Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

No Return to Normal - it's Payback Time

by ChrisCook Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 06:36:44 AM EST

An answer to this question has turned into a Diary....

papicek:

So you think the ultimate pain of a total crash is unavoidable? That we're not just looking at a lost decade of stagnation?

That table shows (and it is only dollar denominated debt) the cosmic scale - 150 trillion dollars - in which interest-bearing credit (aka money) was created by banks and and re-based on non-Bank/Investor capital -  the "off-balance sheet items" to which the table refers.

I think that a complete crash may be avoidable, but at:

(a) huge geo-political cost to debtor nations; and

(b) huge financial cost to creditor nations, as the dollar (assuming that this continued to be the reserve currency) is "reset".  

I think even though a "New Settlement" between debtor nations and creditor nations is possible then a long depression is still unavoidable. This is because even were sufficient capital to be redeployed in the banking system then the more "prudent" regime we are now seeing will mean that the previous "Peak" level of credit (and hence asset prices) will never be seen again.

The point is that the problem is not the system's ability to create credit. The problem is the shortage of "creditworthy" individuals, who have seen wealth inexorably transferred (the Anglo Disease) to the richest.

So I see two things as necessary.

Firstly, a predistribution of Capital and the unearned income that goes with it, rather than redistribution through taxes on earned income.

I advocate as a mechanism systemic fiscal reform. By this I mean a transition from taxes on people to taxes on the privileges of "private" ownership of Commons, and of limitation of liability.

Secondly, a change in the nature of credit by making it "open-ended". ie un-dated (essentially it then becomes quasi-Equity).

This would remove the unsustainable repayment obligation of dated debt. There would be a payment for the use of this open credit, firstly to cover system costs, and secondly to cover defaults, because some people would not even be able, or maybe willing, to pay this use cost.

The payment would be made by both sellers and buyers on credit terms, since both use the system and both benefit from Society's guarantee.

Open-ended credit through "redeemable" obligations is not difficult. That is what Bank notes are already. The difference is that the open-ended electronic obligations I have in mind would not be redeemable with another piece of paper backed by income taxes.Instead, it would be redeemable in land rental value (nationally) and energy value (internationally), and the backing for such issue by Treasuries would of course be the very taxes on the privileges of private use of land and energy Commons we would achieve through fiscal reform.

In terms of a new settlement we currently see initiatives to capitalise the International Monetary Fund so it can issue "Special Drawing Rights" denominated in dollars.

These are of course intended for Quantitative Easing - of the Rich - and will disappear down the cosmic monetary Black Hole starkly illustrated in the table. The whole point of QE is to bail out the rich. Monetary measures are useless, as I am sure those in power must know, but why not make out like bandits while you can?

Until the twin issues of capital distribution (creditworthiness of the many), and the basis of the money we use are addressed there can be no long term solution.

My proposal would be for the IMF facility to be funded in dollars, but denominated in Units of energy (Energy Dollars?) through the creation of Units redeemable in a fixed amount of energy. This fund would then be used for a global Green New Deal, allowing the US to repay its massive energy debt to the rest of the world through redeploying its military industrial complex into global (and local) investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. A networked  International Energy Clearing Union would be the means through which such an "Energy Dollar" would circulate and be invested.


Display:

LET IT DIE: Rushkoff on the economy

Now that the scheme we have mistaken for the real economy is collapsing under its own weight, however, it's a whole lot easier to make these arguments. And, if anything, it's even more important for us to come to grips with the fact that the system in peril is not a natural one, or even one that we should be attempting to revive and restore. The thing that is dying--the corporatized model of commerce--has not, nor has it ever been, supportive of the real economy. It wasn't meant to be. And before we start lamenting its demise or, worse, spending good money after bad to resuscitate it, we had better understand what it was for, how it nearly sucked us all dry, and why we should put it out of our misery.

