Why we can afford Climate Change...
People are at long last waking up....to a more intelligent approach to financing......There is hope yet for humanity...!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMEsWxrnAY4 RS.
Robert et al, while Ann Pettifor is generally correct about how central banking works, she is wrong or omits a several important details. The privatized version of central banking under a fiat sovereign currency has only sort of served our collective and common needs and it is actually not very functional at all. As she describes it we have a "credit" based system. The use of the word "credit" is often used to mask the reality that "credit" is debt by another name. She also omits entirely describing the major difference between credit (debt) based money issued by a privatized banking system which issues credit as compared to the effects of currency issued debt-free by a sovereign government in the interest of sustaining and developing societal/sovereign infra-structure. Under the privatized issuance of debt based currency the privatized monetary system accumulates both the interest attached to currency as a credit and it makes back the entire principle as well. Adding together the compounded interest and the principle of the debt (aka credit). This makes the related debt to be HUGE!!! To provide this free rent on the franchise granted to privatized central banking, other than related overhead costs of operating a private bank and central banking system, those who sign onto the credit/debt issuance of currency units have to go out an essentially strip the economy and the commons of resources which by the fractional reserve and leveraging ends up being many times the original debt/credit. When a local or central government uses bonds to credit that currency it is acquiring debt to private investors including the banking issues this the related debt/credit. This result is very, very different under a sovereign, fiat, asset based currency process. She is quite right about the feeding credits into the demand side of the economic ledger IS how saving are established for the general population. Having the sovereign government go into credit/debt to develop infra-structure needs, is poor strategy compared to currency issued on a debt free basis. Credit issued as loans either to the central sovereign government or to corporations and private individuals (think "mortgages" as a contractual agreement of debt/credit. If currency is put into circulation on a debt-free basis by the sovereign government, the the private investors, including banks will not acquire the huge returns achieved for private interests by way of the debt basis of the issuance of currency. She does not distinguish her "supply-side" aka consumer demand side of the economy and supply side to the benefit of the privatized banking systems. This will make her presentation seems very much like "supply-side" economics, in service to plutocracy. This lack of distinction is problematic in the details of how the issuance of currency can serve the interests of the commons in many ways. Trusting banks to invest in the de-carbonization of our industrial cultures, under the private credit/debt basis of issuance, will cause those investments to go where the return on that investment will be highest. If a high private return on the "investment" is somehow guaranteed by the government, then the debt load will be higher, compared to what it would be under a process where the sovereign government acts as the primary steward of the commons and the currency credits are issued debt free. It is this sort of poorly informed jumble packaged along with very attractive objectives, ends up adding to the net public confusion of how monetary systems and a functional approach to fiscal policy could operate in the interests of the commons and toward sustainability. Ask questions here, if you don't understand some of these details. I will be happy to respond. The bottom line issue is that the commons and sustainability will be vastly better served by a fiat, asset based(aka debt/credit free) currency issued by a sovereign government. At least she has some content that points in the right direction, but then she also has significant content that ends being poorly informed and even likely to have a major net negative impact. There also seems to be no implied or actual analysis of how the globalized,centralized, privatized banking conventions have produced the current melt down. I half expected her to also advocate for further deregulation of the privatized currency commons. as we go, Tadit Anderson On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:27:05 -0400, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
People are at long last waking up....to a more intelligent approach to financing......There is hope yet for humanity...!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMEsWxrnAY4 RS.
