Do Banks Create Money? or No Big Deal

 

 

To get a real insight into whether banks do indeed create money, we must first sharpen the focus of our enquiry:

 

If banks do create money, what kind of money do banks create?

 

For instance, do banks print foreign money?

 

It has been rumoured that in the past North Korea has printed North American dollars, but for the most part this practice is frowned upon and we can say that generally banks and governments refrain from printing each others currencies.(Although that might change in the Eurozone quite soon).

 

Do banks create their own private money? Is there such a thing as Lehman dollars?

Banks printing money in this form is not generally held to be the case, (at least not yet), but we can come back to that later.

 

Since it is clear that private banks don’t create money in general we have refined the question to:

 

Do banks create the national money used by you and I? Or to phrase it using democratised money theory language: Do private banks issue Government Issued Money?

 

And of course, when you put it in these terms, the answer has to be ‘no’.

 

Problem solved to my satisfaction at least.

 

But maybe not quite to yours.

 

In my last post I commented on a quarterly bulletin of the Bank of England that seems to suggest that banks do indeed create the majority money in circulation in the form of debt. This capitulation to the radical interpretation of economics piqued my interest. Putting aside the question as to whether banks do or don’t create money, why would the Central Bank retreat from earlier positions and just as importantly, why would it do so after all this time?

One plausible reason for a tactical concession to the insurgents is to better position the Monetarists for the next assault in their ongoing campaign to control the future of money.

 

It could be that central banks are positioning themselves so that it is not such a big shock when they come clean about derivatives being money. The message will be; Sure, private banks and financial institutions print money of one kind or another; they always have. So what’s the big deal? Perhaps the arrival of this political concession actually means that the time is approaching when the shadow economy will be coming out of the shadows.

 

This would be a reasonable assumption if there is a need for some kind of normalisation of interest rate policy. It will be impossible to significantly and permanently raise global interest rates without some corresponding amendment of national and international banking and exchange rules. These rules would need the justification of a new worldwide orthodoxy on money and banking. This might be the actual truth behind all those predictions of a world currency.

 

If orthodoxy were to concede that derivatives were to be regarded as a form of money it would confirm what I have been arguing for more than five years. But I don’t think I will be celebrating my intellectual success. Any successful attempt to conflate bank credit or anything else with Government Issued Money can only serve one purpose: to discredit and denigrate cash money. And that is nothing short of a disaster for you and for me.

 

There is a horrible synchronicity here between both orthodox and unorthodox wings of the monetary conflict; Monetarists and radical Bitcoiners. The message from Bitcoiners and Monetarists alike is leave government cash behind, the battle has moved on.

 

Bitcoiners argue that their cryptocurrencies are democratic and free from central bank oligarchy control and therefore better than cash. Monetarists argue for a technocratic ‘non politicised’ control of money issuance; effectively privatisation of money control in a credit card world. Both result in the end of cash money guaranteed by the state, under political control. Both result in the privatisation of the issuance of money.

 

In the light of these developments the strategic imperative for us is to ague for the sole primacy of Government Issued Money as the only form of currency. Let me explain why.

 

There has been a constant attack on the use of cash for at least two decades and this attack has been centred around the point of contact between cash and banking. The introduction of numerous legal requirements on bank reporting of activity as well as private petty restrictions on how much cash you can depots and withdraw have had a chilling effect on cash based banking.

 

At the same time cash has been increasingly frozen out of commercial activity- many utilities are virtually impossible to purchase with cash unless you use prepaid cards and are extorted by the utility provider for the privilege.

 

For the past six years or so this attack on cash has been masked by the attack on savings deposits expressed through negative interest rates. Not only do deposits not pay interest, but bank accounts and their supposed contents are rapidly losing their legal status.

 

The end game in all this is bail ins where banks simply convert deposits into shares, which you are not even allowed to freely trade! If bank credits really are money as the Bank of England paper argues, on what basis is this being done? Follow the actions not the words and you will at least begin to question any supposed conversion of monetary orthodoxy to radicalism.

 

It is possible to cut through the confusion between cash and credits illustrated by comparing the decision to hold goods, cash or credit.

 

Let us say that due to deflation you decided to put off purchases, that is to say to hold cash or bank credits. Are the risks and benefits the same in each case?

Holding and using cash offers the benefits of anonymity and privacy. Does bank credit offer this?

Cash money offers the benefit of dealing with no ratification, in other words no-one oversees and confirms any deal you might choose to make. Does bank credit offer this?

Cash money is legal tender, it has to be accepted in settlement of debt. Does bank credit offer this?

Cash money offers complete liquidity. Does bank credit offer this?

Bank credit is subject to seizure, forfeiture and conversion (as in bail ins). Does cash money suffer from this?

Cash money clearly offers a number of benefits and guarantees that bank credit cannot. Bank credit suffers in the comparison with cash money.

 

It should be clear from this that as bank credits become denigrated by the state it increasingly becomes necessary for central banks to delegitimise cash to at least a corresponding amount. Because if only a very small minority of the general population decided cash was the better option that would cause a lot of problems.

 

Only around 3-5% transactions are cash and this proportion will significantly diminish further if Monetarists have their way. But if usage of cash was to increase significantly, the plans of Monetarists would start to run into serious trouble in short order.

 

Firstly, cash is hard to take back in a way that credit is not. Paying off bank created debt ‘dissolves’ credit money but cash money has to physically be withdrawn from the economy which is much more difficult to do- this means hard inflation. The kind that central banks cannot control except by raising interest rates.

