Damn you all for what this uniformity in our collective consciousness’s way of looking at existence downgrades my personal interaction with myself. This is what makes me feel cramped, forced and unpleasant. It is what creates a high tension and an forced temperament in me. But really, you have to forgive me for that, I’m just doing everything i can, trying to defend my inner voice from being completely deprived of its own living reality inside of me. I am just not you, and I never will be.
Etikett: demokrati
about the eternal child
Wthin our mind this child form is with us all the time. It is part of what we are. And he or she, is the one to bring us to the source of our being. To handle its messages. This is its true function after adolescence.
In this place we can also sense its absence in all directions, everywhere and in everywhen. We cannot disregard its mental form when we sense it without severe punishment from its objection to our ways, and a constant feeling of it being a disturbance to our normal patterns of behavior when we are not paying attention to its activity.
In its externalised form our senses constantly bring repulsive evidence of how the relation to it works in the world. Don´t take my word for it, words are always insufficient to experience. They can never describe the absolute immediacy of this relationship.
But true to this pre-formed beingness, I am deeply convinced that it is by a loss of this relationship we have come to shape the present day world around us.
about my relation to imagination
Isolation is the feeling I have when I am held captive by my own imagination, like something I have memorized, or theorized about. An idea or inspiration. Or when my imagination has taken others as hostage.
It is the literalization of the interior source of my being. Because there is no other. Only how I clothe them so that i can safely control my impulses through them. Or reject them for what i don’t like about the spontaneus acts of my own imagination.
It seems to me that this is how our rational denial of the relationship to our imagination transform others into depersonalized carriers of our own personal psychic environment. And I think this accounts to much of the bad things that we do to each other, and observe in the world surrounding us. We do this to legitimize that meeting we must have with our imagination so we can participate in its experience directly.
In this sense, this reality we live in, is really a world of collective imagination.
about the cyclical economy
If our banks create access to money in a way that drives investors and entrepreneurs, and if this money is simultaneously invested outside the real demand in a market economy, then an economy has been created which is due to an artificial demand and to artificial price increases as a result of where this money is first put into the economy.
We thus get economic cycles that do not always depend on, or reflect, where the market economy pricing and demand are of their own power.
Instead, it will reflect where the banks think they can best serve their interests.
When reality then catches up with these bloated economic conditions, we get a recession with less money in circulation, but with the debt remaining that is the cost of the money that was created and driven the artificial economic upturn in the economy.
In this way, companies and individuals pay jointly for the banks’ speculation.
Banks should work with asset management and lend money. But why do they get to create money in that process?
How do we choose our world?
Outside of time we just are. We are subjectively motivated, and we follow an internal logic with its own reference to norms and value systems.
We alone are the sole witnesses to our impressions. To our experiences. Our being here precedes time and also coexists as a source outside of it. We exist in that as that exist in us. It is my original beingness. And that is something that is more valuable to me than any of the collective ideals we prefer to babysit with our ego.
Right here we are also provided with the means to participate in something that is bigger than ourselves.
It is where we reconnect to nature. To the directness of our oldest eternal settings of the psyche.
It has always been there, and we often unknowingly choose to acknowledge it by assigning transcendental values to the generalisations of someone or something at the expense of its, or his or hers individuality.
And to our horror, looking at the world, the ones least respectful of being is also the ones we seem to choose as our leaders since the shape of this world is determined by who we follow and what their relationship to being is.
The world we live in
We all have a unique and individual expression of our being embedded in our dna. And some part of it is also inherited from a cultural conditioning behaving as a connection to a cultural past. When it unfolds in our spontaneous expression of being it will have its own pre-established way of presenting itself as imagination.
Its in our blood. And it is really not in the physical world. The struggle we have with this are within ourselves.
It also constitutes an individual form of danger when we by a collective, by corporations or governments, without a connection to our being allow ourselves to live out all kinds of interior worlds of imaginative self interest onto other people. We will then become a danger both to people, and to the world.
What we are doing to each other then, to this otherness, is trying to mirror and replace the within in other people, with that of our own, and then try to morally justify our actions by the submission of other people. As if a loud voice or forcefulness was an argument in itself.
And if they do not agree to this. We bring our war to them.
This will now become our world.
Inequality creates crime, not poverty
And if you look at it the other way around, this will show that where crime rate is high, there is a lot of inequality.
About good and evil
If we are lucky with our parents we get to grow up in the garden of eden. We will get close to earth.
But at some point we have to leave it. And we have to bring some of it with us because it is us.
Again, if we are lucky, we get initiated by our parents or some other elder when its time.
To be initiated will make us bring eden with us, that which have been given to us before we got dressed up in the generalisations of a collective personality and become that narrowness of a cultivated ideal.
Even without luck we have to find eden anew. It is not a question of good and evil.
It is both. A condition of life.
Everyday we can watch what happens when some part is preferred for the other. Our ego loose sight of right and wrong, and starts looking after itself in a forced, one sided and opinionated way. What once was eden has now turned against us.
Our moral sense is lost and we become num to the views of others and to life. We will try to force our one sidedness onto others, and pride ourself of becoming insensitive, primitive and ugly.
Without this moral conditioning from life itself, we will become a danger to life.
And believe me,
by being that person, we will also make ourselves a bloody bore.
