Display:
Joe Stiglitz advocates adopting a modern version of Keynes' Bancor system as a mechanism for a world monetary expansion.

William Pfaff: New IMF Reserve Currency May Be Answer

...the orthodoxies of an obsolescent era continue to contradict one another. The canonical IMF-style remedy for nations with the kind of difficulties that prevail from London to Madrid and on to Athens is national austerity, budget cuts and reduced social spending.

Equally orthodox is for governments at the same time to do everything possible to encourage people to spend, so as to fuel demand for industrial goods, and the widest possible consumer consumption. To spend, consumers need the same money austerity is taking away from them, or preventing them from earning.

Economists and officials obviously are aware of this dilemma but see no orthodox way out of it other than by deepening budget deficits, which not every country can afford. The European Central Bank has just given Athens a year to master its deficit, which may not be possible.

...This is not too hard a problem to solve. You create [a new global currency]. Stiglitz is calling for a new issue by the International Monetary Fund of what has been called Special Drawing Rights (or "Bancor," which is what John Maynard Keynes, who first thought of it, called the fresh creation of imaginary money).

...Stiglitz says that it would be rather like declaring that a massive goldmine has been discovered under the IMF building, yielding perhaps $600 billion a year. In accordance with a particular formula based on their income, the IMF would send out letters to its members telling them how much of this gold they own, and that they should begin augmenting their currency supply, to be backed by this gold, in full confidence that the new money will be honored. "All that matters is trust, the willingness of governments to exchange the paper gold." World liquidity would be vastly increased, demand multiplied, industry resume production.

Stiglitz: Thanks to the Deficit, the Buck Stops Here

The United Nations' Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System...has argued that a new global reserve currency system may be the most important reform to ensure the long-term health of the world's economy...

In its interim report in June, the commission described a number of alternatives. Some involve building on the International Monetary Fund's "special drawing rights," or SDRs -- a kind of "IMF money" -- but making the issuance of this global reserve money annual and more predictable....Other proposed reforms are more complex and ambitious, such as issuing new global reserves in ways and amounts that could be used to stabilize the world's economy or to invest in "global public goods," such as helping developing nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

by TGeraghty on Wed Mar 10th, 2010 at 06:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cheeky of me... but can I ask, apart from:

a) The fact that nations heavily in surplus (in particular, but likely those in deficit too) don't like the idea of a system that forces them to adjust.

b) General neo-liberal dislike of things that interfere with helping the rich get richer and/or bully small countries.

Are there "downsides" to the Bancor?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 10th, 2010 at 07:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems like getting the quantity and allocation of a new SDR issue just right could be a challenge, just like with any kind of money supply (too little and you overly restrict trade, too much and its inflationary).
by TGeraghty on Wed Mar 10th, 2010 at 07:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The GIANT downside is for banks who profit from the money created from debt scheme combined with the fact that, at least in the Anglo world, the big banks dominate the financial policies, at a minimum, of the national governments. This is so fundamental that less than fifty years after the printing of greenbacks by the US Government during the Civil War, when stability was required in the financial and money markets in the USA The Federal Reserve System was established as a system of private banks with a public mandate to control the money supply.

To establish a system of issuance of debt free money by national governments it would be necessary to break the power the banks currently hold in these societies. Come the day!

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 10th, 2010 at 08:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And the Federal Reserve System creates money by having the Treasury print a bond which it then purchases, crediting the Treasury with freshly created money. This is the process which J.K. Gailbraith, Sr. described as being so simple that it repelled the mind.

I suppose that buying bonds with the freshly created money is unnecessary, as the greenback episode demonstrates, but it insures that the money is debt based and, without that, a good portion of the bond market for institutions such as Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan would not exist.

What makes Federal Reserve Notes or what would again make greenbacks legal tender is the same thing--the fiat declaration on the bills that the note "is legal tender for all debts public and private." and that it is the unit in which taxes are paid and federal expenditures are made.

I guess the conclusion of all of this is that buying the bond to make the money debt backed might be gratuitous. So it is fortunate for the bankers that the process is "repugnant to the mind."

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 10th, 2010 at 09:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series