 

But even more important is the relationship between cash money and banking reserves. Cash money is directly created by central banks and obviously bank deposit credits are not (this is the essential complaint of unorthodox economics). The creation of cash money directly affects the amount of reserves required to be held by each private bank and by the central bank.

 

Bank credits can be created forever without necessarily altering the requirement for reserves. If people take their physical money out of the banking system for use they are effectively calling it into physical existence– forcing the banks to actually print and therefore again forcing them to raise interest rates.

 

These two reasons why bank credits are not Government Issued Money are still within the bounds of standard economics but there is a further more fundamental reason within Democratised Money theory.

 

I have argued previously that money makes a proclamation as part of a general contract between issuer and user.

This proclamation takes the form of the Base Interest Rate which determines the nature and scale of the economy. It is something that is universally applicable to the same extent. It affects everyone equally.

It is inextricably bound up with the specific contract of the money itself. Once this printed money proclamation goes out the door of the central bank it cannot be undone.

 

The cumulative effect of these non- undoable operations is the recorded element of the currency. You can’t undo a money issue interest rate or the effects it has on the economy but you can use the next money issuance to offset the effect. In other words vary the interest rate from issuance to issuance.

 

In contrast, bank credit is a specific, not a general contract. Credit is offered on an individual basis. The ‘proclamation’ from the lender is concerned with what the individual borrower must do, not the general economy. Because of this the issuance of bank credit requires a separate individual contract, unlike money where the contract is part of the money. This ‘money’ creation through debt is subject to ratification by the legal system; it can be undone if deemed onerous or illegal, unlike cash money.

 

The cumulative effect of credit creation by private banks does have a massive effect on the economy. But it is not a general effect like money, it is a cumulative private effect. When you borrow from a bank you have to deal with the economic power structure as a lone individual instead of as a citizen member of society dealing with a central bank. In other words it is the ultimate codified example of divide and rule.

 

If as I argue, Monetarists want to create a Permanent Credit Economy, (that is a decentralised planned economy, with banks deciding who gets credit to do what),

Then deceiving propaganda giving bank credit the status of money can only be to their advantage.

 

We should oppose it.

 

 

Advertisements

The Truth Is Out- Or Is It? or Do Banks Print Their Own Money? Part 1

dosh

 

The Truth Is Out: Money Is Just An IOU, And The Banks Are Rolling In It

David Graeber

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1698915/monetary-reform.pdf *

 

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf #

 

The charge that private banks create money in the form of debt and that debt money creation caused the credit crunch is a major charge against the financialised world economy and orthodox economics. This charge targets the Federal Reserve and central banks across the developed world as authors of the problem.

 

If this is an accurate understanding of the way the economy works then the solution to the credit crunch and its aftermath is relatively straightforward: ‘End the Fed’ and effectively nationalise it (and all central banks), and money making powers for socially desirable projects (such as reconstructing capitalism along traditional lines!). Proponents of this type of approach action include Ellen Brown on her ‘Web of Debt’ blog and Professor Steve Keen.

 

This argument does have a number of positive aspects to recommend it. It is underpinned by the desire to reconstitute a commons – money which serves everyone. It is a political solution that emphasises the need to have a political confrontation with the Monetarists that have hijacked the monetary system.

 

And all of this becomes ever more relevant in the light of a recent discussion paper by Frosti Sigurjonsson commissioned by the prime minister of Iceland* exploring the possibility of nationalising the money creation process. Iceland is noted for adopting a non mainstream approach to the credit Crunch and its consequences, nationalisation would be more of the same non orthodox approach. The most significant thing is that this approach again argues that a political solution to the Credit Crunch and financialisation is possible.

 

But it is not just the ‘unorthodox’ that are offering new ways of looking at money philosophy. A discussion paper by the Band of England ‘Monetary Analysis Directorate’# makes the admission that banks do in fact, print their own money, just like the insurgents claim. This document is startling for a number of reasons and well worth reading.

 

In a Guardian opinion piece by David Graeber more or less gets the tone of the insurgent ‘victory’:

 

‘Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called “Money Creation in the Modern Economy“, co-authored by three economists from the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox (‘insurgent’- AP), positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct’

 

Surely, the first question that arises from this development has got to be: Why now? The Orthodoxy after decades if not centuries of standard monetary theory is now suddenly throwing in the towel and telling us the great unwashed occupy insurgents were right all along!

 

As David Graeber puts it:

‘Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? ‘

And the answer?

‘Well, one reason is because it’s obviously true.

Hang on a minute, its obviously what you want to hear, but does that mean it is necessarily true?…and even if that is so, truth did not seem to be a consideration before…To be fair, David Graeber senses that this is not really an adequate explanation so he offers the following elaboration:

‘The Bank’s job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It’s possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.’

 

Which itself leads to many more questions than it answers; Why has the Bank of England decided to deep six the elite it served so faithfully now? Better to turn to the paper itself, which after a first reading the text turns out to be a little more subtle and nuanced than might be supposed from reading the Guardian opinion piece about it.

 

In fact the paper itself turns out to be essentially a semi-orthodox defence of QE that smuggles a number of unorthodox ideas in the body of the argument, a kind of intellectual Quantitive Easing if you will. Nevertheless, the concessions it makes appear to be remarkable.