Democracy and how to go about it.
Maybe it is our parliament, and our gouvernment itself who need some adjustment.
What we see right now is that one part is missing in that equation. When considering the present situation, it is obvious something in our gouverning is not there, the parliament do not really answer to no one. The people they are responsible for is not really there, so they don’t have any real counterpart.
Just think about that for a moment.
Because right now they just answer to themselves. And this is not good democracy.
Who is taking care of our wealth. Were is our leadership of wealth. Who is taking care of our water. Our nature. Who is looking after our common good. Obviously, wealth is very much dependent on how new money first should be spent into the economy. But there is no true counterpart in parliament for that.
Our leaders badly need this. They should have to answer before the leader of wealth to be able to make good decisions for the people.
Right now, our parliament here in Sweden, as in many other countries, are divided among themselves, and arguing full time about who should be its leader. How parliament should be led, and in what direction. And with our media fully occupied by reporting on this disagreement, good decisions going out the window.
And this is currently built into the system by the absence of a real working counterpart.
For that to change, we need them to answer to someone on the basis of a working democracy, and that should be accomplished through a leadership of wealth.
With such a counterpart, our parliament then have to change its priorities to be only of concern to the wealth and wellbeing of its people.
We should even consider having a pre election on candidates where only women can vote. And after that we can all vote on the outcome of their election.
Our ambassador on Island suffered heavy criticism for it, but he is not too far from the truth, intuitively thinking democracy is being ”dismantled” by its current constitution in Sweden.
By thinking about it anew, we may actually adjust our parliament closer to its original vision, and maybe, we can then make our parlament the true working heart of democracy we want it to be.
About leadership today
Being directed by, and unaware of the patterns of behaviour that flow from the organizing structure of a certain collective itself, rather than the individuality of its members,
is getting us very close to how people have come to appreciate the political, financial and corporate leadership of today.
About internet access
What Högsta Marknadsdomtolens(Highest Market Court) ruling achieved in Sweden is that companies and organizations now can shut down individual domains that do not suit their interests through the threat of legal proceedings.
Should businesses and organizations get control of which pages we can access on the internet by shutting down domains in conflict with their view on the material on a site?
By dissallowing a certain media headline you don´t actually force the opinions or material behind it to go away.
Do our government really have to borrow money to spend?
Banks buy government securities by offering the reserves they already hold on accounts at the ”Riksgälden”. ”Riksgälden” then debit the banks deposits with government securities.
A sale of government bonds is something quite different from ”government loans”.
What we call ”borrowing” is more akin to a transfer of deposits from a transaction account to a savings account were banks get a better interest on their reserves.
When the arrangement expires the deposits is then brought back along with the interest rate or they are put up for a new period of time.
This is rightly considered as a good safety for the banks, because the state’s main asset is to create and give out new money when spending.
A government who owns its own currency cannot ”run out of money”. Which is more than evident if you are a member of the eurozone. Ask Greece, Finland , Portugal, Spain , Ireland what they have to give up not to run out.
Government securities are therefore nothing more than an interest-bearing savings account. They can always print new money. Or start issuing digital money.
Members of the eurozone like Finland, Greece, Portugal and Spain are being forced to give up valuable resources to not run out. Which is likely to put them into even more dependency to the currency issuer. Since these countrys are loosing their ability to be self sufficient and self-supporting, and to make decisions on their own resources.
They are tranfered to someone else to take advantage of.
To become public property
It can differ quite a lot between one person and another intellectually, in terms of knowledge and skills, and to be able to draw conclusions from rational arguments rather than rhetorical.
But in terms of our character, the differences are much smaller.
It is with our character we share our public opinion with others. It is were it gets its outlet.
All our differences are smoothed out.
We act anonymously on public opinion with rhetorical conclusions in the protection of the majority to justify our views and our actions.
We will then become public property.
Its not about the media, its about you and me.
The feeling tone news media deliver to us is designed to function as a short circuit, to prevent us from making thought through rational considerations when it comes to our own situation. That’s why they always seems to aim to destroy our rational defences, so that we come to conclusions immediately, without reflection and in emotional distress by rhetorics instead of solid well made arguments.
Media always try to stimulate our feelings on an unconscious level,
to make people respond with automatic behaviours, and collectively instead of individually.
That is why they are so effective when we are made uncertain, in crisis, follow opinion polls, an ideology, an -ism, trends or is in shock.
We agree on things, think or act in a way we would not accept if we were given time to consider it properly.
The fact that we have a tendency to stand by the opinion in order to belong and to get recognition from our surroundings, to be consistent although the reasons for our opinions may be questionable.
That fear is something that is expected.
Unconsciously we then inflict terrible hardship on each other rather than change the beliefs we have that are created for us, to those that is created by us.
Whats all this talk about a budget?
A balanced budget means no new injection of money into the economy.
The financial year looks the same at the end as it looked at the beginning.
No change has occurred.
There is only one reason to have such a limitation of wealth, that is if inflation threatens the economy as our gouvernment has charged too little tax out of it.
A budget surplus means that the government has managed to spend less money in to the private sector than they have taken out in tax.
This means that the private sector now has a deficit of money in it.
The financial year ends with the fact that there is less money in the private sector than there was in the start of the year.
