[P2P-F] cook mmt update

[Michel Bauwens]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chris Cook <cjenscook at googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Re: Pushing on a piece of string
To: Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>


It's common source, Michel :-)

Of course the two ae complementary since MMT deals - as the name suggests -
with monetary matters, and if Georgism is anything, it's a fiscal approach.

I think Georgism is misconceived by the way, in proposing that land value
tax should be the 'single' tax, and no other tax is necessary.

The principle of Georgism is that it is a tax on privileged property rights,
and there are other privileges to tax as well. eg limited liability, where a
tax on gross corporate revenues - starting with banks - is IMHO a much more
workable approach than the Tobin tax on poorly defined 'speculation'.

Best Regards

Chris


On 16 October 2011 05:41, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:

> thanks Chris, is this shareable?
>
> in fact I think that mmt is fairl close to mmt ... for example, Michael
> Hudson adheres to mmt tenets and is called a georgist economists ...
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Chris Cook <cjenscook at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Michel
>>
>> I have followed it with great interest and am a member of a couple of
>> relevant facebook groups etc etc.
>>
>> In my view they get one big point right. They correctly see the fiat money
>> we currently use as a credit instrument (essentially an ownership claim)
>> rather than a debt instrument (a counterparty claim).
>>
>> They also correctly identify that in the existing system it is the
>> capacity of a government to tax which is the basis of the public credit they
>> advocate.
>>
>> But what they do not do is address the key point that the government is
>> itself an intermediary, and then examine critically the *basis *of
>> taxation - and hence the basis of public credit - by addressing issues
>> relating to privileged property rights and Capital.
>>
>> ie they get good marks for Monetary issues and poor marks for Fiscal
>> issues.
>>
>> If, as MMT'ers suggest, you sweep away *private* bank credit
>> intermediation/creation of credit, and replace it with* public* bank (or
>> Treasury - cf social credit) intermediation you have a big, big problem.
>>
>> And this is that maybe two thirds of money in creation came about as
>> mortgage loans.  So while it is people-*based* credit backed by the use
>> value of Labour (because the loan is to individuals) it is in fact *backed
>> *by the use value of land.
>>
>> If you then move to a tax-based system of credit which is based almost
>> entirely upon direct or indirect taxation of earned income (aka labour) with
>> less than 10% (often a lot less - Ireland had zero property taxes) of
>> national income from land, then you are going to get a serious imbalance in
>> flows of wealth.
>>
>> So I guess what I am saying is that if MMT'ers got into bed with Georgists
>> the outcome may be better than if they were able to implement their current
>> policies.
>>
>> My approach, as you know, is to monetise (Peer to Peer) relationships
>> between productive people, and Peer to Asset relationships between
>> productive people and productive assets, through the use of associative
>> framework agreements, and simple Unit instruments of undated credits.
>>
>> I see three key types of Unit each based upon a fundamental source of
>> value (factor of production)
>>
>> (a) Unit redeemable in payment for land use value over time (rentals);
>>
>> (b) Unit redeemable in payment for energy use value over time (eg Kilo
>> Watt Hours) and
>>
>> (c) Unit redeemable in payment for the use value of Intellect over time
>> (which is, in an objective form, Intellectual Property, and in a subjective
>> form is the key component of Labour, and the element which makes my raw
>> manpower valuable).
>>
>> The equitable allocation and sharing of the flows of these forms of value
>> is what the associative agreements - the legal XML - I advocate are all
>> about.  These consensual agreements will evolve to make redundant existing
>> constitutions; laws; contracts; and conventions.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> PS I think you'll have seen my 'reality-based' or common-sense approach to
>> economics....
>>
>>
>> http://nordicenterprisetrust.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/towards-an-economics-of-common-sense/
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 October 2011 12:37, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> I wonder if you ever engaged with Modern Monetary Theory?
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Chris <cojock at hotmail.com>
>>> Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 5:19 PM
>>> Subject: [gang8] Re: Pushing on a piece of string
>>> To: gang8 at yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Perceptive and well argued as ever, but in our current system it is
>>> impossible to address a solvency problem with monetary measures.
>>>
>>> The reality is that 90% of the population are insolvent; illiquid or