 

Still it would be good to keep this question in your mind as we proceed:

Why would the keepers of monetary orthodoxy need to make concessions to opposing points of view and why now?

 

Lets have a look at the concessions themselves. First of all the concession that private banks make money:

 

‘The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:’

 

  • Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.

 

  • In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money ‘multiplied up’ into more loans and deposits.

 

The paper goes on to say that ‘lending’ out and ‘multiplying up’ of existing deposits in banks is little more than a childs bedtime story:

 

‘While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is not an accurate description of how money is created in reality’

 

So bank lending is not related to deposited money from the public in any way; the money is created from scratch. However, the paper repeatedly and forcefully argues this is not carte blanche to print:

 

‘Banks themselves face limits on how much they can lend. In particular:

 

  • Market forces constrain lending because individual banks have to be able to lend profitably in a competitive market.
  • Lending is also constrained because banks have to take steps to mitigate the risks associated with making additional loans.
  • Regulatory policy acts as a constraint on banks’ activities in order to mitigate a build-up of risks that could pose a threat to the stability of the financial system.’

 

Having disposed of deposit and money multiplier orthodoxy, the Bank of England goes on to attack the Monetarist quantity of money theory as another bedtime story:

 

‘In no way does the aggregate quantity of reserves directly constrain the amount of bank lending or deposit creation…..

Rather than controlling the quantity of reserves, central banks today typically implement monetary policy by setting the price of reserves — that is, interest rates’.

 

Cutting through the circumspect language, the core message is clear: The quantity of money is not a concern for the Bank of England. Targeting money quantity is voodoo economics; in other words the amount of money in the economy does not directly lead to inflation or anything else. The right wing shibboleth of hyperinflation through excessive printing is dismissed as a childish preoccupation, just like deposits and money multipliers.

 

Now we have got all that out of the way we can have a look at how things really work:

 

‘Banks first decide how much to lend depending on the profitable lending opportunities available to them — which will, crucially, depend on the interest rate set by the Bank of England’.

 

Let us be absolutely clear; this means the end of ‘risk’ as a supposed factor in the activities of banking. The ‘risk’ that lenders undertake in return for the ‘reward’ of interest is the risk of not making a profit – NOT the risk of losing their money. If a money lending institution makes no profit it will cease to exist just as surely as if it had lost all the ‘money’ it had ‘bet’ on various business enterprises.

 

And the paper freely admits that profitability is the province of the central bank. The Bank decides what will be profitable and what will not be profitable through the medium of interest rates. It must logically follow that the amount of ‘risk’ in the economy is entirely the creation of the central bank. (If you doubt this for even a second, just consider that this is exactly what ‘Too Big To Fail’ actually means…).

 

David Graeber makes this point quite elegantly in his Guardian piece:

 

There’s really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit.

 

And here is the Bank of England making the point ever more clearly:

 

‘The ultimate constraint on money creation is monetary policy.

 

By influencing the level of interest rates in the economy, the Bank of England’s monetary policy affects how much households and companies want to borrow. This occurs both directly, through influencing the loan rates charged by banks, but also indirectly through the overall effect of monetary policy on economic activity in the economy. (my emphasis). As a result, the Bank of England is able to ensure that money growth is consistent with its objective of low and stable inflation.’

 

Leaving the last bit aside for a moment, this again makes explicit the proclamation function of interest rates that I have discussed before. Bank money loans are made and bank deposits called into existence on the basis of the central bank proclamation of what will be profitable. Risk is not a factor. Amounts are not a factor. The only significant factor is the proclamation of profitability as expressed through interest rates. This is precisely democratised money theory as applied to credit.

 

Lets apply this radical orthodox/unorthodox anlaysis to the historical devleopment of democratised money and see what we come up with.

 

The economy is divided into two spheres; state and private.

 

  1. High interest rates are a central bank proclamation.

 

They proclaim the extent tow which the economy will be profitable by decree; i.e they say you should be able to make at least this much (base interest rate plus bank mark up) on any investment you undertake.

 

Profitablility expressly and explicitly means efficiency.Too many low productivity workers is inefficient- rationalise them. Government lending for social services is inefficient- cut back on it and so on…

 

This rationale describes the intent and effect of the famous Volcker interest rate rise that kicked off the Monetarist project in earnest. High interest rates served the Monetarist objective of diminishing the state and all ‘indulgent’ inefficient capitalist business.

 

  1. Low interest rates are a central bank proclamation.

 

They proclaim that the economy will be not be profitable by decree. i.e. they say you should be able to make little or nothing (base interest rate plus bank mark up) on any investment you undertake.

 

Lack of profitablility expressly and explicitly means inefficiency- many low productivity workers employed in low wage, low value added service sector jobs. Government lending for Quantitive Easing and TARP supported by low interest rates

 

This describes the intent and effect of the famous Bernanke interest rate slashing that kicked off the Q.E. project in earnest. Low interest rates served the Monetarist objective of making the state the entire guarantor of the post credit crunch economy, protecting all ‘indulgent’ inefficient financialised business.

 

High interest rates in the 80’s signalled shrinking the state, the end of ‘socialism’ and the consumer society post war settlement.

Low interest rates in the ‘00’s signalled an UNPRECEDENTED EXPANSION of the state in order to usher in an age of socialism for the rich….

 

Next time, Q.E.