This means that households and firms has to borrow or use their savings to maintain their consumption of goods and services in order to maintain the existing level of revenues and living standards.
This is also occurs when our banks are aloud to control the money supply.
If the surpluses are retained for a long time the whole of the private sector has to reduce their expectations and their economic activity, and we get a recession with unemployment as a consequence, or it has to try to compensate by putting itself into (more) debt. Which was the case leading up to the bank crisis in 2008.
A follow up to this happens when loans cannot be repaid, which later turned out to accelerate and spread the banking crisis.
With a budget deficit the state has charged less tax out of the economy than it has spent into what we use in the economy. There is a general financial prosperity and employment increase because the supply of money increases to come in line with the existing resources.
The macroeconomic terminology thus have an opposite impact on the real economy than household thinking because households and firms use the money. Gouvernments have the constitutional right to create and spend them for us to be able use them in the economy.
A budget then has nothing to do with ideology, an -ism or any doctrin. But it has all to do with who controls the money supply.
movements is a public opinion
We have the perception that it is the corporate economy itself that is the “broker” of the money that’s available to be used in the world. And it is projected and reinforced by the global stock and financial markets which in themselves seems to believe that they are the exclusive decision-makers about who gets to spend money, and for what purpose, even up to the point of establishing and reinforcing the belief that sovereign governments themselves must borrow their money from the corporate economy’s ”financial industry”.
We seem to have forgot the simple fact that a sovereign government like the one here in Sweden, is the monopoly issuer of the currency, and it is by mishandling this, our sovereign rights to our currency that creates the difficult conditions for our domestic companies, our common domestic economy, and for the people in the thinly populated areas of our country.
Riots have a reason
In most budgetary discussions, it is erroneously assumed that our national government has a financial constraint and has to budget like a household.
The analogy neo-liberals draw between household budgets and government budgets is false. Households use the currency and must finance their spending.
However, government issues the currency and must first spend (i.e. credit private bank accounts) before it can tax (i.e. debit bank accounts).
The claim that governments must tax or borrow to ”finance” its spending is false.
We are being led by imbeciles – by Bill Mitchell
”I was reading John Maynard Keynes recently – circa 1928 – that is, 8 years before the publication of the General Theory with his Treatise on Money intervening. He was railing against the principles and practice of ”sound finance”, which he noted had deliberately caused billions of pounds in lost income for the British economy. He urged the Treasury and the Bank of England to abandon their conservative (austerity) approach to the economy and, instead, embark on wide-scale fiscal stimulus to create jobs and prosperity. He concluded that with thousands of workers idling away in mass unemployment that it was “utterly imbecile to say that we cannot afford” to stimulate employment via large-scale public works – building infrastructure etc. He considered the policy makers who opposed such options were caught up in “the delirium of mental confusion”.
The stark reality is that 88 years later, he could have written exactly the same article and would have been ‘right on the money’. We are being led (euphemism) by imbeciles.”
Full article at Bill Mitchells – billy blog here »
Vem ska få äga vår karaktär?
vi påverkas på ett sätt av våra medier som gör att vår karaktär blir allmän egendom.
Det kan skilja ganska mycket mellan en person och en annan intellektuellt, kunskapsmässigt och förmåga till att kunna dra slutsatser ur rationella argument istället för retoriska.
Men när det gäller vår karaktär är skillnaderna mycket mindre.
Det är med vår karaktär vi delar den allmänna opinionen med andra.
Hög blir låg och olikheter jämnas ut. Det är här den allmänna opinionen får sitt utlopp.
Vi drar i den allmänna opinionen retoriska slutsatser och agerar anonymt i skydd av flertalet för att rättfärdiga våra åsikter och våra handlingar.
Vår karaktär kommer på detta sätt att bli allmän egendom.
Medieanalys
Jag får alltid intrycket av att media idag hamnat i en allt tydligare samexistens med partipolitiken och ekonomin hos våra största exportföretag.
Detta intryck förstärks ytterligare när nyhetskällan allt oftare består av enkla opinionsundersökningar där man driver populära åsikter i än den ena, än den andra politiska riktningen då opinionen också styr mediernas ekonomi.
Den statliga ekonomin kommer på det här sättet att beskrivas uteslutande ur våra globala exportföretags perspektiv utan förankring i makroekonomin som i sin tur styrs på ett fundamentalt sätt av hur vårt monetära system är beskaffat. Dessa företag har till skillnad mot staten inte någon rätt att ge ut några nya pengar och inte heller någon konstitutionell rättighet att styra över penningmängden.
Det går därför inte alls att ur nyhetskällornas uppblåsta kallprat och opinionsundersökningar dra några allmängiltiga slutsatser om de processer som styr den gemensamma ekonomin för de människor i vilkas intresse vår media tror sig föra sin talan.
Flertalet kommer på det här sättet att förlita sig på att en viss åsikt är den rätta åsikten. Och dom kommer att äga åsikter som då av nödvändighet följer ur ett visst allmänt accepterat åsiktssammanhang, utan att veta varifrån den ursprungligen kommer, eller på vilka antaganden den egentligen grundar sig.
Inte heller hur de i verkligheten relaterar till nationalekonomin.
