Crackernomics General Theory Of Money Part 1

I have been working towards finishing Crackernomics 2: The Structure Of Money for a couple of years.

 

When I first began writing about the credit crunch in 2010 I described the form of the crisis and recovery process the same way one might describe the appearance of a conjurors illusion without actually understanding how the trick works. I had the form of what was happening but not the underlying content.

 

After further observation I began to realise the significance of the specific case of derivatives- that they were in fact a form of money and that QE had the overall purpose of regulating and guaranteeing them as such.

 

Over the next year or so I extended this understanding of money issuance with my analysis of Bitcoin and other crypto currencies.

 

However, it turned out to be another six years or so before I understood the general rule and I could produce a comprehensive general analysis and monetary theory…There are two parts to the general theory.

 

Here are the bones of the first half of that General Money Theory.

 

Under the cult of Capitalism the state has an effective political monopoly on the creation of money.

This leads people to erroneously presume that since there is only one state operating within each nation state territory that each individual state only allows the production of one kind of money.

 

In fact capitalist states directly and indirectly sponsor various types of privately issued money including bonds, equities and some forms of insurance. State sponsorship of these other forms of money takes the form of guarantees and regulation. These sponsored other forms of money allow the extraction of wealth from and the regulation of, the capitalist economy.

 

In the nineties one faction within the American state began to sponsor and promote a new form of privately issued money. This form became generally known as derivatives. Because of the scale and novelty of this form of money issuance it inevitably led to destabilisation and a crisis that is referred to as the Credit Crunch.

 

The broad idea is the same as the CIA, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. The CIA started a crisis by invading Cuba and then tried to force Kennedy to back them up. Kennedy refused and you know what happened as a consequence.

 

In the immediate aftermath of the credit crunch Bush and Obama accepted the fait accompli offered to them by the derivatives faction and used the state to back up the new form of privately issued money.

 

Under the cult of capitalism Germanic elites established an effective political monopoly over the production of money BUT actually produce more than one kind of money through the sponsorship of bonds, equities, forms of insurance and unmentioned till now; BANK CREDIT which leads to the following central idea:

 

The history of money production under Capitalism follows this pattern:

 

A particular political/economic faction in a given society petitions to join the elite and create its own form of money.

 

It begins to manufacture and use this form of money.

 

The production of this novel form of money creates a social and economic crisis.

 

The existing elite either agrees to accept the new form of money and collectively guarantee and regulate it or it does not.

 

This is how paper cash came to be a form of money- crisis and then acceptance

This is how insurance came to be a form of money- crisis and then acceptance.

This is how bonds came to be accepted crisis and then acceptance

This is how equities came to be accepted -crisis and then acceptance

This is how bank credit came to be accepted crisis and then acceptance

 

THIS IS HOW DERIVATIVES ARE COMING TO BE ACCEPTED -CRISIS AND THEN ACCEPTANCE.

What do we call this process of collective acceptance of derivatives; their regulation and guarantee by the elite?

 

We call it QE.

 

Sometimes this process fails. The Dutch tulip bubble is a good example. The tulip faction failed to get bulbs accepted as a form of currency!!

 

Here is a fundamental insight:

When a faction bid to create a new form of currency fails it is referred to pejoratively as a bubble. The wealth accrued to that new form of currency is redistributed among its competitor currencies.

 

The Significance of Gold

 

The creation of the Federal Reserve was the crisis and acceptance of bank credit as a sponsored money form.

The Wall Street Crash and its resolution was crisis and acceptance of equities as a sponsored money form but;

 

But the withdrawal of the gold standard was EXACTLY THIS PROCESS IN REVERSE. The original and founding member faction- the GOLD MONEY FACTION was blackballed and EXCOMMUNICATED from the Germanic money elite like the founding CEO of a company being turfed out by other board members!!

 

This is the significance of going off the gold standard. The original founding faction reduced to penury and obscurity, the plaything of the very factions that it originally allowed into the gang!!

 

There are money factions operating within Germanic societies which sometimes successfully petition and join the elite. But the end of the gold standard was historically unique in the history of capitalism since it was the first time a money faction was DE-LISTED and DELEGITIMISED.

 

Next we can identify the money factions. The basic money factions at present are

 

FactionInsurance

FactionBond

Faction Credit

FactionEquity

FactionDerivative

and last but not least ,(not yet anyway),

Factioncash (which is supposed to be the pre-eminent faction but we all know about the war on cash).

 

After some consideration I believe there is only room for a LIMITED NUMBER OF FACTIONS at the top table.

 

Here is my prediction:

 

It is very possible that FactionInsurance or FactionBond will be delegitimised and expelled by Trump in this administration just like Nixon did to Factiongold!! (Actually on further consideration I think it might very well be Factioncash that is for the high jump..)

 

Notes On Factioncrypto

 

Presenters of The Keiser Report Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert are good exemplars of Factioncrypto. They are Pro gold-Anti derivatives- Pro Bitcoin because:

 

They want the  FactionGold to be re-admitted to the monetary elite but this is not going to happen. (I suspect they know this and their support for Factiongold is only rhetorical.)

 

They want to prevent the legal and political legitimisation of derivatives and Factionderivative, which is why they always refer to derivatives as ‘fraud’. But derivatives are more or less entirely legitimised. Only a major overturn can prevent the successful finalisation of this process.

 

Factioncrypto want Bitcoin to be accepted as part of the Germanic money elite. But to do this they have to do what every petitioning faction has done before them- they have to use MONETARY TERRORISM tactics- just as they rightly accuse the derivatives faction of doing.. to provoke a crisis, then bargain for acceptance and regulation.

 

How this general theory of money can explain Real political parties

 

I have argued that the actual history of politics and economy is not a duopoly/dichotomy of left or right or working class or capitalist or nationalist and globalist but rather a number of competing factions that use money forms to extract wealth and regulate and divide up the economy. This is the true underlying form of politics under capitalism.

 

But we can take this further and argue that each faction has its supporters in wider society and that this is the actual way we can understand how society is divided up and operates. Each faction has a broader money constituency within society that supports it. This constituency uses their specific money form to extract wealth from the general economy.

 

 

Factioncash has a corresponding cash constituency. Factioncash is the REAL PARTY of Cash constituency.

 

Factioncredit has a corresponding credit constituency  Factioncredit is the REAL PARTY of Credit constituency.

 

Factionbond has a corresponding bond constituency  Factionbond is the REAL PARTY of bond constituency.

 

Factionequity has a corresponding equity constituency Factionequity is the REAL PARTY of equity constituency.

 

FactionInsurance has a corresponding insurance constituency  FactionInsurance is the REAL PARTY of insurance constituency.

 

Factionderivative has a corresponding derivative constituency Factionderivative is the REAL PARTY of derivative constituency.

 

Factiongold has a corresponding gold constituency  .Factiongold is the REAL PARTY of gold constituency.

 

Factioncrypto has a corresponding crypto constituency  Factioncrypto is the REAL PARTY of crypto constituency.

Actual political identity; that which determines what any individual or group within capitalism will do is determined by the form of money each faction uses.

 

From this we can observe that some factions have a greater or lesser constituency than others to the extent that some constituencies have little or no faction representing them in the elite and some factions have little or no constituency on the ground.

 

This exactly and specifically determines how each faction/constituency will act politically. It means we can begin to predict with an unprecedented  degree of precision what each grouping will do.