But bear this in mind;

 

If banks really do print money, how come you never hear of anyone caught trying to get through airport customs with bunches of bank statements hidden in their underpants?…

Kentucky Fried Crackernomics Or Would You Like A Breast Or A Leg? Or The Mark To Market Of The Beast Or When the S**t Hits The Fan

o-UNIVERSITY-OF-KENTUCKY-570

‘Since 1971, U.S. citizens have been able to utilize Federal Reserve Notes as the only form of money that for the first time had no currency with any gold or silver backing.

This is where you get the saying that U.S. dollars are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. Government. In other words, Nixon implied; take our paper dollars or don’t’.

http://buygoldandsilversafely.com/gold/what-really-backs-the-us-dollar/

 

It can’t be often that a concise and illuminating illustration of the nature of money pops up in the nexus between tattoos and professional sports. Once in a blue moon perhaps. Nevertheless….

 

Here are three important characteristics of money:

 

  1. 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 the central bank interest rate in respect of that specific contract.

 

  1. This contract is mounted on a transferable medium. Something that can be securely transferred from one owner to another.

 

 

  1. The contract is issued by the relevant legal authority– which is the body authorised to mount that specific proclamation upon that specific transferable medium.

 

From the above we can go on to say:

 

  1. 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.

 

5. A money decree is valid to the extent that everyone complies with the terms of the decree it embodies. It follows from this that a money decree is valuable to the extent that everyone complies with it.

 

6. A money decree is complied with to the extent that the money contracts issued compare with the amount of economic activity undertaken for the same territory and time span.

 

Which brings us to Kentucky Wildcats fan Rock Wright and his tattooed leg.

 

What is fascinating about Rock’s tattoo (and his leg to a lesser extent..) is that it functions more or less the same way as money. In fact, Rock has sort of turned himself into a piece of money!

 

Lets compare Rock and his leg tattoo to my three important characteristics of money:

 

  1. Money is a contract- a set of words and images that embodies a decree. (This is the decree ‘insurgents’ 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 the central bank interest rate in respect of that specific contract.

 

Rock, (the legal issuing authority*) has created a tattoo that makes a clear decree about what the future sports environment (economy,)will be. The subject of the decree is the activity of the Kentucky wildcats. The environment,(economy), the Wildcats are operating in is the Championship league. The term of the decree is up until the championship concludes with one winner which will be the Wildcats at which time Rocks money/tattoo will be retired as a decree and become a record.

 

  1. This contract is mounted on a transferable medium. Something that can be securely transferred from one owner to another.

 

Rock can transfer his allegiance from the Kentucky Wildcats to the Cincinnati Dipsticks (I’m grasping ), any time he wishes. Rock is not exactly a transferable medium, but in many societies tattoos were used as marks of ownership and allegiance. And marks like this may be used as such again…

 

  1. The contract is issued by the relevant legal authority– which is the body authorised to mount that specific proclamation upon that specific transferable medium.

 

*Rock is both the medium and the issuing authority as he owns his own body and can do with it what he likes.. Since this is the case, he has control over his body and what gets tattooed on it -at least for now….

 

From the above we can go on to say:

 

4.The validity of a money contract depends on the extent to which it is corresponds to the real economy. The value of that contract is an expression of its validity. It is valid to the extent that it corresponds to reality. It is valuable to the extent it is valid.

 

The validity of Rocks tattoo should be fairly obvious. If the Wildcats get spayed in the championships neither the tattoo or Rock himself is going to look too smart to anyone who sees them. If Rocks decree comes off he looks like a pretty cool, smart guy (at least to some people),  if it goes wrong, well Rock has got a plan for that too. Rock has got ‘faith’ in the Wildats and gives them ‘full credit’.

 

  1. A money decree is valid to the extent that everyone complies it.A money is decree is complied with to the extent of the amount of contracts issued compared with the amount of economic activity undertaken.

 

Because only Rock has got a Wildcat tattoo decreeing 40-0, the tattoo and the decree don’t look too good to most people right now- faith is medium to low. But if every fan in the league as well as every member of every team (including the Wildcats opponents!!) had a tattoo like Rock, a Wildcat Championship victory would be a shoe in. A self fulfilling prophecy. The decree would be ubiquitous and in full force.  Just like successful, valuable money is in any given territory.

 

There is something more we can say about tattoo money. The article refers to ‘Tyler Black’ who also had a decree tattoo just like Rocks.:

‘We still like Wright’s odds more than Tyler Black’s.

Black, also a Kentucky diehard, had a 2014 Kentucky national championship tattoo branded on his leg before last year’s SEC tournament, even though the Wildcats lost 9 regular season games.’

 

Now that we have more than one money decree tattoo, we can start to build up a history of ‘Wildcat Tattoo Money’. Comparing the relative validity of each tattoo while at the same time taking them in their totality means we can build up a picture of this currency over time. Just like we can with ordinary currency. And if everyone in Kentucky had a tattoo for every season….

 

New International Version

‘There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:’

 

Parade or Crying In The Rain

 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/18/federal-reserve-expected-end-zero-interest-rate-era

 

I have argued (in a different context), that the second world war ended not with the declaration of VE day or VJ day, but with the fall of the Berlin Wall forty or so years later. Challenging the date of victory challenges an entire perspective on the meaning of the Second World War.

 

Your perspective on the Second World War rests on understanding the objectives of each side and to what extent each side achieved those objectives. In other words understanding objectives is a necessary part of understanding what constitutes victory.

