this thread, as being backed by energy delivered in THIS country. It isn’t entirely unlimited, it is redeemable and it isn’t simply printed, and the redemption is ONLY possible in this country. That is an intentional limitation, to reflect the actual limitations of the real world on the WORK we control.

    We can do work, for ourselves, for free. We can’t do other people’s work.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  108. BJC -“Build an asset in ANOTHER country and you don’t really control it”

    I am not suggesting BUILDING assets eleswhere. What I’m really getting at is that another country (eg China) is able to BUY ready-made assets in NZ (eg houses in Auckland) and there is no barrier to them doing this using money that is fresh off the printing press.

    Therefore, wouldn’t it be prudent for NZ to be prepared to print money in order to be on the same playing field as the countries we do business with?

    We could print money to purchase land in Fiji or Australia, or even South America. Think about that for a minute. What exactly are the downstream effects of such spending? It is a potential way to offset the unavoidable effects that U.S and Chinese QE has on NZ currency.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  109. Overall I don’t think this makes sense. The playing “field” doesn’t actually exist.

    The rule should be that WE can buy property in our country and nobody else can do so.

    Most countries already have that sort of rule. Want to buy property in China ? You have to be Chinese.

    Playing at QE (China doesn’t need any really, it has trillions of US $$$ to play with) … doesn’t change that. We have to give the monetarist damned lunatics of the “Chicago School” the big boot. I want them to land in the middle of the damned Indian Ocean… by way of Chile and South Africa. I want them OUT of this country, as they are actively destroying it as we speak.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  110. BJC: “The playing “field” doesn’t actually exist”

    Actually it does: When the USA prints money it ends up on the balance sheet of a bank or a corporation. That translates into real purchasing power – either locally in the USA or overseas in a market like NZ.

    NZ companies do business with companies that have their balance sheets inflated by QE. The question is how NZ reacts to the longterm impacts of that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  111. My point is that the ability to buy property is not freely available and does not mirror the QE participation. Perhaps that is too narrow a focus.

    The aspects relating to business in general are significant problems too though, and on that side there is more of a point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  112. While agreeing with the thread of government created assets I have reservations about the process in modern terms. What I guess makes it safe is the scale of the asset values and debt already existing. The sort of reaction from Photo is probably the reality that those who are making money out of money believe their view is correct or they wouldn’t be doing it, or they don’t care. I get the suspicion that the ease banks give out money just to buy assets, is to fuel the systemic dependance on the process they are making money from. This way they are more sure the community will not upset the gold cart.
    There is a lot of accumulated money to keep the elite myths in front of people.
    The Green opinion is being labeled far left, when it is in fact centrist. By taking out the extremes of asset value accumulation, a market can work freely and all can get a fair share of the resources. The banking process we are seeing just aids the small minority to accumulate, while giving a small proportion of the urban resource to the masses.
    I feel that the working families in the community give well over and above their share of producing the resources we need. The rural producer probably works hard too, but the methods being adopted increase the resources needed to get that produce on the table. The voluntary and family activity gives a lot to the productive base as does the ecosystem, and the question is how are they being counted in this process, and probably justify a greater common share being taken from the market. The far right try to justify by blaming the families. How can a family teach good resource outcomes(including health) if they haven’t their share of the resource.
    I feel the issues can only be overcome by mass education, aimed at workers and middle income earners, and this requires a good interactive resource that shows the issues about money and economics, in simple terms and every day examples.I have been trying to do this but am failing in health more often now – old age? – and because I am an idealist I haven’t accumulated enough asset to pay others for my basics. It would be good if a think tank was assembled to take on the reeducation of economics.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  113. Despite what happened in 2008 (a few picked up billions of $ while ten of millions were ruined) the present trade in financial derivatives is variously estimated at 8-20 times global GDP. Printing money is a good thing if you’re one of those traders and we don’t hear complaints from trolls about that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  114. Printing money as I see it is largely to replace borrowings from the bank. It just doesn’t seem sensible to borrow from Westpac, incurring interest and saddling future generations with debt, when the government has the right to create money. The Federal Reserve rebates interest paid by the US government. I bet Westpac doesn’t rebate interest paid by the NZ government.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  115. The problem with the money as it is goes far deeper than the problem of what happens when we “print money” as a country, as opposed to borrowing from banks. The actual definitions used for money by almost everyone, are as faulty as all the deranged attempts to build perpetual motion machines that one sees through history.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  116. We need to get rid of fractional reserve banking and prevent private banks from creating money. Banks would then only be able to lend, and charge interest on, what they had borrowed on term deposit. Government would need to create money to offset the shortfall, but the limiting factor on how much they could create would be the need to control inflation. They would need to borrow at interest only if the taxes necessary to control inflation were considered too onerous.

    I’m not sure that Russel with his quantitive easing ideas really understands or agrees with all this,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  117. Using pie charts instead of graphs and other comparisons is probably a powerful tool.If you pie chart who got the proportions of the pie in the early 60’s and then now, the lenders and especially foreign outputs would probably be shown as larger. Also the proportion that is released into our local economy on sale of assets paid in foreign money or debt, would effect things.
    Instead we let all our infrastructure, wages and social assistance, get reduced as the culprits for the distorions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  118. Until people see what money is now and its effect on resource share there vwill be no questioning. I see peoples eyes glaxing over on a fairly regular basis when you talk about the issues. For many it is in the too hard basket and they feel helpless to change it so they stop listening.
    The people like John Key knows this and they get quit arrogant. That is why he tries to shut down debate on economics and money as it doesn’t help to have people thinking about it. I also believe it was why Roger Douglas was helped to do his thing with the CIA quite active here at the time – David Lange shut them down. With the opposition growing in the population it was easy to push change from Labour. The trouble is it has largely stayed the same since.

    Lets educate?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  119. Dbuckley said above.
    “So, why can’t I print money, and use it to build something of value?”

    Yes you can.

    “(I accept there may need to be some controls to manage the practical aspects of this, but am interested in the principle)”

    A direct real example which is also appropriate to our example of building a dam.

    I have built a yacht in my spare time, spare time which, like unemployment, is otherwise unused economic capability. Other people have also donated spare time to help me build it. In this case because they expect to go sailing with me later. I can issue a promise of a certain amount of sailing time when it is completed. If one or more of them would rather not go sailing but decide to give my promise to a third party who can redeem it by sailing with me. Hey presto. I have printed money! A means of exchange.

    I have not decreased anyone’s savings or taken from anyone else because my “printed” money has increased economic activity by utilisation of otherwise unused work, and I have added a community asset.

    In the same way as using our underemployed work force to build a dam.
    Or to rebuild Christchurch.

    I have increased everyone’s wellbeing. Which should be the aim of an economy. An economy exists for people. Neo-liberals would have you think it exists for money, the bond market, or to balance the books, while, what they really think, it is to make them rich at our expense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  120. “If one or more of them would rather not go sailing but decide to give my promise to a third party who can redeem it by sailing with me. Hey presto. I have printed money! A means of exchange.”

    Good option. I think it is very important for ordinary citizens to retain exchange mechanisms outside of the monetary system (which has become the wealth-building instrument of those who demand more than an honest hour of their own labour can provide..)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  121. Gerrit says:
    “The notion that one can distribute printed money for “no work done” is stupid”

    Your comment angers me because it is so patently untrue. Exactly WHAT do you think happens to the money currently being printed by the Fed?? It gets distributed, and it makes specific recipients more wealthy.

    They won’t be giving it to anyone but their friends however.

    The idea of NZQE is simply an idea to protect NZ interests and balance the books that are adversely tilted by ForeignQE.

    Simple really.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  122. Not sure Gerrit is so wrong – I suspect that he meant something quite different from the way you took his statement. He was referring I THINK, to the “real” money, the money that represents work done, that I have been arguing for, and in terms of that, he is correct.

    In terms of the QE flood of FAKE dollars, YOU are correct. There is no impediment apart from the imagination.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  123. Fair point. Trouble is that “real money” does not exist in the Western world the way that it did previously. We are now entering the phase that South American countries have already faced over the last 10-15 years. The tie between “real money” and one hour of real labour has been broken. (just as the tie between the value of real money and value of real gold was broken all those years ago)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  124. greengeek,

    Your comment angers me because it is so patently untrue. Exactly WHAT do you think happens to the money currently being printed by the Fed?? It gets distributed, and it makes specific recipients more wealthy.

    You are getting closer to understanding what I’m saying. It is not “distributed” to anyone in a retail sense to increase purchasing power of buyers. Instead it ends up here

    So far $2 trillion has been created by the Fed and £375 billion by the Bank of England, but where has all this new money gone? It has certainly not appeared in my wallet or bank account – nor has it fattened yours, unless you happen to be a bond trader or banker. The fact is that all the new money has been spent on buying bonds. QE has thus inflated bond prices and boosted bank profits, but achieved little else.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/08/01/how-about-quantitative-easing-for-the-people/

    So unless the bonds are cashed in to build say a state owned thermal electricity generating station (ie. reward for work done), we simply have a stupendous volume of imaginary “money” floating in the bond market actually not doing a great deal.

    What it does is

    The one economic benefit of QE has been to help governments finance the huge deficits caused by recession without having to raise taxes, slash public spending or face Greek-style bankruptcy. In this sense, QE has certainly prevented the U.S. and Britain from suffering worse outcomes, but it has failed to stimulate employment or economic growth.

    I have feeling that you are imagining that QE would

    Giving away free money may sound too good to be true or wildly irresponsible, but it is exactly what the Fed and the BoE have been doing for bond traders and bankers since 2009. Directing QE to the general public would not only be much fairer but also more effective.

    Suppose the new money created since 2009, instead of propping up bond prices, had simply been added to the bank accounts of all U.S. and British households. In the U.S., $2 trillion of QE could have financed a cash windfall of $6,500 for every man, woman and child, or $26,000 for a family of four. Britain’s QE of £375 billion is worth £6,000 per head or £24,000 per family. Even if only half the new money created were distributed in this way, these sums would be easily large enough to transform economic conditions, whether the people receiving these windfalls decided to spend them on extra consumption or save them and reduce debts.

    But that is not what is happening, the money funds debt repayment (in the form of bond issue), not state expenditure for constructive “work” that creates jobs and workers income, nor as a freeby for the general population.

    Worth a read that article.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  125. If QE was to only occur once, I’d be happiest for the cash to be given to the man in the street.

    Given that it occurs repeatedly, and the cash goes to people (institutions) that I consider to be money manipulators (to their own advantage), then I am not a supporter of it.

    However, if, as a self-defense mechanism, NZ was to indulge in a bout or two of QE, and give the money to mums and dads, I think I’d have to support it – especially if it was specifically targeted at helping small businesses get off the ground.

    Personally I’d prefer greater protectionism and fewer freetrade agreements as an alternative.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  126. Perhaps I’ve missed your point Gerrit – that article seems to me to be strongly on the side of using QE to enrich the man in the street – which is exactly what I am advocating as a method of minimising the effect of internationalQE which merely enriches the artificial mechanisms of wealth (eg stockmarkets, bank balance sheets, bonds etc).

    If NZQE was to happen, my preferred vehicle would be to invigorate the economy by helping poor/average families purchase the infrastructure (tractors/boats) they needed to earn a living from New Zealands natural resources (land/sea/tourism)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  127. “There is no such thing as unreal money.”

    Tell that to the people who invested in finance companies and thought the balance sheet on their bank accounts was real.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  128. Mikesh –

    Open your wallet.

    If there is a Fiver in there have a good look at it.

    You can use it for trade to the extent that people trust the government that issued it.

    However, its VALUE is entirely mutable and unpredictable.

    Its value changes with the whims of the banks, the trust of the people and the vagaries of the government. Its value could be halved or doubled tomorrow (extreme but possible).

    It is not really money, it is a debt instrument.

    You can use it in place of money and we all do, but it is not real money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  129. If I open someones wallet and take their ANZ “paywave” card and swipe it in front of the paywave machine when I buy a pie at my local dairy – am I using real money??????

    I’m not paying with gold, I’m not paying with an hour of my time, I’m not paying with paper money, I’m not paying with my own EFTPOS, and I’m not using my own credit card.

    Yet I still get the pie.

    The definition of real money is somewhat tricky in the modern age. International QE is like having someone pinch your paywave card. How do we redress the outcome?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  130. “Mikesh –
    Open your wallet.
    If there is a Fiver in there have a good look at it.
    You can use it for trade to the extent that people trust the government that issued it.
    However, its VALUE is entirely mutable and unpredictable.”

    Its value is immutable and predictable. It will always be worth $5.00

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  131. Mikesh the piece of paper is stuck at $5 but what it can buy is always in a state of flux, so the $5 is only relative.

    Money is only as good as the number of people who trust it. This applies to banks, corporations, governments?

    What has happened to the world of money/investment is people are taking shocks all over the world as different governments adjust to what the easy/create money systems are doing to the stability of resource sharing/production. At the same time resources are getting more scarce by political activity or fact. Suddenly the governments are trying to keep stability when the crunch hits, but people in some countries are fighting for a better deal, and others are allowing the state to prop up giant corporate power houses.

    A lot of what is being done is without thought to how things got there and the poor economic thinking behind the framework we have. This government, and the giant corporations want the people looking after their family stability to pay the price while they keep raping the system.

    Dissent has to be part of the process of change and brains need to engage but those getting the unfair share want things to proceed.

    To go back to basics in economic as a starting point we need to relook at what is economic activity.

    it is simply Land and resources being put into a useful state by human activity – Labour.

    Capital is only achieved when we produce a surplus of what we need and store it for later, or produce some sort of innovation such as a spade that we use time and again.

    Money is only a medium of exchange in this process.

    The value of our production largely comes from the common natural estate that we all must have to survive, and the collective skills and knowledge that society is continually sharing and upskilling. In our modern urban society this is complicated by a myriad of other functions, sustainable and otherwise.

    Cheap energy in terms of fossil fuel has allowed us to build this big bubble of activity, aided by easy private credit. With Peak oil issues and the carbon valuation being added in variuos ways the model isn’t sustainable without changing how we have been producing and distributing, and the energy available needs to be reallocated to sustainable enterprise. This is disruptive, but will be moreso if credit resources aren’t directed toward less sexy long term sustainability. Who makes the decisions here? The market would work eventually but is really risky, new technologies cost the poor more time.Thus democratic government becomes the less risky agent of intervention to change direction without creating undue suffering.

    The trouble with a lot of the private credit is its so called value is based on the unsustainable model of how we can behave without limits to things like fuel and even land itself. It is not reliable as a benchmark of what is available in value in a sustainable economy.

    A government must act to make it reliable, or the trust that makes it work can dissolve. The idea of increasing the reserves that lenders need to hold is worth looking at, the loss of any false value in assets then can be dealt with without tipping over the rest. The problem comes then with limited lending available, the priority of the bamk may become the investment return.

    Maybe reserve bank funding could be given to large infrastructure projects, and to community/co-op banks to help those displaced by the refocus.

    Or is taxing the use of resources instead of income the better way for social redistribution?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  132. All true, no doubt. But the fiver in my wallet is still worth $5.00 precisely:-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  133. mikesh – the nominal face value is still $5.00 precisely, but it’s actual value is NZ$5.00 which is less in US$ than it was worth 2 weeks ago.

    Give it another year and it is likely to be worth even less in $US because of the Feds QE “strengthening” the US economy.

    The more US$ that get printed by the Fed (and other currencies), the less your NZ$5 will be worth. $US and Euros find their way to the NZ market.

    This will impact fuel and lots of other NZ commodities (particularly land) therefore the future purchasing power of your NZ$5 will not match it’s current nominal value.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  134. greengeek says “The more US$ that get printed by the Fed (and other currencies), the less your NZ$5 will be worth. $US and Euros find their way to the NZ market.”

    You got that the wrong way around.