 

These degrees of constituency can be arranged and compared in a PERIODIC TABLE OF MONETARY FORMS.

 

We can draw an analogy with the model of an atom. Factions represent the nucleus and constituencies represent the electron configuration outside the nucleus. CONSTITUENCIES therefore influence the relatively trivial domain- the physics and chemistry of the economy and factions influence the profound- the atomic power of the economy.

 

While the specific balance of components varies from nation state to nation state the basic relationship can be described thus

 

From top to bottom these are the money forms with the largest real parties (constituencies)

 

(Largest constituency):

 

FactionInsurance

Faction Credit

Factioncash

FactionEquity

FactionBond

FactionDerivative

FactionCrypto

 

(Smallest constituency)

 

I will apply my model to two well known historical anomalies to illustrate how effective it is:

 

The mystery collapse of ‘left wing’ working class politics and

 

The mystery of Quantitive Easing:

 

1:The mystery collapse of ‘left wing’ ‘working class’ politics

 

Each monetary faction has a constituency. This is the real nature of societal division. In Britain up until the 1980’s the vast majority of what is called the ‘working class’ were represented by Factioncash and were therefore members of Cashconstitiuency. They were paid in cash. They purchased in cash. They lent and borrowed in cash. They relied on cash as the means to extract their share of society’s wealth.

 

But as you know in from the 1980’s through massive economic reprogramming the majority of ‘working class’ was forcibly transferred from Factioncash to Factioncredit. They were relocated in Creditconstituency. And so their priorities and allegiances accordingly changed.They were paid in credit. They purchased on credit. They lent and borrowed in credit. They relied on credit as the means to extract their share of society’s wealth.

 

It is this which explains the collapse of ‘working class’ left wing politics. In essence it was the forcible transfer of political allegiance of the ‘working class’ from Factioncash to Factioncredit.

 

The mystery of Quantitive Easing

 

We are familiar with the immediate aftermath of the initial credit crunch. There were a number of meetings between Obama and the bankers. The story goes that the bankers issued Obama with an ultimatum: back us and back derivatives or we will bring the system down. Why did the administration go along with this demand? Was it because they are all Wall Street stooges etc?

 

Consider the reality of the situation from a faction perspective.

 

Derivativeconstiuency (DerC) was effectively bankrupt. That ‘s what the Credit Crunch crisis was effectively all about; are derivatives to be accepted and protected or are they to be refused protection are therefore be deemed to be worthless – a bubble?

 

Factionderivative (FacD) the political representatives of DerC went to bat in a do or die situation. But this was not something new it had been the same for every successful faction since capitalism began.

 

And FacD had an ace in the hole. The administration was Monetarist and as you probably know Monetarists ABSOLUTELY HATE cash more than anything else on the planet. So the FacD play was simple: Let’s use this opportunity to get together to f*ck cash for once and for all. That was the true nature of the play. And it has worked. Derivatives were preserved at the expense of cash.

 

Authors note:

I know this is all a bit scrappy and in semi-note form but it is covering a lot of territory and I want to get as much of it as possible down as quickly as possible. I will return to the themes and ideas I have outlined here at a later date.

By the way I am in the faction of the one in whose image I am created

Advertisements

House Burning Down

 

It might be useful to consider further the relationship between the production of paper news and the production of paper money.

 

I observed that both paper money and paper news are forms of informational transaction. This might be more accurately described as  the transfer of meaning. In this sense ‘meaning’ is the value measurement of information; Meaning is the unit of value of information because meaning transforms data into information and makes it valuable. The construction of meaning is exactly the assigning of value to data.

 

Consider hyper inflation in the money supply . In the traditional monetarist model (the one that has more or less taken over all mainstream economics), this is caused by an oversupply of money into the market. In other words Monetarists argue that the problem of hyper inflation and inflation generally is one of quantity. Actually the problem is one of quality. We can show this with the following:

 

There is a direct relationship between publishing an edition of a newspaper and publishing an edition of money, which is effectively what is done each quarter when the interest rate is set. The interest rate is news about how things are going to be according to a central bank and money notes carry this news.

 

Money published at 0.5% base rate is a different edition of money from  that published at 1% base rate. Same ‘newspaper’, same publisher, but different news, different information, different headline.

 

Just as each particular edition  of a newspaper contains information specific to a particular time and place (as I mentioned last time), the paper money note also contains information. I will describe the nature of this information below but for now lets stick with newspapers.

 

In the example of a newspaper, let us say that the edition of January 6 has the headline: ‘War Is Declared!’. And the edition of January 7 has the headline that ‘Peace Is Declared!’. Taken in sequence the meaning of these events is clear.

 

First there is a state of war, then there is a state of peace and the present condition of affairs is that of peace.

 

Now imagine that the newspapers in question were not dated January 6 and January 7 so that there was no way of telling which was the first headline and which was the second. It could be the case that war is declared and then peace declared or it could be the case that peace is declared and then war is declared. So in the first instance we are now in a state of peace and in the second instance we are now in a state of war.

 

Now let us say that an unscrupulous news agent receives both editions of the undated newspaper from the publisher in correct order but chooses to release them to the local population in either one or the other order for his own personal advantage. If the local newsagent wants to promote the idea that we are at a state of war he will release the newspaper with a war headline second and if he wants to promote the idea that we are at peace he will release that newspaper second.

 

Just such an instance as this is described when  banker Nathan Rothschild famously withheld news of the British victory at Waterloo in order to take advantage of market uncertainty as to the outcome of the battle. By the time the markets received the news that Wellington had won,  Rothschild had bought equities at knock down prices  and made a killing on the rising market.

 

If the local population becomes aware of the possibility that news may be manipulated by a local newsagent for the purpose of controlling perceptions, they might hold on to one or more editions of a newspaper in order to compare headlines and get some idea of what the actual facts of the matter are in sequence.

 

 

Logically, in such a case the local population will have to conclude that NO particular edition of a newspaper is to be objectively trusted and that all editions are either wrong or lying. In other words the paper in its entirety is worthless rather than just this or that edition. This is the qualitive nature of the problem.

 

After all, how can two editions of the same newspaper with the same editor and the same journalists and with no differential date information be judged between? How can you know which is the truth NOW and which is not?  This is in effect what happens in the case of hyper inflation.

 

Think of a paper money note as a generalised abstracted unit of information. On a more sophisticated level we can think of a money note as a unit of evidence. We can say that one or more units of evidence goes up to make an argument and that therefore the more units of evidence you can muster in support of any particular argument the more likely you are to win that particular argument.

 

In a standard economic transaction the argument in question is that you should sell a car,(or any other commodity), to me for this number of paper notes. Or to put it another way, you should swap your car for this number of paper notes.

 

The more units of evidence that you can muster in support of this argument, i.e. the more paper notes that you offer in return for the car, the more likely you are to win that argument.

 

But there is an unfortunate corollary to this. If you win the ‘argument’; by offering more pieces of paper money evidence than the other guy, you also implicitly argue that each individual piece of paper money evidence is worth relatively less.

 

We can return to the practical consequences of this shortly but first, as I argued last time paper bank notes or units of evidence are introduced into the market at a particular time and particular place and at a particular price. So in this sense, they are first and foremost evidence in an argument on behalf of central government made to the general population.

 

The individual argument that paper money notes are evidence for is: ‘These pieces of paper are valuable to this or that extent not only in comparison with objects such as commodities, but those pieces of money paper that have gone before and those pieces of money paper that will come after’.