Nyhetsförmedlingen befinner sig i en upprepning som inte längre ger en saklig återgivning till folk i allmänhet. Den kommer istället att spegla det politiska spelet, och våra globala exportföretags ekonomiska intressen i en symbios med gemensamma föreställningar om den verklighet man tror sig kunna beskriva inifrån denna.
Undantagen är få, och den uppenbara följden av det här är att man på detta sätt bara försöker stimulera våra känslor på en omedveten nivå så att vi ska reagera på ett av andra överlagt och förutbestämt sätt.
Våra medier och våra beslutsfattare hamnar på det här sättet bara i en sluten inbördes nytta av upprepat gemensamt innehåll.
Om att tvinga fram politiska förändringar
Ett scenario för att med finansiella medel ta kontrollen över demokratier.
Det här är också ganska precis tillvägagångssättet för hur skuldsättningen går till i eurozonen och orsaken till hur skuldsättningen i utvecklingsländerna har gått till historiskt.
Genom att låna i en annan valuta, eller att ersätta den egna valutan helt med någon annans(eller med digitala pengar från våra banker), tvingas länder att sälja ut och skuldsätta sig för att nya pengar ska tillföras ekonomierna av auktoriteten bakom valutan. Annars kommer inga nya pengar att utfärdas och nationen går omkull.
På det här sättet tvingas sedan länderna att undan för undan öka sitt beroende och skapa ytterligare förutsättningar för att kunna skuldsätta sig mer och mer.
Det är alltså en mall för att på ett ekonomiskt sätt kunna ta över en nation från dess befolkning.
Genom att tvinga dem att sälja ut sina tillgångar, dess råvaror och dess gemensamma statliga resurser och företag så tvingar man på detta sätt fram utförsäljningar och privatiseringar, för att ersätta den inhemska produktionen eller dom inhemska lokala företagen med globala företag, och på detta sätt ökar man också samtidigt behovet av att i fortsättningen kunna låna upp nya pengar att sätta in i ekonomin för att den ska tillföras nya betalningsmedel. Dom stora exportföretagen och deras ägare har en betydande roll i det här eftersom det är dom som uteslutande gynnas av detta förfarande.
Man tar helt enkelt kontrollen över en demokrati från dess folkvalda och från dess befolkning för att tvinga fram politiska förändringar som inte är i deras eget intresse och som dom kanske heller inte vill gå med på. Annars utfärdas inga nya pengar.
Vi ser samma scenario hända i Europa med Finland, Portugal, Grekland, Spanien, och Irland, som med länder tidigare i Afrika och Latinamerika.
Om en nation fortfarande äger och ger ut sin egen valuta är det här scenariot frivilligt och mycket självdestruktivt.
Whose economy are we talking about
We have given the banks the rights to shape our minds on the economy.
Despite the fact that we know that the people who run the banks are primarily concerned with increasing the profitability of the banks.
By unwittingly not knowing what we are doing, we then take key decisions on their behalf. We base our opinions, and how to wiew the economy on how the banks make up their wiews. We simply accept their truth. And we accept self injuries, privatising common assets and austerity plans by their advisory.
This is dangerous.
We are giving away our resources and our ability to decide and control our own policy. By doing this we are just supporting the conditions to further push up debt, house prices, inflate speculative financial bubbles, and starve small businesses of investment.
When our government talks about the economy, about their financial policies and funding, it is all to obvious that the decisions they are making about our economy are shaped by the interests of our banks.
They are not shaped by the interest of our common good.
How to Capture the minds of a Continent
Europe has become a ruled by neo-liberal economists and ideas who play with models that have no relation to the real world and when they are applied to the real world, they fail badly.
It is no less than a nightmare.
Austerity politics in Europe is not simply a short-term conflict between the surplus countries like Germany in the center and the deficit countries like Greece, Finland, Portugal, Spain and Ireland on the periphery.
Deficit countries is a balance effect in the eurozone, and at least one country must incur deficits for every other nation that runs a surplus. It is an unknown fact for these contries that this is simply a logical consequence of a macroeconomic balance sheet with sectoral balances, which applies to all nations, monetary sovereign or not.
But here it i used to inflict terrible hardship on people, and it is done in sovereign countries too.
For sovereign nations like Sweden this is an almost incomprehensible self inflicted injury.
Austerity is not how to bring new money into the economy, its about scarsity and more of a long-term political agenda that privileges lenders over debtors and capital over labor.
What this is doing is to create great difficulties for the local domestic markets, our domestic companies and our small cities in rural areas. All which are being replaced by global supply chains. And global corporations. Promoting export is being thought of as the “brokers” of all the money that’s available to us.
Its all about governments looking after themselves and allowing their citizens to go down the drain. Domestic companies will not invest when the domestic sales environments are weak, and investments are weak because companies do not see any substantial changes in monetary policy.
Right now, money in the current system is debt, and the only way that we can bring new money into the economy and to provide companies with cash is to borrow it from our banks.
We do not need austerity to create savings which we then can use to make investments to create wealth and restore our welfare.
This is household thinking. Households do not create any new money. Therefore we cannot actually save or make cutbacks if we also want to invest.
The money must first be spent into the economy before they can be saved!
And contrary to common belief, corporate economy itself is NOT the “broker” of the money that’s available to be used in the world.
The only way for our governments to deal with this in our current financial system, is either to create the conditions for everyone to be able to take on more debt, or to reclaim its constitutional control over the money supply including digital money or deposits.