    When the US started printing money a lot of US$ investment money shifted INTO NZ. The NZ$ went up against the greenback. Now that QE is stopping, that investment is flowing back out of NZ, which is why our dollar is now going down.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  135. Its value is immutable and predictable. It will always be worth $5.00

    Unfortunately $5.00 is ONLY worth what you can exchange $5.00 for, of itself it is at best a poor substitute for toilet paper. Worse now as the damned stuff is made of plastic :-)

    Lets be clear about this. Money is worth what you can trade it for, and what you and anyone else is willing to trade it for is the product of someone else’s work – or simple work.

    Money is an intermediate object in a barter trade that enables a plumber to buy something from a baker who doesn’t happen to need any plumbing done. The baker “trusts” that the money can be exchanged for a certain amount of the electricity he DOES need for his ovens (or something else he needs). It is not worth ANYTHING on its own. It is however, in terms of the barter transaction, a substitute form for the work done.

    Real money represents work done.

    Now the arrangement in a BARTER transaction does not involve ANY trust, and that is part of the reason for the “done” part of that definition. In the barter the bread from the baker is tangible and any variation in value is the observed and accepted quality and quantity of bread.

    Real money does NOT represent a debt relationship and as trust does not form part of the barter exchange it should be excluded insofar as possible, from a monetary exchange. That is difficult enough when the money is backed by something (Gold or KWH of Electricity) and the government guarantees it, but at least in that case the amount of work exchanged is held to some constant and defined exchange.

    When it is not, the problems multiply rapidly, the baker doesn’t know if the money is worth the same one day to the next and the ovens may not get enough electricity as a result.

    So don’t try to slip a circular definition in here.

    Photonz, the Fed can’t actually stop. They can talk about it but I really do not think they can do it.

    They are stuck in a tighter crack than that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  136. Just want to say that that Russel’s initial explanation was as clear and pointed as any I have seen to date. There is NO excuse for the lies being told by the Key government about his proposals, but there is certainly a reason, and that reason is clear if one considers who Key’s friends are and who his employers were (and quite possibly still are).

    I have to agree that he does the numbers game well, so we can assume that the toxic effect on the NZ economy is not an accident. He KNOWS what is happening here and he has the ability to understand why… perhaps. The question is whether it is active treason or simple ideological blindness that procures his obedience to the bankers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  137. Russel’s chart doesn’t tell us whether inflation is driving the increase in the money supply, or vice versa. It would seem that most of the inflation that we have is occuring in the housing market, but high prices in that market seem to reflect a shortge of housing stock relative to demand, and it may well be that the increase in M3 is simply following the consequential increase in the price of housing. (If it was up to me I think I would ration housing in areas where there were problems)

    The chap in the Seven Sharp clip said that the banks were lending money that didn’t exist. However this is just silly. If the money didn’t exist then the banks would not be able to lend it. Money may be created out of nothing but, once created, it exixts. (Nor is there such a thing as “unreal” money.) The issue is not whether money exists or doesn’t exist, or whether it is real or unreal, but who has the the right to create it, and under what circumstances.

    Realistically there are only two options for the creation of money – banks and government. The trouble with banks is that they create it in pursuit of profit. The government on the other hand would create it (one assumes) in accordance with the needs of the community.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  138. “You got that the wrong way around.
    When the US started printing money a lot of US$ investment money shifted INTO NZ”

    photonz – Aren’t we saying the same thing? My point was that excess money (newly printed in USA or anywhere else) has the ability to be spent in the NZ market. This means that there is more competition for NZ resources (houses, stocks and bonds, leisure boats whatever…) which means that NZers have to fork out more NZ$ to compete against those foreign spenders.

    Effectively devaluing a $5 note.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  139. DBuckley – Real money CANNOT represent “work done” from some time in the future. It is an oxymoron. Done is in the past. Real money is not a credit instrument and is not backed by such.

    You fall into the same trap that the dumb economists did in a way… and the government can do EXACTLY the same thing, but not charge itself interest.

    As pointed out by those notable economically illiterate knuckleheads Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.

    As has worked for us on numerous occasions in the past but as is horribly feared by the banks because when we know that it works we can in FACT break their control over our government.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  140. “…is horribly feared by the banks because when we know that it works we can in FACT break their control over our government.”

    A worthy goal. Our government has a responsibility to work for the benefit of OUR citizens, and to resist as much as possible fiscal control from external sources.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  141. Most of the posts above deal with the real value of money and the relationships between currencies. In the light of recent events I would like to comment about what seems to be underway in the international monetary markets and how it affects New Zealand.

    John Key recently signed a “historic” currency deal with China, allowing direct trading via the Yuan, effectively downgrading NZs view of the US dollar in terms of it’s previous status as defacto world currency. See here, and here, also see comments here

    Maybe John Key did not realise that the main reason for America attacking Libya was to collapse Quadaffi’s efforts at setting up alternative currency markets (Before his destruction Quadaffi was about to set up a pan-African and pan-Asian currency backed by the 3000 year old Arab dinar coins as a means of paying for oil without going through the US dollar as required by the OPEC rules). Similar efforts are currently undergoing trials in South Asia (Malaysia etc) and will no doubt be opposed by the USA.

    I found it fascinating to see how quickly John Key started to change his mind about having signed the deal. He looked ashen faced and somewhat chastened when stating a couple of days later that NZ can’t afford to do too much trade with China. I wonder who rattled his cage in those couple of days? Someone seems to have made it clear to him how the USA regards efforts to trade in currencies other than it’s own. See here: John Key recants Chinese focus

    NZ has to be ready to protect itself against the current efforts by the USA to restore a stranglehold on global transactions. They seriously need to offset the loss of their petrodollar empire somehow, or else their economy is in serious trouble. We need to be vigilant to ensure our own economic sovereignty is protected..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  142. What if the current global efforts to marginalise the greenback forced the USA to end the greenback as a physical currency? What would that do the U.S and global economies?

    There is a good chance that the U.S may take such a step this year. Hand in your greenbacks people – they may be worth nothing at all in a few weeks time…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  143. I don’t see them being forced to withdraw the Greenback, all that actually has to happen is for the US $ to no longer be needed for international trade, and THAT is happening, as you note. It is resisted by the Fed, but it is happening and has been happening for years.

    In the end there will be a collapse of the debt train, but one has to consider that China holds not only the economic stick of its productive advantages but also the boat anchor of massive holdings of federal debt. They can’t destroy the dollar without it costing them a huge amount of money, so they are being cautious and the dollar remains… sort of… OK.

    In the meantime the Fed is using a mechanism that sequesters the mass of money that it is creating in the hands of the wealthiest, who aren’t spending, so it is creating no apparent inflation. They think this is clever, but it IS creating an ever widening gap between rich and poor. The social damage is large and growing, and trust is disappearing fast. With the debt backed dollar, that trust is an “asset” and losing it is dangerous too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  144. I suspect the greenback (ie: CASH – the physical currency) may be disabled as ‘legal tender’. If they did this the government would immediately kill the underground economy, boosting taxable revenue by enforcing electronic transactions .

    This would allow an easier mechanism for QE to flow through the economy. Some say that the cash economy could never be limited or controlled in America, but there are already plenty of examples of American companies (and even banks) refusing to accept cash over the counter. I think this will increase over the next few months as people realise that the actual value of paper dollars is being quickly eroded and the ongoing use of the greenback may even be outlawed.

    Those who want to be in the money chain will need the governments permission to do so. The gold standard died, the fiat currencies became unhinged, and now cash will die too – the birth of a new, tightly controlled economy where unapproved transactions become impossible and the government controls capital.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  145. Neat theory but not going to happen Greengeek. They can’t even get rid of pennies… can’t issue dollar coins either.

    Americans won’t stand for such a move and it would get whoever attempted it or suggested it unelected and possibly shot, in a hurry. This is one of those cases where the intolerance of my compatriots is sort of welcome, as what you suggest would be the “police state” that so many fear so much. My advice is to fuggedabowdit, cuz it ain’t happnin (using my New York accent).

    Neat theory, but… this is something I know about, my folks back home can have some really violent reactions certain sorts of provocation and the money they use is one of the flash points. Whatever they do to control the sheeple will have to leave the money itself in place. They’ll have to find other ways to restrict it, cause they can’t do much of what you’re describing at all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  146. We’ll see.
    I’d give it 3 to 6 months before the rush is on to cash in old notes at the bank and swap them for some form of debit card or a bank balance.

    That is of course – if the banks will allow the deposit/swap to occur.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  147. GreenGeek

    The fall of the US dollar as the reserve currency of the planet is an almost inevitable development in international trade, but that status has an entirely electronic implementation and is not affected by, does not affect, the use of dollar bills. Those two things are very different.

    Moves to suppress the “cash” economy which exists in the US just as it does in NZ and for some of the same reasons, would have as little value there as here, but for the massive use of cash in the handling of the drug trade. However, there are serious limits to how far those moves can go, that have to do with USian attitudes to US currency and US election politics.

    Simply saying that the two things “Reserve Currency Status” and “Legal Tender for all debts public and private” are quite different, and the latter (which is what one discusses when expecting the dollar to be withdrawn, is not likely any time soon. The former may well end in spite of the wishes of the US government, the bankers there and the ignorance of the sheeple.

    ciao
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  148. But are the two forms of currency really separate? What if the Treasury (or the Fed) said “bring us your greenbacks and let us trade them in on a 2 to 1 special” – ie: one greenback gets you a debit card balance of two “new” dollars. It’s just another form of QE – but one that allows benefits from the perspective of governmental control of the economy.

    There have been a number of changes to the monetary system of the US over the years and they always result in a massive shift of wealth. The time is ripe for just such a sea-change.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  149. From the perspective of a cash economy, New Zealand is an outlier.

    Cash is a common transaction form almost everywhere, but in New Zealand, EFTPOS is king, and cash is rare. Bars, cabs, plumbers vans all have EFTPOS, as do market stalls and street traders, but those latter cases are unheard of elsewhere. In NZ, one assumes that anyone transacting cash is almost certainly up to something dodgy.

    This may change as the banks are keen to replace EFTPOS with paywave and other card solutions. Paywave attracts costs (ie money to the banks) that EFTPOS doesn’t, so there may be a move away from EFTPOS, and a subsequent but small increase in consumer pricing caused by the change.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  150. dbuckley,

    I don’t know where you live but here in South Auckland, cash is very strong. Just go and stand in a bank on Monday morning and see the wads of cash being deposited by “weekend traders”. Go to any Western Union office and see the cash being transferred overseas.

    Go to any outlet that takes cash (dairy, bakery, etc.) and see the open tills in operation. All cash that does not see the books or the taxman. Cash used to buy stock from local growers and suppliers.

    Remuera may like the flash “wave and go” transaction cards, here in South Auckland it is cash that is preferred.

    You could actually present a very strong argument for distributing printed money to the citizens and bypass the banking system altogether.

    Though how you would collect taxes from this liquid economy would be hard, as no paper trial for goods and services transaction would exist.

    Remember, (as I demonstrated earlier on this thread) all QE money goes into bonds, not to the people to spend and thus stimulate the economy.

    BJ,

    In recent history many nations “replace” old bank notes with new and set a date from when the old notes are no longer legal tender (Russia from memory was the last).

    Has this ever been done by the US treasury? Would certainly give the federal bankers a good indication of how much physical cash there is in the system.

    Just imagine those drug cartels or the Chinese government having to exchange old money for new :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  151. Perhaps it was done once – maybe – 200 years ago Gerrit.

    The only comparable event was the big gold confiscation in 1933. Changes to the dollar? Not in the past 100 years AFAIK… and likely much longer, but you can tell I am no historian. One could almost wish they’d try it. The house of cards would collapse so fast you’d think it was a magician’s trick and people would understand quickly the difference between the proposals for a sustainable currency and the perversion of BAU.

    Which is probably one of the reasons it is not done. I think you’re right about the usefulness of doing it, but likely it is not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  152. There is a FAQ on the US Fed site about the validity of old bills. In short, unlike many other nations, the Fed have never cancelled a bill.

    However, if you have old bills, many shops will not recognise them, so the advice is to take them into a bank and have them swapped for newer bills.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  153. Gerrit, I’m in North Canterbury. Our weekend traders have eftpos machines! Our local farmers market had to get eftpos a while back after complaints from customers who wanted to buy but had no cash.

    Perhaps you’ve somewhat proven my assertion that “in NZ, anyone transacting cash is up to something dodgy” :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  154. dbuckley,

    A cash transaction can never by “dodgy” as it is legal tender in the transfer of goods and services.

    Dodgy bit only comes in when the transaction is not declared to the state for taxation purposes.

    I think you are confusing the two quite separate issues.

    If you really want to play into the Banks and State hands, outlaw cash and only have electronic transfers.

    Most traders in South Auckland have eftpos but when it comes to price discussion, one always gets it cheaper with the folding stuff. If the traders does not declare the cash transaction, should the purchasers be faulted and have the mechanism of legal tender cash transfers taken away?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  155. Gerrit:

    If a buyer and a seller agree to a transaction by payment of cash only for a lower price, then the people involved are behaving in a dodgy manner; the buyer will suspect the seller is doing an “off the books” transaction. Given that a legitimate EFTPOS transaction has no cost [footnote 1], why would a seller give a cash buyer a lower price for no financial gain? [footnote 2]

    I refer to my original statement: “In NZ, one assumes that anyone transacting cash is almost certainly up to something dodgy.”

    I’m not conflating anything at all. The accusation is leveled at the people involved, not the cash itself. Cash is just cash. You ask “If the traders does not declare the cash transaction, should the purchasers be faulted” – and the answer to that is yes, they should; they have colluded in a deal which it can be reasonably assumed will be “under the counter”, and they are benefiting from a criminal activity, namely that of depriving we the people of the tax revenue.

    (And I dont disagree with your QE and bonds statement, but that has nothing to do with the matter under discussion between us)

    Footnote 1: There is no “per transaction” cost with EFTPOS; there are fixed costs with having an EFTPOS machine and an account that it is connected to, but the more transactions one puts through the EFTPOS, the better value one achieves for that cost. Credit / Debit / Paywave cards all do attract per transaction costs on top of the fixed costs, so its easy to see why they are less preferred.

    Footnote 2: in fact, cash can be an extra cost; businesses are often charged for depositing cash to the bank!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  156. dbuckley,

    yes there is a cost factor with eftpos. You need a bank account.

    I guess if you see cash transactions a dodgy, i guess you would freak out over contra deals. No cash, no eftpos, just an agreed value in the exchange of goods or services.

    And you want a purchaser to be persecuted for paying by cash? Jees, better not tell Harvey Norman where I got a good deal for cash on a new dishwasher.

    I’m guilty of offering cash, they are guilty of what? Taking the cost of credit from my cash purchase?

    Well if ALL cash transactions can be “reasonably assumed” to be under the counter. Are you going to persecute kids that spend their pocket money on an apple at the greengrocers?

    Even more interestingly, all kids would need a bank account plus an eftpos card from birth.

    mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, not so sure you really want that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  157. Greengeek – I’ll say it again.

    If they ever EVER tried to do this seriously there’d be a revolution by morning.

    Some things are “un-american” in ways that generate a visceral reaction among us, and that’d be in the top 10.

    So it is not likely to be happening before the economy melts down completely, which IS likely and IMHO, likely by 2018 and 2020 at the very latest.

    ciao
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  158. “yes there is a cost factor with eftpos. You need a bank account.”

    Anyone noticed the ANZ and now Spark ads on telly pushing the “pay by phone” strategy? Pretty soon there will be no real need for eftpos machines, and businesses/banks will not be keen to transact in cash, given the ease of phone transactions. It’s all moving towards a system where the money is injected in a controlled way at the central bank/federal reserve level (central control of who gets to spend that ‘free’ money, and where they spend it – ie Aucklands housing market) and easy monitoring of each transaction in the money chain.