 

This is of crucial importance.

 

From this perspective the crisis point of hyper inflation occurs when too much information is presented at any one time which results in not a quantitive problem but a qualitive one.

 

Let us say that two purchasers are competing to buy a particular car. They both make the argument that you should swap the car for this number of pieces of paper money. The number of pieces of paper money is the totality of evidence that this or that exchange argument is true and valid.

 

Obviously they cannot offer the same number of pieces of paper as evidence/arguments or the seller will have no way of differentiating between the two. So let us say that Buyer A offers 100 money units and buyer B offers 110 money units. Buyer B wins the argument because he has offered more ‘evidence’ in support of his argument. So far so good.

 

But what if Buyer A offers 100 units as before but Buyer B offers 5000 units? What is the seller to make of that? These two arguments are wildly different, they containing wildly differing amounts of evidence in the form of money notes. (bear ‘fake news’ in mind at this point)

 

Well surely the answer is simple, the seller takes Buyer B’s offer.

 

Not so fast. Most sellers would want to know a little more about it before making a decision in these circumstances. The problem is the totality of evidence.

 

Instead of 210 units in total chasing the car,(both bids), which might be seen as reasonable there are 5100 units chasing the car which is not seen as reasonable given what the seller knows or thinks he knows. Something else is going on…

 

What if a third buyer comes along ten minutes later and offers 10,000 units for the same car? Now the seller will be pretty sure something is seriously going wrong. And the inevitable effect is that he will be forced to distrust all money notes in whatever amount because they are all the same.

 

If ten information money notes are worthless then 10,00 money notes are equally worthless, this is both the strength and weakness of the informational money system. The implication is that the seller  will be forced to distrust the overall message he is getting from the government. But it is a qualitive and not quantitive problem because it does not rely on amounts.

 

So what was that central bank/government message I referred to above? It is that ‘We are in charge and everything is all right’. That is the basic unit of money news implicit in every money note.

 

The second piece of money news is the interest rate, which is the price at which private banks buy money from the central bank. This can be understood as that particular headline for the quarter. But this piece of money news is intimately tied up with the distribution mechanism of the paper notes themselves.

 

A newspaper printing and distribution operation will have a central printing press, regional distribution warehouses and sub warehouses which distribute to newsagents and even paper sellers on the street.

 

Each element of the distribution chain decides how many papers to take and to move on down the chain of distribution according to how profitable they predict this process will be. This depends to a large extent on the nature of the headline. ‘Queen Dies!’ or ‘War Is Declared!’ will tend to sell more copies than ‘Water Supply Goes Off In Addis Ababa’ or whatever. (perhaps not in Ethiopia though..) So the headline affects and ultimately controls the distribution process.

 

The same is true with interest rates. Depending on what the Central Bank decides the interest rate will be, each element of the distribution chain, from the large commercial banks downwards decides how much of this edition of money they will take and distribute according to how profitable they calculate it to be.

 

But what is of the utmost importance to understand is that in the case of money news everyone in the chain acts like the unscrupulous news agent I described above. Everybody is encouraged to withhold editions of the news  and to release them onto the market only when it is in their individual best interests!

 

When you receive any particular edition of money, you either release it into the public by means of spending it or you withhold it by means of saving it. You manipulate the information contained in the note for your own best interests. That is what you are supposed to do- to lie, to spread disinformation.

 

Of course everybody is therefore equally dishonest and so no-one can point the finger at anyone else. The system is based upon everybody spreading corruption and lies. Wouldn’t such a system be inherently unstable and prone to periodic collapse?

 

You betcha!

 

Wouldn’t someone try to contain this corruption and tendency to collapse? Wouldn’t they try to devise a system to mitigate the problem?

 

Yes they would. They would take the logical step of trying to date and order the headlines on each edition so they could be read and understood in sequence. How would they do that?

 

By means of a code that can be read and understood by themselves but importantly, not by you. If you doubt this, take out a currency note and find the identifying  code printed on it, usually referred to as the serial number. Do you know what this code means? If you do not, why don’t you? After all it is supposed to be money issued by a democratically elected government in your name and for your benefit!

 

The purpose of this code is for the people who issued the notes to understand each ‘headline’ and the order it was issued in, but not for you, or anyone like you, to be able to.

 

The system is built on a small minority being able to fully understand the meaning of the money news and the vast majority below them taking part in a game of charades where they lie to each other and manipulate the news supply to each other for the purpose of individual advantage.

 

As a simple illustration of this suppose you had 500 units of currency  and you found out that this denomination of money would be abolished or worthless the next day. What would you do? You would try to go out and buy something with it wouldn’t you? You would try to use the information advantage that you had to pass the problem onto someone else. This is the key to inflation and hyperinflation.

 

We are building up a picture of a central money news/information agency that is issuing news on a regular basis. That news/information is then taken up by the various parts of a supply chain and manipulated and distorted in order to obtain the best possible individual outcome but with inevitable damage to the system as a whole. Assuming that he purpose of the system is to transmit information that is.

 

With this news information model in mind we can now go back to look at hyper inflation. The trouble with hyper inflation is that the seller has no way of knowing which is the most valued up to date piece of information on which to base his decision.

 

This problem presents itself as there being too many pieces of money information in circulation. Discrepancies between the amounts of money evidence offered in any particular argument (trade), force the seller  to increasingly regard all pieces of paper money as being equally invalid- hence the hyper inflation.

 

But the root of the problem here is not validity of any particular trade argument and the money evidence presented in support of it  but the equality between each and all pieces of evidence. Because of this money is actually only credible and valid within a relatively narrow and stable bank of circulation. The sameness of each piece of money information  requires sameness of prediction and sameness of outcome to work.

 

No matter how many paper notes are issued in any financial period they are all  of equal validity to  paper notes  issued  in another given quarter. In other words any episode of  inflationary money printing activity is absorbed into the whole of the financial system and is only ameliorated by later activity.

 

Just as any incorrect news report is absorbed into news production and distribution system as a whole. The system relies on its credibility to absorb the effects of any mistakes and keep people believing in the system even as they curse and dispute virtually all of the specific outcomes the system produces!

 

Since individual savers and consumers effectively act as newsagents, storing the information and only releasing it when it suits the particular interest of the moment, it is inevitable that conflicts of meaning and value will happen.

 

Hyper inflation is an insane babble of arguments that taken collectively can only mean that each individual argument is more or less worthless  since in the last analysis it is all the same argument, that we are in control and everything is alright.

 

Periodically the logic of worthlessness produced by exchanging paper money arguments is expressed by and through a significant number of news agents  going from one door to another  desperately seeking a way out as they sense the impending doom.

 

As the doors are increasingly closed to news hawkers selling bogus information  brands the volume of money seeking any  way out increases exponentially until an overwhelming tsunami of money at any and every exit guarantees it cannot escape. Think of it as a house besieged by fifty street newspaper sellers shouting:

 

‘Extra! Extra! Your House Is Burning Down!’

 

while the house owner cowers within.

 

Disaster.

 

In conclusion I will ask: Is there anything we could do to rectify this state of affairs?

 

And surprisingly perhaps, there is a very simple and very straightforward solution. To date and value stamp money. So that instead of being interchangeable all money is clearly given a value – a ‘sell by date’ at which time it becomes valueless.