The importance of the latter is that all new money is first spent for the interests of society as a whole, and first used for our common purposes.
This is why austerity is such a nightmare. Its an ideological choice, not an inevitability.
Neo-liberal myths constrain our understanding of poverty
Budget-makers need not cower before the bond-market vigilantes. In fact, they need not bother with bond markets at all.
1. A sovereign government is never revenue constrained because it is the monopoly issuer of the currency.
2. Tax revenue is not used to fund government spending. Governments tax for a number of reasons, which include creating a demand for its currency buy forcing the non-government sector to offer goods and services for sale in order to get access to that currency so that it can relinquish its tax obligations.
3. A sovereign government can always meet any of its liabilities which are denominated in its own currency.
4. A sovereign government does not have to issue debt in order to spend. In fact, governments just borrow back prior deficit spending. A government can always deficit spend without matching that net spending with debt-issi
5. A sovereign government is clearly able to spend freely to restore employment. It can always purchase any idle resources that are for sale in the currency that the government issues.
6. The government via its central bank sets the interest rate and can control interest rates along any segment of the maturity curve should it desire to do so. Bond markets do not have power over a sovereign government.
7. A corollary is that foreigners can never fund government spending. China investors do not issue the Swedish krona!
Read full article at Bill Mitchells Blog »
People have no idea about how money is created
survey results from a master’s thesis.
A survey has been carried out as part of a master’s thesis at the University of Zurich about the level of knowledge in the general population about the financial system. The results are astonishing.
Read more at Positive Money »
The Worst Tours
A nation and its cities destroyed by austerity. There is no exaggeration here.
I invite people to see for themselves. An extraordinary outcome of an out of control recession cult ideology reinforced by neo-liberal Groupthink ruining the prosperity of a people.
I had quite a day yesterday as I went on a field trip around Porto organised by the – The Worst Tours ».
Read the whole article here »
ECB and fiscal policy
why deliberately crashing the Greek financial system if not to command policy?
If nations in the eurozone want to maintain the independence of their democratic governments and the accountability of their governments to the people, the first thing they must do is to make their central banks and their banking system responsible to the elected parliaments of their countries.
The EU, ECB and IMF has openly showed itself as a set of institutions bullying the nations of the Eurozone for the political purpose of enforcing neoliberal austerity more than as being an institution acting to maintain financial and banking system stability in Europe.
By cutting off liquidity from the Greek banks and to deliberately crash the Greek financial system to command policy in Greece was a violation of sovereign democracies, and by the ECB to do its utmost to maintain the stability of the financial and banking system in the eurozone.
Is this not just another way to try to bypass the individual EU or eurozone member nations, and the voters’ desire for an economic policy that benefits society, to replace it with one better suited for the banks, the ECB and the financial sector?
Right now, they are causing exactly the kind of mistrust and suffering that lead to the horrors of world war two.
Om den monetära unionen
och den logiska konsekvensen av den makroekonomiska balansräkningen
Det är intressant att man i den monetära unionen har ett krav på att underskotten inte får överstiga 3% per år.
Inom unionen betyder det här att dom stora exportländerna med stora exportöverskott kan tillåta sig att ha budgetöverskott år efter år, precis som alla nationer inom unionen kan, om enskilda medlemsländer säljer mer varor till andra medlemsländer än vad de köper av dom.
Det här innebär samtidigt att minst ett land måste dra på sig underskott för varje annan nation som driver ett överskott.
Det är helt enkelt en logisk konsekvens av den makroekonomiska balansräkningen med sektorbalanser vilken är tillämplig på alla nationer och alla tidsperioder.
Starka producentländer kommer att driva överskott gentemot andra länder som har svårare att exportera sina varor och tjänster. Samtidigt ska dessa medlemsländer följa det strikta 3% kravet.
Hur går det här ihop?
Det gör det inte.
Men kanske går det om man kan införa en slags turordningslista där länderna emellan får turas om att driva överskott och underskott, samtidigt som man då inte heller påtvingar länderna en ekonomisk politik med åtstramningar under dom åren som man tvingas till underskott.
Länderna som driver överskotten är ju dessutom också så moraliskt övertygade om den hushållsekonomiska tanken att dom inte kan föreställa sig att det är möjligt för någon nation att nå full sysselsättning med ett underskott, samtidigt som man också har ett BNP som ökar. Ett tillkortakommande som är mycket försvårande.
Så vad gör ECB och dom starka exportländerna i den monetära unionen då?
Jo, dom driver hårda sparprogram och utförsäljningar mot medborgare i medlemsländerna med underskott, samtidigt som bankerna får stora lättnader som tillser att dom hamnar i balans igen, trots att dom hamnat där dom är på grund av osäkra finansiella produkter där dom tjänar pengar på förhållandet med överskottsländer och underskottsländer.
Om den offentliga sektorns spenderande
När staten och den offentliga sektorn spenderar hamnar pengarna som tillgångar på privata konton hos företagen och hushållen i den privata sektorn bland annat i form av lön, köp av material och tjänster istället för att de till större del hamnar i finanssektorn och på våra finansmarknader.
Vår regering, istället för våra finansmarknader kan alltså bestämma hur våra pengar först ska användas. Det är en konstitutionell rättighet.