>>> both, and there is a systemic shortage of purchasing power in the economy.
>>>
>>> That in turn is because for the last 30 years the rewards from
>>> productivity increases went principally to capital rather than labour. This
>>> long hidden recession was hidden by borrowing against inflated property
>>> prices, and the result is - as Michael Hudson eloquently points out - that
>>> 90% of people are in debt to the other 10%.
>>>
>>> Evidence of this transfer of wealth has been the secular decline in the
>>> retail deposits of the many and the growth of the wholesale deposits of the
>>> few: this decline gave us the Northern Rock business model; shadow banking
>>> and much else.
>>>
>>> All that raising interest rates will achieve is a further transfer of
>>> wealth - and purchasing power - from the productive 90% to the largely
>>> unproductive 10%.
>>>
>>> In my view the answer lies in the re-basing of credit directly upon the
>>> use value of productive assets ie direct 'Peer to Asset investment, and the
>>> implementation of 'Peer to Peer' credit clearing mechanisms between
>>> businesses and individuals subject to a mutual guarantee. Both mechanisms
>>> could be managed by service-providers-formerly-known-as-banks.
>>>
>>> For those with eyes to see, this trend to dis-intermediation is already
>>> well under way, as banks have been queuing up to originate and sell
>>> quasi-equity products to investors such as Exchange Traded Funds; Index
>>> Funds; Real Estate Investment trusts; Master Limited Partnerships and so on.
>>>
>>> The reason banks are doing this with such alacrity is that pretty much
>>> the only capital they need as a service/liquidity provider is that necessary
>>> to cover operating costs, and they can make money in all sorts of
>>> interesting ways via their 'Delta One' desks (cf the UBS disaster).
>>>
>>> There are two massive problems in this financial market Next Big Thing.
>>>
>>> Firstly, the inflow of risk averse (NOT speculative investment intent on
>>> transaction profit) money into commodity ETFs has financially inflated
>>> commodity prices in a correlated bubble. This has provided a windfall gain
>>> to the producers who accommodated the investors by financial leasing (ie
>>> sale and repurchase) of commodities to them via investment banks.
>>>
>>> So, generally via investment banks as intermediaries, funds lend dollars
>>> to producers who lend commodities to the funds.
>>>
>>> The cosmic joke here is that the 'inflation hedging' investors attempting
>>> to avoid loss are actually responsible for causing the very inflation they
>>> aim to avoid.
>>>
>>> Secondly, these largely risk averse investors are exposing themselves to
>>> a level of market risk which was never made clear to them other than deep in
>>> the boiler-plate agreements. The regulators are well aware that ETFs are a
>>> regulatory disaster zone about to trigger.
>>>
>>> I am essentially proposing - and prototyping - a new generation of such
>>> funds with the added innovation that the Units will be redeemable in payment
>>> for the underlying value. eg REIT units redeemable in payment for rentals,
>>> or energy ETFs redeemable in payment for energy.
>>>
>>> I believe that the existing system is terminally broken, but that the
>>> emergence of pervasive direct instantaneous connections is facilitating
>>> simple but radical new solutions which will dis-intermediate both
>>> governments and shareholders.
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> Chris Cook
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In gang8 at yahoogroups.com, Ercouncil at ... wrote:
>>> >
>>> > .
>>> >
>>> > I'm not impressed by Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England,
>>> > declaring that the current financial crisis in Britain is the worst
>>> since 1931 and
>>> > probably worse than that. The Bank of England is the heart of the
>>> British
>>> > banking system. King is paid his generous salary to do something about
>>> it,
>>> > not just stand there wringing his hands, and talking the markets even
>>> > further down every time he wrings them. He should be sacked forthwith.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks to events in mid-2007 and subseqnetly, thanks to the way
>>> Lehman's
>>> > was allowed just to go down the tubes, the banks have been spooked. So
>>> they
>>> > are now scared to lend because the perceived risk now outweighs the
>>> reward.
>>> >
>>> > Mr King has two choices on how to deal with that. He can either raise
>>> the
>>> > reward, or reduce the risk. Three choices - he could try to do both at
>>> the
>>> > same time.
>>> >
>>> > And at the risk of repeating myself, the basic rate of interest is the
>>> > basic, discount rate on irreducible business risk, particularly risk as
>>>
>>> > perceived by the banks. Interest is their reward for taking on that
>>> risk; if
>>> > the rewards for doing so are not currently high enough, then raise
>>> interest
>>> > rates.
>>> >
>>> > Banks are chronologically myopic, they cannot see the future. Even if
>>> they
>>> > accept intellectually that small businesses are the foundation of new
>>> > employment and of future economic advance, they do not want to take the
>>> risk of