 

The Victors in the second world war did not achieve all their objectives on VE day or VJ day, that only happened with the re-emergence of a reunified Germany. The Saxon elite fought a long, silent war to achieve the reunification of Germany for forty years after the official cessation of hostilities. This might lead you to ask who the real enemy was….

 

The same is true with the Battle Of The Credit Crunch. We are coming closer to a declaration of victory and the announcement of a victory parade. As far as the mainstream economic data coming out of America and Britain goes, the Saxon team is on the home straight.

 

We are informed that unemployment is falling. Economic growth is (sort of), gaining traction. Compared to the basket case that is the rest of the world economy, things are not too bad, Saxon elites lay claim to some kind of normalisation in Britain and the USA. And so it is reliably reported, interest rates are going to move upward towards the ‘new normal’.

 

Note that ‘new normal’; it is important.

 

But first, take a quick look at the crowd behind the barriers as the great and good prepare for their triumphant circuit. Hoots of derision and catcalls greet the declaration that Fed interest rates will rise- after all haven’t we heard this over and over the past decade? Why will now be any different?

These catcalls are at least in part, justified. The hoi polloi have noted that whenever one of the floats breaks down or a bit player falls over while executing a tumble, a rain of digital ticker tape money descends from the skies distracting the attention..

 

This parade still isn’t really going anywhere they argue, so how can they do without the free Federal Reserve supplied ticker tape?

 

Lets see.

 

There are differing positions regarding interest rates –they are either going up, or down, or staying the same. The three possible options for the future of the economy are:

 

  1. That an economic collapse will come. There are not many still pushing this line outside a dedicated few on the libertarian wing of economics. And when a collapse of some kind is predicted, it tends to be focused on an outside factor such as war with Russia.

 

  1. That interest rates will stay low or even fall further because the financial system cannot afford to see them rise- this is because modern finance is in essence a Ponzi scheme that needs a constant influx of free money from the government. Increasingly there is a new twist in the discussion on low interest, the international blowback element. The argument here is that raising interest rates in the USA will screw the world economy and therefore America will come under increasing pressure will stop this happening.

 

3.Interest rates will rise to a new normal interest rate (see Guardian article).

 

Discounting the possibility of outright collapse, I would argue that the stay low or go lower faction is missing an important trick. Since they don’t believe interest rises are possible, they don’t analyse the proposed extent of any possible rise. This is a major error because insight into the specific target rate that central banks are seeking to achieve gives real insight into their thinking.

 

The new figure for a target interest rate is given in the Guardian article as 2.75%-3 %. What would an achieved rate of 2.75% or 3% actually mean for the Saxon elite?

It would mean that they had achieved the real objective of the Credit Crunch war; to secure a permanent, secure position for Democratised privately issued money in the form of derivatives in the world economy.

Long term interest rates since the post WWII period have averaged around 5%. The significance of this figure is that it represents the total ‘book’ value on state issued money as I explain here:

https://unitedstatesofeverywhere.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/the-great-escape-or-moby-dick-in-space/

Since the interest rate is an expression of the total state money economy, it follows from this that 2.5%, half the long term average rate,would represent half the traditional post war American economy given over to democratised money.

 

3%, which is 60% of the long term interest rate average, would represent 60% of American economic activity denominated by the American state and 40% given over to democratised money.

 

By way of comparison what would it mean if central bank interest rates in Eurozone or Japan stay low? This would reflect the extent to which these respective economies have been supplanted by derivatives. The lower the interest rate, the higher the proprtion of your economy that has been leached to derivatives.

 

The derivatives/state money balance is expressed through the ‘health’ or otherwise of the banks. One of the key mistakes the economic ‘insurgents’ make is to confuse the defence of democratised money with the defence of banks and bankers. Since the banks and financial institutions are the purveyors of democratised money, they are inevitably saved alongside the democratised money they produce. But this does not mean that this was the prime intention of Monetarist politicians in implementing QE. This is a perfect example of needing to understand the real objectives in a war before you can understand the meaning of defeat or victory.

 

The specific crisis that sparked the Credit Crunch was a failure in interbank lending. Financial institutions did not want to make temporary loans of state money to each other because they feared the massive and unknown amounts of derivatives that they all carried on their books. This was effectively admitting that there was a possibility that the value of these derivatives was heading towards zero..

 

But this was never a liquidity problem. This was an exchange rate problem between the value of state issued money and privately issued democratised money. The problem was that democratised money was effectively worth nothing compared to state issued money.

 

Quantitive Easing firstly:

 

Bought these derivatives at their maximum possible denominated value using state money. This is exactly the same as a central bank intervening in currency markets to lower the value of your own currency while propping up the value of another currency (democratised money).

 

At the same time QE lowered interest rates effectively to zero. Opening up a channel of ‘sabotaged’ money to the banks. This effectively declared the ongoing state denominated economy to be dead. (see previous two articles) because money issuance effectively acts as an economic proclamation about what the nature of the economy will be so long as that particular example of money is around…

 

On the surface (remember the difference between real objectives and stated objectives) this QE money was supposed to go into the real national economy through the banks to stimulate economic activity. It other words it was advertised as being standard state issued money. But what it actually did was go into international speculation or was just recycled to the central banks. In other words it was actually sabotaged or denuded state money. (see previous articles)

 

I do believe that there were a number of politicians who genuinely believed that there was a possibility that this sabotaged money could have gone into the national economy. And of course when it became clear that this was not happening they asked the question: Why not?

