Damn you for not being you

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.

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.

The maternal principle in all men

When one realises that our parents actually where the extensions of a certain kind of timeless ancestors appearing from a latent world of immaterial experiences, and that mother earth really was the true carrier of the greater maternal principle of life. What follows with that imaginative realization is the physical experience of just how vulnerable the act of her creation are. Suddenly there is this wonderful feminine impulse in which we come into sympathy and communion with earth and its ancient appeal to support everything that we attribute to her, to innocence, and to life in its infancy. Especially that which is not yet conscious of itself. Everything is now an embodied part of her creation. And of the cycles of life. Men, plants, animals and the hidden embryos of all organic life. We are also able to see childishness as an attribute of being unaware of what we are, of the nature of our inner being and of psychic life.
By mother earth we have suddenly obtained a first hand experience of what this mysterious wisdom is that is given to us by impulse, and in the shape of an immediate and compelling experience of what the maternal principle in all men are.
She is even giving birth to our own inner child and setting us up to care for it in everything we observe that is undifferentiated.

About leaders and followers

We know that there is something wrong with the world when we learn by a process of indoctrination, and not by having elders as teachers and leaders that are the best living examples of what the end result of our education and life experience should be. No human, in any human society, can really flower until they understand what individual components their human personality contains in a context to its society.
Right now it is more than evident that we try to accomplish this with a shattered experience of what we are, and without any unifying experience that can guide us in our psychic life.
We train professionals but not human beings. And we learn by indoctrination something that is quite different and apart from the reality of how we experience our life.
Ethics flow from the members of the ongoing life of a society, and as such is indistinguishable from its customs. It is from memorising this, we introject and copy our behaviour.

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.

About our cities and rural life

Every major city with its population is in itself a contradiction to life in balance with its immediate surroundings. No city can ever be made self-sustanable, and it can never provide for the needs of its population unless it is provided for by using up the existing resources obtained from somewhere else.
They are completely dependent on the subordinate behavior of other regions to provide them with what they need. This is also the dominating mindset that characterizes our decision makers.
The burden of urban survival is to be carried out by regions further and further away from the cities themselves to cope with the necessities of its ever growing populations.
Our cities have not only become a threat to their surrounding nature, and to the regions that provide them with existing resources. They have become a threat to Earth itself, and it is now our Earth who will suffer the consequenses.
The destruction and exploitation of our rural areas is the forgotten other end of every major city’s carrying capacity.

1:st of may

Today we pay respect to all those whose personal efforts buildt our society and cared for the wellbeing of all.
Too bad it is still taken as an ideological effort instead of a human one.

The effects of life

Every one of us are both descendants to our ancestors as we are ancestors to our descendants. What we do here and now will have an affect on them both, because we are them. We embody them.
If we don’t take care of the effects our collective life has on them now, this is what it’s going to be.
It does not go anywhere.
It is us. Our life.

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.

The father of our civilised world

Imaginary speaking, I find myself living in a society which is compelled to act this figure in the cloud out with the ruling it has over everybody´s apprehension. They don´t seem to know it, but they are supporting him by continuing his old formal character, making his outworn presence felt in everyday life in terms of rules and regulations, in dogmas, and in a distant dead behaviour coming out of it. They are upholding a system of absence in their lives by trying to fill themselves up with a sense of responsibility and duty towards social and religious convention. Which they also force onto others. They believe in some principles of normality. Not in the experience of transpersonal reality. And nobody seem to be questioning this cloud figure rulings there. They just see themselves as a single part of his organisational maintenance.
It is almost incomprehensible what this is doing to them, and to our environment.
His tyrannical madness is what makes them all crazy.


Globalisation is the word we use with corporations and banks to get to exploit every local resource available at no cost, to maximise the profit where it is not responsible to no one, anywhere.
It is the ultimate disconnection from earth.

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.

The economic drumbeat regularity

The critical—and crippling—misunderstanding about money is embodied in a narrative that is echoed daily, hourly, weekly, yearly with drumbeat regularity, in the national media and spin-chambers.
The narrative will sound very familiar—it goes like this:

The financial wealth of a nation is, at any given time, a finite resource privately and individually held by the citizens; any and all government spending must, therefore, be funded by the collection of taxes. An “out-of-control,” “big government” spends more money than the citizens are willing (or able) to pay in taxes—and this lack of “fiscal responsibility” requires the government to borrow money from the financial markets to make up the difference. This borrowing places the “out-of-control” government in direct competition for the money resources with the business-financial class of citizens. Since all citizens are ultimately dependent upon the business-financial class to create jobs and pay wages, this competition for money resources by “big government” diminishes the overall prosperity of the citizens—a diminishing that is compounded by the burden of tax payments, and further compounded by the government’s debt which represents future tax burdens.

But any economist who makes this claim, either explicit or implicit, that a nation which issues and manages a sovereign fiat currency must either borrow or collect taxes in order to have currency to spend, should have his or her diploma revoked.

And any political leader in a sovereign nation which issues and manages its own fiat currency who claims the national government doesn’t have the “money” to pay for goods or services which are, in fact, available within the national borders—and which would greatly benefit the citizens—should be tarred and feathered and drummed out of office as an ignorant charlatan.

Also, any banker or financial leader who suggests that a sovereign nation which issues and manages its own fiat currency is dependent upon the bond market to “finance” its sovereign spending should be investigated and prosecuted for the financial frauds they are more than likely in the act of perpetrating.

And any journalist who makes his or her living counseling the public about economic matters, who fails to take the time to understand and explain to his or her audience how sovereign fiat currencies actually function, should be summarily stripped of their journalistic credentials and pushed out the door of the newsroom.