Chartered Corporations

Back in the good ol' days--I mean as far back as the late middle ages--people just did business with each other. As traveling got easier and people got access to new resources and markets, a middle class of merchants and small businesspeople started to get wealthy. So wealthy that they threatened the power of the aristocracy. Monarchs needed to come up with a way to stabilize their own wealth before the free market unseated them.

They invented the corporate charter. By granting an exclusive charter, a king could give one of his friends in the merchant class monopoly control over a region or sector. In exchange, he'd get shares in the company. So the businessperson no longer had to worry about competition--his position at the top of the business hierarchy was locked in place, by law. And the monarch never had to worry about losing his authority; businesses with crown-guaranteed charters tend to support the crown.

(...)

he other big innovation of the early corporate era was monopoly currency. There used to be lots of different kinds of money. Local currencies, which helped regions reinvest in their own activities, and centralized currencies, for long distance transactions. Local currencies were earned into existence. A farmer would grow a bunch of grain, bring it to the grain store, and get receipts for how much grain he had deposited. The receipts could be used as money--even by people who didn't need grain at that particular moment. Everyone knew what it was worth.

The interesting thing about local, grain-based currencies was that they lost value over time. The people at the grain store had to be paid, and a certain amount of grain was lost to rain or rodents. So every year, the money would be worth less. This encouraged people to spend it rather than save it. And they did. Late Middle Ages workers were paid more for less work time than at any point in history. Women were taller in England in that era than they are today--an indication of their relative health. People did preventative maintenance on their equipment, and invested in innovation. There was so much extra money looking for productive investment, that people built cathedrals. The great cathedrals of Europe were not paid for with money from the Vatican; they were local investments, made by small towns looking for ways to share their prosperity with future generations by creating tourist attractions.

Local currencies favored local transactions, and worked against the interests of large corporations working from far away. In order to secure their own position as well as that of their chartered monopolies, monarchs began to make local currencies illegal, and force locals to instead use "coin of the realm." These centralized currencies worked the opposite way. They were not earned into existence, they were lent into existence by a central bank. This meant any money issued to a person or business had to be paid back to the central bank, with interest.

What does that do to an economy? It bankrupts it. Think of it this way: A business borrows 1000 dollars from the bank to get started. In ten years, say, it is supposed to pay back 2000 to the bank. Where does the other 1000 come from? Some other business that has borrowed 1000 from the bank. For one business to pay back what it owes, another must go bankrupt. That, or borrow yet another 1000, and so on.

An economy based on an interest-bearing centralized currency must grow to survive, and this means extracting more, producing more and consuming more. Interest-bearing currency favors the redistribution of wealth from the periphery (the people) to the center (the corporations and their owners). Just sitting on money--capital--is the most assured way of increasing wealth. By the very mechanics of the system, the rich get richer on an absolute and relative basis.



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 09:01:30 AM EST
His criticism is accurate, but destructive. What's his alternative? State capitalism?

The one I see is simple, and actually happening already - the Corporation reinventing itself, and evolving into something non-toxic.

ie a Peer to Peer market economy, operating "Not for Loss", with returns to stakeholders but not to redundant rentiers

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 09:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Very interesting quote. But isn't this:

Rushkoff:

A business borrows 1000 dollars from the bank to get started. In ten years, say, it is supposed to pay back 2000 to the bank. Where does the other 1000 come from? Some other business that has borrowed 1000 from the bank. For one business to pay back what it owes, another must go bankrupt. That, or borrow yet another 1000, and so on.

a little simplistic?

One of the concepts that's absent from current economic theory is the difference between synergy/symbiosis and expropriation.

Wealth is created by symbiosis - the pooling and sharing of skills and raw materials.

Wealth is destroyed by expropriation - which is the extraction of personal benefit from the collective pool.

There's no reason why a loan can't be symbiotic. I think this is what Chris is hinting at - if the concept of collective benefit is built into the financial system and all of its structures, expropriation becomes much more obvious, and more expensive.

Currently what we have is a system which pretends to be symbiotic to a limited extent but is actually based almost entirely on expropriation of collective benefit for a very small minority.

