Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

A Very Secret Agent

by ChrisCook Tue Jul 26th, 2011 at 08:07:36 AM EST

I had one of those 'A-Ha' moments the other day through which I fitted the final piece in the banking jigsaw. I felt I had finally grokked how the system works, and the flaw at the heart of it, and having posted here on the subject, I thought I should aim to follow Frank Schnittger's sage advice and attempt to explain it a bit better.

The result is A Very Secret Agent in 'Asia Times' today/tomorrow.

Two key points.

Firstly, the relationship between the Treasury and the Central Bank is in reality an agency relationship: not a conventional counter-party banking relationship as is widely supposed.

Secondly, the credit created by private banks does not consist of the loans they make ('money as debt'), but is the thing or object which they loan, and of which their borrowers have the use.  These 'things' are in fact look-alikes of tax credits.

The outcome is that all mainstream economics is based upon a fundamental misconception through the reversal in accounting polarity that arises out of the 'agency' error. ie what is an accounting credit is assumed to be an accounting debit and vice versa.



A Very Secret Agent

There is a charade playing out in Washington at the moment in respect of the completely meaningless 'debt ceiling' which the US maintains as a relic from the days of the Gold Standard.

We are told that at the US Treasury's account at the Federal Reserve Bank there will soon be no more  taxpayers' dollars, and therefore the Fed will soon be unable to make any more payments or issue any more cheques on behalf of the Treasury.

The money has run out.

This is nonsense. It is a myth, and moreover it is a myth which the Chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, exploded in his recent testimony to a US congressional committee.

Congressman Sean Duffy: We had talked about the QE2 with Dr. Paul. When -- when you buy assets, where does that money come from?

Ben Bernanke: We create reserves in the banking system which are just held with the Fed. It does not go out into the public.

Congressman Sean Duffy: Does it come from tax dollars, though, to buy those assets?

Ben Bernanke: It does not.

Congressman Sean Duffy: Are you basically printing money to buy those assets?

Ben Bernanke: We're not printing money. We're creating reserves in the banking system.

But ask yourself the question: if paper money is not being printed, then what exactly is being created?  What are these 'reserves' to which Bernanke - and indeed the Federal Reserve Bank's very name - refers?

Bernanke is unwittingly exploding two foundational myths which underpin mainstream economics.

Myth Number One: Tax and Spend
The Tax and Spend myth is that 'tax-payers' money' is first collected by the Fed and then spent, or lent.

Ben Bernanke blew that one away when he told the Committee that tax-payers' money was not involved when the Fed was busy easing quantitatively.  The Fed created 1.6 trillion somethings which banks accepted, either for their own account or a customer's account, in exchange for the Treasury Bills they owned, and these somethings were, and still are, deposited with the Federal Reserve Bank as a custodian of.....'reserves'.

Many US citizens will be old enough to remember 'Greenbacks': paper promissory notes issued by the US Treasury for circulation as currency. These work exactly the same as the familiar Federal Reserve Bank notes which now constitute US notes in circulation. ie both may be presented in payment of taxes or of other debts.

So Fed notes are in every sense Greenback 'look-alikes'.

Bernanke confirmed the staggeringly simple reality that not a single tax-payers' dollar is actually spent or lent when the Fed follows the Treasury's instructions to credit any account, anywhere, for anything.  This is because the Fed is creating - as an agent on behalf of the Treasury - an exact 'look-alike' of a Treasury IOU or promissory note.  ie the Fed is simply pledging the Treasury's credit by creating tax credits.

So what happens when taxes are paid? When a dollar of tax is collected by the Federal Reserve Bank on behalf of the Treasury it does not become a deposit which adds a dollar to the Treasury's credit balance at the Fed.  Instead, a Treasury credit for $1's worth of tax is cancelled by the Fed as agent for the Treasury and the National Debt shrinks by $1.  It's exactly as though an obsolete $1 note is torn up or burnt. Or another way of looking at it is that it is what happens when a Frequent Flyer Mile  is redeemed against a flight.

In other words, Bernanke's somethings are tax credits, and therefore a form of equity, not debt: they are for all the world equivalent to a $1.00 redeemable preference share issued by US Incorporated.  When the Fed creates these tax credits on behalf of the Fed it creates an asset - - not a liability - which it holds in reserve as custodian for the recipient banks as a deposit.