    It’d be nice to be near the top of the money printing trickledown. The money has a more powerful effect in its first few transactions. Not so much purchasing power when it eventually dilutes the money supply in circulation at ground level. The big boys at the top buy the houses and the average joe at the bottom gets to buy veges.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  159. There is an awful lot of confusion around the monetary system which this piece perpetuates.

    The government can, and does, create money. Government spending is money creation and taxation removes it.

    The government does not tax or borrow to spend what it itself creates at no cost. The $NZ is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency that only the government can create in net terms.

    Nor is QE ‘money printing’. It is an asset swap. Bonds for reserves. Just a change in the non-government sector’s asset portfolio make up. And more likely to be deflationary than inflationary because it removes interest income from the private sector.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  160. Those interested in the nature of money and it’s creation should watch a few excellent videos on the topic:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3mfkD6Ky5o
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_IgcmsqnVM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxZhtGeRa-M

    Neither private banks nor government should have control of our money supply. Banks inflate the money supply with debt born money that is destroyed upon repayment leaving only the negative sum of interest generated on the loan, but government, when given the option, would simply print money regardless of demand in order to fulfill political promises. Both disregard the stability and proper function of the economy as they are tainted with moral hazard. Banks give us never ending crises, but governments can give us runaway inflation when money is created in excess, leading to issues like the Russians experienced in the 1920’s – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_early_Soviet_Russia
    This has been repeated in other countries as well – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Hyperinflationary_episodes

    Instead, an independent public institution should manage creation and destruction as needed. This has been proposed in a very comprehensive way by the UK group Positive Money – http://www.positivemoney.org/

    Their ideas and proposals are detailed in their excellent manifesto Modernizing Money – http://www.amazon.com/Modernising-Money-Monetary-System-Broken/dp/095744480X

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  161. John G… are you serious?

    The bankers create money every time we borrow from them, and that has been the case for a long long time.

    Moreover, if our government can create money, why does government insist on borrowing it?

    You made a very definite statement that is perhaps a reflection of monetary theory in some part of the economics profession’s assumed reality. It does not reflect what we know.

    We know that Jefferson regarded the banker’s control of money creation as dangerous.

    We know that the Rothschild’s regarded it as advantageous… to them.

    We know that Andrew Jackson had it out with the bankers in his era.

    We know that since the creation of the Fractional Reserve arrangement the bankers have gained ever increasing influence over governments until we reach the current unsustainable foolishness in which they are elected or appointed (Italy, Greece) to run governments they do not already control. This always is at the expense of the people, and to the benefit of the owners.

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

    As pointed out elsewhere, the fundamental assumptions of both major parties and most of the people currently living, are being overturned by the automation of the workplace. This is unlike previous episodes, and the difference undermines the fundamental assumptions of our society. When more than half the population is unable to obtain work, or housing, our social contract is seriously destabilized, even untenable.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/15/humans_need_not_apply_watch_a_dark_video_on_automation_and_human_work.html

    Real Money Represents Work Done – I have said this many times. It is not something that can be ignored by governments OR banks OR economists… not for long at least. (Just longer than you can remain solvent :-) )

    However, as automation works its majick the result is that the owners reap an ever increasing share of the rewards. Inequality runs rampant… and we find ourselves in the worst strife that we have had as a society since the days before the treaty. Maybe worse than that even.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

    We aren’t as bad as the USA – yet. That is merely an AMBITION of National and John Key.

    I think that before we get there someone in the media will wake up to the problem and start pushing back against the one-sided debates and one-sided reporting that has featured so heavily in the past decade.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  162. Thank you Ben…

    I think you will find that the Green Party understands the message of Positive Money. Most of us anyway.

    I agree with much of the Positive Money message, but I have a simpler one. Real Money represents work done. I apply that and the laws of thermodynamics and I get answers that resemble yours in almost all respects (IIRC, it has been a long time since I looked at Positive Money and signed up there)… and economics becomes far more of a science than it has ever been.

    ciao
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  163. bjchip Yes I am serious.

    Banks create bank credit that the government guarantees by issuing notes and coins that you can exchange for bank credit.

    But they do not create net NZ$. Only the NZ government can do that. They do that by spending into the non-government sector i.e. by marking up numbers in bank accounts.

    They remove them by taxation. The difference between the accumulated total spending and taxation is what we call the national debt. There is a law that says the government must issue bonds in the same amount. But it’s only a law that could be changed tomorrow without any real effect.

    The government ‘debt’ isn’t really a debt. It is merely bank reserves being swapped for interest bearing certificates. It isn’t spent and it doesn’t get paid back.

    The sequence begins with spending the dollars into existence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  164. Thing is, I don’t really like the Green party. I don’t think that it nor many of its policies are viable, or that it would achieve better outcomes for NZ than National. I am however extremely interested in certain policies, and the Positive Money reform proposals are dear enough to me that I might be tempted to vote Green if they openly advocated them. I’m not interested in half-assed regulation of a shitty system, only complete reform would satisfy me. As Richard Wolff has said – we’ve been through this shit before in the Great Depression. Hard won regulation really kept the lid on that fucking pot, didn’t it?

    I guess what I want is a National government who carry through Positive Money reforms and utilize an Internet party approach to voter engagement (loomio) – https://internet-party.loomio.org/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  165. I am so so sooo pleased to read this. You DO understand who controls the money supply. At LAST we have a political party that has the solution. The very important task of controlling the supply of money use to be the reserve of the elected government. But then the banks put pressure on politicians and our country was sold off shore. The first Labour Government with Michael Joseph Savage as leader used reserve bank credit to build state houses and plant thousand of hectares of timber forests that we all owned. We don’t own much of either. So you see people it’s not only a good idea, it’s not inflationary if managed properly and it works for the benefit of all of us!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  166. “But they do not create net NZ$. Only the NZ government can do that”

    Is that really true? If the U.S government (or the Chinese govt for that matter) gives one of their businessmen $1,000,000 which they use to buy NZ property (directly or indirectly) has that altered the net number of $NZ in circulation?

    When an overseas national using overseas money pays $600,000 for an NZ house which has a GV of $400,000 has there been some creation of net $NZ?

    New Zealand dollars are only a fiat token – they do not actually exist in finite quantity. Overseas money printing shifts the balance of wealth whether or not it changes the overall finite number of net $NZ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  167. “Positive Money” (which is really an oxymoron) would more likely lead to a deflationary disaster and far greater income inequality more rapidly. The creditor class would gain total control.

    The government can and does spend its own money into the private sector but in the neoliberal era that has been severely limited by what is political dogma rather than clear economic thinking.

    That the banks act as intermediaries of that government money is only one side of the system. The government, on the other side of the ledger, is the banks’ bank. And banks thus depend on the government, which supposedly would be us, in a democracy.

    The question should be how we get a government that would use the system for public good and use its power over the credit system. Not to throw the concept of money into the history books for a system that would be mathematically certain to fail, and pretty quickly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  168. ““Positive Money” (which is really an oxymoron) would more likely lead to a deflationary disaster and far greater income inequality more rapidly. The creditor class would gain total control.”

    Positive money as in money creation is no longer done through loans, as the private banks currently do under the fractional reserve system, which despite what you previously said is in fact the system in NZ – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Bank_of_New_Zealand#Fractional-reserve_banking

    “mathematically certain to fail, and pretty quickly.”

    Please, elaborate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  169. greengeek.

    No. The overseas investor must either exchange his foreign currency for NZ$ or borrow them from a bank. Neither scenario is a net increase in NZ$.
    Banks do create money in that most of the money circulating is via bank credit, but not in the net, because there is a corresponding liability.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  170. I think that I’ll post these here too, in case you find Wikipedia disagreeable –

    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/reserve_bank_bulletin/2008/2008mar71_1lawrence.pdf
    “In practice, by far the largest share of money – 80 percent or more, depending on the measure (discussed below) – is created by private sector institutions.”

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
    “This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  171. “Banks do create money in that most of the money circulating is via bank credit, but not in the net, because “there is a corresponding liability.””

    This is true. However, I will point out that the interest generated on the loan is separate and unpayable from a debt born money supply. Only debtless money can repay it, which is generated by our Reserve Bank.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  172. ” The overseas investor must either exchange his foreign currency for NZ$ or borrow them from a bank. Neither scenario is a net increase in NZ$. Banks do create money …. but not in the net, because there is a corresponding liability.

    I feel you are incorrect in your belief that the net $NZ is stable and unchanging. I think it is now at the whim of international fractional banking and credit. Let me offer an example:

    Say I produce a really, really interesting video and post it on the net, and charge people $1 to view it. Lets say that 1,000,000 people around the world view it and pay me $NZ1 each. Surely that is extra money that is coming into NZ? Those people do not have to ask how many $NZ are available for them to buy – they just spend the money and let the banking institutions change the balance sheets to reflect the cash movement. The NZ government does not control those transactions and there is no limit to how many $1 videos we make and sell…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  173. If the objection is to private money creation, which I understand and tend to agree with, why not just make banks and credit institutions state, government, community owned and operated?
    Why try to overthrow money for something else? Just bring it back under democratic control.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  174. Ben says:
    September 9, 2014 at 11:23 am

    Whatever Wiki says the system is, it isn’t a fractional reserve system because bank loans are created eh nihilo without regard to reserves. Loans create deposits. There is no fraction of deposits that the bank is able to lend. They are limited only by willing credit worthy borrowers.

    Positive money as in money creation is no longer done through loans

    So it then isn’t money, money being a credit system, and becomes a finite commodity that would be bid up in price by those with the means.

    And as I said up the thread, the government has the power to spend its own money into the private sector at will. It’s only neoliberal political dogma that stops them. There is no need for the sovereign to balance the books or run surpluses in its own currency.

    The massive private credit expansion has, at least in part, been a result of lack of government direct spending, causing a higher demand for bank credit.

    I’m all for financial sector reform, quite radical reform is sorely needed, but I don’t want commodity “money” under any circumstances. PM wants to reform a system that they only partially understand and would change its good points with the bad, and create a deflationary disaster.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  175. greengeek says:
    September 9, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    I feel you are incorrect in your belief that the net $NZ is stable and unchanging. I think it is now at the whim of international fractional banking and credit. :

    I didn’t say that. The net NZ$ in the system changes with government spending and taxation. Sovereign deficits increase net private sector NZ$ assets and surpluses decrease them.

    Effectively, because the government issues bonds in the amount of its net spending, the so called national debt is the sum total of non-government net NZ$ financial assets. With a few minor leakages.

    In your scenario the NZ$ that your purchasers buy to pay you have been sold by someone else. So increased income to you, but no NZ$ created. That remains true under any fiat, non-convertible, floating exchange rate currency.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  176. “Why try to overthrow money for something else? Just bring it back under democratic control.”

    Positive Money don’t advocate the replacement of money as a medium of exchange, only the reformation of it’s creation and handling by banks. It’s complicated and I don’t know nor understand all the details completely, but I’m going through their book and it looks quite plausible. I recommend at least browsing their videos to give yourself a better idea about what it is they advocate.
    http://www.positivemoney.org/
    http://www.positivemoney.org.nz/

    We have some local independent candidates who are advocating for PM as well – https://internet-party.loomio.org/d/7aF6Zm94/banks-create-money-out-of-thin-air-and-then-lend-it-at-interest-let-s-change-this

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  177. Ben says:
    September 9, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    This is true. However, I will point out that the interest generated on the loan is separate and unpayable from a debt born money supply. Only debtless money can repay it, which is generated by our Reserve Bank.

    The treasury is the part of the government that PM people never consider. But it is the treasury that creates the government money in the resreve system. The central bank only creates the cash part of reserves.

    The interest on private bank credit is income which remains in the system until it is taxed out.

    Are the private bankers claiming too much of the national income? Certainly. But is still part of the national income and what isn’t saved, is spent and taxed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  178. “why not just make banks and credit institutions state, government, community owned and operated?”

    PM propose that money creation be handled by an independent public institution, separate from government so that money creation cannot be done for political purposes. Banks can remain private entities as they no longer will have the right to create money via fractional reserve policies. Loans have to come out of investment pools and normal deposit accounts are completely separate from these so that if the bank goes under normal depositor accounts are guaranteed.

    That’s my understanding so far, but the book goes into far more detail and also handles transitional procedures.

    http://www.positivemoney.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Modernising-Money-Free-Overview.pdf
    http://www.positivemoney.org/modernising-money/
    http://www.amazon.com/Modernising-Money-Monetary-System-Broken/dp/095744480X

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  179. Ben says:
    September 9, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    I recommend at least browsing their videos to give yourself a better idea about what it is they advocate.

    I’ve seen most of their videos. I’ve met people for years who espoused the Chicago Plan and all manner of these non-credit “money” systems.

    To a man/woman, not one of them actually understands the system that we actually have since Bretton Woods collapsed and they all have obsolete beliefs about the “money supply” that revolve around the long discredited and debunked Quantity Theory of Money.

    Keynes et al blew all that out of the water in the 30s. Unfortunately the neoclassicals have come back and now they run the asylum.

    The PM people point out that economics text books are all wrong, which they are, but then perpetuate half the myths that the text books teach.

    Monetarists simply do not understand the concept of fiat money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  180. “The treasury is the part of the government that PM people never consider. But it is the treasury that creates the government money in the resreve system. The central bank only creates the cash part of reserves.”

    Unfortunately, no. The credit that they issue can itself be used as reserves in the system as a whole. Person A takes out a loan and pays Person B, Person B then deposits this money in his account at a different bank, now allowing his bank to create further loans using this deposit as a fractional reserve. Reserve Bank money is only used in the form of notes and coins by the general populace and as payment between banks to settle final differences from transactions by their customers.

    “The interest on private bank credit is income which remains in the system until it is taxed out.”

    Again, no. In fact, you have it exactly the opposite way around. When banks extend credit they do so as a loan, once the loan is repaid the credit is made null. The interest on that debt does not exist in the money supply.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  181. Traditionally the real unit of currency is “net work done”. It is not tightly linked to “hours worked” but similar in concept. The more people we have, and the more work they do, and the more widgets they produce, then the more currency is generated. There is no set link between one unit of “net work done” and the $NZ, just as there is no set link between “net work done” and the hourly rate.

    One mans hourly rate is different to anothers. The ‘minimum wage’ is not a constant – it is a fiat unit determined by government policy and labour market competition. The actual value of one$NZ is dependent on the number of $NZ in circulation as well as the number of hours worked producing GDP units of “net work done”, as well as the actual percieved value of each unit of “net work done” and also the degree of competition for the purchase of each GDP unit resulting from “net work done”.

    There is nothing stopping the generation of new $NZ. There is no limit on how many there are in circulation. It changes from year to year, always upwards as far as I can tell.

    When international governments create new dollars, they effectively create new $NZ at the same time. This devalues each $NZ we currently own, pushing up the paper value of each unit of “net work done” thereby requiring more “labour hours” to reach that level of “net work done” . This is one reason why houses are going up in price. Houses are simply one type of “net work done” being paid for by inflated QE dollars, rather than by “hours worked”.

    House prices used to inflate only by the average value of intergenerational wealth (ie Grandmas inherited dollars were available for the next generations house purchase). Nowadays international money availability has an impact and gets translated directly into the overall numbers of $NZ acting on the marketplace.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  182. Ben says:
    September 9, 2014 at 2:17 pm

    PM propose that money creation be handled by an independent public institution, separate from government so that money creation cannot be done for political purposes

    Indeed. And that is one of their most objectionable policies. They’d remove fiscal and monetary policy from democratic accountability.

    It’s bad enough with the charade of our “independent central bank” being run by neoclassically trained grand poo bahs. At least they can’t get their hands on fiscal policy.

    Believe me, I’ve been around economics and economists most of my life. They’re the last people you want running your economy. The vast majority of them haven’t got a clue and the further you go up the academic chain the more clueless (and/or bought by big business) they become.