 

And the answer they got was this:

 

‘It is far more profitable for us to invest overseas. The more profit we make the sooner we will repair our balance sheets. The sooner we repair our balance sheets the sooner the crisis will be over. So what is it to be: repair the Credit Crunch or national investment?’

 

Faced with this question the useful fools folded and chose repair the credit crunch.

 

So what did this mean?

 

It meant that wealth extracting opportunities in Britain and America were competing with wealth extracting opportunities anywhere in the world for this QE money. The Monetarists has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They had ripped off the cover from Anglo Saxon economic society and exposed it completely to the winds of international competition!

 

And when did Anglo Saxon society begin to ‘recover’?

 

When it began to compete with the terms and conditions and profitability of the most exploited parts of the world. So you have a recovery for the monetary system but no recovery for you….

 

A hyper victory for Globalisation.

 

And how can Japan and Europe recover?

By doing exactly the same thing.

And why haven’t they ‘recovered’ yet?

Because they are still trying to hang on to the shreds of their respective societies.

But we have got Abenomics and we have got ECB QE so it won’t be long….

 

I can’t write much more because the thought of this is making me sick to my stomach, nevertheless;

 

So the Saxon economies become more profitable in comparison to the global economy so the QE cash returns ‘home’. So the overseas economies enter a period of crisis because of the withdrawal of QE liquidity, so their terms and conditions have to fall, which draws the hot cash back to their economies, which means our economies are less competitive by comparison, which means another attack on our terms and conditions.

 

And they expect you to stand there in the rain clapping and cheering as they march past…..

New International Version
For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings.

1 Corinthians 4:9

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.

 

If I Had A Hammer Or A Sailor Went To Sea, Sea, Sea…

 

Money can most usefully be understood as a collection of functions.

 

Functions are the possible uses that something can be put to if you should so choose. You can use a knife to cut cheese or spread butter, they are two different uses of the same implement.

 

The design of an object determines what its possible functions are. It is possible for the creator of an object to enhance or limit the functionality of any given object by altering the design of that object. If you were to make a hammer out of glass instead of hardened steel it would considerably limit its function to hammer nails!

 

At the same time it is possible for users of an object to take advantage of, or modify the functionality of an object in ways that were not approved of or foreseen by the creators of that object. A car can be used to carry out a bank robbery or to knock down a tree, neither of which was it expressly designed for.

 

It follows from this that the total functionality of an object is the nexus of purposes between the creators of that object and the users of that object. Money is no different from any other manufactured object in this respect.

 

The creator of any given piece of money is in the last resort, the government. This is specifically because any piece of money is a legal instrument. Money is nothing other than a legal instrument, nor can it ever be anything else. It follows from this that the functions prescribed for a piece of money by its creators are limited and defined by law.

 

Money has no significance outside of these legal limitations. So for example you cannot use money to legally buy another human being. It does not matter even if somebody freely wants to sell himself to you, such a function of money is not permissible. No such agreement would be legally enforceable.

 

Further, this invalidity is not limited by the amount of money involved in such a transaction. There is no amount of money you can offer for a person that would make such a deal a ‘fair exchange’. This is a simple legal limitation of money.

 

But money is not only defined by the limitations on its use, but by the positive functionality it offers to its users. This positive functionality means that in some real sense, the use of money is entirely voluntary. If any given government cannot provide a legal framework of functionality that serves the interests of the users of that money, then they rapidly turn to alternatives.

 

Money is a way of channeling and controlling trade, but where any particular instance of money fails, trade finds a way. Trade (as human interaction) is ubiquitous, like air and light.

 

Which brings us to interest rates. Earning interest is – was, a positive function of modern money, that is to say it is a positive reason why people wanted the kind of money that is available now.

 

Interest is validated as an expression of the contemporary social value of money in terms of itself. In other words, interest on money is paid in money to express its value at that specific time. This additional money that accrues to owners of money by virtue of possession expresses the fact that money is valuable. Interest proclaims that all things being equal, anyone within society should/will be able to use money to extract value.

 

It is a license, a legal permit, to extract value from within the society. ‘Extract’ value is important, as you will see in a minute.

 

This definition of interest is of central importance because it contains within it a model of the society into which the created money will go. It makes plain that there WILL be opportunities to use money profitably (in a way which can extract value), within the given society.

 

It follows from this that the interest function is in essence a statement about a given society. And it is fundamental to the way that modern capitalist societies differ from pre capitalist (‘feudal’) ones. Modern capitalist societies will offer opportunities for wealth extraction/ transfer, non capitalist societies do not guarantee this. This is the fundamental rhetoric and ideology of capitalism.

 

From this positive functionality of opportunity an apparent negative functionality is implied: That it is possible that there might be limited or no opportunity of profitable use that can be made of a given amount of money. This possibility is defined as ‘risk’.

 

But this can be shown to be a demonstrably false argument by means of a simple illustration:

 

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. Because there would be high demand for money After all, what would incentivise the lending out money when there were countless easy ways to directly invest it at high returns?

 

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. In this environment, investment opportunities as opposed to money would be at a premium.

 

This directly refutes the idea that interest is an expression of risk. It is precisely the opposite. The amount of interest charged is NOT a reflection of risk it is a reflection of the lack of risk.

 

Further it directly refutes the idea that money produces wealth. Money extracts wealth from profitable opportunities. Without these profitable opportunities money is worthless.