The Fed owes nothing to anyone as a result: the creation of these dollars creates credit not debt -  the Fed cancels them against payment of taxes, and transfers them between clearing bank accounts upon instruction.

Once this simple but fundamental point is realised - that the Fed is the agent of the Treasury, and not a banking counter-party as conventionally assumed - then there is a paradigm shift.

US dollar 'fiat currency' is not a debt of the Fed: it is simply a tax credit which is created and spent by the Fed on Treasury instructions. Taxpayers' Money has in truth never been anywhere near a tax-payer.

This myth of Tax and Spend arises out of credit creation by the Central Bank.  The myth of Fractional Reserve Banking arises out of credit creation by private banks.

Myth Number Two: Fractional Reserve Banking
This myth is that banks receive deposits from customers and then lend them out again, retaining a fraction in reserve which enables them to lend out a multiple of their reserves funded with money from the Fed.

The truth is that private banks do exactly what the Fed does: they create tax credits in the form of Treasury IOU 'look-alikes' and these tax credits are then deposited in the banking system by the recipients.  Banks create tax credits not only when they lend at interest, but also when they spend, by crediting the accounts of suppliers, staff, management, shareholders, and sellers of assets.

This private bank credit creation is not restricted by bank reserves as is the myth, but by the capital 'cushion' they are obliged by banking regulators to retain in order to absorb defaults by borrowers.

Private banks create these tax credits, and then charge borrowers for the use of them.  The key point is that the tax credits are not the loan: they are the things which are loaned, or the object of the loans.  Deposits of privately created tax credits are simply accounting entries in the banking system which are distinguishable from the tax credits created by the Fed only by the set of books in which they are recorded

A National Equity
The US National Debt is in truth - like all National Debts - a complete and surreal fiction: it is a National Equity, the greater part of which is interest-bearing either as claims over public or private revenues.

At least two thirds of the quasi tax credits created by banks came into existence as mortgage loans, and are therefore backed by claims over the productive value of the US land and buildings which they fund.  Much of the rest consists of claims over the value of US assets which fund the productive capacity of US corporations. The remainder - which provides the credit necessary to finance the circulation of goods and services in the US - is based upon the magnificent productive capacity of the US people.

Only by liquidating US Incorporated could this National Equity ever be redeemed

The Debt Ceiling
The debt ceiling is a myth, because there is no need to borrow to finance public expenditure and the creation of public assets.  As Ron Paul points out, the Fed - which is ludicrously receiving interest from the Treasury in order to pay it right back again as profit - could actually waive or tear up the $1.6 trillion Treasury debt it has bought through Quantitative Easing (QE) and it would make precisely no difference other than to reduce the National Debt at a stroke by that amount.

As the great US inventor Thomas Edison put it in 1921: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good

A Very Secret Agent
Once the truth of the hitherto secret - or at best, completely obscure - agency relationship between the Fed and the Treasury is understood, then the World view changes.  The Sun of the Treasury does not go around the Earth of the Fed: it is the other way around. The Fed is servant, not master.

There is no shortage of dollars, because every dollar's worth of productive capacity - public or private; productive people or productive assets - in the US is the capacity to issue a dollar credit which reflects the increase in the US National wealth which underpins the US National Equity.

President Obama and his government should get busy creating National Equity by instructing the Fed to create and issue the necessary finance for the creation of a new generation of US infrastructure; the transition to a low carbon future which the US can, and should, be leading; and in increasing the capacity of the US people to do so.

Naturally, the financial process of putting the US back on its feet in this way should not be managed by the dead hand of the State, but by the entrepreneurial US private sector with a partnership stake in the outcome, and under the watchful eye of the people's representatives.

What is the President waiting for?

(Copyright Asia Times, and republished with their kind permission)

Display:
Many US citizens will be old enough to remember 'Greenbacks'

Depends on which greenback we are discussing. The first was fiat currency issued by the US Treasury, with no Central Bank as an agent, during and after the Civil War. No one alive today has personal memory of those times. The second "greenback" refers to Federal Reserve Notes such as we have carried in our wallets since 1914 and all circulating denominations of which have green backs. The Federal Reserve Notes once were, but no longer are, backed by precious metal, the last of which were the silver certificates.