    And in the end, it’s all about politics anyway. You can’t separate the two. The economy is a distribution system. Money is just a part of it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  183. greengeek,

    Traditionally the real unit of currency is “net work done”. It is not tightly linked to “hours worked” but similar in concept. The more people we have, and the more work they do, and the more widgets they produce, then the more currency is generated.

    That is only half the equation. You need to add the willingness and ability of a consumer market to buy the widgets. Produce widgets that no one wants or can afford, the real value of the “net work done” or the currency is actually negative (you have utilised previously earned currency to produce a lemon).

    Only by producing widgets in great demand and highly valued by the customer, will ensure greater currency generation.

    Currency value is not set by the producer but the purchaser.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  184. “Currency value is not set by the producer but the purchaser.”

    Yes, I agree. That is why I have great concern about money coming in from overseas. Due to the size of external economies those overseas purchasers often have more disposable income by which they can inflate the $ value of our produce and critical assets.

    This is one reason I am keen on the idea of people developing alternative methods of transacting. When I said “the real unit of currency is ‘net work done'” I was partly suggesting that money is not always the vehicle for transfer of currency. I could give you my donkey in return for a weeks worth of your building skills.

    I feel it would be beneficial for us in NZ if we could avoid the damage done by the purchasing power of massive international economies transacting within our small asset base. I do believe QE is a large part of that damage right at the moment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  185. Ben says:
    September 9, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Unfortunately, no. The credit that they issue can itself be used as reserves in the system as a whole. Person A takes out a loan and pays Person B, Person B then deposits this money in his account at a different bank, now allowing his bank to create further loans using this deposit as a fractional reserve.

    No. Banks don’t lend reserves, except to each other. They don’t require reserves or deposits to create new loans.

    Again, no. In fact, you have it exactly the opposite way around. When banks extend credit they do so as a loan, once the loan is repaid the credit is made null. The interest on that debt does not exist in the money supply.

    But the interest paid is still in the system. It has just been transferred between actors within the private sector. Your spending, the bank’s income. It doesn’t disappear. Only the original credit is wiped.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  186. The definition of the unit of currency as based around work is an indicator of an older way of looking at the economy thathas some validity but also raises some questions. Any item made also has a resource component such as iron and minerals, or timber, and even skills in the community. In these resources are a commons element that is not valued by this definition. Is that because the common right to them is a given? Some areas have a lot more productive common, even some cultures in the type of education. In the present economic climate this common is more and more put into private hands therefore has an effect on the productive unit. It is even assumed that those providing the resource are contributing equally to the contribution, even if they only hold the rights to that material/land/skill. This must distort the value of the unit of production (inflation) which gives increasing value to the resource holder, which occurs in a finite world anyway. It is even happening with money/capital now.

    Looking at a productive equation we might say that Land/Resources plus Labour/Skills make production and Capital is only saved production that can be reused in future production. Thus our definition of money units is distorted by having money used to buy land and resources as well. Does this mean we have a different way of distributing resources or a different currency to handle the resource part of the equation? Is money alone a fair way to distribute the resources to allow new entrants into the productive process? Is this why the productive indicators are in decline in a baby boomer age as the resources are held by giant investor/retirement funds and not easily placed in the hands of the younger fitterr producers?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  187. “Indeed. And that is one of their most objectionable policies. They’d remove fiscal and monetary policy from democratic accountability.”

    Nope. Government is still perfectly able to set policy on how money is spent and taxed, they just have no direct control over it’s creation/destruction. Also, they would still be able to guide creation in terms of using a public mandate. These changes would result in a far more stable monetary system than we have now and would in fact put our money supply under far more democratic control than it is now under private banks.

    “No. Banks don’t lend reserves, except to each other. They don’t require reserves or deposits to create new loans.”

    Please read my comment again, I said that private bank generated credit can in effect be used to produce further loans in a fractional reserve system, which is what we use in NZ whether or not you want to accept it. I’ve provided two further sources to support this which you seem to have simply ignored, but I won’t debate with you further on that issue if you refuse to address them and instead keep offering your unsupported opinion.

    “But the interest paid is still in the system. It has just been transferred between actors within the private sector. Your spending, the bank’s income. It doesn’t disappear. Only the original credit is wiped.”

    Tell me, how do you think that interest is generated? The interest on the credit has to be supplied somehow, and it simply does not exist in the money supply. The credit that it was born from was created as a loan, right? So that money once repaid ceases to exist. Now where are you going to get money to fulfill the interest? Either further loans or Reserve Bank money. Private banks can only generate new money as debt born credit, each dollar having to be repaid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  188. You say …..

    Nope. Government is still perfectly able to set policy on how money is spent and taxed.

    …. but then ……

    they just have no direct control over it’s creation/destruction.

    Which in a fiat currency regime is a contradiction.

    in a fractional reserve system, which is what we use in NZ whether or not you want to accept it.

    I don’t accept it because we don’t have one. Even your PM people accept this fact. Loans create deposits.
    The old reserve ratios, when we had them, were ratios of deposits not lending.

    You may be getting muddled up in capital requirements or something but there is no relationship between a banks reserve position to its ability to create loans out of thin air.

    I understand your point on interest, although it’s not quite right in the macro. But in any case a) the interest that the banking system takes is not lost to the system, as I thought you were inferring and b) so what? The system won’t end tomorrow and as Keynes noted, in the long run we’re all dead.

    With all due respect, macroeconomics doesn’t work the way you’ve been taught. Getting wound up about notional ‘money supply’ issues is to miss the main point.

    It’s all about income. Flows, not stocks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  189. greengeek,

    I could give you my donkey in return for a weeks worth of your building skills.

    This barter or “quid pro quo” market currently operates very well, just it is under the radar as the state wants the GST component for any transaction completed plus the taxes from any profits made.

    In other words the black market is not legal. However we all do it,

    Not going to be possible to redistribute the “wealth” unless it passes through the state inefficient hands first. For the state to do wealth distribution, all transactions need to be financial, not in kind,

    Unfortunately for the state, this will be the future as we devolve into the post industrial age. I grow some vegetables for you, you give me a loaf of bread in compensation.

    This is why it it necessary to wean people off the dependency of the state and into self reliance.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  190. greengeek says:
    I could give you my donkey in return for a weeks worth of your building skills.

    But the IRD would then assess the value of the donkey and send an invoice that can only be extinguished with the governments own currency.

    Taxes establish the government’s monopoly on currency.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  191. Sorry… been a wee bit busy. Some sort of election coming up.

    :-)

    Not trying to overthrow money for something else. Trying to overthrow the concept of interest.

    If Money equals work done, then it has to follow the rules that thermodynamics applies to all OTHER forms of work done. Entropy rules. So what is required is demurrage, not interest. You don’t borrow money into existence… you age it out of existence. Borrowing is just fine, and interest is just fine, but you can’t have a real monetary unit that represents debt. Debt means anything like that is a debt instrument, not real money.

    The point is that you still HAVE money, it just works more like the real world does. Keynes actually considered this before sliding into the debt error.

    John…

    So it then isn’t money, money being a credit system, and becomes a finite commodity that would be bid up in price by those with the means.

    The point is that MONEY CANNOT BE A CREDIT SYSTEM!!!

    Not if it is to actually function properly. ” Taxed out of existence” doesn’t need to happen in the mirror world of demurrage.

    If it isn’t a fractional reserve system, and is instead perfectly OK for the bankers to create all the money they care to create for the borrowers they suspect might pay them back, it is merely worse.

    The government can and does spend its own money into the private sector but in the neoliberal era that has been severely limited by what is political dogma rather than clear economic thinking.

    Yes, those notable communists Ford and Edison understood it.

    However, I do not think you are quite in the groove with what the banks are able to do to the net NZ $.

    Two aspects of this. We can’t pay, in the current system, the interest on the debt that backs the money in existence. There is a built in requirement for growth or inflation that cannot be satisfied… ever. This is the reason that most of the economists alive today regard deflation as an evil to be avoided at all costs… or regard growth as a sacrament. Whichever… it cannot be done sustainably.

    This is how I came to understand the mirror world. It reflects thermodynamics more accurately, and a lot of things become a lot easier to understand.

    Key things, and we agree on them I think, are that the creation of money needs to be in the hands of the state and controlled by the people, not the bankers and especially not the overseas bankers, and that there is no impediment to government direct spending of money into existence.

    How much of the demand for the NZ $ is driven by NZ property buyers taking ever increasing mortgages to buy the same pile of rubbish that has been optimistically called a “flat” for the past 20 years? From FOREIGN banks. Paying the interest to overseas lenders? This affects the EXCHANGE rate, but not the income of the New Zealander. There is a problem with the computation. The actual work done hasn’t become larger, but the money supply??? Who owns all that money now?

    Turn it around and you can’t even START to do something that stupid. Surely I will find something else equally dumb that we CAN do but it might be a bit easier to see it. The sleight-of-hand by which New Zealand as a whole is being defrauded and robbed and hoodwinked is actually reasonably slick.

    :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  192. Well you’re telling me what you think money ought to be. Not what it is. Money has always been a credit system.

    Every time it has been tied to a commodity it has failed.

    and that there is no impediment to government direct spending of money into existence.

    Under the system we have in place, there isn’t any real world constraint on government spending, only political dogma espoused by neoliberals and their neoclassical economist counterparts. But it is nonsense. The NZ government is not revenue constrained.

    What I’m describing is the system as it is in the nuts and bolts make up of what we have.

    Does the NZ government have any foreign currency debt? I doubt it.

    I think you’re seeing political problems as monetary system problems. There is an awful lot of misinformation out there about the workings. Especially coming from the Libertarians, gold bugs and Austrian School nutters.

    Unfortunately the PM people are perpetuating some of the neoclassical myths.

    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=7299

    100-percent reserve banking and state banks

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  193. “Which in a fiat currency regime is a contradiction.”

    The independent entity creates money and gives it to the government to spend according to their policies. How much the government gets is not in their control. You see?

    “I don’t accept it because we don’t have one.”

    That’s the end of me debating with you on this issue. You disregard all evidence to the contrary, so there is nothing further I can do except post my sources and let other people examine the evidence that you won’t.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Bank_of_New_Zealand#Fractional-reserve_banking
    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/reserve_bank_bulletin/2008/2008mar71_1lawrence.pdf
    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

    “I understand your point on interest, although it’s not quite right in the macro.”

    The only way it fully applies is in the macro. All private banks create money as debt, they have no ability to fulfill interest except via credit, which is just more debt. Only debt free money can address interest, and private banks can’t make it. It’s just a game of musical chairs with more and more people over time.

    “With all due respect, macroeconomics doesn’t work the way you’ve been taught. Getting wound up about notional ‘money supply’ issues is to miss the main point.”

    Right back at you. If you can’t see the inherent flaw in an ever increasing global deficit then I just don’t know how to communicate with you.
    http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  194. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=7299
    “The debt explosion that has brought the World economy to its knees was not the fault of endogenous money creation.”

    Pretty much was. Private banks lending out enormous amounts of credit because they found a way to dodge regulation and decouple themselves from the responsibility of the loans.

    “It was the result of lax regulation; criminal activity; and a neo-liberal obsession that national governments had to run surpluses (and hence squeeze private sector liquidity and wealth).”

    Regulation that was made toothless by who I wonder? As for governments needing to run surpluses, I would have to say it helps to not have your tax revenues bleeding away towards paying off debt and the interest on debt. If this person is implying that government should simply print money endlessly to pay its bills I think that he is ignorant of inflationary effects.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  195. Ben says:
    “It’s just a game of musical chairs with more and more people over time.”

    Yes, well that’s what an economy is and how a society works

    That’s the end of me debating with you on this issue.

    Can you point me to these reserve requirements then? You can’t because there are none. Your sources are misreading or mislabelling the banking system. And the RBNZ and the BofE both specifically contradict themselves.

    Reserves ARE NOT LENT to non bank borrowers. Period. We do not have fractional reserve banking.

    The only way it fully applies is in the macro. All private banks create money as debt, they have no ability to fulfill interest except via credit, which is just more debt.

    If you say so. Fine. But again, so what?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  196. Ben says:
    As for governments needing to run surpluses, I would have to say it helps to not have your tax revenues bleeding away towards paying off debt and the interest on debt.
    If this person is implying that government should simply print money endlessly to pay its bills I think that he is ignorant of inflationary effects.

    Perhaps if you had a good look around his site, you might find that he understands inflation where you clearly don’t. And macroeconomics in general. You could start by reading the piece I linked to in full.

    Your view is neoclassical QToM bunk.

    Oooh that map is so scary btw. I have zero fear of deficits and so called government debt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  197. Ben says:
    September 10, 2014 at 2:56 pm
    “Which in a fiat currency regime is a contradiction.”

    The independent entity creates money and gives it to the government to spend according to their policies. How much the government gets is not in their control. You see?

    Currently the deficit/surplus is the amount of money that the government creates or destroys.

    Government deficits add to net private sector assets and surpluses deplete them.

    You need to understand how a sovereign, fiat, non-convertible, floating exchange rate actually works.

    The idea of replacing democratic government, albeit that we don’t really have much now, with a technocracy, is nuts in my view.

    But I’m not sure that you understand that that is what you’d be doing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  198. Why would foreign currency have anything to do with the debt?

    The debt is owed to foreign banks… the conversion is whatever it is but the money gets sucked out of NZ all the same.

    Does the NZ government have any foreign currency debt? I doubt it

    ————————————–

    It has never been tied to “work done” which is not a singular commodity. You mistake me if you think I have anything to do with Precious Metals, or Positive Money… or Austrians… or Libertarians. AFAIK there is nobody who has done what I have, with the Social Credit people getting similar results (in a far more convoluted way) and the folks doing Positive Money understanding large parts of the problem but not IMHO, having the right answers.

    The sequence begins with spending the dollars into existence

    No.

    The sequence begins with someone or something doing work for which those dollars are paying. The work comes first.

    Do it the other way around and you are, eventually, screwed by human nature, temptation and the laws of thermodynamics.

    ————————————————-

    Real Money represents work done. People are perfectly entitled to exchange debt instruments, and government may use them too if we wish, but the difference between the two is not inconsequential.

    The money supply is constrained by the total of work done in the society that uses that money. The money supply is reduced through demurrage, not by paying off debt. Use it or lose it, and the velocity of money goes up. You are correct. I am describing something that we do not have. It is what REAL money would do if it in fact represented work-done accurately. Work cannot be stored without entropy making it worth less, progressively until it is entirely worthless.

    I generally use this to manage my economic expectations.

    The unfortunate thing about what we DO have is that I see no evidence that the government is issuing money necessary to back all the dollars borrowed into existence at the private banks, plus interest. The money being entirely backed by debt with interest payable means that there is NEVER enough money to pay off all the debt and interest. This is not possible at all. It is a hidden fatal flaw in the system, and has much to do with the problem that every time money has NOT been tied to an economy it has failed.

    Basically every form of money we have ever used has “failed” in the end. None have represented “work done” accurately, or even approximately. Hoards of Gold in bank vaults, unchanged over the centuries (well maybe… one wonders about how much Tungsten is in those vaults :-) ) ? This isn’t work-done. Masses of capital getting larger all the time without any work done?

    This is in some ways VERY simple. The concept is at its base, simple. The problem is that shifting to such a system (and it has been done successfully in some local currencies), is fraught with difficulty.

    We do far too many things now, that are ONLY possible with the debt backed fiat currency that we currently suffer. Much of that has to stop before we can even start to think about changing things. Greens move in the right direction as they can, not to break things too quickly. They WILL break. Economists will talk about externalities. The problem is that there are no such things in the real world. They are external only to the limited world of the economists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  199. bjchip says:
    September 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm
    Why would foreign currency have anything to do with the debt?

    Because the NZ government is the sovereign issuer of NZ$. Governments get themselves into trouble when they borrow in foreign currencies that they then have to acquire elsewhere somehow.

    It is of crucial importance.