>>> > funding overdrafts for small businesses, unless of course the small
>>> > business has asset backing. When it has such backing a bank can make
>>> its customer
>>> > carry the risk by putting a charge on those assets.
>>> >
>>> > We have been here before. Britain's Macmillan Committee in 1931 saw
>>> most
>>> > of this. One of the things it did was to set up the state-owned
>>> Industrial
>>> > and Commercial Finance Corporation, the ICFC. I worked for it as a
>>> > consultant in the early 1970s. Nowadays it calls itself 3i and has been
>>> put into the
>>> > private sector, where it now seems to be as risk averse as everyone
>>> else.
>>> >
>>> > I personally believe Britain's banks encourage the wrong mindset in
>>> their
>>> > staff. A good banker should always be looking for business risks, and
>>> > calculating them, not running away from them.
>>> >
>>> > In part the modern mindset is not that of human beings at all, but of
>>> the
>>> > computer systems which the banks use to assess risk. I am rapidly
>>> coming to
>>> > the conclusion that a large part of our present problem is caused by
>>> > excessive reliance on cloned computer programmes, in running banks, and
>>> in
>>> > taking trading decisions about investment management.
>>> >
>>> > The computer programmes which 'model' financial transactions were
>>> clearly
>>> > written by mindless optimists who believed they could write risk right
>>> out
>>> > of the equation. They cannot. Instead they have ushered into an era
>>> when the
>>> > computers themselves are the risk. They risk bringing the whole system
>>> > down as they mindlessly search for a risk-free world, when the only
>>> risk-free
>>> > economic world is one that does nothing at all.
>>> >
>>> > A cleverer governor of the Bank of England would recognise this. The
>>> > business community is a collective risk. Take a leaf out of Lloyds
>>> insurance and
>>> > realise that big numbers are the only safety net. If the banks are not
>>> > prepared to do it that way then the central authorities once again need
>>> to show
>>> > them how. And if the Treasury or the Bank of England underwrites risk,
>>> > then just like Lloyds, it deserves part of the reward. If that means
>>> the
>>> > interest income now need to be split two ways, that is all the more
>>> reason for
>>> > increasing interest rates.
>>> >
>>> > Chris M
>>> > London
>>> >
>>>
>>>  __._,_.___
>>>   Reply to sender<cojock at hotmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20Pushing%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20string>| Reply
>>> to group<gang8 at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Pushing%20on%20a%20piece%20of%20string>| Reply
>>> via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZGR1NXNxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMTA1NTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDAxOTkwBG1zZ0lkAzE2MjU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTMxODA4NzE4Mw--?act=reply&messageNum=16259>| Start
>>> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlczliY2EyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMTA1NTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDAxOTkwBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTMxODA4NzE4Mw-->
>>> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/message/16258;_ylc=X3oDMTM2M2k2MGYyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMTA1NTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDAxOTkwBG1zZ0lkAzE2MjU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTMxODA4NzE4MwR0cGNJZAMxNjI1OA-->(
>>> 2)
>>>  Recent Activity:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcm5oMjZmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMTA1NTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDAxOTkwBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTMxODA4NzE4Mw-->
>>>  The gang8 list is devoted to Creditary Economics.
>>> To unsubscribe, email: gang8-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>  MARKETPLACE
>>>
>>> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on -
>>> Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15o24ahmp/M=493064.14543979.14562481.13298430/D=groups/S=1705001990:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1318094383/L=f305824a-f1c0-11e0-bc9c-17f50db29f19/B=43CqCNBDRys-/J=1318087183430203/K=j0jis0Xfi4L.3_wOk1O.lw/A=6060255/R=0/SIG=1194m4keh/*http://us.toolbar.yahoo.com/?.cpdl=grpj>
>>>    [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcjkxZWE2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMTA1NTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDAxOTkwBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzE4MDg3MTgz>
>>> Switch to: Text-Only<gang8-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
>>> Daily Digest<gang8-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
>>> Unsubscribe <gang8-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms
>>> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>>>    .
>>>
>>> __,_._,___
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>
>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>
>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>



-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111016/85b01132/attachment.htm