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 Tue Jul 26th, 2011 at 10:10:20 AM EST
United States Notes ceased to be issued in 1971, under a different statute, apparently, to the Federal Reserve Notes which followed.

But it's not clear to me what the different roles of the Fed are in the two cases.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Jul 26th, 2011 at 10:52:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Federal Reserve and US Notes circulated alongside each other until 1971, (well you can occasional still run across them).  The at-the-time more experimental Federal Reserve notes were designed to look like the already circulating US Notes.

The only reason in the US that there are Federal Reserve Notes was a social compact that decided that monetary policy in the US should be taken out of the hands of the US Treasury and provided to the banking system, overseen by a Federal board.  Thus, if the government wants to spend more than people are willing to pay in taxes, it must ask for permission first from Wall Street, which provides it in the form of bonds.  It is an entirely arbitrary and unnecessary step, economically speaking, but in the US it has provided, until this year anyway, a deep basis for limiting the parameters of how to determine who pays for what in American politics. That is it's only function, but it has proven to be an enormously useful one for guiding opinion and setting fiscal agendas in an extremely large and complicated industrial society.

by santiago on Mon Aug 1st, 2011 at 02:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are getting dangerously close to making the driest subject on earth both interesting and comprehensible to yer average Republican lawmaker  - the Teabaggers will just have you strung up for heresy - telling them there Gods are false - how dare you!

The next step is for you to produce the children's Alice in Wonderland edition - about how the Fed produces money/credit on behalf of the Treasury which it then lends to the Treasury for interest which it then gives back to the Treasury as profit etc.

Anyway, according to the 14th. Amendment, the US is not allowed to default.  Therefore if Congress doesn't adopt measures to prevent default, the President has to, and he does that by simply declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional (as it states that the US will default above a certain limit).

Crisis, End OF.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Jul 26th, 2011 at 11:29:34 AM EST
I would like to see the Executive Branch (Obama) go to the Supreme Court and strike down the 1917 Debt Ceiling law.

For one, it would cause multiple head explosions in the hallowed halls of Congress.

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

by ATinNM on Tue Jul 26th, 2011 at 09:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
More likely would be a move to impeach Obama for allowing a default to occur. Would serve him right for not directing the US Mint to coin thirty or forth 10 oz. platinum $100 billion coins and deposit them in their agency account at the Fed. While it is at it it should mint at least 530 $1 billion platinum coins to serve as the reserve currency for 100 new banks, one for each congressman and senator, as I suggested in a diary years ago. Or he could follow Ron Paul's suggestion just to cancel out inter-agency US Government Debt and tell the Tea Party foamers that he is implementing part of their program.

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 Tue Jul 26th, 2011 at 11:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So all I know about economics was the small amount that I absorbed (and have not forgotten) from Reuben Zubrow about a million years ago.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/1997/310.html

But it seems to me that the whole thing about money is that it is just an exchange medium. If I have $10, and then the fed decides to create another $10 out of thin air and give it to somebody else, then all that has happened is that my $10 is worth less. The amount of stuff I have or the amount of work I do hasn't changed, except for secondary effects related to quantity of money, etc.

The problem is, I think, that there are a bunch of people who think that a dollar bill has some intrinsic base value, like it did--sort of--under the gold standard. It makes their heads explode when the discussion gets into the fed creating more money.

What will happen, obviously, is that the dollar will eventually be devalued. The only question is, to where do you flee with your cash? Brazil seems hot today...

by asdf on Tue Jul 26th, 2011 at 11:06:37 PM EST
It doesn't have to devalue, it just requires a strong commitment to matching the money supply to the available wealth.

Maybe we should all switch to bitcoins.

by njh on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 09:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless we write down the counterfeit debt, the debt that was squandered, leaving no capability to pay it down, the choice is to devalue to the extent of the bogus debt or to default on the debt. TPTB have offloaded much of this unpayable debt onto the public so that public obligations can be the subject of default rather than the parties that made the bad loans. The public ignorance of finance and economics is so abysmal that this can occur in plain view and few notice.