    And it’s quite wrong to see NZ government bonds as borrowing or loans.

    The debt is owed to foreign banks… the conversion is whatever it is but the money gets sucked out of NZ all the same.

    These foreigners had accumulated NZ$ through trade and just swap their cash $ (reserves) for bonds that pay interest. The NZ$ themselves can’t ever leave the NZ$ banking zone.

    It’s not ideal that foreigners are getting economic rent on their holdings, but if you trade internationally, it’s going to happen. At some point the reserve banks will get together to manage a currency swap and write it out of existence.

    In the meantime NZers get to import real goods and services for electronic ones and zeros in computer ledgers.

    The sky won’t fall.

    As for the other stuff, currency in the modern world is just an accounting entity. From the government’s point of view, it is issuing tax credits.

    In the limit, every $ it spends into existence will come back to be extinguished. The level of taxation it sets determines how quickly they come back.

    In the meantime we call the $ lagging in the system either the ‘national debt’ or the ‘net savings of the non-government sector’. Depending on your political view point and your understanding of the sectoral balances.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  200. Yes, well that’s what an economy is and how a society works

    It doesn’t have to, that’s my point. You’re rather blase about a system that guarantees default and recurring crisis.

    Can you point me to these reserve requirements then?

    Page 27 of http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/reserve_bank_bulletin/2008/2008mar71_1lawrence.pdf

    Your sources are misreading or mislabelling the banking system. And the RBNZ and the BofE both specifically contradict themselves.

    Yeah, get stuffed. I’m going to take your unsupported opinion over the Reserve Banks of NZ & England? Not likely.

    Reserves ARE NOT LENT to non bank borrowers. Period. We do not have fractional reserve banking.

    I didn’t say they were, and yes, we do.

    If you say so. Fine. But again, so what?

    Structural failure causing repeated crises over time, guaranteed inflation and debt slavery, etc. Nothing that you should be concerned about, obviously.

    Perhaps if you had a good look around his site, you might find that he understands inflation where you clearly don’t. And macroeconomics in general. You could start by reading the piece I linked to in full.

    I only have so much patience, and certainly not enough to trawl through some Aussie economists blog. I find it more than generous that I gave it the attention that I did, which is far more than you gave the sources I provided. If you find my response to a direct, unedited quote from the article disagreeable then you’ll just have to deal with it.

    Your view is neoclassical QToM bunk. Oooh that map is so scary btw. I have zero fear of deficits and so called government debt.

    Not a big fan of the Austrian school, actually. Your courage is, unfortunately, not enough to make real issues go away. Feel free to live your life in that manner though, I would be most interested to see how long you could pay your way with debt.

    If Bill Mitchell is too complex for you, these guys might be more accessible for you.

    You might want to try providing something other than the blogs of random Aussie economists. I could get in a citation war with you all day though, so on second thoughts don’t.

    Currently the deficit/surplus is the amount of money that the government creates or destroys.

    It’s the amount that underruns/overruns government spending, nothing more. You could argue that taxes destroy money in the sense that it is being withheld from the real economy, but this is a disingenuous point. The real point to make is that private banks can only create debt born money, so basically it doesn’t exist in the first place mathematically and the interest continues to make the sum more and more negative. Inflation and default, built right in.

    The idea of replacing democratic government, albeit that we don’t really have much now, with a technocracy, is nuts in my view.

    What? I’m talking about how money is generated and managed. Government would remain largely unchanged. Vote parties in, vote them out, blah blah blah. In fact, putting the money supply under public control rather than in the hands of private banks seems to me far more democratic than the system we have now. Unless of course you’re thinking in neoliberal terms of so-called ‘free markets’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  201. John G says: “Hyperinflation can occur if production fails and government spending far outstrips the available output. It isn’t a function of ‘money printing’. “

    If you are correct then I see no impediment to the NZ government printing heaps of money to double the minimum wage and also double my income. While they are at it they can print off a bit extra and pay my council rates for me too. So why don’t they?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  202. No… the money goes, in NZ Dollars or Drachmas or Euros or (most commonly I think) as US or Aussie $ and it gets converted before it is paid out and it is paid out overseas. However, the notion that the Foreigners “accumulated” money to lend to us so we can bid up the houses does not appear to me to be true.

    They create it in their banks just as we create it in ours. It is not something the government is able to easily cover or control.

    These foreigners had accumulated NZ$ through trade and just swap their cash $ (reserves) for bonds that pay interest. The NZ$ themselves can’t ever leave the NZ$ banking zone.

    The distortion of the debt backed money is quite real, and the sky, eventually DOES fall on every currency… the only question is “how long I can stay solvent” if I decide to go against the fed. I don’t think holding for the collapse is economically productive, so I won’t fight the fed… but I am looking at the way the game is rigged.

    The interest charged in the process of creating debt money is an important factor in making growth a sacrament and one of the fatal flaws. That is something that I predicted CANNOT work for long…

    So…of interest is the observation that in the process of trying to prevent the collapse of currencies around the world the central banks have started charging interest rates that are effectively zero. The SYSTEM is telling us all that it doesn’t work the way the economists thought it did… it is working the way I thought it would have to. Real money represents work done.

    The failure of currencies through history is largely a function of the fact that no currency has ever been formed that closely/properly represents work done.

    As for the other stuff, currency in the modern world is just an accounting entity. From the government’s point of view, it is issuing tax credits.

    Which makes the government’s point of view incorrect. It also makes the creation and destruction of money more tenuously related to work done (there is still a connection, but it is only in the minds of the users of the money, not formalized and not enforced). The value of money is rendered relative, not fixed, and exchanges are based on perceptions and trust as well as the exchange of work that the money actually is enabling…. which is why the “dismal science” fails to be a science. It is incapable of real and repeatable measurement.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  203. John G says: In the meantime we call the $ lagging in the system either the ‘national debt’ or the ‘net savings of the non-government sector’. Depending on your political view point and your understanding of the sectoral balances.

    This is exactly where the problem lies. The time lag between fiscal policy and eventual effect is where the damage is done to those who do not control the influx of foreign dollars. Those who control the printing, issue and taxation of dollars destroy egalitarianism.

    Thank God we have a vote.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  204. bjchip says:
    September 11, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    No… the money goes, in NZ Dollars or Drachmas or Euros or (most commonly I think) as US or Aussie $ and it gets converted before it is paid out and it is paid out overseas. However, the notion that the Foreigners “accumulated” money to lend to us so we can bid up the houses does not appear to me to be true.

    Well I’m sorry, but you don’t understand the system as it is. The NZ$ is a non-convertible currency, as are the others you mention.

    You can exchange them with other private entities, but the NZ govt. will not commit to any conversion with foreign currencies. So, they never leave the NZ$ system.

    The whole game changed when Bretton Woods collapsed in 1971 to 1973. Unfortunately political economic thinking hasn’t caught up.

    The distortion of the debt backed money is quite real, and the sky, eventually DOES fall on every currency… the only question is “how long I can stay solvent”

    You are not the government and you don’t issue your own currency. Insolvency is a real issue for you and me.

    But not for the government. They issue their own money. And it’s infinite -1 in accounting terms.

    As for the other stuff, currency in the modern world is just an accounting entity. From the government’s point of view, it is issuing tax credits.

    Which makes the government’s point of view incorrect.

    I doubt that any politicians view it that way. Mores the pity. Because it is correct.

    The interest charged in the process of creating debt money is an important factor in making growth a sacrament and one of the fatal flaws.

    The economy grows as the population grows and wealth increases. That doesn’t mean that resource usage has to grow with the increased circulation of money.

    It’s only income that has to grow.

    Limit that with artificial constraints on credit growth or increasing government spending and you’ll cause unemployment, poverty and deflation.

    Where’s the benefit?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  205. Ben says:
    September 11, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Yes, well that’s what an economy is and how a society works

    It doesn’t have to, that’s my point. You’re rather blase about a system that guarantees default and recurring crisis.

    I’m not blase. Economies and societies are flows. You’re getting caught up worrying about a stock that exists only in instants of time. Time that isn’t going to stop.

    I support responsible government countercyclical spending to maintain aggregate demand over the business cycle, much greater government direct investment and radical reform of the banking system, right up to full public ownership of the credit supply.

    What I don’t want is a commodity token system centrally controlled by a technocratic elite, that would ensure deflation and rapid wealth maldistribution where the creditors would own everything in no time.

    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/reserve_bank_bulletin/2008/2008mar71_1lawrence.pdf

    Your sources are misreading or mislabelling the banking system. And the RBNZ and the BofE both specifically contradict themselves.

    Yeah, get stuffed. I’m going to take your unsupported opinion over the Reserve Banks of NZ & England? Not likely.

    Reserves ARE NOT LENT to non bank borrowers. Period. We do not have fractional reserve banking.

    I didn’t say they were, and yes, we do.

    Your RBNZ man is plain wrong. The BofE man is right and the BofE and your Positive Money people contradict you. Read the BofE pamphlet again where they talk about the myth of the money multiplier.

    Whoever wrote the RBNZ document was quoting the Mankiw text books that undergraduate economics students are taught. They are wrong.

    Reserves only leave the system via taxation or bond purchases. They are not lent outside the payments system. The payments system cannot work that way because ALL the accounts are at the RBNZ. It is a closed loop.

    If you say so. Fine. But again, so what?

    Structural failure causing repeated crises over time, guaranteed inflation and debt slavery, etc. Nothing that you should be concerned about, obviously.

    a) The total bank credit in the system at any given instant is zero (and deposits are always greater than loans) and b) it only matters if for some reason the system stops at a given moment. That isn’t going to happen so why worry about it?

    Perhaps if you had a good look around his site, you might find that he understands inflation where you clearly don’t. And macroeconomics in general. You could start by reading the piece I linked to in full.

    I only have so much patience, and certainly not enough to trawl through some Aussie economists blog. I find it more than generous that I gave it the attention that I did, which is far more than you gave the sources I provided. If you find my response to a direct, unedited quote from the article disagreeable then you’ll just have to deal with it.

    I did read your sources. The RBNZ one is bunk and I’ve had long discussions about the Bof E when it was released. Ironically because it is correct. It actually contradicts your argument.

    I can’t help you understand the system if you are going to reject further information. Bill Mitchell is an expert on macroeconomic sectoral balance accounting, which people need to learn about, if they are to understand how it all works in the real world of a modern monetary system.

    OK, you don’t like Australians go here:

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/ or here http://softcurrencyeconomics.com/

    Maybe you could let me know what nationalities are acceptable to you.

    Your courage is, unfortunately, not enough to make real issues go away. Feel free to live your life in that manner though, I would be most interested to see how long you could pay your way with debt.

    Courage? Oh.

    If Bill Mitchell is too complex for you, these guys might be more accessible for you.

    You might want to try providing something other than the blogs of random Aussie economists. I could get in a citation war with you all day though, so on second thoughts don’t.

    You’re appealing to authority asking for citations from the very school of economics who have everything wrong?

    Currently the deficit/surplus is the amount of money that the government creates or destroys.

    It’s the amount that underruns/overruns government spending, nothing more. You could argue that taxes destroy money in the sense that it is being withheld from the real economy, but this is a disingenuous point. The real point to make is that private banks can only create debt born money, so basically it doesn’t exist in the first place mathematically and the interest continues to make the sum more and more negative. Inflation and default, built right in.

    It is the amount of net government money being added or subtracted to the non-government sector in a given period and it is very important. It is, what I imagine you are trying to say is, real money.

    Again, there always more deposits in the system than loans. So don’t panic.

    The idea of replacing democratic government, albeit that we don’t really have much now, with a technocracy, is nuts in my view.

    What? I’m talking about how money is generated and managed. Government would remain largely unchanged. Vote parties in, vote them out, blah blah blah. In fact, putting the money supply under public control rather than in the hands of private banks seems to me far more democratic than the system we have now. Unless of course you’re thinking in neoliberal terms of so-called ‘free markets’.

    I think it would be less democratic. The problems we have now are neoliberal political economic in nature. Not imagined monetary system problems. If I can’t vote for the people with the purse strings it ain’t democracy.

    If you can only vote for politicians who believe that government finances are like a household and must be balanced to ‘revenue’ then you’re not using the modern money system to its potential.

    The system we have has the tools you imagine you are trying to create. It’s the outdated gold standard thinking that causes governments to misuse it.

    A sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency issuing government has no financial constraints to use its own money to further public purpose. Only real world capacity restraints i.e. full employment.

    And this is why I find Mr Norman’s article disappointing. It is repeating the neoliberal/neoclassical myth of the necessity or desirability of balanced budgets and the debt/deficit fear mongering.

    These fears have no basis in reality anymore. The deficit is a government accounting entity and the so called government debt is an accounting relic. It never has to be ‘paid off’ (but it could be overnight if the government chose to do so), it won’t impact your grandchildren and it will not stifle future governments’ spending options.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  206. greengeek says:
    September 11, 2014 at 5:18 pm
    John G says: “Hyperinflation can occur if production fails and government spending far outstrips the available output. It isn’t a function of ‘money printing’. “

    If you are correct then I see no impediment to the NZ government printing heaps of money to double the minimum wage and also double my income. While they are at it they can print off a bit extra and pay my council rates for me too. So why don’t they?

    You’re making a leap that I haven’t inferred. The government has no financial restraint as to the amount of its own money it can spend into the private sector.

    But it does have real resource constraints.

    If it spends more than the non-government’s ability to provide goods and services at current price levels it will cause inflation.

    Under neoliberal monetarist dogma, governments constantly underspend capacity and thus create unnecessary unemployment and poverty. And their spending and taxation policies are vastly misdirected towards rentiers.

    It’s class war. Not real world economics or monetary system inequities.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  207. greengeek says:
    September 11, 2014 at 7:45 pm
    John G says: In the meantime we call the $ lagging in the system either the ‘national debt’ or the ‘net savings of the non-government sector’. Depending on your political view point and your understanding of the sectoral balances.

    This is exactly where the problem lies. The time lag between fiscal policy and eventual effect is where the damage is done to those who do not control the influx of foreign dollars. Those who control the printing, issue and taxation of dollars destroy egalitarianism.

    Thank God we have a vote.

    The trick is to provide sufficient income to all in the population to lead a socially rich existence free of poverty and insecurity.

    The best way to do that is via full employment at a living wage.

    That can be done now without throwing out the modern monetary system.

    As Keynes said “look after unemployment and the budget will take care of itself”. And that was back in the days when the gold standard was still inflicting constraints on governments.

    The so called national debt is not a problem. It is, in fact, the non-government sector’s net financial assets. Savings in other words.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  208. Ben says:
    September 11, 2014 at 4:28 pm
    I only have so much patience, and certainly not enough to trawl through some Aussie economists blog. I find it more than generous that I gave it the attention that I did,

    The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones. – J.M. Keynes

    Sorry, but you haven’t escaped the monetarists’ obsolete thinking.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  209. Countries without reserve requirements[edit]
    Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden have no reserve requirements.

    This does not mean that banks can – even in theory – create money without limit. On the contrary: banks are constrained by capital requirements, which are arguably more important than reserve requirements even in countries that have reserve requirements.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  210. John G says: “You are not the government and you don’t issue your own currency. Insolvency is a real issue for you and me.
    But not for the government. They issue their own money. And it’s infinite -1 in accounting terms.

    In what way am I not issuing my own money if I make a video and sell it for $1 each to 1,000,000 people overseas?

    Or an eBook?
    Or a photograph?
    Or a widget?

    Thats all “more money for me” and adds to the numbers of NZ dollars in circulation.

    Seems like currency conversion to me…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  211. greengeek says:
    September 13, 2014 at 7:36
    In what way am I not issuing my own money if I make a video and sell it for $1 each to 1,000,000 people overseas?

    No currency units have been created. They’ve been transferred from somebody else.

    Macroeconomics rule# 1. Spending = income.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  212. Ben says:
    September 11, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Yes, well that’s what an economy is and how a society works

    It doesn’t have to, that’s my point. You’re rather blase about a system that guarantees default and recurring crisis.

