Category Archives: Quantitative easing

The term used for Central Banks to introduce ‘money’ as credit on a new level, often falsely associated with ‘printing money’.

OVERT MONETARY FINANCING or ‘Helicopter Money’ Policies – Lord Turner is waking up?


Anatole Kaletsky
writes about the 46-page speech that Lord Turner, Chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority gave at the Cass Business School on 6th February 2013.

Positive Money writes Adair Turner tumbles to the merits of a Positive Money idea.

In 2008, I had been advised by a human rights lawyer to ‘go for Parliamentary scrutiny via the Treasury Select Committee‘. Since the Treasury Select Committee had just announced their inquiry into climate change, we submitted Green Credit for Green Purposes.

Since 2002, Austin Mitchell MP has been tabling Early Day Motions to address exactly this: ‘overt monetary financing’ – but under a different label: public credit.

You can really tell from this speech how “the Religion of Money” has won over the Lost Science of Money, as men struggle with: whom to follow and whether to be for or against the ‘current consent’:-

  • a virtually surefire method of stimulating economy activity exists today and that politicians and central bankers can no longer treat it as taboo: ‘newly created money should be handed out to the citizens or governments;
  • distribute free money to end deep recessions;
  • quantitative easing for the people;
  • overt monetary financing (OMF) or “helicopter money” as ‘permanent monetisation of government debt and ‘extreme option’ in ‘extreme circumstances’.

Strangely, Lord Turner associates ‘inflationary risks’ and ‘printing money’ with Germany: the Bundesbank, Goethe’s Faust and the devil itself: Mephistopheles. Continue reading

Advertisements

Issuing Money: a ‘Unique’ Form of ‘Terrorism’!?

The New York SUN has published an interesting Editorial on March 20, 2011:A ‘Unique’ Form for ‘Terrorism’, comparing Bernard von NotHaus who has been coining the Liberty Dollar (site removed due to Court Order!) with Ben Bernanke the boss of the Federal Reserve.

Von Nothaus wanted to bring our monetary system on trial. Now the verdict of the jury is “a lesson in the difficulties of illuminating the illogic of our monetary system”…

When will “it” be common knowledge and generally understood???

Why Spending Cuts are another variation of “institutionalised white collar crime”

Economist James K Galbraith gave a presentation to the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he speaks of “financial fraud” as the cause for the “crisis”.

But that’s not enough:

  • Central Bankers create “currency” as “public debt” from thin air, charge interest to the Government (in the UK as much as the military budget) and call it “quantitative easing
  • Bankers create “credit” from thin air, charge interest for their sort of “money” and get bailed out by Government
  • The Treasury prints notes and mints coin, as Cash, free of interest, but still believes it has to “borrow” money from the Bank of England

Enter we, the taxpayers:

  • we believe that the Government runs the economy, when, in fact, their budget represents maybe around 40% of the whole money supply
  • we believe that the Bank of England supervises banks and does it for the benefit of the country, when, in fact, it works for the benefits of its shareholders, like all other central banks

And what about taxes?

Before the creation of the Bank of England in 1694, monarchs created money and demanded taxes. However, the first “national debt” consisted of £1.2 million at 8% for the King to fight a war with France.

This pattern continued such that more and more Credit was issued as “money”, while the need for Cash was more and more reduced:

  • since WWII 47% Cash went down to 3% Cash

So the Government colludes in the central bankers’ game of ruling the world with currencies (and the loss of their value) and credit money (and the loss of its value), while the real economy, with its real values is exploited and oppressed.

In theory, neither taxes nor spending cuts are necessary.

In practice, it seems to depend on who influences whom with what kind of knowledge and understanding or beliefs and myths…

In our efforts to stage a Public Inquiry into White Collar Crime, we need to include the creation of “money” as the ultimate institutionalised white collar crime… But who cares???

Justice for All are campaigning against spending cuts regarding legal advice. Maybe they’ll realise where spending cuts fit into the larger picture of creating “credit” from thin air and calling it “money”…

Quantitative Easing: the BoE explains and I comment

Quantitative easing explained the American way on a 6-minute video.

First, I contributed to quantitave easing on Wikipedia.

Now, Ask the Deputy Governor offers the following 16 questions addressed to the Bank of England with their answers.

Aware of the Bank of England Act 1694, I comment not as an economist, but from the perspective of a mathematician, systems analyst and software diagnostician, formerly at CERN, looking at “money” and its purpose:

1. Given inflation has only just fallen below the Government’s 2% target, why is the Bank of England adopting such a large unconventional policy measure?
The effects of monetary policy on prices and real activity only come through after long and somewhat variable lags.