Trots detta så får våra banker ge ut 96% av alla pengar.
Det här är en stor anledning till att finanssektorn växer 3 gånger snabbare än ekonomin i övrigt.
The design of a budget
MMT Fiscal Principles
”In most budgetary discussions, it is erroneously assumed that the national government has a financial constraint and has to budget like a household.
The analogy neo-liberals draw between household budgets and government budgets is false. Households use the currency and must finance their spending.
However, government issues the currency and must first spend (i.e. credit private bank accounts) before it can tax (i.e. debit bank accounts). The claim that governments must tax or borrow to ‘finance’ its spending is false under a fiat-currency system.”
Sovereignty-thieves and Democracy-killers
The “theft of democracy” contradicts the basic commitment of the EU to advance democracy.
The Eurozone is an instrument of the globalization process that is setting financial elites over all nations of the world, including the democracies. The situation in Greece exposes the true nature of the Eurozone institutions as a naked fact, beyond spinning, for all to see. They are popular sovereignty-thieves and democracy-killers, with the power necessary to shut democratic governments down.
Functional finance
”The central idea is that government fiscal policy, its spending and taxing, its borrowing and repayment of loans, its issue of new money and its withdrawal of money, shall all be undertaken with an eye only to the results of these actions on the economy and not to any established traditional doctrine about what is sound and what is unsound …
The principle of judging fiscal measures by the way they work or function in the economy we may call functional finance.The first responsibility of the government (since nobody else can undertake the responsibility) is to keep the total rate of spending in the country on goods and services neither greater nor less than that rate which at the current prices would buy all the goods that it is possible to produce.
If total spending is allowed to go above this there will be inflation, and if it is allowed to go below this there will be unemployment.
The government can increase total spending by spending more itself or by reducing taxes so that taxpayers have more money left to spend. It can reduce total spending by spending less itself or by raising taxes so that taxpayers have less money left to spend.
By these means total spending can be kept at the required level, where it will be enough to buy the goods that can be produced by all who want to work, and yet not enough to bring inflation by demanding (at current prices) more than can be produced.”
Read more Bill Mitchells blog »
Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete
The incomes and taxes paid by the rich are largely irrelevant to the capacity of a national, currency-issuing government to provide first-class public services and infrastructure.
Read full article at Bill Mitchells blog »
97% Owned
is it the privatised, debt-based monetary system that gives the banks the power to create money which causes the problems?
”When money drives almost all activity on the planet, it’s essential that we understand it. Yet simple questions often get overlooked – questions like: where does money come from? Who creates it? Who decides how it gets used? And what does that mean for the millions of ordinary people who suffer when money and finance breaks down?”
Reversed thinking
In 2013 the state created money in Sweden was 85 billion crowns. This is what our politicians call our ”deficit”. This money will become an asset to the households and firms in the private sector to buy things when they are spent into the economy by the state.
In the same year bank created money amounted to 1700 billion plus 10 billion in reserves. This money is created by debt.
What if we had full reserve banking as an alternative to fractional reserve banking, in which banks instead were required to keep the full amount of each depositor’s funds in cash, ready for immediate withdrawal on demand. And by then function as the asset managers they are meant to be in the first place.
Think of what we could do with 1710 billion crowns for the benefit and progress of society.
This thought is very appealing. Unfortunally only Island seem to have the political courage to consider it as a practical reality.
Its not just about the Greek crisis?
L. Randall Wray in his 1998 book, Understanding Modern Money
Under the EMU, monetary policy is supposed to be divorced from fiscal policy, with a great degree of monetary policy independence in order to focus on the primary objective of price stability.
Fiscal policy, in turn will be tightly constrained by criteria which dictate maximum deficit-to-GDP and debt-to-deficit ratios. Most importantly, as Goodhart recognizes, this will be the world’s first modern experiment on a wide scale that would attempt to break the link between a government and its currency.
It will be as if each EMU member country were to attempt to operate fiscal policy in a foreign currency; deficit spending will require borrowing in that foreign currency according to the dictates of private markets.
Det är egentligen ingen skillnad mellan ett EMU medlemskap och att överlåta vår konstitutionella rätt att skapa pengar till våra banker. Vi överger ju i vilket fall som helst riksdagens och regeringens rätt att verkligen kunna styra finanspolitiken.
Minusränta varför då?
det finns väl ett mer logiskt sätt att öka tillväxten på.
Med minusränta är det meningen att Riksbanken vill få in mer pengar i ekonomin.
Vår gemensamma ekonomi har alltså för lite pengar och på detta sätt vill alltså Riksbanken att bankerna skall sluta spara pengar hos dem och se till att pengarna spenderas istället.
Detta skall i sin tur sedan bidra till att öka tillväxten.
Samtidigt oroas man både i Sverige och i övriga EU över att den privata skuldsättningen är för hög. Denna i sin tur drivs på av att våra banker får skapa och kontrollera nästan hela penningmängden och hur de nya pengarna först ska användas.
Att hushållen fortsätter att skuldsätta sig mer kan bland annat förklaras med en avreglerad finansmarknad och helt andra skatte- och subventionssystem än tidigare. Detta i sin tur innebär att hushållen numera klarar av en högre skuldkvot än tidigare för att kunna upprätthålla en levnadsstandard som de annars inte skulle kunnat ha i den nuvarande ekonomin.