    I’m not blase. Economies and societies are flows. You’re getting caught up worrying about a stock that exists only in instants of time. Time that isn’t going to stop.

    I support responsible government countercyclical spending to maintain aggregate demand over the business cycle, much greater government direct investment and radical reform of the banking system, right up to full public ownership of the credit supply.

    What I don’t want is a commodity token system centrally controlled by a technocratic elite, that would ensure deflation and rapid wealth maldistribution where the creditors would own everything in no time.

    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/reserve_bank_bulletin/2008/2008mar71_1lawrence.pdf

    Your sources are misreading or mislabelling the banking system. And the RBNZ and the BofE both specifically contradict themselves.

    Yeah, get stuffed. I’m going to take your unsupported opinion over the Reserve Banks of NZ & England? Not likely.

    Reserves ARE NOT LENT to non bank borrowers. Period. We do not have fractional reserve banking.

    I didn’t say they were, and yes, we do.

    Your RBNZ man is plain wrong. The BofE man is right and the BofE and your Positive Money people contradict you. Read the BofE pamphlet again where they talk about the myth of the money multiplier.

    Whoever wrote the RBNZ document was quoting the Mankiw text books that undergraduate economics students are taught. They are wrong.

    Reserves only leave the system via taxation or bond purchases. They are not lent outside the payments system. The payments system cannot work that way because ALL the accounts are at the RBNZ. It is a closed loop.

    If you say so. Fine. But again, so what?

    Structural failure causing repeated crises over time, guaranteed inflation and debt slavery, etc. Nothing that you should be concerned about, obviously.

    a) The total bank credit in the system at any given instant is zero (and deposits are always greater than loans) and b) it only matters if for some reason the system stops at a given moment. That isn’t going to happen so why worry about it?

    Perhaps if you had a good look around his site, you might find that he understands inflation where you clearly don’t. And macroeconomics in general. You could start by reading the piece I linked to in full.

    I only have so much patience, and certainly not enough to trawl through some Aussie economists blog. I find it more than generous that I gave it the attention that I did, which is far more than you gave the sources I provided. If you find my response to a direct, unedited quote from the article disagreeable then you’ll just have to deal with it.

    I did read your sources. The RBNZ one is bunk and I’ve had long discussions about the Bof E when it was released. Ironically because it is correct. It actually contradicts your argument.

    I can’t help you understand the system if you are going to reject further information. Bill Mitchell is an expert on macroeconomic sectoral balance accounting, which people need to learn about, if they are to understand how it all works in the real world of a modern monetary system.

    OK, you don’t like Australians go here:

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/ or here http://softcurrencyeconomics.com/

    Maybe you could let me know what nationalities are acceptable to you.

    Your courage is, unfortunately, not enough to make real issues go away. Feel free to live your life in that manner though, I would be most interested to see how long you could pay your way with debt.

    Courage? Oh.

    If Bill Mitchell is too complex for you, these guys might be more accessible for you.

    You might want to try providing something other than the blogs of random Aussie economists. I could get in a citation war with you all day though, so on second thoughts don’t.

    You’re appealing to authority asking for citations from the very school of economics who have everything wrong?

    Currently the deficit/surplus is the amount of money that the government creates or destroys.

    It’s the amount that underruns/overruns government spending, nothing more. You could argue that taxes destroy money in the sense that it is being withheld from the real economy, but this is a disingenuous point. The real point to make is that private banks can only create debt born money, so basically it doesn’t exist in the first place mathematically and the interest continues to make the sum more and more negative. Inflation and default, built right in.

    It is the amount of net government money being added or subtracted to the non-government sector in a given period and it is very important. It is, what I imagine you are trying to say is, real money.

    Again, there always more deposits in the system than loans. So don’t panic.

    The idea of replacing democratic government, albeit that we don’t really have much now, with a technocracy, is nuts in my view.

    What? I’m talking about how money is generated and managed. Government would remain largely unchanged. Vote parties in, vote them out, blah blah blah. In fact, putting the money supply under public control rather than in the hands of private banks seems to me far more democratic than the system we have now. Unless of course you’re thinking in neoliberal terms of so-called ‘free markets’.

    I think it would be less democratic. The problems we have now are neoliberal political economic in nature. Not imagined monetary system problems. If I can’t vote for the people with the purse strings it ain’t democracy.

    If you can only vote for politicians who believe that government finances are like a household and must be balanced to ‘revenue’ then you’re not using the modern money system to its potential.

    The system we have has the tools you imagine you are trying to create. It’s the outdated gold standard thinking that causes governments to misuse it.

    A sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency issuing government has no financial constraints to use its own money to further public purpose. Only real world capacity restraints i.e. full employment.

    And this is why I find Mr Norman’s article disappointing. It is repeating the neoliberal/neoclassical myth of the necessity or desirability of balanced budgets and the debt/deficit fear mongering.

    These fears have no basis in reality anymore. The deficit is a government accounting entity and the so called government debt is an accounting relic. It never has to be ‘paid off’ (but it could be overnight if the government chose to do so), it won’t impact your grandchildren and it will not stifle future governments’ spending options.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  213. greengeek says:
    September 11, 2014 at 5:18 pm
    John G says: “Hyperinflation can occur if production fails and government spending far outstrips the available output. It isn’t a function of ‘money printing’. “

    If you are correct then I see no impediment to the NZ government printing heaps of money to double the minimum wage and also double my income. While they are at it they can print off a bit extra and pay my council rates for me too. So why don’t they?

    You’re making a leap that I haven’t inferred. The government has no financial restraint as to the amount of its own money it can spend into the private sector.

    But it does have real resource constraints.

    If it spends more than the non-government’s ability to provide goods and services at current price levels it will cause inflation.

    Under neoliberal monetarist dogma, governments constantly underspend capacity and thus create unnecessary unemployment and poverty. And their spending and taxation policies are vastly misdirected towards rentiers.

    It’s class war. Not real world economics or monetary system inequities.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  214. greengeek says:
    September 11, 2014 at 7:45 pm
    John G says: In the meantime we call the $ lagging in the system either the ‘national debt’ or the ‘net savings of the non-government sector’. Depending on your political view point and your understanding of the sectoral balances.

    This is exactly where the problem lies. The time lag between fiscal policy and eventual effect is where the damage is done to those who do not control the influx of foreign dollars. Those who control the printing, issue and taxation of dollars destroy egalitarianism.

    Thank God we have a vote.

    The trick is to provide sufficient income to all in the population to lead a socially rich existence free of poverty and insecurity.

    The best way to do that is via full employment at a living wage.

    That can be done now without throwing out the modern monetary system.

    As Keynes said “look after unemployment and the budget will take care of itself”. And that was back in the days when the gold standard was still inflicting constraints on governments.

    The so called national debt is not a problem. It is, in fact, the non-government sector’s net financial assets. Savings in other words.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  215. greengeek says:
    September 13, 2014 at 7:36 am
    John G says: “You are not the government and you don’t issue your own currency. Insolvency is a real issue for you and me.
    But not for the government. They issue their own money. And it’s infinite -1 in accounting terms.

    In what way am I not issuing my own money if I make a video and sell it for $1 each to 1,000,000 people overseas?

    No currency units have been created. They’ve come from somebody else.

    Macroeconomic rule # 1 spending = income.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  216. John

    I think you are too tied to the “official” or “theoretical” story in this. The fact is that the banks that were licensed to create money are able to create it in any form they wish in the current system. Whether this is strictly legal or simply an unanticipated weakness of 19th century rules confronting 21st century tech is quite irrelevant… it is the fact. The bankers are capable of CREATING money.

    If you want to insist on the more precise definitions of conversion vs exchange it isn’t material to what is actually happening. The line in the real world has been blurred and scuffed into irrelevance as well.

    You are not the government and you don’t issue your own currency. Insolvency is a real issue for you and me.
    .
    ..
    . But not for the government.

    and not for the banks… not unless they get “caught” so publicly that their fellows have to sacrifice one of their number to the public, or unless everyone stops borrowing, and even then we often as not bail them out.

    The amount of money depends on the willingness of people to borrow… and THAT sir, is so completely wrong as to be form of mental illness.

    As for the other stuff, currency in the modern world is just an accounting entity. From the government’s point of view, it is issuing tax credits.

    What happens is that ALL the various wrong ways of viewing money invariably come to grief on the ways they differ from the correct way. The stanza about the government view of money for instance… If money represents work done, not a tax credit, then there is NOT an unlimited amount available. Government cannot issue an unlimited amount or the inflation kills its value in exchanges for “work done”.

    Accounting terms are not relevant to this. If the government wishes to have more money in circulation than the society has produced work, it borrows from future work done by the society. This is legal and natural, but it has limits. This IS what actually happens under the hood, with the distortions of the current system making it look like anything but… but in the long run the distortions get smoothed out and the real costs on real descendants of the borrowers gets taken out of their society. In the short term the distortions can bankrupt or enrich us as individuals.

    The economy grows as the population grows and wealth increases. That doesn’t mean that resource usage has to grow with the increased circulation of money.

    Wealth is the amount of work done you control. The growth of the population DOES NOT necessarily increase it. It may do so, or not. We are good in NZ at making sure it does not. :-(

    Interest is money that does not exist at the instant the loan is created. The person borrowing has to find a way to obtain the additional money and it has to come from somewhere and the somewhere it comes from is someone ELSE borrowing more again, to make up the difference, but that money again carries interest that no money exists in the system to pay back. Ouroboros has nothing on this system.

    You are however, correct. Resource usage needn’t grow IF there is inflation to match, with each of us issuing our own additional dollars. That is not however, what happens. The banks control the additional dollars.

    We HAVE to produce the additional work to cover the gap, and that makes the problem of that additional growth requirement VERY MUCH a problem for the environment, and VERY MUCH a problem in terms of sustainability. It requires additional energy resources as well as longer hours and more productivity… It is the source of my observation that interest rates HAD to go to zero… but one notes that the bankers have arranged for the government to make that the case only for the bankers themselves.

    There is of course, a natural growth rate for a society. It is much slower than what we have and it is based on an accumulation and maintenance of work done.

    In such an environment the tools and goods are treasures that are maintained in good repair rather than discarded trash. This follows from the difference between the work necessary to maintain a good tool and the work to create an entirely new one. That of course, being subject to additional change based on the NEW problems posed by automation.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/15/humans_need_not_apply_watch_a_dark_video_on_automation_and_human_work.html

    So THIS idea only works if inflation based money is distributed to everyone who has to pay off the debt, not to the bankers, and the inflation matches the interest rate.
    It’s only income that has to grow.

    It is something that almost could work. It is far too complex to be run by humans without tempting them to make it work better for themselves than for anyone else.

    Contrast the demurrage based systems.

    Limit that with artificial constraints on credit growth or increasing government spending and you’ll cause unemployment, poverty and deflation.

    It the constraints were artificial there’d be no argument… but the constraint “work done” by the society using the money – is real.

    This makes it important that we reassess our consumption of and dependence on, what is essentially power produced by Chinese Coal Generating plants and labourers. WE are exchanging New Zealand’s virtues for products made elsewhere.

    Key and National are working for New Zealand …. as Pimps.

    While many New Zealanders are NOT working, we are selling off assets, allowing environmental degradation and taking on risks to find new ways to steal from future generations.

    If you make the money something based on work done, then work equivalents have to be the medium of exchange. LNG, Aluminium ingots… things that are reasonably capable of carrying actual work across physical borders. Used to be (with the hoary old gold standard), that gold was physically shipped from place to place… exchange was in fact enforced. Growth WAS restricted, people had fewer luxuries, and waste was … reduced.

    If we were to go down this path of “work done” and added the CO2 costs to goods the incentive to build more wind farms faster, using locally produced wind turbines, would be huge. The incentive to build our own furniture here, our own whiteware, our own railcars… would be immense. The LOCAL economy would stagger a bit before that process became a reality but we would be using OUR “work done” to enrich ourselves with the environmental protections and costs we require of ourselves.

    We would have less and consume less but the society and our environment would be healthier.

    More of us would be employed.

    The society would move toward less inequality.

    Our economy would be more independent of what happens to the rest of the planet.

    The money supply would become something we can actually measure physically, and the ability to increase it would be within our own hands (build another generator).

    Deflation would no longer be a bogeyman.

    where’s the benefit

    This question however, is related to the preceding clause about “artificial constraints” … which I never espoused.

    That said, we aren’t going to change the basis of the NZ dollar to anything like that without a lot more economic destruction , discussion and education taking place first. The initial education is of the economists themselves… the recipients of the $50k lobotomies otherwise known as degrees in economics.

    I prefer Keen’s take on this. We have to move the current system back towards sanity… we can’t just decide to be different and change it all overnight and wishing won’t change that. Keen’s way is hard enough.

    http://keenomics.s3.amazonaws.com/debtdeflation_media/2012/01/TheDebtwatchManifesto.pdf

    I reckon that the even this minor revolution won’t/can’t happen until the school of the real world has finished with the current crops of economists. Not before 2030…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  217. bjchip says:
    September 13, 2014 at 9:45 am
    John

    I think you are too tied to the “official” or “theoretical” story in this. The fact is that the banks that were licensed to create money are able to create it in any form they wish in the current system.

    On the contrary, I’m anything but orthodox and I hold the vast majority of the profession in contempt.
    All I’m doing is trying to explain the modern system as it exists in nuts and bolts form. The official narrative of government finance is complete bunkum. And that’s my point.

    Banks can create bank credit only and they have to have a willing borrower on the other side. Only banks with an account with the RBNZ can create bank credit denominated in $NZ.

    If you want to get rid of private banks, fine with me.

    But let’s not pretend that banks are creating the money that government spends and let’s not pretend that so called government debt is debt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  218. Keen’s way is hard enough.

    I like Steve, much as I like Joe Stiglitz. They are well meaning and privately they know how the system really works. But neither will make the leap in the public sphere because it would damage their status.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  219. The amount of money depends on the willingness of people to borrow

    No. The amount of vertical money is dependent on fiscal policy, and the amount of horizontal money is dependent on lenders and borrowers.

    The quantities are of little importance. It is spending, income and saving patterns that define living standards i.e. the flow. Not the stock.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  220. John G says: “And this is why I find Mr Norman’s article disappointing. It is repeating the neoliberal/neoclassical myth of the necessity or desirability of balanced budgets and the debt/deficit fear mongering.”

    I didn’t read it that way. I thought he was saying that if foreign governments are skewing our economic landscape via money printing – then we should consider the same action to help restore a level playing field.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  221. greengeek says:
    September 13, 2014 at 10:33 am
    if foreign governments are skewing our economic landscape via money printing

    How are they doing that? How would they do that?

    Outside of China and Russia, all I can see is austerity politics.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  222. bjchip says:
    September 13, 2014 at 9:45 am
    Accounting terms are not relevant to this.

    (I – S) + (G – T) + (X – M) = 0

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  223. if foreign governments are skewing our economic landscape via money printing

    John G says: “How are they doing that? How would they do that?”

    The simplest example would be: the USA prints a trillion dollars and passes it onto some person or entity, which inflates ther financial bottom line, and that person (or entity) buys property in NZ at a higher price than a NZ resident paying with NZ dollars could afford.

    You keep saying that people overseas can only spend dollars here when they have collected enough NZ dollars to do so, and that those dollars are “exchanged” rather than being new dollars. That is true if you are talking about actual NZ dollar notes in the days when electronic transactions were not available to Joe public, but it’s no longer true in the digital age. Dollars get created when the mastercard number is entered and the purchaser presses “enter”.

    That is how foreign governments skew our economy when they print money.