 

The closer this expiry date comes, the less the exchange value of the money note. This would solve all the problems now associated with inflation hyper inflation and Monetarism then we could…

 

Oh wait a minute.

 

This form of money already exists. It is called a bond. It is what the banks themselves use when they are dealing with central banks.

 

LISTEN UP

LISTEN UP

LISTEN UP

LISTEN UP

LISTEN UP

LISTEN UP

LISTEN UP

LISTEN UP

LISTEN UP

 

If there is only one thing you take away from all this it should be:

 

THERE IS MORE THAN ONE FORM OF MONEY, THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN. EACH MONEY FORM SERVES THE NEEDS OF ITS CREATORS. ANYONE CAN CREATE MONEY BECAUSE MONEY IS A COMMONS. MONEY IS A COMMONS BECAUSE IT IS NOT ANY PARTICULAR THING IT IS A FUNCTION- SOMETHING THAT AN OBJECT CAN BE MADE TO DO.

 

GOVERNMENTS MAKE MONEY FORMS TO CONTROL THEIR POPULATION. BANKS AND CORPORATIONS MAKE MONEY FORMS TO CONTROL THE PUBLIC. BITCOIN IS A METHOD OF CONTROLLING ANY SUCKER WHO BUYS INTO IT.

 

PRIVATELY ISSUED DEMOCRATISED MONEY IN THE FORM OF DERIVATIVES IS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE ATTEMPT EVER DEVISED IN HISTORY TO CONTROL THE WORLD POPULATION DIRECTLY THROUGH THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A NEW MONEY FORM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Reply to RossC or The Iago Strategem.

220px-Edwin_Booth_as_Iago

I received the following from RossC :

 

‘Hello I have followed your blog and read most of your Book/PDF not to the end yet so it may be in there but how do we take down the monetarists? how do we shift the battle field so much that it is possible to defeat them?

 

There is I assume no going back to socialism as few would want to so how do you jump past what is and what would you present to the people to make them want to follow.

 

I am a New Zealander and we have had 30 years of monetarist policies with constant privatization, destruction of the left and the other same old things house boom, wage stagnation and attacks on welfare yet still we vote national (tories to you) and even with a labour government we get only small changes.

 

We do have an MMP electoral system with 70% voting this leaves 30% outside the system a large portion young or poor non-voters.

 

What shape should any future look like to oppose the monetarist system?

 

Cheers’

 

RossC, Thank you for your comments:

 

‘how do we take down the monetarists? how do we shift the battle field so much that it is possible to defeat them?’

 

There are two aspects to your question.

 

  1. The short term need to stop this specific phase of the Monetarist program and
  2. To address the underlying causes that brought Monetarism about.

 

Monetarism and the Democratisation of Money is the project to privatise the issuance of money, that is to privately control what money is issued, what kind of money it is, and when it is issued.

 

Why is this a problem?

 

Because this project seeks to destroy the Social Aspect Of Money– the fact that money ‘in common’ is in itself is a social good.

 

If your neighbour has a nice garden and a clean tidy house it benefits you and it benefits everyone in the neighbourhood, even though individual people in the neighbourhood don’t actually own any of the house. You benefit from the social aspects of the house. It is part of THE COMMONS. Of course if the house is scruffy and run down then you and everybody else suffers correspondingly.

 

Though people find it hard to understand, money basically has the same social aspect. The kind of money in circulation, where and when it is put into circulation affects the well being of everybody. The social benefits of money as a common good benefit everyone, even people who don’t actually own any money!

 

This is the antidote to Monetarism.

 

Just as Monetarists believe that there is no such thing as society in general terms they also believe that there is no such thing as society in monetary terms.

 

From what I have said that we can understand the Monetarist project as the destruction of the social benefits of money. Our response should be to restore and expand the social benefits of money. That means we have to understand and explain the social benefits of Government Issued Money in common.

 

Here are some of the social benefits of Government Issued Money that Monetarists are destroying and the way that they can be restored:

 

 

Social Benefits of Government Issued

Money In Common

Why Is This A Benefit? How Monetarism (Democratised Money) Is Removing This Benefit How Can We Restore This Benefit?
The right to privacy Government issued Paper money can be exchanged and stored in private. You can conduct your financial affairs in line with your own best interests by means of free association giving you comparative rights with those wealthy enough to buy privacy. The Shadow Economy is privacy for bankers FROM public scrutiny.   Transferring more and more economic activity to digital banking and the Permanent Credit Economy means all public activity can be tracked and permission given or withheld by a digital economy elite. (Ditto Bitcoin). Remove all legal limits on amount and purpose of cash transactions. Strictly control information that can be gathered and passed on bank activity. Advise people to hold as much cash as possible. Rebuild the cash economy. Make the Shadow Economy (Democratised Money) illegal.
The right to enter in and out of the economy at will. By having access to money notes that can be entirely held outside the economy, each individual can maximise personal financial benefit by choosing where and when to interact with the wider economy. By destroying bank interest and forcing growing dependence on the Permanent Credit Economy this is the Participation Economy. By allowing banks to operate with below minimum reserves. By maximising the amount of money held by individuals in cash. By forcing all parts of the economy to accept cash as payment and payments to be made in cash if required. By restoring interest rates to long term averages. By making derivatives (D Money) illegal.
The right to collective negotiation with the state on taxes and benefits. Collective groups will have more leverage than individuals when dealing with the state. By preventing any democratic political access to the control of the issuance of money Make monetary policy the subject of democratic process. Make illegal any money issuance outside of political process.
The right to collective negotiation with private entities Collective groups will have more leverage than individuals when dealing with private entities. By destroying the cash wage economy, the traditional employment model and trades unions. Restore the cash wage economy the traditional employment model and trades unions.
The right to commonly decide interest rates Interest rates can be used to promote the kind of economy and job availability that maximises benefit for the most people. By preventing any democratic political access to the control of the printing of money Make monetary policy the subject of democratic process. Make illegal any money issuance outside of political process.

 

 

Money in common is a social good. Money that is privatised, Democratised Money, is a destructive force. Its purpose is to destroy the post war settlement that benefited the ordinary people of the developed world to such a great extent.

 

The points in the above table outline a short to medium term strategy for dealing with Monetarism. What about a longer terms strategy, dealing with why Monetarism has come about?

 

A couple of the points RossC makes illustrate this very clearly.

 

‘There is I assume no going back to socialism as few would want to so’

 

This is a strange thing to say. Socialism has never been more popular among the rich and bankers. The entire financial system is run as an international socialist syndicate. It is widely accepted in right wing as well as left wing circles that what we have now is ‘Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor’. How can we explain this bizarre set of circumstances? We have to turn to the study of WHITEISM.

 

 

‘ how do you jump past what is and what would you present to the people to make them want to follow’.

 

We must explain the Social Aspect of Money, this is the missing part of the opposition response to Monetarism and Austerity. Monetarists have succeeded in promoting the idea that it is in the best interests for a small elite to control the money supply. This is the essence of their attack and this is the place we must meet them head on.

‘ yet still we vote national (tories to you) and even with a labour government we get only small changes.’

 

There is a direct relationship between the Democratisation of Money and Whiteism. There is no long term answer without understanding and addressing Whiteism.

 

The key to take away from all this is that:

 

There are social goods that we all hold in common. Monetarism seeks to take advantage of the fact that most people do not understand the importance and the benefits of these social goods. They hope that this ignorance will allow Monetarists to hijack these social goods permanently and to use the massive power this gives them to institute a new permanent global power system.