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 Jul 27th, 2011 at 11:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is, I think, that there are a bunch of people who think that a dollar bill has some intrinsic base value, like it did--sort of--under the gold standard. It makes their heads explode when the discussion gets into the fed creating more money.

I think money as thing is a basic conceptual metaphor that underpins most people's economic behaviour. Gold has no intrinsic value either, but it is more of a thing and in times of crisis like the present a bunch of people go and buy gold. And, indeed, gold has been rising in price to $1600/oz already. A couple of years ago I read that the world would come to an end if it got to $1500/oz but I guess there's been inflation since so the goalpost has moved.

I suspect you can't get most people to function economically if you take away the money as thing metaphor. After all, people know their toil is real and they want something real in exchange for it. And they will only part with real things in exchange for real money.

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 28th, 2011 at 02:37:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Spot on. As John Law put it, money is not the value you exchange goods for (ie object or thing) but the value you exchange goods by.

Gold is the ultimate money-as-completely-imperishable-thing. But to me gold is not money, but money's worth, and its value derives not from its value in use over time (it has little other than aesthetic value....but don't knock that), but from its value in exchange.

I define a unit of generally acceptable money's worth as currency.

Time - as in time between split barter transactions - is the key element of the monetary relationship.

It is the successful integration of time into fungible Unit of currency which is key.

That is why I see Units redeemable in payment for rentals (location use over time); Units redeemable in payment for energy (use of power over time); and Units redeemable in payment for the use of intellect over time; as being the end-game in terms of a reality-based monetary system.


"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Jul 28th, 2011 at 08:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What about this news headline:

Govt to increase taxes to fund reconstruction

Japan's government intends to increase taxes for a temporary period to create funds of about 10 trillion yen, or about 130 billion dollars, to rebuild areas devastated by the March 11th disaster.

If taxing is actually retirement of money (or National Equity), how is taxing to fund reconstruction here?

by das monde on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 12:40:42 AM EST
In technical terms, complete bollocks

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 03:39:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, how come that the public is fed this bollocks almost daily? Is the Japanese government that clueless or wicked? And what it actually has to do to "fund" the reconstruction?
by das monde on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 04:06:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's the same flawed reasoning behind the EU and US fiscal contraction policies.

There is this bollocks concept that government spending "crowds out" private investment. This may have some merit in the mythical universe where there's full employment, but that's not the case here. In the case of Japan, the idea is that money spent by the government on reconstruction would "crowd out" private investment in reconstruction that would otherwise have taken place. Which is patent bullshit. Unless you interpret that it will employ workers and mobilize resources that would have been otherwise mobilized by the private sector (doing what, exactly?)

So, because they are afraid that government spending crowds out private investment, first they tax the money out of the private sector to ensure the private sector lacks the spare fiscal capacity to do the investment in the first place. Then, the government is not crowding out any private investment since the latter cannot take place because of the taxes. What actually happens is that the private sector widthdraws whatever investment they were going to carry out in activities other than reconstruction, and that the government makes up for the drop in private investment with the reconstruction.

This ensures that employment doesn't grow, and capacity utilization doesn't grow. In other words, because they are afraid of crowding out private investment, they go and effectively crowd out private investment.

They may also be afraid of "inflationary pressures" from government investment since in today's Japan that would be funded by newly created central bank money (to buy newly issued government debt).

No, they are not evil, they are incompetent.

In fact, they are worse than incompetent. They are following the dictates of a flawed economic "theory" (more like a bunch of talking points than an actual theory).

If it's any consolation, Europe and the US are not better off in the economic policy department. The whole OECD is infected.

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 04:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The "crowding out" argument may be used in academic and econometric circles but is rarely heard in popular discourse (in my neck of the woods). What is perhaps really happening here is that the establishment are afraid that fuller unemployment might lead to an improvement in labour's bargaining position relative to capital resulting in increased labour costs and claims of reduced competitiveness.

The real secret of clinging to power is to have the masses fighting with each other over scarce jobs and under-cutting each other so that the relative power of capital is at least maintained, if not inexorably increased -as has been the case in recent years.

Taxation is thus a means of keepings structural unemployment in place by keeping demand for labour below supply.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 05:11:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure that "we need to keep unemployment up" is also not heard in popular discourse either...