    You don’t have to look far for evidence of the American “nouveau riche’ spending their QE money in countries outside of America. Take a look at the newly built gold vaults out at Auckland airport. And it’s not just the US nationals spending and investing here. If a Chinese national gets a 1% loan from their government and buys property here it is certainly not “exchanged” NZ dollars they are spending.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  224. greengeek says:
    September 13, 2014 at 5:04 pm
    That is true if you are talking about actual NZ dollar notes in the days when electronic transactions were not available to Joe public, but it’s no longer true in the digital age.

    No, it’s just as true for electronic NZ$. The payments system is a closed loop.

    The Chinese and the US have NZ$ because we run trade deficits with them. They give us real goods and services, and we give them electronic ones and zeros in return. And those ones and zeros never leave the NZ$ zone, no matter who owns them.

    If you don’t want them to buy bonds, they’ll buy other stuff like real estate. If you don’t want them to buy those either, then they won’t sell us stuff for our electronic $.

    Nobody is printing money overseas to buy NZ.

    spending their QE money

    Oh, the QE canard. Don’t panic, QE creates no new money. That’s a myth being used to scare you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  225. “I’m not blase. Economies and societies are flows. You’re getting caught up worrying about a stock that exists only in instants of time. Time that isn’t going to stop.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

    “radical reform of the banking system, right up to full public ownership of the credit supply.”

    This is basically what PM advocates.

    “What I don’t want is a commodity token system centrally controlled by a technocratic elite, that would ensure deflation and rapid wealth maldistribution where the creditors would own everything in no time.”

    1) Commodity money and token money are mutually exclusive, please use English properly.
    2) Back up your assertions and refrain from misrepresenting what PM advocate, which you clearly do not understand. The whole point is to avoid volatility in the money supply and reduce debt slavery, which you might notice is quite pronounced in the system we now enjoy.
    http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-summ-en.pdf

    “Your RBNZ man is plain wrong. The BofE man is right and the BofE and your Positive Money people contradict you. Read the BofE pamphlet again where they talk about the myth of the money multiplier.”

    OK, it appears that you are right in a narrow sense. We used to employ reserve requirements in the form of cash assets, now it seems we use capital requirements instead, which I assume means that we still have a fractional reserve system, but reserves can now be assets other than cash. It seems to me that this could potentially be worse than a cash reserve requirement depending on what sorts of assets are used as reserves. CDO’s didn’t seem to work too well for everybody, you might recall.

    Effectively this changes nothing however as private banks can still inflate the money supply using credit from each other as reserves, which is the real issue of fractional reserve systems.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#Countries_without_reserve_requirements
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_requirement
    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/regulation_and_supervision/banks/policy/4572979.html

    “Maybe you could let me know what nationalities are acceptable to you.”

    Ones that use more reputable information distribution mechanisms than blogs. Reserve Bank publications, journal articles, academic or reputable news providers to name a few.

    “You’re appealing to authority asking for citations from the very school of economics who have everything wrong?”

    More assertions without sources. Boring.

    “It is the amount of net government money being added or subtracted to the non-government sector in a given period and it is very important. It is, what I imagine you are trying to say is, real money. Again, there always more deposits in the system than loans. So don’t panic.”

    Money created by the Reserve Bank isn’t born as loans, so in that sense I consider it a better form of money. More than 80% of our money supply is generated by private banks as debt born credit, so your assertion of deposits > loans is of little interest to me.

    “These fears have no basis in reality anymore. The deficit is a government accounting entity and the so called government debt is an accounting relic. It never has to be ‘paid off’ (but it could be overnight if the government chose to do so), it won’t impact your grandchildren and it will not stifle future governments’ spending options.”

    This isn’t even worth responding to. If you were right then there would be no such thing as hyperinflation and government debt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  226. I seem to have lost a comment I thought I made … postus-interruptus. Trying again

    But let’s not pretend that banks are creating the money that government spends and let’s not pretend that so called government debt is debt.

    I would never infer or imply THAT :-) … but by the government NOT spending, it is shifting costs to the private sector which DOES have to borrow, and has to borrow privately (from the banks)… and I almost never discuss the government debt. It is (in my terms) a relevant component, just small beer right now, and while actually unlimited in the current system I am aware of what actually limits it (again in the “real money” terms I use). Violate the limits and you get inflation. Fail to spend it all and you get deflation. Let the banks control it and you get …. the mess we currently have.

    John… I do fail to see how this “exchange” vs “conversion” thing is supposed to limit what the foreign banks create as money. They are creating BANK credit, not NZ notes. People using that credit in NZ are sucking up housing on spec. and the prices in Auckland are high enough to be sucking vacuum. The problem I have is that the foreign banks operating here are not limited in ANY way I can see, in providing credit in NZ$. The interest on which is also in NZ $ and shipped overseas. Not talking about random foreigners… mostly about the Aussie banks. It never crossed my mind to ask my US bank for the loan to buy the house. My payments to the bank would have been exchange rate affected… and where a large bank can have a dedicated foreign exchange desk and play that game for a win as well, I cannot. :-(

    Which seems to me to make the NZ $ limits you rely on, exchange limits, rather less effective.

    So educate me to know better.

    =============================================

    QE is not “printing money” it is creating credit. Is this not, effectively, the government indirectly increasing the monetary base so that the BANKS can then lend more easily? One has to be concerned that the EFFECT of this remains an expansion of private debt and a further enrichment of the already obscenely advantaged.

    That (credit) money is effectively sequestered for the short term… in the hands of people who don’t HAVE to spend it, so not so inflationary as incendiary. In creating even greater inequality the Fed is creating the seeds of political instability… which is apt to lead to some form of revolt (either at the ballot box or in the streets) which will ultimately lead to that money being released (though that is not the ultimate purpose of the revolt). Leastwise that’s what I expect. There is no impediment to their using that credit in NZ to get a higher rate of return than is available in the US or Europe. Just the worry about the exchange rate.

    respectfully
    BJ (who SHOULD be out leafletting now)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  227. bjchip says:
    September 14, 2014 at 10:51 am

    but by the government NOT spending, it is shifting costs to the private sector which DOES have to borrow, and has to borrow privately (from the banks)… and I almost never discuss the government debt. It is (in my terms) a relevant component, just small beer right now, and while actually unlimited in the current system I am aware of what actually limits it (again in the “real money” terms I use). Violate the limits and you get inflation. Fail to spend it all and you get deflation. Let the banks control it and you get …. the mess we currently have.

    Well yes. It is fiscal policy which is skewed. There is too little government money being spent into the private sector where it is needed.

    That’s a political choice, not a function of the fiat monetary system.

    Quite the opposite. The system actually gives governments enormous scope to spend for public purpose. It is political dogma that hamstrings them. All the deficit/debt scaremongering is a hoax, but the public tends to believe it. (See Ben’s scary debt clock above for an example.)

    Neoliberalism has created a completely false narrative of how the whole thing works and skewed the entire political paradigm to make class war look like economic rationality.

    QE is not “printing money” it is creating credit.

    No. It is just swapping bonds for reserves. It changes the non-government sector’s asset portfolio but creates no new net financial assets. And banks do not lend reserves.

    It just pushes down interest rates at the long end of the yield curve. The theory (or hope) is that it will stimulate lending but that is not backed up by empirical evidence. Like most supply side theories.

    It certainly props up prices in the sort of asset classes that the ultra rich like to hold but that’s another story. If the NZ govt is worried about hot money flows then they need to drop interest rates or raise taxes on speculators.

    Engaging in its own QE won’t do anything at all. And you can’t do it until interest rates are near zero anyway.

    The point though is that all these monetary operations are desperate exercises that ignore the reality that expansionary fiscal policy is the effective tool to get an economy out of the doldrums.

    Spend big and spend on employment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  228. Still on QE. “And banks do not lend reserves”.

    …but the reserves are supposed to govern how much the banks are allowed to lend… which was what I was reaching for. OTOH, I already know that the reserves aren’t meaningful limitations on the banks which are actually able to borrow such into existence anyhow.

    meh! It is such a mess.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  229. bjchip says:
    September 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    Still on QE. “And banks do not lend reserves”.

    …but the reserves are supposed to govern how much the banks are allowed to lend… which was what I was reaching for.

    No they don’t. You’re perhaps mixing capital requirements with reserves.

    Banks do not require reserves to extend loans.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  230. John G says: “QE creates no new money”

    This isn’t true. It doesn’t matter how you define the mechanism or vehicle of QE – it still increases the balance sheets of people or entities who had less money before the QE. Some businesses or banks would be bankrupt were it not for QE. Now they have dollars to spend. Courtesy of QE.

    Not sure what your point was with the video? The comments there clearly disagree with your assertion that new money is not created by QE. One could be forgiven for believing your point of view if you take a 5 second snapshot of the money loop – however in the long term there are many hidden mechanisms for the recipents of the QE to alter the outcomes of the initial action.

    Whichever way you paint it… QE = money printing.
    Money printing = extra money to spend
    You can spend that money globally.

    Whoever spends that money has gained an unfair advantage over those who did not originally benefit from the QE directly. You can call it a money loop if you like – but the actual value of the QE deflates with each transaction (especially the dodgy ones) and by the time the loop is closed all the value is lost.

    The land purchased internationally by QE is however an appreciating asset now in the hands (or should I say ‘sleight of hands’) of those who started the QE ball rolling.

    As I asked before – if QE is a good thing, and a closed loop, why doesn’t the government double my wages? I spend 100% of my income every week so the whole NZ economy would benefit. Actually, why don’t they give me ten times my usual wage – then the economy will benefit even more.

    QE is money printing. Fullstop.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  231. If QE is so good, why doesn’t the Government let me (and you, and everyone else) print money…?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  232. greengeek says:
    September 14, 2014 at 9:27 pm
    Whichever way you paint it… QE = money printing.
    Money printing = extra money to spend
    You can spend that money globally.

    It isn’t “money printing”. It is swapping bonds bonds for reserves. Those bonds were bought with existing reserves. So it nets to zero.

    Whoever spends that money has gained an unfair advantage over those who did not originally benefit from the QE directly. You can call it a money loop if you like – but the actual value of the QE deflates with each transaction (especially the dodgy ones) and by the time the loop is closed all the value is lost.

    I don’t really know what that means. Money has no intrinsic value.

    As I asked before – if QE is a good thing, and a closed loop, why doesn’t the government double my wages? I spend 100% of my income every week so the whole NZ economy would benefit. Actually, why don’t they give me ten times my usual wage – then the economy will benefit even more.

    I didn’t say QE was a good thing. It is just a monetary operation with negligible effects on the real economy. The theory behind it is entirely flawed and based on old QToM myths that don’t relate to modern monetary systems.

    I’m all for government spending into the economy to stimulate demand and wage growth. But that has nothing to do with QE. It would be fiscal stimulus, not arcane monetary operations.

    The government should be setting its policies on full employment. Not scaring people about scary deficits and so called ‘government debt’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  233. dbuckley says:
    September 15, 2014 at 8:55 am
    If QE is so good, why doesn’t the Government let me (and you, and everyone else) print money…?

    Anyone can print their own money. The trick is to get people to accept it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  234. Ben says:
    September 14, 2014 at 12:27 am

    Ones that use more reputable information distribution mechanisms than blogs. Reserve Bank publications, journal articles, academic or reputable news providers to name a few.

    Mitchell holds the following degrees: PhD in Economics, University of Newcastle, 1986; Bachelor of Commerce, Deakin University, 1977; and Master of Economics Monash University, 1982. He completed a Master’s Preliminary at the University of Melbourne in 1978 (with first-class honours).[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Mitchell_(economist)

    But you go for it Ben. I’m all ears.

    But you might have t speak slowly to me, as I grew up in Australia (bad obviously) and, as you’ve just informed me, my English isn’t very good.

    I hate to break it to you Ben, but you don’t have a clue of what you are trying to talk about and your rudeness doesn’t make for furthering debate.

    I’ve found this to be common amongst the PM followers who’ve recently received the “revelation” that banks create bank credit.

    Forgive me, but I knew this several decades ago and it is uncontroversial.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  235. Ben says:
    September 14, 2014 at 12:27 am

    Ones that use more reputable information distribution mechanisms than blogs. Reserve Bank publications, journal articles, academic or reputable news providers to name a few.

    Mitchell holds the following degrees: PhD in Economics, University of Newcastle, 1986; Bachelor of Commerce, Deakin University, 1977; and Master of Economics Monash University, 1982. He completed a Master’s Preliminary at the University of Melbourne in 1978 (with first-class honours).[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Mitchell_(economist)

    But you go for it Ben. I’m all ears.

    But you might have t speak slowly to me, as I grew up in Australia (bad obviously) and, as you’ve just informed me, my English isn’t very good.

    I hate to break it to you Ben, but you don’t have a clue of what you are trying to talk about and your rudeness doesn’t make for furthering debate.

    I’ve found this to be common amongst the PM followers who’ve recently received the “revelation” that banks create bank credit.

    Forgive me, but I knew this several decades ago and it is uncontroversial.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  236. Ben says:
    September 14, 2014 at 12:27 am

    This isn’t even worth responding to. If you were right then there would be no such thing as hyperinflation and government debt.

    Ben, take a deep breath and consider this statement of fact.

    The government, as the monopoly issuer of the currency, has no money. Nor does it not have money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  237. John G says:“The government, as the monopoly issuer of the currency, has no money. Nor does it not have money.”

    I feel this riddle underscores the comments you have made. And it leaves me with a question – how does an entity that has no money spend so much?

    And why are there so many entities around the globe that have no money yet control the flow of so much money? So many riddles wrapped up in so many meaningless economic textbooks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  238. greengeek says:
    September 15, 2014 at 9:43 pm

    I feel this riddle underscores the comments you have made.

    It isn’t a riddle. It’s s fact.

    Macroeconomics often appears counter-intuitive and full of paradoxes to the uninitiated.

    You have to unlearn the myths I think. The monetarists have done an awful lot of damage over the last 40 odd years.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  239. how does an entity that has no money spend so much?

    Why with that power, do they spend so little that people are unemployed and paid less than poverty rates?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  240. “Mitchell holds the following degrees: PhD in Economics, University of Newcastle, 1986; Bachelor of Commerce, Deakin University, 1977; and Master of Economics Monash University, 1982. He completed a Master’s Preliminary at the University of Melbourne in 1978 (with first-class honours).[4]”

    Appealing to authority are we? Remember this? – “You’re appealing to authority asking for citations from the very school of economics who have everything wrong?”

    I rubbished your individual economist, you’re rubbishing Reserve Bank articles, Positive Money, and apparently an entire school of economics, all with mostly your bare opinion. Who’s on more unstable ground?

    “I hate to break it to you Ben, but you don’t have a clue of what you are trying to talk about and your rudeness doesn’t make for furthering debate.”

    Suck it up. I’ve been no more rude to you than you have to me.

    “Forgive me, but I knew this several decades ago and it is uncontroversial.”

    Actually, it sort of is. Just not to economists, apparently.

    “The government, as the monopoly issuer of the currency, has no money. Nor does it not have money.”

    Not a riddle, simple bullshit. They aren’t the monopoly issuer, private banks create most of the money supply. This is then taxed by the government to supply the treasury, and often supplemented with borrowing. Your statement is both false and nonsensical.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  241. Ben, I’m not appealing to authority. Merely refuting your charge that Bill Mitchell is just some
    ‘random Aussie blogger’ and pointing out that the blog is an academic endeavour. He is one of the world’s leading macroeconomists.

    So please grow up and try to be civil.

    As for your monetarists I have no need of them. I disagree with their entire premise as a fallacy of composition. Macro is not a sum of micro.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  242. Not a riddle, simple bullshit. They aren’t the monopoly issuer, private banks create most of the money supply. This is then taxed by the government to supply the treasury, and often supplemented with borrowing. Your statement is both false and nonsensical.

    No, the Treasury creates its own money and what doesn’t get extinguished by taxation, in a given period, is drained from reserves by bond sales. These bonds thus, represent the net savings of the non-government sector.