Men viktigast är att vår riksdag och regering överlåtit statens konstitutionella rätt att skapa nya pengar till våra banker.
Varför köper inte Riksbanken statspapper och ökar penningmängden för hushållen och den privata sektorn genom att staten spenderar in dem på outnyttjade resurser?
Genom att nya pengar skapas och spenderas på befintliga resurser, (t.ex personalbrist på våra sjukhus, äldrevården och våra skolor, underhåll av infrastruktur, försvaret mm, mm.), så finns det inte någon risk för inflation. Om risken för inflation trots allt skulle uppstå är det ju bara att sälja tillgångar(t.ex statspapper) mot valuta och pengarna försvinner ur Riksbankens balansräkning. De upphör att existera.
Inflation uppstår vanligtvis när penningmängden ökar snabbare än utbudet av varor och tjänster (t.ex bostadspriserna på grund av våra banker.), eller av att varor och tjänster minskar snabbare än penningmängden (t.ex sjuksköterskor eller lärare på grund av åtstramningar.).
Det märkliga är att det med Riksbankens åtgärd alltså är meningen att vi skall skuldsätta oss mer, sälja ut mer, och acceptera åtstramningar för att våra banker ska kunna låna ut mer, istället för att dom nya pengarna spenderas in i ekonomin för våra gemensamma ändamål.
Offentligt spenderande av nya pengar skulle öka tillväxten direkt och penningmängden skulle ökas utan skuld samtidigt som skulderna betalades av.
Detta skulle också undan för undan minska på den allmänna skuldsättningen.
Om åtstramningar i den privata sektorn
Att göra åtstramningar i den privata sektorn när den finansiella sektorn är för stor och växer 3 gånger snabbare än ekonomin i övrigt, motverkar bara sitt syfte och är helt enkelt idiotiskt både ekonomiskt och politiskt.
Det måste vara alldeles uppenbart att åtgärderna sätts in i helt fel sektor.
Coup d’etat
History has shown us two ways to accomplish this.
The most brutal way is submission by military force. It is by far the most horrible because of the suffering it induces on the people besides trying to short-circuit democracy ruling.
The other way is more subtle. Just like the monetary system and the euro is used by the central bank in Europe; In this way one takes over the currency and money supply of a country to make it completely dependent on the authority issuing the money, and then forcing it into submission by demanding them to sell out important domestic economic resources or privatize them by holding back money until resources are sold and political changes are done.
The country under austerity pressure is then taken over.
Ett märkligt påstående
hur kan våra politiker fatta beslut som litar på makroekonomiska modeller som utesluter banker och skulder.
I dom nyliberala makroekonomiska modellerna är den höga skuldsättningen inte intressant att titta på, ”eftersom det bakom varje skuld finns en långivare, så dom tar därför ut varandra”. Bankernas och finanssektorns inflytande på realekonomin är därför inte intressant ur ett nationalekonomiskt perspektiv.
På detta sätt föreställer man sig att finanssektorn inte påverkar ekonomin i den privata sektorn. Alltså hushållen och företagen.
Bankerna står för 96% av penningmängden och bestämmer också var dessa nya pengar först ska användas. Det är pengar som skapas genom skuld. Det är samma pengar som blåser upp finanssektorn.
Hur kan de ta ut varandra om bostadskostnaderna blir så höga att de påverkar köpkraften så mycket att den minskar?
Eller om små och medelstora företag tvingas skära ned eftersom den minskade köpkraften minskar på den efterfrågan dom är beroende av.
Hur kan de ta ut varandra då?
Det är inte svårt att se hur dynamiken i en alltför stor finansiell sektor påverkar ekonomin som helhet eftersom den tillåts att skapa pengar till sig själv genom våra banker.
Deras uppgift är att tjäna sina egna intressen. Inte hur vi vill skapa vårt välstånd eller utforma vår välfärd.
Greece has only one viable path – exit
leaving the union would not be catastrophic and politicians just reinforces the public fear of exit.
”Either the Greek government has to abandon its electoral mandate and capitulate and become just another ‘left-wing’ government overseeing the punishing austerity inflicted by the neo-liberal ideologues or it has to show leadership and take the nation out of the dysfunctional Eurozone and pursue its own path to more prosperous, if uncertain, times. Part of that leadership has to be to educate the public as to what the options are in a balanced rather than hysterical way. I have heard Syriza politicians claim that leaving the union would be catastrophic, which is not only false but just reinforces the public fear of exit.”
Read More at Bill Mitchells blog »
The “Grexit” might be just around the corner
Greece In a Sovereign Money system?
Ultimately, Greece could have a much brighter future ahead, with money creation under democratic control.
In a Sovereign Money system, the power to create money would be removed from the banking sector and transferred to a public body, such as the Bank of Greece. The Bank of Greece would be solely responsible for creating new money, which would then be transferred to the government, who could use it for public spending, tax cuts, or direct transfers to citizens. Current account customers would hold the electronic money issued by the Bank of Greece, rather than holding the liabilities of the private banks.
Read more here »
OECD och inkomstskillnader
Enligt OECD´s senaste rapport kommer den privata sektorns skulder sannolikt att bromsa snarare än att öka tillväxten.