 

As I argued above, interest is a statement about a society. So what does the MONETARIST refusal to obtain interest from the money they issue- ‘ZIRP’, say about society now?

 

It says that there will be no ways to profitably extract wealth. It is effectively the end of a capitalist society.

 

It is worth unravelling this.

 

I argued that money is a designed artefact.

I argued that money is a legal instrument. It follows from this that the production of money is a legal process.

The charging of interest by central banks when money is issued is part of this legal production process.

Money that is designed to be produced without this initial interest charging process is designed to be different from money that is produced with interest charging.

It is designed to be a different kind of money.

It is a different kind of money.

It has effectively been sabotaged, in the same way that a hammer that has not been sufficiently hardened has been sabotaged.

A sabotaged hammer can be called a ‘semi- hammer’

Sabotaged state money can be called ‘semi state money.’

This sabotage is deliberately carried out by Monetarists

 

To return to the hammer analogy, the total number of hammers being produced might be the same or even increased. But the quality of the hammers being produced has been diminished. The overall stock of hammers is being progressively corrupted as useful hammers are retired and replaced with ‘semi hammers’.

 

What this means is that it becomes progressively harder to find a useful hammer to knock nails in with.

 

Doesn’t this correspond to what you have seen in the real economy? Despite the fact that there has been a record production of money, activity in the real economy is actually shrinking- how else can the deflation we have seen be explained?

 

How else to explain phenomena like stock ‘buy-backs’ where management use cheap ‘money’ to buy back their own company shares and boost value by increasing the earnings ratio. This is effectively turning shares into a kind of money surrogate.

 

The explanation for this is that when there are no useful hammers to be found, you are forced to improvise an alternative, (the back of an axe head for example) to knock a nail in. This would be a surrogate hammer, and now since there is less and less useful money around, shares are being used as surrogate money.

 

The saying goes:

‘To a man with a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail’.

But to a man with a nail to knock in, quite a few things can start to look like a hammer.

 

To put it another way:

 

The sea exists over space and time. But the sea is not a totality. The action of the sea is a collection of waves over time. The waves vary in size, shape and force over time. You are encouraged to see money as a totality, but in fact it is a series of legal instruments, that differ in design over time. The interest rate is one of the characteristics that can vary.

 

Monetarism has built a series of wave breaks and artificial reefs that systematically change the size and shape of the waves that break upon the shoreline. And these modified waves of money issuance are being used to smash up the coastline you have known.

 

It is not nature.

 

It is deliberate systematic human intervention.

 

Breton Fisherman’s Prayer (Anonymous)

 Dear God, be good to me;
The sea is so wide,
And my boat is so small.

 

‘I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.’

Isaac Newton

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/isaacnewto387031.html#OzXCS8TfgJEApOs2.99

PURPLE HAZE OR DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE

 

 

http://tradewithdave.com/

 

Foreword:

 In correspondence with Dave Harrison (‘Trade With Dave’) on the subject of cultural constituencies, Dave raises the important point:

On what basis do different cultural constituencies constitute themselves?

Where are they coming from?

 

 

Fans of SUPERB IRONY have been treated to the recent spectacle of Germany launching a frontal assault on The Democracy Brand right on its home turf. The German message to Greek population and Syriza government alike is : ‘Elect who you want, it makes no difference!’. Newly appointed Greek leader Alexis Tsipras has responded by visiting the war graves of communist resistance activists murdered by the Nazis and referring more than once to the favourable 1953 debt settlement offered to the emergent West German state by the victors of WWII.. ironic it might be, subtle it ‘aint.

 

All of which diplomatic slapstick would be almost comical if it were not for firm support for the German position across Northern Europe. It is clear that national democratic government as we have understood it for a century or more, is being invalidated by the political realities of the EU.

 

The ‘left’ and ‘progressives’ are powerless to analyse, much less remedy this crisis of democracy. The left continually refers to this democratic crisis, but offers no contemporary analysis of it. Nor will they ever be in a position to do so. This would require an insight into the relationship between ‘Economic Rationale’ and ‘Germanic Land Democracy’ – not something the Germanic left can ever take on. If it ever did, it would invalidate itself immediately and permanently.

 

First of all, there is no point trying to discuss this or any other crisis of democracy in abstract general terms. All attempts to do so inevitably descend into a slanging match of the most simplistic and pointless kind: eg. ‘I am more democratic than you’ or ‘the West is more democratic than the East’ etc. This is simply more rhetorical slapstick.

 

We need a workable definition of democracy that is free from such rhetoric.

 

We can define Democracy as a group of individuals agreeing to exploit a free resource as equals in respect of that exploitation. For example, in ancient Greece slaves fulfilled the role of a ‘free’ resource. That is to say all Greeks were equal in relation to slaves (they owned them and exploited them etc) even if citizens were not equal to each other in different respects. If one ‘citizen’ went out and kidnapped a foreign person to be used as a slave there was no cost imposed on any other citizen as a result of this. This is why ‘classic’ Greek slave owning democracy is fundamentally different from all contemporary nations holding slaves. Greek democracy was slave democracy.

 

The modern democracy we have is different from ancient Greek democracy. Not just in its surface forms of government but in its fundamental construction. Greek democracy was based on the ‘free’ resource of slaves, Germanic democracy is based on the ‘free’ resource of land.