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011, 15:20 Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Why we can afford Climate Change... Robert et al, while Ann Pettifor is generally correct about how central banking works, she is wrong or omits a several important details. The privatized version of central banking under a fiat sovereign currency has only sort of served our collective and common needs and it is actually not very functional at all. As she describes it we have a "credit" based system. The use of the word "credit" is often used to mask the reality that "credit" is debt by another name. She also omits entirely describing the major difference between credit (debt) based money issued by a privatized banking system which issues credit as compared to the effects of currency issued debt-free by a sovereign government in the interest of sustaining and developing societal/sovereign infra-structure. Under the privatized issuance of debt based currency the privatized monetary system accumulates both the interest attached to currency as a credit and it makes back the entire principle as well. Adding together the compounded interest and the principle of the debt (aka credit). This makes the related debt to be HUGE!!! To provide this free rent on the franchise granted to privatized central banking, other than related overhead costs of operating a private bank and central banking system, those who sign onto the credit/debt issuance of currency units have to go out an essentially strip the economy and the commons of resources which by the fractional reserve and leveraging ends up being many times the original debt/credit. When a local or central government uses bonds to credit that currency it is acquiring debt to private investors including the banking issues this the related debt/credit. This result is very, very different under a sovereign, fiat, asset based currency process. She is quite right about the feeding credits into the demand side of the economic ledger IS how saving are established for the general population. Having the sovereign government go into credit/debt to develop infra-structure needs, is poor strategy compared to currency issued on a debt free basis. Credit issued as loans either to the central sovereign government or to corporations and private individuals (think "mortgages" as a contractual agreement of debt/credit. If currency is put into circulation on a debt-free basis by the sovereign government, the the private investors, including banks will not acquire the huge returns achieved for private interests by way of the debt basis of the issuance of currency. She does not distinguish her "supply-side" aka consumer demand side of the economy and supply side to the benefit of the privatized banking systems. This will make her presentation seems very much like "supply-side" economics, in service to plutocracy. This lack of distinction is problematic in the details of how the issuance of currency can serve the interests of the commons in many ways. Trusting banks to invest in the de-carbonization of our industrial cultures, under the private credit/debt basis of issuance, will cause those investments to go where the return on that investment will be highest. If a high private return on the "investment" is somehow guaranteed by the government, then the debt load will be higher, compared to what it would be under a process where the sovereign government acts as the primary steward of the commons and the currency credits are issued debt free. It is this sort of poorly informed jumble packaged along with very attractive objectives, ends up adding to the net public confusion of how monetary systems and a functional approach to fiscal policy could operate in the interests of the commons and toward sustainability. Ask questions here, if you don't understand some of these details. I will be happy to respond. The bottom line issue is that the commons and sustainability will be vastly better served by a fiat, asset based(aka debt/credit free) currency issued by a sovereign government. At least she has some content that points in the right direction, but then she also has significant content that ends being poorly informed and even likely to have a major net negative impact. There also seems to be no implied or actual analysis of how the globalized,centralized, privatized banking conventions have produced the current melt down. I half expected her to also advocate for further deregulation of the privatized currency commons. as we go, Tadit Anderson Thank you Taditt. I do not think Ann Pettifor is as well informed as you but her basic point is very important. Moreover, I have not fully read your comments properly...maybe later when I have the time. RS On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:27:05 -0400, robert searle <[email protected]> wrote:
People are at long last waking up....to a more intelligent approach to financing......There is hope yet for humanity...!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMEsWxrnAY4 RS.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Tadit Anderson wrote:
mask the reality that "credit" is debt by another name.
This is difficult to picture at first. Try the movies: "Money as Debt", "Secret of Oz".
If currency is put into circulation on a debt-free basis by the sovereign government, the the private investors, including banks will not acquire the huge returns achieved for private interests by way of the debt basis of the issuance of currency.
In System terms, debt is a "resource leak", that draws value out of the local economy to external entities.
sustainability will be vastly better served by a fiat, asset based(aka debt/credit free) currency issued by a sovereign government.