 

We have not lost control of these social goods yet, although the entire purpose of Monetarist propaganda is to try to convince us we have. Call this the IAGO STRATEGEM.

 

Our battle is to inform people of the existence and benefit of these social goods in particular COMMONLY HELD MONEY and to convince them to fight to defend them.

 

This is the battleground where the fate of Monetarism will be decided…..

 

Write again soon….

 

@P

 

 

 

 

A SHAME Or Why Crackernomics Matters

crying-sad-clown-23899989

It has been 7 years since what has come to be generally called ‘The Credit Crunch’ exploded in the world economy. And now after those 7 years Monetarists are ready to declare complete and unconditional victory in their battle to fundamentally and irrevocably alter the global economic and political landscape.

 

‘Alternative’ voices on the ‘left’ and the progressive ‘libertarian’ movement have totally failed to mount any sustained attack on the physical and intellectual structures that Monetarists have put in place. They have conceded every substantial point in economics and politics in the post Credit Crunch world. As a consequence there is nothing to stop the Monetarists concluding their takeover of existing systems and creating new global structures to further their plans.

 

Monetarist global restructuring is a massive and risk laden enterprise. But at every step of the way; at every major juncture when there was a danger of the Monetarist plan coming unstuck, the one thing that Monetarists have been able to count on is the unfailing inability of their opposition to understand the significance of the situation and take appropriate action.

 

As a consequence of these repeated failures what began as a hard beating has turned into a humiliating rout. Were this the extent of our woes it would be bad enough. But intellectual and moral collapse means that the very ideas that could underpin any chance of an alternative being created in the future are being corroded to the point where they will be soon be unsalvageable.

 

Those who claim that alternative economic and organisational forms will somehow spontaneously spring up as a response to the Monetarist onslaught are worse than naive. They are perhaps the most destructive force we face. Not only do they not challenge the new world order, but their ideas and prescriptions are built upon the very forms that give rise to it. They reinforce it. They guarantee its total victory.

 

You may disagree with this prognosis.You may think it overly gloomy. Or you may accept some of it but take comfort in the fact that ‘life’, your life and the lives of those you care about will go on, maybe not as well as before, but go on nevertheless. And in some sense you are right. It might be possible to put your head down, shut your mouth and try to get on with things the best you can within the situation you find yourself.

 

But that is simply to rationalise and accept loss. To turn your face away from the horror of your situation. Because once lost, freedoms are not retrieved, no matter what you might say to console yourself. Within half a generation people will not even remember what those freedoms were. They will become incomprehensible marks and signs in a book that mean nothing. Your children will be taught to despise them just as you have been taught to despise the freedoms and the dignities that existed before Capitalism. Or even the freedoms and the dignities that existed before WWII…

 

…Just like Winston Smith scribbling in his notebook. The real tragedy behind 1984 is not that it is so bad, it is that it is not so bad. People adapt. After a while the amputee can’t even remember what it was like to have two legs. That is not rhetoric, it is reality. And those who are most adaptable, best at forgetting, rise to the top just like Darwin says they must. We are programmed to forget.

 

Make no mistake, this is fundamentally about freedom. If you imagine yourself as an individualist and a libertarian who is happy to see the welfare state being dismantled and the post war liberal corporatist settlement being torn up, don’t kid yourself that the state is actually going to shrink as a consequence of all this. Not for one second.

Because if there is no butter on offer there will surely have to be plenty of guns. Now you are going to find out what a big state is really all about…

 

When I began writing the ‘United States of Everywhere’ I did so out of a sense of increasing incredulity at what I was seeing unfold. I saw the Credit Crunch and Q.E. as clearly the product of Monetarism, after all Q.E. was simply Monetarist ideology taken to its logical conclusion.. Was this analysis overly simplistic? Bernanke and Greenspan, all admitted Monetarists were advocating unprecedented printing of money while dismantling the post WWII welfare state. What else could this be but hard core Monetarism? I thought that many others would see this as clearly as I did and argue from this context. But they did not.

 

I tried to understand what could be stopping the majority of people from drawing what I thought were fairly obvious and uncontroversial conclusions. I began to wonder if there was something more deep seated within ‘western’ society that could account for this. I began to question the fundamental idea of progressive politics and of the left. Not whether they were ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but whether they had ever really existed in any meaningful sense. And I began to research more closely what had actually happened in the Credit Crunch instead of relying on anybody elses (including the self-proclaimed opposition) analysis. And this was when I really became uneasy.

 

When I looked at actual information, I quickly became aware that what was being reported as the course of the Credit Crunch and Q.E. was not what was actually happening. And if this failure to report was true of the ‘establishment’ it was doubly true of the ‘opposition’. I could rationalise to myself that I understood why the ‘establishment’ would seek to put a certain spin on what was happening but I could not understand why the ‘oppostion’ would as well. It was clear to me that the problem was not just what was coming out of the opposition but what was going in. The input was just as distorted as the output. Why was this?

 

As I deconstructed what I read I realised that the securitisation of mortgages (bundling and re-selling), was a self sustaining system and that mortgages were being created to ‘feed’ the mortgage securities system and not the other way round! This was a self sustaining, potentially unlimited system and it was actually a license to ‘print’ money! In fact Securitised Mortgage Bundles (financial instruments) were money. What else can they be? What else can the term ‘financial instrument’ actually mean but money?

 

Financial:

pertaining or relating to money matters; pecuniary:

 

Instrument:

a tool or device used for a particular purpose; especially : a tool or device designed to do careful and exact work

 

I initially called this process the ‘Privatisation of Money’ but I realised that this terminology would be confusing because people understood money as private anyway. They were unaware of the social aspect of money. I realised that this process was actually better characterised as the Democratisation of Money.

 

Only later did I appreciate the significance of this.

 

The nearest analogy I can think of is that of a scientist drawing conclusions from a set of data. If the scientist draws an incorrect inference from data even if he does this knowingly, he is still operating within the terms of science, although bad science.

 

But when a scientist makes up data to conform to a pre arranged conclusion that is ‘Democratisation’. And if those conclusions are used to make a drug which kills lots of people that is the Credit Crunch. And if the scientist and the drug company he works for is let off by the Courts with paying a fine for all the damage they have caused, that is the United States of Everywhere.

 

After this I drew a link between Monetarist policy and privatisation. It went like this:

 

Monetarists seek to manage the economy through control of the money supply.

They seek to maximise privatisation.

They will seek to merge privatisation and Monetarism.

They will seek to privately control the money supply.

 

Is this analysis so incredible?

Is it so unbelievable?

I can’t understand why it is not generally accepted.

 

Well, that’s a shame of course but none of the above explains why Crackernomics matters to you, now.

 

Because all around us, if you look you will see that the opposition is starting to adapt to the new reality.

All the right wingers who were screaming about hyper-inflation and the Austrians who said there never could be a rise in interest rates and the radical leftists who put their faith in SYRIZA and all the countless others, the Gold Bugs and the Bitcoiners and all the rest are all starting, bit by bit, to make their accommodation with the way things are going to be.

 

Of course there will be back biting and recriminations and score settling and grumbling and selling out and all that stuff but when the smoke is settled the Monetarists will have got everything they wanted.

 

And the reason for that is the opposition have never really understood why they are fighting.

 

They have never really understood what they are fighting for.

 

And that is a shame.

