An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
An interesting interview but who is this Bernie Sanders guy? Last I heard there is someone by that name running for Hillary Clinton's dogcatcher.
It's time for Progressives to get serious about eliminating privileges for the banks and that will include eliminating a lot of private debt in the process.But I suspect there's a spiritual problem here since the usually intelligent Yves dismisses the idea of accounts for all citizens at the central bank as "balmy" and continues to tout deposit insurance as part of the solution for the Eurozone.Thus when it comes down to a choice between banks or justice for the people, Progressives come down for banks. Bill Black, for example, calls them "our banks." Talk about cognitive capture! Yes, banks have been robbed by their management but Bill fails to see that the banks themselves are robbers - via government privileges.
Circumcise the banks!
Perhaps Bill and Stephanie could provide input for Jill Stein's campaign?
Andrew "every topic ever discussed by any person on this or any other plant inhabited by semi-intelligent beings is a good segue to turn into a discussion about eliminating privileges for banks and giving citizens accounts at the central bank" AndersonEveryone deserves/needs a good nickname, Andrew. You're welcome!
"But I suspect there's a spiritual problem here since the usually intelligent Yves dismisses the idea of accounts for all citizens at the central bank as "balmy" and continues to tout deposit insurance as part of the solution for the Eurozone."Probably because both systems are operationally identical. There is no functional difference between an 'in specie' system and a contingent insured system other than the initial numbers on the balance sheet. If you think otherwise, you missed something.
Six,That's a very long nickname!You are, of course, not far wrong. It's taken me a long time (8 years or so*) to figure out how to fix banking, a most slimy subject, and I'm impatient that others seem intent on saving the current model (privileges for the banks and the rich, the most so-called credit-worthy).So how do you think I feel when some want to subsidize and supplement wage slavery to the private sector with wage slavery to government? Instead of fundamentally fixing the problem which is unequal protection under the law with regard to fiat creation and credit?*I should be ashamed since the solution is quite obvious - equal protection under the law with regard to fiat creation and credit - so I've had spiritual blindness problems myself it seems.
If you think otherwise, you missed something. NWHave you missed that the proper abolition of government-provided deposit insurance should require the equal distribution (in the US) of trillions of dollars of new fiat (reserves) to all adult citizens to finance the transfer of deposits to inherently risk-free individual citizen, business, etc. accounts at the Federal Reserve?Thereby eliminating a huge amount of private debt?Thereby reversing a a huge amount of relative wealth inequality?Thereby allowing an alternative payment system at the Federal Reserve to the one that must work through depository institutions, aka "banks"? Thereby freeing the economy from being a hostage to said depository institutions?
Probably because both systems are operationally identical. NWThen what objection do you have given the huge benefits I've outlined above?Oh yes, I remember, abolishing deposit insurance would raise borrowing costs for the rich, the most so-called credit-worthy, if the deposits of the poor, the least so-called credit-worthy, were not held captive within the usury cartel.However, interest rates in fiat can be kept low anyway via equal fiat distributions to the citizenry.If not*, then who says the rich should have low borrowing costs anyway rather than share wealth and power with equity financing?*Perhaps price inflation would induce the population to not lend their fiat but speculate in assets instead.
*Perhaps price inflation would induce the population to not lend their fiat but speculate in assets instead. aaOr commodities. I recall reading the Germans used to buy new vacuum cleaners and store them during the Wiemar hyper-inflation as a store of value.But so what? If every citizen received equally of any new fiat created then who would suffer in real or relative terms from easily* controlled price inflation?And don't central bankers wish to increase price inflation anyway to reduce the real private debt load?*Deprivileged banks would find it much more dangerous to create deposits since those deposits would no longer be captive deposits within the usury cartel.
Post a Comment