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 05:24:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It absolutely is, to the point that it may become the dominant discourse now that immediate liquidity (if not yet solvency) issues are resolved. The Government have introduced some token job creation measures funded by a once off raid on pension funds and have sought to stimulate tourism through Vat and travel tax reductions.  But it's funding options are severely constrained at you can expect future attempts to renegotiate/amend the ECB/IMF programme to focus on job creation measures and perhaps getting additional investment funding from the EIB, Commission Innovation funds, or wherever else they might be found.

The Austerity->economic contraction->declining revenue base->exacerbated deficits narrative is well established and the Government now needs to come up with investment stimulation proposals to create "multiplier effects" and reduce unemployment - albeit much of it at lower rates of pay.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 05:57:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, this exchange makes no sense unless we're making the typo of exchanging "employment" with "unemployment" at random places.

the establishment are afraid that fuller unemployment might lead to an improvement in labour's bargaining position

And now you're saying that the serious people come out and say "we need to keep unemployment up" and there isn't public outrage?

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 06:07:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The first is a typo, not sure where the second comes from. I think there IS a disconnect between the interests of international monopoly capital which is about keeping unemployment up and wages down - particularly in the USA - and the interests of the Government in a functioning polity which is concerned about the effects of unemployment on their political fortunes, public expenditure and taxation revenues, and thus on the public deficit.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 07:02:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The second comes form me saying I'm sure that "we need to keep unemployment up" is also not heard in popular discourse either... and you replying It absolutely is, to the point that it may become the dominant discourse now

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 09:49:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, I'm sorry, I misread you. Doing everything in too much of a rush...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 01:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Frank Schnittger:
What is perhaps really happening here is that the establishment are afraid that fuller unemployment might lead to an improvement in labour's bargaining position relative to capital resulting in increased labour costs and claims of reduced competitiveness.

devil's avocado: is it not true that the unions did become greedy in some cases and shoot their own workers in the foot? thus giving the anti-union movement power? weren't 'unions' and 'corruption' almost synonyms at one point? RW talking points i know, but is there not some semblance of fact in there?

the ideas and progress unions brought overall have been epic, i feel, but how can we stop this happening again if power flows back to the unions again, (slim chance in the neolib bizniz environment anyway)?

i see that if governments legislate against corporations moving their plants offshore the that might work, similarly to putting a tariff on cheap imports would help, but obviously consumer prices would hit the roof, and bye bye chinese uber-growth and big box stores.

something has to give... somehow unions f-ed up bigtime and became politicised and mobbed up and now have a lot of trust to regain.

sorry if this is OT! it is an issue which perennially bugs me, as it's obvious that without some form of worker/owner negotiations harmony is near-impossible to achieve, yet it seems to me that union leaders end up dining too often with the 'enemy' and driving flash cars and wearing fine savile row suits, it doesn't add up to much, considering the cloth cap beginnings of trade unions. waving the hammer and sickle is just the other extreme.

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 06:08:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
speaking as a former senior manager in a major corporate in the private sector in Ireland/UK, I would say that in the Unions were a problem for corporate development in the 1980's primarily because management (in my firm) was dominated by a class (not to say neo-imperialist) mindset and "us and them" attitudes predominated in both.  

This was resolved during the 1980's through a complete change of management culture, reducing the middle class entitlement culture, removing barriers to career mobility for working class employees, and removing all sorts of status and hierarchical distinctions. An era of state/corporate/union partnerships was inaugurated both at corporate and national level through multi-annual partnership agreements from the 1980's onwards which introduced conflict resolution mechanisms such as employments appeals tribunals, unfair dismissals, acts, equality agencies and tribunals, labour courts to resolve employer/union conflicts, worker participation and works councils, and proactive worker training and personal development policies.  Let me be clear - these were active pursued by both management and Unions and supported by the state in stark contrast to the Thatcher era in the UK.

These developments, and the era of relative industrial peace they inaugurated were perhaps the largest single contributing factor to the Celtic Tiger - in sharp contrast to the neo-liberal re-writing of history which is opposed by progressive management as much as anyone.

The problems which emerged from c. 2001 on were primarily driven by an unregulated banking sector and low EU interest rates resulting in an asset price bubble and income expectations going wild partly to compensate.