 

Germanic land democracy is based on freedom to buy and sell land within the constraints of the system. What this means is that it is permissible for anyone to buy land anywhere within the designated territory, so long as they can afford it. This form of ownership of land places no cost on another citizen. What happens to, and on, any given piece of land is primarily an economic consideration only marginally mitigated by any other considerations. This is the defining characteristic of the Germanic cult of Capitalism.

 

Freedom to trade land in this way locates Germanic Land Democracy, its origins (and even its eventual demise!), in time and place. ‘Modern’ (Germanic Land Democracy) has nothing to do with ‘Classic’ (Greek Slave democracy), never had, never will have. Any claim that they have anything in common is purely rhetorical.

 

Germanic democratic land ‘freedom’ never existed before it was created by the Germanic peoples of NW Europe. The modern nation state developed as a direct extension of this Germanic right to create and trade ‘private’ land. From the nation state came the modern relationship between the citizen and the nation. It is a particular political relationship.

 

The political relationship of the citizen to the modern state is based not on culture or history but on an economic relationship- the economic relationship encapsulated in Germanic Land Democracy. In a modern developed capitalist state, the questions of free movement, freedom of access, ownership and culture are all supposed to be settled. Now economic ‘classes’ will come to the fore under the auspices of economic rationale. In other words economics will be the focus and purpose of economics and by extension, politics. (see previous post)

 

However, it turned out that the land and culture battles were not exactly over. Since modern Germanic states began to expand outwards from NW Europe periodic conflicts between local cultural groups and the Germanic form of state have occurred. But half way through the last century, a full blown culture/state crisis exploded in Germany. Fascism pitched Germanic race, and culture directly against Germanic land democracy. And Germanic land democracy was overthrown. What followed was the rise and ‘defeat’ of fascism.

 

This next bit is particularly important:

 

Was democracy reconfigured in Germany after the war? No. The democratic German ruling elite had been overthrown by the Nazis. It had proved itself incapable of controlling its geographic and political territory. At the end of the war the German elite was put on an extended period of probation under the tutelage of its Anglo Saxon cousins. It follows from this that the German state is not a real democratic state. For instance, it has only relatively recently been unified. The German ruling class still cannot operate independently. It is constrained within a set of international political chains.

 

Again, Germany is not really a modern national democracy.

 

The damage caused to Germanic culture in general and Germanic land democracy by two World Wars was massive. I have described aspects of the strategy employed by the Anglo Saxon powers to rehabilitate Germanic culture and politics elsewhere. But here I want to focus on the implementation of mercantile nationalism.

 

Mercantile nationalism– is a form of nationalism based on the ‘free movement’ of individuals and mass immigration. In other words it is the most intense form of Germanic Land Democracy that it is possible to have. The brand name for this type of ‘international’ nationalism is Globalisation.

 

Mercantile nationalism was adopted as the antidote to the ‘poison’ that caused fascism. It was supposed to be an overwhelming dose of what had caused the problem in the first place, whose purpose was literally to swamp the ‘enemy’, (those who hang on to a troublesome cultural identity) and finally sweep them away.

 

Because of this, modern Germanic Mercantile nationalism naturally and inevitably causes conflict with expressions of culture and location, since these are deep human needs. Global modern politics has come to be about managing this conflict of interest. Broadly speaking management of the mercantile/culture conflict was going reasonably well (at least in mainland Europe), until the crisis in the relationship between globalisation, monetarism and financialisation caused by the Credit Crunch.

 

Monetarism is the end of economics. This is why I use the term ‘Crackernomics’ to describe the centralised political response to the Credit Crunch. Just as Germanic land democracy was supposed to have resolved the question of land and culture, so Monetarism is supposed to resolve the economic struggle- permanently. Monetarism is the end of economic rationale; the end of economic classes based on income.

 

Monetarism says there are no economic problems, there are only financial/liquidity problems and is only one way to deal with financial/liquidity problems – through money issuance. In other words, there are no economic problems any more, only political problems to be solved by central authority.

 

There is a horrible logic here:

 

  1. The purpose of politics is supposed to be to resolve conflict.

 

  1. Germanic Land democracy is supposed to resolve the conflict between culture, identity and territory and replace it with economic rationale.

 

  1. Monetarism is supposed to solve economic rationale and replace it with………?

 

  1. Culture and politics.

 

Oh dear.

 

Which brings us back to Greece. Monetarism inevitably makes the economic problem caused by the Credit Crunch back into a cultural political problem.   Germany, previously forced to abandon its culture and adopt mercantile nationalism is now forced to promote mercantile nationalism against Greek culture! Germany was caught on the wrong side of the road going one way in 1945 and now it is caught on the wrong side of the road coming back in 2015. That is just plain unlucky…

 

Which brings us to the blue pill and the red pill and the choice that faces the Germanic world.

 

The credit crunch has brought us to a bottle neck.

 

Monetarism has destroyed economic rationale which inevitably means a return to cultural constituencies. But cultural constituencies were what forced the creation of economic rationale in the first place.

 

The entire Germanic world has to choose between the red pill and the blue pill Monetarism or Mercantile nationalism. What the Germanic world wants is half of one and half of the other; a purple pill if you will. But there is no such thing.

 

And time is running out.

P.S.

Both the British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and Barack Obama have been yanking the German neck chain recently. Both have told the Angela of Debt that she had better pull her horns in and cut a deal with Greece to save Europe. She will have to comply, the Saxons are still the bosses. But this will cause a  festering resentment in the German population and the German political class. Its not just Greece v Germany on the table, its Germany v the Saxon Axis…