And it's not just that this is morally questionable - it's also fundamentally, systemically, non-functional and unsustainable. It can't be made to work for more than a few decades before it collapses spectacularly.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 10:13:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:

a little simplistic?

One of the concepts that's absent from current economic theory is the difference between synergy/symbiosis and expropriation.

It's not just simplistic: it's plain wrong.

It assumes that credit is necessarily money, whereas the truth is that credit is a necessary part of a monetary relationship but credit neither needs to be nor should it be monetised, IMHO.

It ignores the fact that - contrary to the anthropocentric assumption of conventional economics and Marx alike - Capital may also be "productive", in that it has a "use value" with a value in exchange (eg a Kilo Watt Hour or a Square Metre Year). There is a strand of heterodox economics Binary Economics based upon this "Binary" assumption, and I understand that the US policy of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) owes its origins to the "Binary" thinking of Louis Kelso.

The Social Credit movement was based upon Colonel C H Douglas' view of money as a credit object, and his

 Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A + B theorem
in relation to the draining of purchasing power out of Economies, and the need for what he called "Social Credit" to be fed into Economies - according to formulae he had developed -to replace it.

In my view there is a qualitative difference between

(a) Static credit - tied up in secured Debt and Equity; and

(b) Dynamic credit - aka time to pay;

and that the equations of monetary flow must incorporate this distinction if they are to reflect reality.

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 10:50:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One of the concepts that's absent from current economic theory is the difference between synergy/symbiosis and expropriation...

There's no reason why a loan can't be symbiotic.

Some loans will be synergetic. But the question is, what proportion? The amount of credit extended recently is staggering - but all for non-synergetic "investments" into bubles. There can't possibly be so much synergy gain to match the ridiculus amount of credit.

Absence of synergetic considerations in economic theories is indeed interesting. Synergies are abound in the natural world - almost compulsively. The role of government should be seen primarily as synergetic - i.e., capturing large common wins. But common interest is politically dead, and the government is unabatedly promoted as a free-rider helper. The libertarian understanding of "There is no free lunch" appears to mean "There is no synergy through governing" (but they appear to believe in a "synergy" of making money out of thin air through credit extension).

The brief history of government as "for the people" is finished and is being erased. The only "legal" cooperation is corporation - it feels like no one else is allowed to take care of own interests in a coordinated matter, or do any good to others. The rhetorical mix-up of what is a cooperator, or a free-rider, or a rentier is amazingly Orwellian in this world.

by das monde on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 05:13:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
das monde:
The amount of credit extended recently is staggering - but all for non-synergetic "investments" into bubles.
That wasn't credit, it was counterfeit money creation.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 05:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's how the monetary system works legally. Claims on debt and compounded interest are real.
by das monde on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 08:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
das monde:
The brief history of government as "for the people" is finished and is being erased. The only "legal" cooperation is corporation - it feels like no one else is allowed to take care of own interests in a coordinated matter, or do any good to others. The rhetorical mix-up of what is a cooperator, or a free-rider, or a rentier is amazingly Orwellian in this world.
Could you develop this into a diary?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 05:36:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe.
by das monde on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 08:06:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome a Paris:
A business borrows 1000 dollars from the bank to get started. In ten years, say, it is supposed to pay back 2000 to the bank. Where does the other 1000 come from?

from renewable resources?

well husbanded, good farmland can render....how much?

i think it's symptomatic of mental illness to assume that wealth only springs at the mercy of credit shuffling.

i understand natural renewable resources are nonlinear in growth so credit can smooth out bumper/bust cycles, like savings can too, but this accent on finance while ignoring where root wealth is stored and produced is like making the icing into the whole cake, isn't it?

maybe a message from this is to distrust any scheme that scheme that aims to profit more than a 'conservative' 4% or so. (what nature can back up, iow.)

