I do believe fiat money is an amazing idea but it needs to be heavily regulated, or only issued by government agencies.
Max Keiser and Stacy don't like MMT because they say the wealthy and the middleclasses get access to cheap money first and then buy assets with it, which pushes asset prices up, so they make all the gains while everyone else gets poorer.
They talk about how the Baby Boomers who bought houses when they were cheap did very well out of it, but most young people can't afford to buy a home anymore.
But why restrict money using the gold standard when regulations work just as well, and then we can create what we need to invest in a better society while controling what can go into assets, like houses.
In the second half, Steve Keen is interviewed where he says savings should be taxed so people won't hoard it. I hope that doesn't apply to poor people with a few thousand in the bank.
Steve Keen doesn't go along with the gold standard idea, but says banks need to be regulated so they don't create too much, and he adds we need a debt write off to kick start the economy.
6 comments:
In the second half Steve Keen is interviewed where he says savings should be taxed so people won't hoard it. I hope that doesn't apply to poor people with a few thousand in the bank. KV
Which is one reason you should support checking/debit accounts for all citizens at the Central Bank and FOR FREE up to reasonable limits on account size.
That way, the rich and banks can have negative interest applied to their accounts without the poor being affected.
Not only that, but the negative interest collected from the rich and the banks could be distributed equally to all citizens as a Citizen's Dividend.
The libertarians and gold bugs are going to love the first half of this one. KV
One cannot truly be a libertarian and be for a Gold Standard since that implies government privilege for special interests such as gold owners and fiat hoarders.
That's true.
Andrew - I don't get why the accounts have to be at the central bank. Don't public banking proposals effectively do the same thing? Like the post office banking proposals, offer the public basic banking services that are operated on a non-profit basis (I guess I don't know if those proposals are non-profit, but I don't see the point of a public institution having to turn a profit. Like how medicare is so much more efficient than private insurance, it's not burdened with turning a profit).
I don't get why the accounts have to be at the central bank. Joe
Accounts at the Central Bank are in fiat; anywhere else and accounts are mere liabilities for fiat, just like at banks, and are subject to abuse*, just like at banks.
Now do citizens have an inherent right to use their Nation's fiat in account form, just like banks do, or don't they?
As for public banks, due to government privilege, they still have the ethical flaw of extending the PUBLIC'S CREDIT but for private gain. That's not right.
*I.e. creating multiple liabilities for the same fiat - fractional reserves.
Credit (fractional reserves) is a relic of expensive fiat, the corrupt Gold Standard, and is obsolete now that fiat is, as it should be, inexpensive.
So let's start dealing in inexpensive fiat, eh? That means accounts for all citizens (at least) at the Central Bank itself.
Post a Comment