 

The only way anyone can really appreciate what is actually at stake is through understanding Crackernomics and the Democratisation of Money.

 

For this reason I have no hesitation is recommending that you spend a little of your time reading ‘Crackernomics’ (it is free to download).

 

And I have no hesitation is suggesting you recommend it to anyone you think might be interested.

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/312882

Using Democratised Money Theory to Understand Bitcoin

imagesPoints from previous posts on Democratised Money Theory can be taken and applied to Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies. This can give an interesting insight into all forms of money.

 

Democratised Money Theory:

 

Money is a contract – a set of words and images that embodies a decree. (This is the decree gold and silver bugs get confused about when they refer to fiat money). This decree element is a vital component of a money contract. It decrees the economic environment for the life of the money contract. This decree is expressed in form of the central bank interest rate in respect of that specific contract.

 

Applied to Bitcoin:

 

Bitcoin is a set of words and images that embodies a contract. This is what Bitcoin is in its totality that and nothing else. In its form, Bitcoin differs from government money in how and where that contract is recorded. In the case of Bitcoin the contract is recorded in programming code form. This is the decree that Bitcoin embodies, which is intended to function exactly the same as the decree embodied by government issued money. Programming code embodies the method and thence the rate at which Bitcoins can be ‘mined’ or Bitcoin ‘decrees’ made. It effectively decrees the rate of creation of decrees!

 

But this is really no more than a marketing device. By making the issuing of Bitcoin decrees ‘automatic’, the creators of Bitcoin are seeking to obscure their role as the Authority which delineates the terms and form of Bitcoin. They do this precisely because the people who might adopt Bitcoin don’t like the idea of conforming to a given authority. The ‘anonymity’ of ‘Satoshi’ is more of the same marketing…. a personification of the commons; ‘Everyman’ and ‘No One’

 

Bitcoin is a commercial contract as opposed to a state sponsored contract in the case of Government Issued Money.. Despite the best efforts of Bitcoin advocates to obscure the fact, Bitcoin is at its core a business proposition and in this it differs fundamentally from state issued money which is at its core a political proposition.

 

This points to a fundamental difference. State issued money is derived from the commons, crypto currencies are not. Crytocurrencies, like all ‘democratised’ currencies, represent an exact inversion of the developmental dynamic of state issued currencies.

 

State issued currencies began their existence in the commons operated for the benefit of all, and were appropriated for the benefit of a minority. This process culminates in the creation of specific forms of privately issued Democratised Money.

 

Democratised currencies such as derivatives and Bitcoin were created and developed by a minority supposedly for the benefit of all. Democratised money and Government Issued Money begin at opposite ends of the money spectrum and move in opposite directions.

 

There is no point in simply describing the differences between state issued money and democratised money as they are now. At best this will offer you a blurred snapshot of the development of money in the 21st century. You have to describe the trajectory of development of both democratised privately issued money and state issued money simultaneously and how they will affect each other as they develop.

 

Democratised Money Theory:

This money contract is mounted on a transferable medium. Something that can be securely transferred from one owner to another. The contract is issued by the relevant legal authority which is the body authorized to mount that specific proclamation upon that specific transferable medium.

Applied to Bitcoin:

 

The Bitcoin contract is recorded as code which can be transferred from one processor to another. The proprietary name that is given to the contract and its mode of transference is the ‘Blockchain’. The blockchain in its totality serves as both decree and record of Bitcoin whereas individual notes serve as decree or record of government issued money. But the blockchain cannot be owned by any one person; unlike a money note (or all money notes), which can be transferred, stored and even destroyed by its owner. (Although interestingly it is a crime to modify and deface modern banknotes. Now why would that be?…)

 

(As a secondary point of interest, bank credits are not money despite what many insurgents argue. Bank credit transactions require a separate and autonomous mode of record, disqualifying them as money.)

 

There may be some confusion over the designation of the ‘relevant legal authority’. In this case it is the creators of the blockchain code and the issuers of Bitcoin. The authority to do this is vested in private property which is a totem of capitalist states. Satoshis have legal authorization to issue Bitcoin, although final rights are reserved by national governments.

 

Democratised Money Theory:

 

The validity of a money contract depends on the extent to which it decrees the nature of the real economy. The ‘value’ of that money contract is an expression of its validity. In other words: The money contract is valid to the extent that it decrees the nature of the real economy. Not ‘reflects’ the nature of the economy, decrees it. It is valuable to the extent it is valid. This comprehensively defines the value of money.

 

Applied to Bitcoin:

 

Trade and creation are ubiquitous in human society. Human beings purposefully alter the environment around themselves continually and without exception. This is the real economy. The control of this alteration is the purpose of politics and economics. Money is one method of implementing this control. A piece of money is a decree of who will do what where and when. It is specific to the extent that this serves the purpose of the issuer. It is generalised to the extent that this serves the interest of the issuer.

Bitcoin contract is specific in that it serves the interests of ‘Satoshi’ to create a privately issued digital currency through ‘mining’ and recording transactions on the Blockchain.

The Bitcoin contract is generalised to the extent that it operates as a store of wealth and to a much more limited extent as a means of exchange and transfer.

 

I have previously used the example of a train ticket to illustrate another aspect of money but the metaphor can be useful in this context too:

 

  • All train tickets are contracts.

All pieces of money are contracts.

 

  • All train tickets are the same in function and distinct from other contracts.

All money is the same in function and distinct from other forms of contract.

 

  • You need a valid train ticket to access the rail system.

You need a valid piece of money to access the economy.

 

  • Train tickets are specifically valid in terms of the journey you are permitted to undertake

Money is specifically valid in terms of the economic activity you are permitted to undertake

 

  • A specific train ticket contract decrees a type of journey will take place

A specific piece of money contract decrees a type of economic activity will take place

 

  • A train ticket is valid to the extent that the journey it decrees will take place, does take place

A piece of money is valid to the extent that the economic activity it decrees will take place, does take place

 

  • A train ticket is valuable to the extent it is valid

A piece of money is valuable to the extent it is valid.

 

(NB. Claiming gold is naturally money is like getting on a train with a piece of Stephenson’s Rocket in your hand and claiming it gives you a right to ride!)

 

The decree aspect of Bitcoin is well illustrated by the apocryphal ‘10,000 Bitcoin For A Pizza’ story.

 

Bitcoin, like any form of money, does not reflect reality or the economy. If it did, then the first Bitcoin would be designated as worth the totality of the economy, the first and second would each be worth half the economy, the first, second and third would each be worth one third of the economy and so on… This is obviously nonsense

Since money does not reflect the economy as it is or was, it must instead decree the economy as it is going to be.

 

In the case of the Bitcoin Pizza, 10,000 Bitcoin didn’t call the pizzeria that made the pizza into existence.

It didn’t call the flour purchase for the pizza into existence.

It didn’t bring the pizza man into work to make the pizza. All this stuff was already there.

But what it did, was to call this specific pizza into existence.

Bitcoin like all other money, decrees how the world will be from now on.

 

Once the Bitcoin Pizza transaction was successfully completed, the Bitcoin became both decree and record and its value was accordingly modified.

 

Democratised Money Theory:

 

A money contract is valid to the extent that everyone complies with the terms of the decree it embodies. A money decree is complied with to the extent that the amount and terms of money contracts issued compare with the amount and terms of economic activity undertaken for the same territory and time span.