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 10:42:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That table shows (and it is only dollar denominated debt) the cosmic scale - 150 trillion dollars - in which interest-bearing credit (aka money) was created by banks and and re-based on non-Bank/Investor capital -  the "off-balance sheet items" to which the table refers.
Let's say it loud and clear. Central bankers lost control of money creation over the past decade. And since controlling the monetary base is the reason central banks exist, central banks have been a total failure.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 12:04:08 PM EST
We're gonna need a bigger helicopter....

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 09:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How are the cartridges doing on Bernie's inkjets?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 04:28:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Low, but they have really great deals at Office Depot if you bring in the empty ones.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 08:08:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...although Office Depot may not be around much longer, so B-B-B-Benny and the Inkjets had better jump on it.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 08:26:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you're going to need to repackage your presentation because I haven't a clue what you're talking about. I'm not saying it's you, I have some game but no head for business other than how this-or-that concern works with a given customer base or fails.

As for Jerome, thanks for the ArthurMag link. I really didn't see why you brought it up either until I back-clicked twice and found HACK MONEY, HACK BANKING. I used to read cyberpunk, you see. I already see signs of people going in the direction of the single-proprietor based businesses. My sister's thinking of starting a knitwear-for-babies business on the side for instance. Another sister talks about opening a bridal shop (the markups are enormous and the market's captive).

We're all going to need to sharpen our creative and entrepreneurship skills, evidently.

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 04:51:23 PM EST
This Diary wasn't a sales pitch, but I could do one that is.

Dunno if you saw this

I'd be interested in your feedback.

It was the first YouTube clip of three that make up the second half of this lecture

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 05:08:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll tell you what I do know, and at work (a big bookstore) I'm held to be a superior salesman, but it doesn't matter, I've done the same at a home improvement store, a marketing firm, and several printing outfits. I'm good with customers.

You need to illustrate (power point slide shows really doesn't do this very well, I'm afraid). My first decent writing teacher used to say, "show, don't tell." So put names to people (could be imaginary people) and tell them a story (Maxwell & Dickman, The Elements of Persuasion - excellent book about story creation), show them by illustration how the capital partnership works and how your audience benefits. How the renter benefits, how the investors benefit, how the property owner benefits, etc. What does everyone get out of this?

Don't dwell on the mistakes of the current banking system, or why it's irrelevant. those are negatives. Always be positive, and you can because your system offers benefits, right? Insulation from global banking crises? Flexibility and freedom? A stable domestic economic situation? Strengthened communities? Better healthcare? She gets the house, I got the equity? Whatever. That's up to you.

You already know how to have fun with this. I saw. :)

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 07:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well that sailed over my head too...
If it is any comfort, it took me a good while and several readings over several months to get such understanding as I have of CC's ideas.  The problem is that, while the idea is simple, the implementations can be amazingly varied.  We are not used to such organizations so we have no "feel" for how they should function.  Plus, of course, the fact that the principles of such organizations are totally different from those we have come to expect in "the business world."

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 02:10:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I really have no head for organizational nuance.

The gist I get from all this is that you get a small community of interests together, each with a stake in the proposed enterprise, and it's self-financing (ie: participation in the enterprise earns the investor, developer, renter, etc an equity position). The profits from the enterprise are withdrawn in marketable commodities (which is how the community interfaces with the greater world) which are generated (or purchased?) by the enterprise. Modern barter?

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 11:02:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
papicek:
Modern barter?

I thought you said you didn't get it....? ;-)

Barter plus time to pay = Money

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 11:13:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AHA!


"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 11:15:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see it happening here, too.  Seems everyone is trying to figure out something they can sell at the farmers market.
by jjellin on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 10:37:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And it's a good thing. That same sister already has a barter agreement with her hairdresser to keep her books in exchange for services.

I went in the other direction. I rent, have no subscriptions, no phone (but obviously an internet connection), no car bill, loans, etc. I work 30 hours per week for abysmally low pay, but I survive with enough free time to pursue a serious blogging career. :)

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

by papicek (papi_cek_at_hotmail_dot_com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 11:14:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you seing a governmental backlash, as barter undermines the tax-base?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 11:19:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Straight barter undermines tax takes.