A secondary problem which arose was that public service pay levels rose in sympathy with private sector levels without the mechanisms the private sector had to roll this back when everything started to go pear shape.  The private sector shed jobs rapidly from 2001 onward, reduced overtime, introduced short time working, reduced pay rates quite quickly in response to the credit freeze and economic downturn.

Similar mechanisms weren't initially available in the public sector, and what was worse - pensions were linked to final pay levels and adjusted upwards for any productivity pay increases achieved by their still working successors.

The bigger structural problem was that the interests of both public sector unions and their managers (who are also unionised) were far too closely aligned.  Both benefited from any pay increases negotiated, and both had no interest in real productivity increases. Some top civil servants actively sought to prevent productivity improvements because that reduced the size of their empires and power bases.  Both milked the public purse for all it was worth.

But don't blame the Unions for that - they were only doing their job of representing the (short term) interests of their members.  The problem lay with top civil servants who had no idea that their job was to provide better public services at reduced cost and their political leaders who were predominantly lawyers, teachers, sportsmen, auctioneers and publicans who had no idea of economics or how to manage/lead a large organisation.

The Unions have been relatively responsible in all of this.  The failure has been one of intellectual, political, and organisational leadership by the business and administrative elite and political class - first by the Banksters, then my the public service elite, and then finally, and most fatally by a clueless political class...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 07:34:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
thanks Frank, for a diary-like answer!

Frank Schnittger:

The Unions have been relatively responsible in all of this.

did you mean 'responsible' only relatively? compared to the other causes you mention?

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 04:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, the Unions were not blameless.  When I started work in 1979 one of my first tasks was to produce a post audit of a very damaging strike which did much to end the near monopoly of Guinness in Ireland. Unfortunately that report - and many similar - I produced has been lost in the corporate memory and document hole.

however the Gist of my conclusions was that the strike was largely caused by leadership rivalry between 17 Craft Unions competing against each others for members and also to internal leadership struggles within them - which put a premium on those who could claim to be the most uncompromising and militant.

It was exacerbated by a Personnel Director who had no clue about the expectations management part of the Negotiation Process.  As a junior backroom staffer I was inundated with requests to investigate and cost the most harebrained Union proposals so that the Personnel Director could respond authoritatively in due course.

The problem was that everyone in the negotiation room knew they were harebrained, but by promising to investigate further the Personnel Director was simply signalling weakness, and raising expectations that some quite dramatic "improvements" could be achieved, if only enough really extreme proposals could be put forward to move the Overton window in the desired direction.

A subsequent, and much more able Personnel Director, would simply have laughed, congratulated the proposer on their imaginative capabilities, reminded them that their mother always said that about them (he knew all the key Union figures and their families personally), and the conversation would have moved on very quickly to the terrain in which a deal could be done.

Negotiations and business are about relationships and trust.  If you don't have that your f*cked.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jul 28th, 2011 at 06:35:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A fine, first hand summary report of the changes in management/labor relations and political economy from the 70s to the present in Ireland.

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 Thu Jul 28th, 2011 at 12:02:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
yes, this is a fine synopsis, thanks Frank, masterblogging at its foi-nest!

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Aug 5th, 2011 at 05:06:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
das monde - you've asked a good question "If taxing is actually retirement of money (or National Equity), how is taxing to fund reconstruction here?"

The Japanese government are increasing taxes to fund reconstruction, so that they can provide direct industrial stimuli into certain parts of the economy, without any corresponding monetary or fiscal stimulus. That is, the money supply won't expand, but finances will get directed to where the government wants them to go. That way, they get the rebuilding, without seeing their cost of borrowing go up, and without risk of any additional inflation.

by LondonAnalytics (Andrew Smith) on Thu Jul 28th, 2011 at 02:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Tarheeldem has produced a diary on Booman in response to a a discussion on your diary I started on Booman.  For some reason he doesn't seem to want to debate your ideas directly with you on ET so the discussion has taken place there.

Basically he thinks you don't understand how the Fed works, although I am not convinced you are far apart in what both of you are saying.  He does seem to have a good understanding of the minutiae of the US financial system though, so I think it may be worth your while engaging with him there.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 05:18:34 AM EST
Cheers, Frank.  I've responded to him.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 06:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Frank pointed me in this direction.