Comment: 2% inflation of consumer prices is only possible when measuring inflation extremely short-term. The Office of National Statistics keeps writing about annual inflation, while also gathering monthly data.

Inflation as “price inflation” is only one aspect. The real inflation is the supply of money as currency for the nation as a whole, which should be called “monetary inflation”.

Continue reading

My email to letters.editor@ft.com

Sir,

Regarding your letter and comment Common sense and history both suggest a pause in QE and Essential to keep QE available, I am writing as the Organiser of the Forum for Stable Currencies which has been presenting meetings at the House of Lords and Commons since 1998. See our archive site.

I am also writing as a mathematician and systems analyst formerly at CERN, i.e. I have analysed not only the statistics of the Bank of England but also what “money” is and how it is created. Hence I cannot concur with Quantitative easing explained by the FT.

On Money as Debt also Known as Credit, I have published “Quantitative easing” to camouflage “printing credit” which is possibly the best explanation of what QE really is:

  • The printing of “money as Credit” by the Bank of England or any other central bank.

The reason why QE can’t work is obvious to me:

  • if the Treasury were to supply money, it would be free of interest (M0); therefore “printing money” would work
  • “printing Credit” (M4) can’t work
    • 97% of the money supply consists of Credit
    • nobody creates the interest necessary to pay for Credit
  • the Credit share in the total money supply is increased yet more
    • the Cash : Credit ratio gets worse and worse.

Unfortunately, policy seems to be determined by the City and not by Westminster, i.e. the Bank of England and other central banks determine what happens to the global economy. For an excellent overview, you may want to view The Global Financial Crisis by professor of economics Michel Chossudovsky.

Should you be interested in reading more about “economics from a system analytical perspective”, here are a few of my links re quantitative easing:

Since April I am looking after my mum “left of Berlin”. Thus I am now publishing in German what I learned in Westminster: www.NationaleSchulden.eu

Sighingly yours,

Sabine

________

Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies, advocating Economic Democracy through Freedom from National Debt

Blogging on behalf of Voters and Taxpayers:

Room 14 – a foundation for change, for victims of our legal and financial system > 300 views

Enforcement of Bank of England Act 1694, an Early Day Motion for grouping cases of oppression, to change the law > 1.000 views

Petitioning the Treasury Select Committee:

Stop the Crash Crumble to Equalize the Credit Crunch: 226 signatures and > 9,600 page views

Financial Fairness for Voters and Taxpayers, please! 43 signatures and > 2,000 page views

Aiming at Parliamentary Scrutiny via the Treasury Select Committee > 2,100 views

Analysing the system of national currencies and their financial, political and legal institutions:

Money as Debt also known as Credit – blog about our core concerns – with > 9,100 views

Lobbying on- and offline:

In the Spirit of the Forum for Stable Currencies – newsblog with > 15,000 views

Political summary with > 2,800 views

Archive site with > 10,700 views

Promoting another future:

Expanding Dr. Yunus’ Sphere of Influence – Social Business and the Future of Capitalism – with > 23,000 hits

Currently:

Buschower Dorfstr. 16

14715 Märkisch Luch

T: 0049 33876 90166

M UK: 0044 7968 039 141

Common sense and history both suggest a pause in QE

QE means Quantitative Easing. It means Central Banks printing money. But their kind of money is Credit Money, i.e. somebody receives interest payments, and taxpayers pay via the Government’s share in the budget of “public debt interest payments”.

This letter in the FT prompted me to spell it out, once again:

When Governments print money, it’s “Cash Money” which is not only free of interest, but also gives them seigniorage as income.

However, creating money electronically out of thin air would not justify seignorage. But why do Governments hand their power of creating money over to their Central Banks?

Your guess about politicians and central bankers is as good as mine…

My response to Mr George Taferner is this:

Continue reading

Four ways of “net credit creation”

Professor Richard A. Werner is a professor of economics at the University of Southampton. His letter to the FT explains that he coined the term “quantitative easing” and its true meaning: four ways of creating credit:

  1. increasing BANK credit
  2. increasing TRADE credit
  3. increasing CENTRAL BANK credit
  4. increasing credit created by the GOVERNMENT.

We’ve been advocating the last as “public credit for public purposes” through “Early Day Motions” since 2002.

Green Credit for Green Purposes was a submission to the Treasury Select Committee in response to the Stern enquiry.