The WIR/Bartercard style complementary currencies consist of barter plus bilateral "Peer to Peer" credit, and what they are is actually an accounting system, plus a fiat currency "look alike" pricing reference.

ie as a WIR member you don't exchange goods and services FOR Swiss Francs, you exchange them BY REFERENCE TO Swiss Francs while creating and discharging credit obligations.

And you must account to the tax man from both sets of books.....

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 11:33:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My brother has a front end alignment and chassis business in Tucson.  He does quite a lot of his business through BX, a business exchange.  He will align and balance the tires for a used car dealer or a resturanter and accept payment in BX credits that he uses to pay for anything other BX participating companies offer.  This includes meals in resturants, used cars, hotel rooms, etc., etc.  BX participants do pay sales tax on their transactions, but at about one half of the nominal value of said goods or services.  How they worked that out I do not know, but he has been doing this for years.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 04:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder about this too--the tax obligations of bartering.  It does seem like a sensible direction to go in, but if the govt. is going to be there demanding cash, that will undermine the whole effort.   Unless, the government will be willing to take services in kind . . .

That is no so far-fectched.  There was a time when local towns (New England) would require, say, a certain amount of road maintenance work from male residents as a tax.  Of course, eventually, those with more cash than back muscles could pay their way out of it.  Which works, too.

by jjellin on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 12:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's the thing that usually causes the collapse of local barter based economy systems. A fraction of the People get involved because they can avoid tax, and sooner or later thegovernment turns up with a tax bill. The other problem is that people tend to be too choosy about what they want to do. local economies can only support so many potters and artists.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 12:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ceebs:
The other problem is that people tend to be too choosy about what they want to do. local economies can only support so many potters and artists.

Which is why we need Units of "Money's Worth" which people are prepared to accept...

I reckon that land rental value is one of them, and energy value another.

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 01:19:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know i'm a noob but is wealth and economy something that existed before man or is all of its rules made up by man and not some divine being inherent in the world?

I just hear talk about the economy in the same way scientists talk about how we're destroying the environment.

The economy isn't a natural entity but rather a system that only works when all parties agree to how it works.

Credit is made up, money is made up, it's all made up.

Then again, what do I know?

 

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the Black Flag, and begin to slit throats."- H.L. Mencken

by Jacks Smirking Revenge on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 03:36:10 AM EST
Welcome to Eurotrib JSR.

The questions you put - particularly the reference to the Divine - are material for a Diary that would undoubtedly give rise to the mother and father of all "pie-fights".

But as it's my Diary, you'll get my take.

Jacks Smirking Revenge:

is wealth and economy something that existed before man or is all of its rules made up by man and not some divine being inherent in the world?

All of the rules which govern our economic (and other) behaviour are agreements/protocols created by Man.

What motivates us to create them in the way we do is the key question: part of my motivation I share with Naoto Fukasawa

My motivation is to find the simple solution that everybody knows, but which doesn't yet exist

I am seeking answers to problems: a solution to the ultimate question, perhaps. I cannot bear to see things badly done - and that is one of the things which really pisses me off about the current system. It is complex, conflicted, and just plain ugly.

I have always strived to do the right thing, and to do no harm to anyone while doing it. Sadly, I've often failed, but I like to think I've learned from my mistakes along the way.

As for Divinity, I take a Non-Dualistic view. For me, there is one Reality, which many hold to be "God", and in which we are all part. And as the great physicist John Wheeler puts it

Reality is defined by the questions you put to it

Jacks Smirking Revenge:

The economy isn't a natural entity but rather a system that only works when all parties agree to how it works.

The Economy is simply a pattern created by Man upon Reality.

And the problem has been that the Economy has not worked for all of us because a minority have imposed one-way agreements (by state or judge made laws) on the rest of us by abuse of power relationships. So all parties have not been in agreement.

I believe that an economy and society will work if and when economic and social interaction takes place within "two way" consensual agreements, where, as you say, all parties agree.