    A currency issuing government is not revenue dependent and does not levy tax or issue debt to ‘fund’ its spending desires.

    It could occur to you that the revelation of bank credit that you’ve recently received may not be your last revelation with respect to the monetary system. Could it not?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBpm5sVmGYc

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  243. Ben says:
    September 16, 2014 at 2:48 pm
    While I’m at it, let’s see if I can do some one-upmanship of your Aussie….

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7f000b18-ca44-11e3-bb92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3DRTx16kB
    http://www.positivemoney.org/2014/04/strip-private-banks-power-create-money-financial-times-martin-wolf-endorses-positive-moneys-proposals-reform/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Wolf#Awards_and_recognition
    https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf

    One of the truly astonishing things about the PM people is that they claim to be promoting a fairer, more democratic system whilst appealing to authority from some very shady people very closely connected to the apex of international finance.

    The IMF? Martin Wolf, the Bilderberger? The FT?

    Jesus H Christ, you don’t get any more elitist banksters.

    You’re laughable fruit loops.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  244. The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.

    – John Maynard Keynes

    “Isn’t it about time that we learned this simple truth? Is it so hard to understand that when an individual owes money he generally owes it to another individual, but when a nation owes money it owes it to itself? When an individual pays a debt, he pays it to someone else. When a nation pays a debt, it pays it to its own people.”

    – former US Fed Chairman

    “People often have misconceptions of Treasuries because they think of them as similar to personal debt. In many ways, applying the term “debt” to Treasury securities leads to a number of assumptions that are relevant for individual debt but are simply not applicable to Treasury securities”

    “Whilst individual securities are redeemed at maturity, the aggregate total is never paid off, and there is no need for extra taxes to pay them down”

    “There’s no good reason to use the term “debt” at all for Treasury securities. That leaves us free to explore the real nature of Treasuries, without the preconceptions of “debt” as most people think of it in a personal sense.”

    – Frank E. Newman former Deputy Secretary of US Dept. of Treasury.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  245. Ben says:
    September 16, 2014 at 1:17 pm
    I rubbished your individual economist,

    Integration, Currency Unions, and Balance of Payments

    Asymmetrical monetary unions, wherever and whenever they are are attempted in the absence of corresponding political institutions, have ended badly. Is the European Union heading down this road? This keynote panel featuring speakers William Mitchell, Peter Temin, Martin Wolf, and Richard Koo, moderated by Amanda Lang, probes for answers to this crucial global question.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjq1-OtJxAg

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  246. “Ben, I’m not appealing to authority. Merely refuting your charge that Bill Mitchell is just some
    ‘random Aussie blogger’ and pointing out that the blog is an academic endeavour. He is one of the world’s leading macroeconomists.”

    “You might want to try providing something other than the blogs of random Aussie economists” was my comment. Perhaps I was too dismissive, but whenever I see blogs posted as sources my lip tends to curl. Regardless, if he is one of the world’s ‘leading macroeconomists’ his name is somewhat obscure. As is his work, apparently – http://www.amazon.com/William-Mitchell/e/B001JP83Q8/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

    “So please grow up and try to be civil.”
    Keep your patronizing reprimands to yourself and deal with the arguments. I have no patience for whiny hypocrisy, if you can deal it out you better be able to eat it right back. You might recognize this gem of maturity –
    “Perhaps if you had a good look around his site, you might find that he understands inflation where you clearly don’t. And macroeconomics in general. You could start by reading the piece I linked to in full. Your view is neoclassical QToM bunk. Oooh that map is so scary btw. I have zero fear of deficits and so called government debt.”

    “No, the Treasury creates its own money”
    The Treasury doesn’t create money, that’s the privilege of the Reserve Bank. And private banks, which I’ve already mentioned. The Treasury manages money and advises on economic policy.
    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/about_us/what_we_do/
    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/faqs/2

    “A currency issuing government is not revenue dependent and does not levy tax or issue debt to ‘fund’ its spending desires.”
    I better get on the phone to John Key then, he needs to know he can stop taxing the nation.

    “It could occur to you that the revelation of bank credit that you’ve recently received may not be your last revelation with respect to the monetary system. Could it not?”
    Please, grow up and try to be civil, your incessant patronizing attitude is making me cry.

    “One of the truly astonishing things about the PM people is that they claim to be promoting a fairer, more democratic system whilst appealing to authority from some very shady people very closely connected to the apex of international finance.”
    Ad hominem, ad nauseam. If you can’t deal with reputable source material then go off and cry, don’t come back at me with this drivel.

    “You’re laughable fruit loops.”
    A measured and mature response. I applaud you, sir.

    Anyway, I can see that we’ve reached the inevitable name-calling part of our conversation, so I won’t bother you further, you are clearly too mature and wise to spend your time so copiously on the likes of me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  247. John G says: “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones”

    The problem is of course that those in charge of international QE are expert at constantly developing new ideas that create financial quicksand for people like us. The more they shift the goalposts, the more they control our money and reduce the power we have over our lives.

    It may well be time to turn our backs on the new ways and go back to the old ones. If we don’t do it soon it may become impossible once it becomes de rigeur to pay all council or government invoices electronically by phone or internet. No cash required. All cash rejected. Every transaction scrutinised, taxed and controlled.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  248. I really don’t understand the QE obsession.

    It’s a scare story. Along with the government debt and deficit scare stories.

    You’re being lied to.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  249. Ben says:
    September 16, 2014 at 7:00 pm
    Keep your patronizing reprimands to yourself and deal with the arguments.

    Ben, you’ve been unnecessarily uncivil and insulting over many posts now and you are not dealing with the arguments. I’ve read your links but you have rejected mine out of hand (with some casual racism to boot).

    There is much about the monetary system that you haven’t discovered yet. The revelation of bank credit creation is a mere drop in the bucket of lies and misinformation that is used to hoodwink the public.

    I’m sorry that that makes you angry.

    The Treasury doesn’t create money, that’s the privilege of the Reserve Bank.

    I think I’ve already established that RBNZ publications are not trustworthy authoritative representations, given their false fractional reserve accounting example.

    Treasury creates money by marking up numbers in private bank accounts at the same time having reserves issued to the banks’ RBNZ accounts. The RBNZ only creates reserves. (And before you jump on that, notes and coins are issued as reserves to banks i.e. vault cash is reserves.)

    And private banks, which I’ve already mentioned.

    Banks create bank credit or horizontal money. But they cannot create net financial assets. Only the government can do that. The distinction is vitally important for one to understand the system.

    I’ve linked to an explanation above to explain the difference but you chose not to read it. The Heteconomist link is a good accessible explanation but there are many others if you choose to find them.

    I can lead a horse to water etc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  250. “A currency issuing government is not revenue dependent and does not levy tax or issue debt to ‘fund’ its spending desires.”
    I better get on the phone to John Key then, he needs to know he can stop taxing the nation.

    I very much doubt that John Key understands the system and if he does, he won’t be letting on.

    The statement of mine though does not infer that taxes are not necessary. They are, but not for revenue purposes in the way that people tend to think.

    A currency issuer clearly is not like a household or a firm which relies on revenue from external sources.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  251. John G says: “The RBNZ only creates reserves. (And before you jump on that, notes and coins are issued as reserves to banks i.e. vault cash is reserves.)”

    Another riddle – you are suggesting that if the cash is in a vault it is not real money. John Key and co are very good at using such cleverly framed deceptions too…

    If I have $30,000 deposit and ask the ANZ for a $200,000 mortgage they will say no. However, if I was employed by the ANZ and had a $30,000 deposit they would give me the mortgage. The rules are applied at face value when it comes to dealing with the ordinary Joe, but applied differently when dealing with those “special entities” who are within the “circle of trust” of the money makers, money shakers and wheeler dealers.

    It is the same with the “money in the vaults” – its “not really there” – except that it actually is.

    I for one have had enough of the wheeler dealers and John Key exemplifies them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  252. greengeek says:
    September 17, 2014 at 12:39 pm
    Another riddle – you are suggesting that if the cash is in a vault it is not real money. John Key and co are very good at using such cleverly framed deceptions too…

    It’s not a riddle. It’s just how the system works. It would be the same if the banks were publicly owned. The cash in the vault is real money i.e. government money, but it forms part of the banks reserves until it is withdrawn. It is the point in the system where government money is shown to guarantee bank money.

    There are two distinct sides to the banking system. The government interacts with the banks on one side (the reserve or payments system) and the banks interact with the public on the other.

    It isn’t where the corruption occurs. That is all down to the politics. The power of the rich to subvert the political system, the media and academia so that the whole tapestry is confused, vague and seemingly insurmountable.

    It’s politics that’s broken. Not the monetary system.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  253. That should read …….

    It is the point in the system where government money is physically shown to guarantee bank money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  254. Anyway, I can see that we’ve reached the inevitable name-calling part of our conversation, so I won’t bother you further, you are clearly too mature and wise to spend your time so copiously on the likes of me.

    That’s a shame, Ben. I have plenty of time at the moment.

    I don’t claim to be wise but yes, alas, I am old.

    So two strikes against me in your value system.

    In your ‘Positive Money’ system you could just cut anyone you didn’t like out of the economy altogether.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  255. So we’ve established that foreign banks are rorting us. What do we want the next government to do about it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  256. Banks create bank credit or horizontal money. But they cannot create net financial assets. Only the government can do that. The distinction is vitally important for one to understand the system.

    The problem I see with this is that within this system, given that next to no one differentiates between the bank money and the government money, the banker’s ability to issue money based on debt and it is still debt backed money, and to demand interest to be paid them based on that issuance, still creates the structural problem of an economy that HAS to grow and has to grow in excess of the natural growth required by population increases and gradual improvements in our productivity. It is all forced.

    In short, I do not see how your distinction John G, actually inhibits the problem observed.

    The banker’s money (private money) and the interest on it which does not exist until we grow more, and tomorrow never comes, forces the pace. That leads us to the underlying problem of this system, which is its distortion of that normal rate of growth. If it were sustainable there would be periods of shrinkage to balance periods of growth. For it to accommodate natural growth it will be slightly positive, but may still shrink somewhat. The point being that dipping into shrinkage (deflation) is not so much of a self-reinforcing catastrophe.

    Remember… Society/Economy/Environment. The Economy is the MEANS by which the society actually interacts with the environment. We use it as a tool to determine what to extract, what to create, how much of what is dug from the ground. The standard diagrams I have seen, are wrong. It is not Economy/Society/Environment.

    With that in mind any distortion of the economy (subsidizing the extraction industries), has an inevitable effect on the environment, and it is the society that makes such decisions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  257. This is worth a think about

    ……the process that drives the collapse of civilizations has a surprisingly simple basis: the mismatch between the maintenance costs of capital and the resources that are available to meet those costs. Capital here is meant in the broadest sense of the word, and includes everything in which a civilizations invests its wealth: buildings, roads, imperial expansion, urban infrastructure, information resources, trained personnel, or what have you. Capital of every kind has to be maintained, and as a civilization adds to its stock of capital, the costs of maintenance rise steadily, until the burden they place on the civilization’s available resources can’t be supported any longer.

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/dark-age-america-end-of-old-order.html

    The way I see it is that printing money is trying to maintain the cost of capital (investment in people, infrastructure, etc.) However when the resources (environment) cant support the cost of capital, the house of cards falls down.

    If a civilization depends on nonrenewable resources for essential functions, though, destroying some of its capital yields only a brief reprieve from the crisis of maintenance costs. Once the nonrenewable resource base tips over into depletion, there’s less and less available each year thereafter to meet the remaining maintenance costs, and the result is the stairstep pattern of decline and fall so familiar from history:)

    Worth a read in full, though not a good read for the 1% “elites”. :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  258. @Gerrit ” the cost of capital”. That’s the crux of the problem. Why should capital i.e.loans cost anything?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  259. Brigid,
    You are misinterpreting what capital is. It is not money. Capital is created when available money is capitlised (spent) to create goods and services. The goods and services are the capital. I guess over the years the meaning of both have come closer together but they are very separate entities.

    You can be extremely endowed with money but have no capital. For example if a rich man and a poor man are both lost in the bush, they are both under capitalised and in danger of dying. Both with an equal opportunity to do a Bear Grylls, and get out.

    Where it changes is before they go into the bush . The rich man can capitalise on his supply of money and buy a GPS locator system, decent cell phone, even employ a guide. The poor man cannot capitalise the same with money, but can utilise other resources to capitalise, namely learning better bushcraft and survival techniques, higher levels of fitness, etc.

    The point of my comment and the reference contain there in, is that no matter how much money you have, the ability to maintain and improve the capital investment made by the money supply is dependent, not on the money supply, but on the resources available to keep the capital in a manner the civilisation expects.

    Let me repeat the quote

    Capital here is meant in the broadest sense of the word, and includes everything in which a civilizations invests its wealth: buildings, roads, imperial expansion, urban infrastructure, information resources, trained personnel, or what have you. Capital of every kind has to be maintained, and as a civilization adds to its stock of capital, the costs of maintenance rise steadily, until the burden they place on the civilization’s available resources can’t be supported any longer.

    So if the civilisation has a preference for rail transport, it has to allow the use of coal, iron ore and limestone mining to produce carbon steel for the rails. If you want rail transport without coal mining the rails can be made from cast iron, but with considerably cost in terms of reliability and wear. You could off course recycle carbon steel and recast it, but some time in the future the recycled carbon steel supply will run out.

    Hope this makes sense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  260. Yes yes I know. My comment was clumsy. What I meant was the rich person (A) buys a GPS by realising some of her/his capital. The poor person (B) takes out a loan to buy her/his GPS and has to pay interest on the loan. Therefore I’m saying the maintenance on Bs GPS includes interest. This expense is well above the cost in facilitating that loan. And the loan amount previous to his application for it just did not exist. Of course the same applies to A if she/he chooses to borrow to buy the GPS. I guess all the theorists will start screaming at that analogy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  261. What you are forgetting is that tramper B has other options (as does tramper A). He does not need a GPS where a good map and compass will be more than adequate. He may like one, but does not need to go into debt to pay for the GPS if it is beyond his ability to service the loan interest.

    As a nation we are doing exactly like tramper B, wanting a GPS unit, including the expense of servicing a loan to pay for it, when a map and compass would do just as well.

    As a nation and fiscal managers we need to live within our means. Perhaps our wants are bigger then our needs? Bigger then our ability to pay for them? When alternatives are available?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  262. Gerrit says:
    September 23, 2014 at 4:07 pm
    As a nation and fiscal managers we need to live within our means.

    The government has no financial constraints on spending, so this ‘means’ concept doesn’t apply.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  263. it is still debt backed money, and to demand interest to be paid them based on that issuance, still creates the structural problem of an economy that HAS to grow and has to grow in excess of the natural growth required by population increases and gradual improvements in our productivity.

    You have government spending, inflation and the natural cycle of retrenchment (saving) and new loans to take care of that when private debt is at manageable rates in terms of debt service to national income.

    But we haven’t come to where we are because of the monetary system. We are here because the neoliberals took over and convinced everyone that their neoclassical ‘economics’ is the dog’s balls and that government spending, deficits and so called government debt are evils that must be defeated.

    It’s plain nonsense. But nearly everyone believes them.

    And they still believe them even though they’ve been proven wrong time and time again about everything.

    It’s nuts.

    Again (I – S) + (G – T) + (X – M) = 0

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  264. In a world where economists continually warn of over priced housing being a threat to the finance system we see, now the election is over, the Westpac bank talking up its business model to accomodate the larger percentage of those leveraging their asset to get more asset (42%) as opposed to new home buyers (17%).
    I guess it is safe now to do so as they are gauranteed taxpayer support if things crap out.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11331562
    Fonterra also announces a further downscale of their milk payout, after polling, to again ensure they have a government who will look after their inflated farm values.
    This needs to be pointed out often until middle NZ realises they have voted to support the financial ponzi system being protected. What was Judith Collins up to??

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>