Category Archives: Economic measures

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

UK Uncut: the cuts are necessary? The cuts are fair? We are all in this together???

The UK Uncut initiative is a wonderful expression of the Signs of Our Times:

  • it began with a Twitter hashtag #ukuncut
  • what manifested as a sit-in of 70 people in a Vodafone store in London
  • and spread across the country in no uncertain way.

Spread the word, join in actions, or at least smile!

One Good Cut instead!!!

With thanks to Inquiring Minds.

Unit of Real Value: the Yardstick with which to stabilise price inflation

This is an interesting story about Brazil, vouched to be correct by a commentator who lived in Brazil at the time.

The “Unit of Real Value” acts as an extra and REAL measure and thus provides a real and stable yardstick in a sea that wobbles with ‘credit money‘ and ‘interest money’ – unrelated to any real value.

The smart aspect is the fact that ‘monetary inflation’ is separated from ‘price inflation’, and the financial economy is separated from the real economy. And ‘economics’ becomes real rather than a ‘soft, sociological science’…

Who else might copy this model that worked???

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

Money Makers (Goldman Sachs) vs Money Takers (Robin Hood)

I had noticed the increase in NO votes to the Robin Hood Tax and was obviously surprised, wondering who might hack the vote… Just like the Tobin Tax, the Robin Hood Tax is a levy on financial transactions, but a fundraising exercise for public purposes: poverty and climate change.

Would you have thought that the vote rigging would trace back to a computer at Goldman Sachs???

Just google and you will see how this was obviously the best publicity the campaign could have wished for.

You can also visit the page that I put together to keep track of some of the repercussions.

Robin Hood Tax to be launched on Wednesday at 0.05am

The Robin Hood Tax is the UK version of the Tobin Tax which was at the beginning of ATTAC in France ten years ago.

As an anti-poverty campaign, it is more pragmatic than the economic theories of Tobin Tax definitions or the political demands of the Attac network.

Supported by a coalition of 48 organisations, the Robin Hood Tax campaign spells out what the income should be spent on.

And in the spirit of our times, it uses Twitter and YouTube.

The video is set to private until the launch which is set to 0.05am in parallel with the 0.05% tax that Robin Hood wants to take.

However, Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, dismissed the idea of a Tobin Tax only recently, according to the FT.

Of course, this tax doesn’t get to the root of all evils, but at least it’s bound to capture people’s imagination!

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