Yes, while I imagine we purchase land and tools to create small-scale Villages which are then sovereign governments in their own right. Here's a sketch of my thinking for a currency that is backed by the Means of Production and Promises to Labor from Workers or from guilds or unions of sorts. ---- Groups could issue what I've been calling the IOTA - the Intra-Owner Trade Agreement which is backed by: - Commitments of Sources: These is the physical assets needed to produce food and shelter for those Villagers. - Commitments of Skills: These are the various kinds of goals that need to be accomplished within the Village. The IOTA is invalid Unless both of these conditions are met. -- The IOTA enforces the following constraints on the Sources: - Product is Investor's Return: The Product is not sold*, because each Villager already owns the exact** amount of Product from their ownership in Sources. * Surplus can be sold to those who own insufficient Sources. ** Predictions are never exact, but we can 'hover' nearby. Most Villagers will 'overcommit' as Insurance against low production seasons. - Profit is Payer Investment: When Surplus is sold, to non- owners, the Profit must be treated as an Investment from that Payer - so that latecomers gain as much control as they are willing to Pay, and ultimately Work for. ---- Patrick Anderson http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
Patrick, I am well beyond Money as Debt, though about three fourths the way through that video Paul Grignon starts to present what he calls "value" based money, and he never actually develops the concept other than an anti-thesis to debt based money. If Paul had done some more research on the field of alternative economic models MMT/aka Modern Monetary Economics would have shown up as the primary economic discourse which is pressing for a value based currency primarily by way of funding physical and social infra-structure, and of a living wage on a counter cyclical basis. Your IOTA system seems to coexist well with the Community Reserve Exchange (aka CRX) system, which is also based upon MMT/MME, and a number of other accommodations. The primary difference is that the Community Reserve Notes (aka "CRNs") are used as the currency unit and are established in an analogous way, by volunteering labor toward the operation of community et al organizations (think: social infrastructure) which are listed as cooperating organizations. Once the CRNs are in circulation they can be used as the basis of the exchange of goods and services. As to "bleeding," it seems to be more of an understatement under a privatized, monetary process, as in more on the order of a massive torrent to the level of bleeding out. In designing the CRX I hoped to persuade the network of monetary reform advocates to consider this as way of simulating a reformed currency environment, or going-autonomous Unfortunately the American Monetary Institute, for instance, is deeply invested in a legislative political route of reform without creating a wider public education process by practice. http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/892 Tadit On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:13:09 -0400, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
Tadit Anderson wrote:
mask the reality that "credit" is debt by another name.
This is difficult to picture at first.
Try the movies: "Money as Debt", "Secret of Oz".
If currency is put into circulation on a debt-free basis by the sovereign government, the the private investors, including banks will not acquire the huge returns achieved for private interests by way of the debt basis of the issuance of currency.
In System terms, debt is a "resource leak", that draws value out of the local economy to external entities.
sustainability will be vastly better served by a fiat, asset based(aka debt/credit free) currency issued by a sovereign government.
Yes, while I imagine we purchase land and tools to create small-scale Villages which are then sovereign governments in their own right.
Here's a sketch of my thinking for a currency that is backed by the Means of Production and Promises to Labor from Workers or from guilds or unions of sorts.
---- Groups could issue what I've been calling the IOTA - the Intra-Owner Trade Agreement which is backed by:
- Commitments of Sources: These is the physical assets needed to produce food and shelter for those Villagers.
- Commitments of Skills: These are the various kinds of goals that need to be accomplished within the Village.
The IOTA is invalid Unless both of these conditions are met.
--
The IOTA enforces the following constraints on the Sources:
- Product is Investor's Return: The Product is not sold*, because each Villager already owns the exact** amount of Product from their ownership in Sources. * Surplus can be sold to those who own insufficient Sources. ** Predictions are never exact, but we can 'hover' nearby. Most Villagers will 'overcommit' as Insurance against low production seasons.
- Profit is Payer Investment: When Surplus is sold, to non- owners, the Profit must be treated as an Investment from that Payer - so that latecomers gain as much control as they are willing to Pay, and ultimately Work for.
----
Patrick Anderson http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
participants (3)
-
ideasinc＠ee.net -
Patrick Anderson -
robert searle