 

Applied to Bitcoin:

 

Here is a ‘sketch’ graph which roughly illustrates the dollar value of Bitcoin since its beginning. The graph is useful in illustrating the decree function of Bitcoin. I have marked five significant points on the graph:

NEWGRAPH

1.Bitcoin the beginning has no recording function, so no value added there. The mining protocol decrees Bitcoin is virtually valueless.

 

2.Bitcoin records some few transactions; ‘wealth store’ value increases. This leads to an increase in mining which decrees Bitcoin is again virtually valueless.

 

3,4.The number of Bitcoin records begins to accumulate rapidly, especially in relation to the number of fresh decrees issued because it is becoming harder and more specialised to ‘mine’. The increased cost of ‘mining’ is effectively a decree of greater value.

 

5.The validity of recent decrees increasingly comes under question. Bitcoin is having trouble making the real world conform to what it proclaims. This is reflected in the recording function. Bitcoin falls in ‘value’

 

 

Lest Ye be Vexed……..

Subsequent to my post: ‘If I had A Hammer’ some of the main points I made were discussed on a Maidsafe.org thread

 

(https://www.maidsafe.org/t/negative-interest-rates-and-when-robots-will-set-monetary-policy/3262/14)

 

probably via Dave Harrison @ TradeWIth Dave who contributes significantly to our overall understanding of new forms of money as they appear and evolve.

 

Despite the wise injunction not to ‘Listen at doors…’ I nevertheless proceeded to absorb and then respond to the comments I found there.

I am always keen to discuss my analysis since this is the best way I know to develop and deepen my own understanding of the Democratisation Of Money. Furthermore I am always in favour of the most robust kind of discussion on the basis of the premise that it is impossible to edge a knife on a block of butter. If you really want to sharpen your understanding sparks must fly!

 

The whole thread became increasingly unwieldy so I am anable to reproduce it in any kind of coherent order here. Obviously, you can see it all at the address above.

 

I have dealt with the points I think are most illuminating. I have put the points in bulleted quotation marks and my answers in italics.

 

From Janitor

 

  • ‘Duh… Worthless paper has no intrinsic value. That wasn’t too hard!’

 

Money is not paper or gold or anything else, it is a legal instrument recorded on a transferable object. Nothing is money until it is designated as such by the relevant legal authority. The mortgage on you house is written on paper, does that mean it is worthless because the paper is worthless? What nonsense! The value comes from what is printed on the piece of paper, not the paper itself.

  • ‘A real money is always worth something because even copper or iron money can’t ever be cheaper than the material it’s made from.’

 

I’m pretty sure this sentence doesn’t actually make sense; nevertheless refer to Greshams Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law

 

  • ‘I don’t know where he got the idea that money produces wealth. Money is wealth which produces nothing. That’s exactly what it’s supposed to do – be a medium of exchange and store of value. Money doesn’t “extract” anything, no clue where that Perry guy got those nonsensical ideas.’
  • ‘I don’t know where he got the idea that money produces wealth.’
  • ‘A currency of course doesn’t produce wealth’,

Capitalist economics claims that money produces wealth. If they do not:

What do Capitalists claim Capital is then?

What do Capitalists Capitalism is then?

What do Capitalists claim mean by ’ investment’?

What do Capitalists mean by ‘return on investment’?

 

  • ‘…it just helps it circulate. It doesn’t extract wealth,’

 

Even in its simplest terms, this statement is plainly self contradictory.

How can wealth ‘circulate’ unless it is extracted from one place so it can be ‘circulated’ to another?

In what form can wealth ‘circulate’ if not in the form of money?

What do you understand by the term ‘accountancy’?

What do you think accounts are for?

 

 

  • Because this post is about the nature of money, I think you should define “money” (it seems you mean “currency” rather than “money”?)

 

noun

noun: currency; plural noun: currencies

a system of money in general use in a particular country.

 

 

What do you imagine the difference is between ‘currency’ and ‘money’? Define this difference. If you know of any valid legal difference in the definition of currency and money please explain it. I used the term money specifically and advisedly.

 

  • Money (such as gold) has inherent value. You can coat airplane windows with it, enhance conductivity of connectors in your iPhone, etc. A currency can be intrinsically worthless, but then you could make it clear which one you are referring to to.(sic)

 

Gold can be used as money, but so can shells, pieces of paper etc. Money is a legal instrument. (see above). Aeroplane windows are irrelevant.

 

  • “It is a license, a legal permit, to extract value from within the society.”

But in a free society there’s no way to limit that. I don’t have to accept your money, I can pick any of several private currencies or forms of money that circulate around.

 

I also can (sic)

 

-(?) For some reason you have been unable to finish this sentence- were you confused? What did you mean to say?

 

Janitor says:’ I don’t have to accept your money’

This is simply wrong: You do have to accept my money in settlement of debt, legally ordered payments, in payment of taxes etc etc . Look up the meaning of ‘legal tender’. The government has mandated this. Your statement is evidence of painful ignorance.

  • “If there were an infinite number of possible profitable ways to utilise money what would the effect be on interest rates? Despite the fact that there would be little or no risk, interest rates would be high.  They’d be high because there’s more demand relative to supply. Money is supposed to be scarce, otherwise it’d be worthless or close to worthless and people would not want to hold on to it (or denominate their labour or products/services in it).

 

This does not in any way refute the point that interest rates are a product of demand, not risk; in fact you simply restate the first part of my point, albeit in a somewhat less elegant way.

 

Then you make the strange generalisation: ‘money is supposed to be scarce’. Based on what theory? Can you provide a definition of scarce? You suggest that people would not want to denominate goods and services in any particular money if it were not scarce. People within a given territory have no choice as to whether they have to hold the currency of that territory. They are required to hold that currency-in order to pay taxes for example, as I explained above. You either repeat what I say, in which case you are sort of on the right track, or else you deviate from my description and go into a ditch…

 

  • “And what would be the effect of an opposite environment of high risk and few profitable ways to utilise money? Then interest rates would be low because there would be little or no demand for money.I’m not sure this dual (high risk + few profitable ways to utilize it) hypothetical setup is valid.

 

Really? Because that is the setup we are in right now!

 

 

  • If risk is high, interest will be high. That’s regardless of how one wants to utilize money. If there are few investing opportunities, interest rates would be low because of a relative lack of demand.

 

You try to characterise ‘risk’ as some invisible abstract force of nature that cannot be located within concrete tangible reality. By conflating risk and interest you hope to glide past their supposed relationship: ‘If risk is high, interest will be high’. is a statement of religious faith dressed up as economics. There is no risk outside of investment opportunitiesor the lack of them. If there is, show me where it is!

 

  • Currently in the world there is too much capacity in most industries worldwide, so consequently although risk is small, there’s no demand for money (actually individual currencies, but since you didn’t make this distinction I’m playing along) simply because building another steel mill is likely to make that debt bad (i.e. you won’t make money from it).

 

‘Currently in the world there is too much capacity in most industries worldwide’ Another meaningless generalisation! Raw material producing industries and finished commodity industries to say nothing of services, cannot be lumped together in this way.

 

From Seneca

 

  • Interesting, but he doesn’t address the effect of inflation and deflation. In a deflationary period the value of money increases, so despite ZIRP/NIRP, which doesn’t increase the nominal value of a particular amount of money, the “real” value still increases over time through deflation. I think that undermines his entire argument? At least, if the deflation fully compensates the decrease in interest rate, then it does.