Hence I have been banging my drum here on Eurotrib for the last couple of years in relation to (consensual) partnership-based legal and financial structures.

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 06:33:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All of the rules which govern our economic (and other) behaviour are agreements/protocols created by Man.

There are also the laws of physics to reckon with...

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 06:38:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
True, but when you use the word law you are implying certainty.....that way pie fights lie.... ;-)

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 06:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for a great laugh!!  

As to your question, I have no idea as to the divine origins of the economy, but I'm sure someone here will have the answer.

(still chuckling)

by jjellin on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 12:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That table shows (and it is only dollar denominated debt) the cosmic scale - 150 trillion dollars - in which interest-bearing credit (aka money) was created by banks and and re-based on non-Bank/Investor capital -  the "off-balance sheet items" to which the table refers.
Do you have a link to the source of that table?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 06:16:29 PM EST
Nope, but it looks as though it comes from FDIC.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 at 07:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But where did you get it from?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 02:40:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
D K Matai posted a large amount of material recently on FT Alphaville and the original source was his site

mi2g

This article dated 16th December 2008 on this quirky site (mi2g...spooky) was entitled "Why Cutting Rates to 0% may not work". It is based on and incorporates a letter from Professor Mason, one of Matai's community of members of the Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance


The Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance is a philanthropic expert initiative founded in 2001 by mi2g to understand and to address complex global challenges. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on opportunities and threats arising from climate chaos, radical poverty, organised crime, extremism, informatics, nanotechnology, robotics, genetics, artificial intelligence and financial systems

Professor Prof Joseph Mason, a distinguished ATCA Contributor; Senior Fellow at Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Moyse/Louisiana Bankers Association Chair of Banking at the Ourso School of Business, Louisiana State University; and Financial Industry Consultant at Empiris Economics for his timely submission in regard to The Great Unwind Socratic dialogue

...even spookier bearing in mind your own Socratic series....great minds think alike, evidently....

Maybe it's worth a Diary once you've assimilated it....?

ATCA seems a bit like ET but maybe could use a humour transplant.....

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 06:47:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, in what sense are these liabilities "money"?

Migeru:

the cosmic scale - 150 trillion dollars - in which interest-bearing credit (aka money) was created
Consider the FDIC's Risk Management Manual of Examination Policies
Additionally, swaps, futures, forwards, and option contracts are derivative instruments whose notional values are carried off-balance sheet, but whose fair values are recorded on the balance sheet.
There is a whole host of "off-balance-sheet" items and not all of them represent actual value.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 06:33:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
Also, in what sense are these liabilities "money"?

...and I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it, if anyone can.

I'm probably out by a factor of ten, but hey, a trillion here and a trillion there, and we're soon talking real money. ;-)

And the system is no less fucked.....

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 06:52:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ChrisCook:
I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it, if anyone can
And here I thought you were the expert...

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 07:03:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think I am, a bit, but I'm an idle expert of UnSocratic Brain ;-)

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 08:02:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ChrisCook:

I'm probably out by a factor of ten, but hey, a trillion here and a trillion there, and we're soon talking real money. ;-)

Well, there are degrees of fuckedness. A factor of 10 actually matters, because it's the difference between 2 times world GDP which is unpossible and 150% US GDP which while catastrophic might be manageable.
And the system is no less fucked.....
And there are flavours of fuckedness. The fact that there has been a credit binge in the real economy (households and firms) is somewhat independent of the off-balance-sheet black hole created by the finance firms among themselves. Even if there were not $150 trillion in off-balance sheet liabilities for the banking sector, there are few creditworthy households and firms left because everyone is maxed-out on their credit. That is one flavour of fuckedness that cannot be fixed except by waiting. The other flavour of fuckedness is the $150 trillion black hole. BruceMcF has suggested a way of severing the link between the money-center, deposit, payment-clearing part of banking and the rest. That is a flavour of fuckedness that can be fixed.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 07:19:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't forget the table ignores CDO's etc. When a CDS is used "legitimately" as a temporary guarantee of a real world obligation then it is usually ultimately (implicitly) backed by land rental value.