OECD´s forskning visar att ”Den finansiella expansionen driver på och ökar inkomstskillnaderna” och att regeringen måste reformera den finansiella sektorn för att kunna stabilisera tillväxten och minska ojämlikheten.
Det nuvarande sättet för regeringar, som genom att försöka skapa överskott ökar kraven på den privata sektorn att i sin tur öka sin skuldsättning, och som är tänkt att stimulera konsumtionsökningar, är dömt att misslyckas.
”Finance is a vital ingredient for economic growth, but there can also be too much of it. This study investigates what fifty years of data for OECD countries have to say about the role of the financial sector for economic growth and income inequality and draws policy implications. Over the past fifty years, credit by banks and other intermediaries to households and businesses has grown three times as fast as economic activity. In most OECD countries, further expansion is likely to slow rather than boost growth.”
Den allmänna opinionen
Där alla tänker lika, tänks det inte mycket av någon alls.
– Walter Lippman
IMF fiscal space game
It is amazing that any national government continues to fund the IMF. It should be disbanded.
– Bill Mitchell on IMF´s fiscal space game
Wikileaks (Trade in Services Agreement)
”TiSA Annex on Domestic Regulation
The goal of domestic regulation ‘disciplines’
The transnational corporate lobby wants TISA to remove domestic policies, laws and regulations that make it harder for them to sell their services in other countries (actually or virtually), dominate their local suppliers, maximise their profits and withdraw their investment, services and profits at will. To achieve this, governments cannot be allowed to regulate services as they see fit.”
Det transnationella företags lobbyn vill att TISA ska avlägsna det nationella politiska bestämmandet. De lagar och regleringar som gör det svårare för dem att sälja sina tjänster i andra länder och kunna styra lokala leverantörer för att kunna maximera sina vinster och dra tillbaka sina investeringar, tjänster och vinster efter behag. För att uppnå detta kan regeringar inte tillåtas att reglera så som de finner det lämpligt. ”
Modern money illustrated
The “Unsolvable” Riddle of our National Budget.
We do NOT want a “balanced” budget—or, even worse, a budget “surplus”! What we want (as long as price inflation is under control) is the largest and most effective “National Spending Achievement” we can envision.
The “achievements” we can realize are limited ONLY by the real, sustainable resources (labor, materials, energy, technology) which are actually available in exchange for the Sovereign Spending.
As long as price inflation is under control, whatever Dollars are necessary can be allocated to the “National Spending Achievement.”
Modern money illustrated Del 1
Modern money illustrated Del 2
”as a collective society, working and cooperating together, we have all the financial resources necessary to pay ourselves to accomplish virtually anything we are capable of. This, in the end, is the astonishing “truth” that will solve the “unsolvable” dilemma of our National Budget.”
Charges against Icelandic banks for money counterfeiting
”This kind of money creation is clearly in opposition to the sole right of the Central Bank of Iceland to issue bank notes and coins or any equivalent currency to be circulated as legal tender. Therefore it is inevitable to consider the electronic money creation of banks to effectively constitute money counterfeiting as defined by Article 150 of the General Penal Code No. 19/1940.”
I Sverige fick Riksbanken 1904 ensamrätt att ge ut sedlar (beslutet fattades 1897). Först i och med detta beslut kunde Riksbanken få en penningpolitisk betydelse i modern mening, eftersom monopol på sedelutgivningsrätten är en förutsättning för kontroll av de penningpolitiska medlen.
Varför får våra banker kontrollera 96% av dom då?
När avkastningen på kapital är större än ekonomins tillväxttakt
Inkomsten av kapital kan sträcka sig över flera livscykler och över flera generationer.
Thomas Pikketys data om inkomst- och förmögenhetsfördelningen ger för handen att avkastningen på kapital överstiger ekonomins tillväxttakt över tid.
Detta leder till en ökad ojämlikhet med så stora skillnader att det påverkar tillväxten negativt.
r (avkastningen på Kapital ) > g ( ekonomins tillväxttakt ).
Den intressanta frågan här är om en ökning av den totala mängden inkomst på arbete ökar ekonomins tillväxttakt mer, eftersom den påverkar den direkt i motsats till ökningen på avkastningen av kapital som har en tendens att påverka tillväxttakten marginellt eller t.o.m negativt om den ökar för mycket.
Svaret är att stora aggregerade inkomster av kapital har en negativ påverkan på tillväxttakten eftersom den spenderas över perioder som är större än enbart en livscykel, och det betyder att den inte verkar på tillväxttakten i samma utsträckning som inkomsten av arbete gör.
Här finns det också ett grundläggande samband med att våra affärsbanker tillåts kontrollera och skapa 96% av penningmängden och därigenom också bestämmer var pengar först ska sättas in i ekonomin.
Välfärden är en tillgång
den gynnar oss när vi spenderar på den.
Genom att staten spenderar in pengar för oss gemensamt kommer vi att gynnas genom att dom används på varor och tjänster inom välfärden.
Det är pengar som sedan kommer att sättas in på konton i den icke-statliga sektorn när vi betalar för dom. (Löner, material, mediciner mm.)
Vi kommer därför alltid att råd med välfärden så länge det handlar om att använda pengarna på verkliga och outnyttjade resurser, utan att detta skapar inflation.