 

This goes right to the heart of my argument, which I am afraid you haven’t really understood. You cite the beneficial effects of deflation on the value of money as a way of offsetting the non-beneficial effects of ZIRP. You argue that in theory at least, deflation and ZIRP could effectively’ net-out’, meaning that there would be no losers in a system which would be in your terms, self regulating.

 

The first and most obvious problem with this is that it is highly unlikely that the people who are disadvantaged by ZIRP are the people who would be advantaged TO EXACTLY THE SAME EXTENT by deflation. When I put it in these terms I am sure you can see what I mean. In other words, if you are getting no interest on your savings, you are told you must take the money out of the bank and buy a boat with it, why?- because you will save a lot of money! But what happens if you don’t want to buy a boat?

 

From this it should be clear that even if ZIRP/Deflation could by some stretch of the imagination be described as OVERALL neutral, it has to be admitted that it causes massive wealth transfers from individuals within the system. Because it effects different MONEY FUNCTIONS differently.

 

The second problem with your suggestion flows directly from this:

Deflation and Inflation are in no sense ‘real, they are estimations based on aggregated information produced by governments. They are primarily political tools. I am sure you are aware that the methodology for calculating inflation/deflation figures has been regularly amended in every major economy, usually to suit the political requirements of the time. There is no clear, real and genuine way to calculate deflation, so the idea that this misty, indeterminate figure from the future can be used to offset the very real concrete lack of interest from today is a bit of a stretch….

 

The third problem is the main one I was trying to describe and it flows from the above two points I have made. You are describing monetary policy as a totality which is to say, you are concerned with the TOTAL amount of money netted out. But money is not like that. It is not a single contract that comes to maturity and is then paid out. Money is constantly being issued and retired, there is never a time when it is accounted for in totality. The amount of money and the ‘real’ value it represents is a constantly moving target. So there will never be a time when it will be possible to say what the discrete outcome of any action will be. The only way to understand money is as a series of ‘waves’ of contracts and the effect that these contracts have IMMEDIATELY. The effect of the money issued during the credit crunch was to save the lives of the banks. It does not matter what the ‘real’ value of this money was, in terms of the banks or the overall economy, without it the banks would have died. Just like a billionaire would die in the desert without a single bottle of water to keep him alive.

 

Money is not a totality- it is a collection of functions.

 

The Face Of It or Because Music Is A Priesthood.. or ‘Afore Ye Go’ or Its Always later Than You Think

Diane-Taylor_2043194cSinead O'Connor

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jul/27/sinead-o-connor-interview-i-deserve-to-be-a-priest

http://tradewithdave.com/?p=21494

 

I DESERVE TO BE A PRIEST-Because Music Is A Priesthood.. says Sinead O Connor

The personal odyssey of Sinead O’Connor has proved to be a object of fascination for journalists, fans and not least of all for Sinead herself. The Sinead shtick is that she is an original and possibly unique cultural and religious voice. Interviewers and fans alike are invited to gaze and wonder: Why does this tortured Catholic chanteuse crop her hair? And why does she have that manic stare? And why is she covered in tattoos? And why does she hate the Pope so much?

The answer of course, is because she is a Protestant.

No joke. Sinead claims that she deserves to be a priest, indeed has already been ordained as a priest:

“Oh, because I’m a priest?” – O’Connor was ordained in 1999 by the breakaway Latin Tridentine church  – “Yeah, well being a priest was just civil disobedience. Although I deserve to be a priest, frankly, better than any of them, in terms of the actual faith and respect [I have] for the holy spirit. That doesn’t mean I’m a good person, I’m not. But you really don’t have to be a good person, in fact you can be a complete fucking cunt – it’s about the level of your faith and whether you actually respect the presence of that holy spirit.”

Aside from the Pope hatred guff, this claim of right to be ordained outside of the authority of the Vatican is Protestantism by definition. On the face of it it’s obvious. Yet neither Sinead or the journalist wants to say it. Why would that be?

Because of moral value

If Sinead is a Protestant then this interview is essentially just another cracker telling you the Pope is the anti-Christ. And crackers telling you the Pope is the anti-Christ are ten a penny on You Tube, as you know. But a Catholic, especially a tortured Catholic telling you the Pope is the anti-Christ-that’s the genuine article, straight from the horses mouth. That carries authority.

The defection critique is the more powerful the more committed the accuser is supposed to have been before his or her change of heart. The Colonel defecting from Assad’s government in Syria will tell you the regime has betrayed the Arab people. (‘Aha! Even his own officers admit he is evil!’ etc etc.) The defector from North Korea will tell you that the leadership has betrayed the ideals of Communism and so on. And of course handlers will make sure that their defectors cause as much trouble as possible from inside the tent, before they flee.

As I have said before, Dave Harrison at Trade With Dave has a nose for the action. A recent post deals with the emerging Bitcoin defection critique, albeit from an angle.

In ‘You lie… Ahead’ Dave argues that as far as new democratised money functions go, you won’t have to decide which you want; it’s possible for society to have it’s cake and eat it. I argue you that as far as new money functions go, you won’t have to decide because the decision has already been made-about forty years ago.

You Lie…’ features clip of a young woman by the name of Jinyoung Lee Englund who got a message from God telling her to go to Africa. Miss Lee neglects to mention whether God indicated she should go on to become director of marketing and communications for the Bitcoin Foundation. But she nevertheless ends up encouraging everybody in Africa to get into Bitcoin on the basis that they have a right to:

‘Global inclusion’

Global Inclusion? sounds like an anti-Christ propaganda gimmick in a low budget Apocalypse movie :

‘…. that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.’…

In contradistinction to Protestantism, Catholicism generally discourages personal religious revelation of the above kind, precisely because you the voice you hear in your head may not necessarily be who it says it is. The obvious danger is that the internal voice tells you that ‘All young women who wear lipstick must die!’ may very well not be The Voice Of God.

More subtly, you may hear a voice telling you that it is Gods Will that you go ahead and do just exactly what you have already decided to do. In truth the decision was already made; pretending you had not already made your mind up is simply a way of adding moral value to your decision. Just like Sinead.

Let us charitably say that Ms Englund may be a little self deluded. Vinay Gupta (also featured in the Trade With Dave post) is altogether more rooted in reality. He is pointing out that the Bitcoin project is failing politically because it cannot address developmental contradictions between Anarcho Capitalism and Libertarian Capitalism, in particular in relation to property rights in Bitcoin.

Gupta suggests one reason for this is the Bitcoin community is somewhat politically undeveloped and not equipped to approach a solution. He also rather slyly implies that the only possible solution available may very well be something ‘no one is willing to name’ yet. By which he means that when push comes to shove all the tortured anarcho capitalistic ideals will go out the window and in Bitcoin we will be face to face with the same forces that gave us Derivatives and the Credit Crunch.

By then of course, the ex ‘Anarcho Capitalists’ will have gained a fortune but lost their moral value. It is not going to be possible to offer a credible critique of financialised capitalism when you are openly in business with the very bankers you were supposed to be getting rid of. So they are in no hurry to leave the tent. At least for the moment.

It’s Always Later Than You Think

In ‘The Matrix’, our hero is told by the Oracle that he is not here to make a decision- he has already made the decision. He is here to know why he made the decision. I cannot think of a more succinct way of describing what Crackernomics is all about. Democratised Money including Bitcoin, is already here. It began with Monetarism in the 70’s. Crackernomics is here to tell you why it happened.