There's a lot of confusion in terms of general understanding of what's going on in the Fed's relationship with the Treasury, that's for sure.

The fundamental misconception is an accounting misconception, I think.

You say that every debit has a corresponding credit, but the relationship between the Fed and the Treasury is - as you say - an agency relationship, not a banking counter-party relationship, and the outcome is very different.

Someone on the FT Alphaville blog thread in which I have been participating distinguishes between Treasury credit as 'cash' and Fed credit which he thinks of as credit. I find this - which may be common usage - a useful distinction.

When the Fed creates credit it is creating Treasury credit equivalent cash (as agent of the Treasury). The Fed holds - as Custodian - this cash as demand deposits for banks which are known as reserves - hence Reserve Bank.

But this cash is not a credit obligation of the Fed. They are essentially maintaining a title registry in respect of which bank has title to it, not a transaction registry in respect of credit obligations.

When the Fed actually lends to clearing banks, whether overnight or whatever duration, it is lending virtual cash, and allowing the banks to have the use of it over a defined period of time. It's similar to a bullion loan, or an LME 'carry', except in these cases there is a physical object which is being loaned, not an accounting object.

The $64 trillion point is that this action reverses the polarity in accounting terms. So Fed Credit is not in my analysis equivalent to Treasury credit as you state, reflecting the conventional myth: it is in accounting terms the complete opposite.

It is not cash, therefore, (the basis of which is redeemability against taxation), but a claim over cash for which the Fed may charge interest.

This is the accounting misconception which invalidates the entire mainstream political economy.

Since the Fed owes nothing to banks, but is holding their cash as a custodian, I see no reason whatever why they should encourage hoarding them by paying them to store cash there. The Fed should instead charge them for the privilege - as a warehouse charges depositors - and this would be more likely to encourage them to lend, I suspect.



"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Jul 27th, 2011 at 06:35:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So this:
...every dollar's worth of productive capacity - public or private; productive people or productive assets - in the US is the capacity to issue a dollar credit which reflects the increase in the US National wealth which underpins the US National Equity.

President Obama and his government should get busy creating National Equity by instructing the Fed to create and issue the necessary finance for the creation of a new generation of US infrastructure; the transition to a low carbon future which the US can, and should, be leading; and in increasing the capacity of the US people to do so.

...implies the existence of a classical dichotomy.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Thu Jul 28th, 2011 at 07:38:47 AM EST
CNBC: It's a Debt Ceiling not a Spending Ceiling


So what happens when the government writes checks on an account with no money? Nothing out of the ordinary. Those checks will all clear, with deposits made in the recipients' bank accounts just as they would have if the account was not underfunded.

Let's use an example to explain this. Let's say you are a retiree who collects Social Security payments. When the check comes, you take it to your bank for deposit. The bank submits the check to the Federal Reserve for clearing. The Federal Reserve clears the check by crediting the bank with a deposit in the amount of the check. The bank then credits your account with that amount.

Notice that money has gone into your bank account but it hasn't come out of any other account. If the government has enough money in its account with the Federal Reserve, the Fed could debit that account.

But if the government doesn't have enough money in the account, the Fed just doesn't debit anything at all. It simply creates the credit in the account without a counter-balancing debit anywhere else.

The government is unlike a household because it has the ability to create money simply by creating deposits. This money creation ability means that the government does not need to have raised funds--through taxes or borrowing--before it spends them.

Now, of course, our Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent. In theory, at least, it is possible the Fed could decline to credit accounts with deposits from the empty account of the US Treasury. But it is obliged by law to adopt policies that maximize employment and price stability. Refusing to honor the U.S. Treasury's checks would hardly seem likely to promote fuller employment and price stability.

Having the Treasury spend regardless of the emptiness of its bank account is not really so different from the way monetary policy is ordinarily conducted. Think about the spectacular growth of the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis and recession. How was it that the Fed could afford to buy all those bonds it purchased during the two rounds of quantitative easing?

The answer is that in a system of fiat money, the Fed can afford anything it wants so long as the sellers are willing to accept dollars. If the Fed decides to buy a bond, it can simply credit the account of the bank from which it bought the bond. This expands the money supply by the amount equal to the purchase price of the bond.



"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Jul 29th, 2011 at 06:48:52 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]