The question is how much of the $150 trillion is pure punting?

Also we're only looking at dollars. Lots of other bubbles out there denominated in other currencies..

Another way of getting to the scale of the excess bubble money is to look at the value of the asset bubble. ie the area over time between the actual property price curve and a lower property price curve based on sane or at least, historic leverage levels.

Property prices should, all else being equal, keep track with wages, since that's what people pay mortgages and rents with.

As for fixing creditworthiness, that's why we should not be looking so much at taxing and redistributing earned income, but rather we should be looking at taxing and pre-distributing capital (and hence unearned income), though taxing the privileges of private property and limited liability that give rise to capital.

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

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 08:00:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ClubOrlov: Welcome to Fuffland!
...the Russians actually have a word for precisely the thing that has bewitched us, first accounting for an ever-increasing share of our gross domestic product, and is now responsible for our ever-larger financial black hole. That word is "фуфло" fufló when applied to a quantity of something, and "фуфел" fúfel when applied to a singular item. This word has the obscure English cognate "fuffle," which the Oxford English Dictionary dates to the early XVI century but fails to define adequately. I suspect that this word has been in circulation in many languages ever since some Protoindoeuropean simpleton showed up at some archaic fair and, being none too wise, bartered his meager trade goods in exchange for what thereafter became known as a fuffle....

A fuffle is an artful fake, an artifact specifically made to fool, beguile, seduce, or intimidate people into paying for it. Ideally, the initial transaction serves as the basis of a permanent arrangement, with the victim roped into an installment plan, which keeps the payments flowing even after the fuffle itself has crumbled into a pile of dust. An even better fuffle is one that grows over time. Since a fuffle is, in essence, a fake, its useful properties, should it have any, are largely irrelevant, and so its abstract (which is to say, financial) properties come forth as being the essential ones. The most important such property is, quite obviously, size, and indeed fuffles tend to get bigger and bigger over time....

Take, for example, suburban and exurban houses. For a time, people couldn't get enough of them, and at one point fully half of the US population was living in them. Their square footage had increased far past what even a large family might actually need, while at the same time their cost had exceeded what an average family could afford. In the final act of suburban expansion, these fuffled houses begat fuffled mortgages: fraudulent loans clearly not intended to be repayable over their entire term but quickly rolled over into some other fraudulent monstrosity. And fuffled mortgages begat fuffled equity-backed securities. And these begat fuffled government bailouts.

Another example is America's favorite fufflemobile: the SUV....

Or take the gigantic fuffle of guaranteed student loans, which enabled fuffle-like growth in college tuitions. Following a few years of flipping burgers or serving lattes the value of the diploma may be zero, and most of the knowledge it implied either forgotten or obsolete, but repayments continue, sometimes until the poor student's death....

My last example is private retirement based on IRA and 401k retirement funds. Unlike proper retirement systems, which transfer a percentage of earnings from working-age people directly to retirees, this fuffled scheme takes these earnings and invests them in some fuffles, expecting these fuffles to grow like they always do, making the retirees well off upon retirement....

by das monde on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 08:16:01 AM EST
I am so stealing that.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 at 08:23:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you liked that, check out his Feb 14 presentation on Closing the Collapse Gap to a group in San Francisco.  Link originally provided by De Anders, IIRCC.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 25th, 2009 at 01:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder how many times that has been linked to here...

"Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky
by poemless on Wed Mar 25th, 2009 at 02:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't know, but it is from 2006 and is provided as "an all time favorite" link on his home page.  It was new to me a few months ago, so not too many times, from my perspective.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 25th, 2009 at 02:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh no, it comes up at least once a month these days, though it used to be a more quarterly event.  We even invented some [Orlov's Collapse Gap TechnologyTM] tag.

"Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky
by poemless on Wed Mar 25th, 2009 at 02:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]


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