In other words, sovereign spending of money happens first and taxes are collected afterwards and the reason the taxes are collected at all is not so the government can spend further, but to ensure that the citizens will continue to want to sell goods and services in exchange for the money the government issues.

Second, sovereign spending which pays the citizens to create real goods and services is not the same as “printing” money in the sense of the alarm-bell description proclaimed by the drumbeat. As long as unused labor and unused resources are actually available, issuing money to marshal that labor and those resources to achieve collective goods will not create inflation but, instead, will expand the overall economy.

Read all of it @: New Economic Perspectives

About the tranference of rights and responsibility with CETA

So we are now to allow big companies and global corporations to circumvent individual countries laws, rights and resourses by EU trade deals like CETA and with ISDS clauses.
Don´t we like to have the final saying on our waters, or how we should protect and use our rich natural resources. Who and how we should access them? What about our domestic agreements on labour? Protection against dangerous products? Usage of chemicals in consumer products? Ingredients in food? Medicine?
Should we really transfer these rights?

By using economic distrust as means to countries and their gouvernments, you make them agree to something that has nothing to do with trade deals.

What are they thinking of?

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.

Budget thinking patterns

The government’s challenge is not whether we can “afford” to spend as promised to voters, but if we will be sufficiently productive as a nation that we can allow our government to fulfill its election promises without them causing inflation.

The budget deficit is the same as the non-government surplus. Thus, it is the very source of the net financial assets of the non-governmental sector since it must first spend (i.e. credit private bank accounts) before it can tax (i.e. debit bank accounts).

For a country with relatively large and persistent trade surplus comes, that at the same time, this will leave the domestic private sector with large unsustainable deficits.

Its about sector balances, not what somebody’s opinion or thinking about the budget is.

How our thinking can make things go wrong

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 most of us 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.

And a growing economy cannot be an end in itself – it’s the means to improving people’s lives and take into account a responsible global citizenship while doing it.

Thinking is just one way for an individual to organize his or her impressions. For good and for worse, an economic theory, or an ideology, or -ism, does that for you. But this will not replace the nagging sense that something very important is missing in our current budget thinking.

Nonlinear outcome of elections huh?

Money drives almost all activity on the planet, yet simple questions get overlooked – questions like: where does money come from? Who creates them? Who decides how, and where they are first going to get used?

If you control the money supply you also control how the money first is going to be used.

Right now, almost all money in the current system is debt, and the only way that we can bring new money into the economy is to borrow it from our banks.
When we rely on banks to create most of our money, then the only way of getting more money into the economy – is for the private sector to go further into debt.

When we choose to live in an economy that privileges lenders over debtors and capital over labor, we also choose to live with the fact that our companies also focus more on profits made by capital assets managed by the banks over labor. We will get an economy were our companies focus more on expanding their activity on the financial markets, on their financial products and by then making cutbacks on workers in shrinking markets caused by this expansion, rather than hiring and developing new products and services.

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 the domestic companies, our common domestic economy, and for the people in the thinly populated areas of our country.

We are forgetting that our multi-national corporations has as their business model the transformation of small self-sufficient local economies into the unwitting and dependent consumers of global supply chains from which these corporations make their profits.

What this is doing is to create great difficulties for the local domestic markets, our domestic companies and our small cities in rural areas because money is “no longer being made there”.
All these small markets are being replaced by global supply chains. Promoting export is being thought of as the “broker” of all the money that’s available to us. Not our local companies and small markets in our thinly populates areas of our country where so many of us live.

There seems to be an economic taboo against creating money and actually spending it into the real economy. It’s OK to do things like pumping all new money into the financial markets, pushing up house prices in our main cities and “make” all new money there first. But it is a complete taboo to actually spend that money on something that benefits all of us, and our society as a whole. And by then the economy as a whole.

Small producers, small business owners and small farmers in small communities do not benefit at all in the current economy. They have no local market where money is being “made”.

And currently, most money seems to be used to harvest the public opinion instead of being used for any long term common good outside the most populated areas.

If one ever stops to wonder about the “strange” nonlinear outcome of elections, or a sudden rise of certain popular ideas, here is a good place to start looking.

Third President Thomas Jefferson

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

— author of the Declaration of Independence

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.

Protests have a cause


We are giving away our money sovereignty, our resources and our ability to decide and control our own policy.

We really dont have to create great difficulties for the local domestic markets, our domestic companies and our small cities in rural areas. We dont have to replace them by global supply chains.
The view of promoting export as the “brokers” of the money that’s available to us is just dead wrong.

And 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.

The importance of this is that all new money can really first be spent into our economy for the interests of society as a whole when they are created, and first be used for our common purposes.

We dont have to accept opinions about our monetary system that isn’t shaped by the interest of our common good.

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.


Ska rätten att fatta egna beslut lämnas över till världsbanken?


Genom att använda ekonomiskt misstroende som ett medel mot stater och deras regeringar kan man få dem att gå med på något som inte har med handelsavtal att göra. Som ett extremfall kan vi fråga oss om det är världsbankens uppgift att fälla avgöranden om t.ex. barnslaveri? Är det deras sak att fatta beslut om vår fjällmiljö?

Dokumentären finns på svtplay under Frihandelns pris »

Den finns också på YouTube TTIP: Might is Right »

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 »

Vad är verklig förändring?

på vilket sätt förändrar vi något egentligen?

Det är inte genom att förhandla bort våra nationella och lokala rättigheter, eller rätten till våra egna resurser med mycket långtgående handelsavtal som vi skapar någon verklig förändring.
Vi gör det inte heller med en neo-liberal ekonomisk teoris självskadebeteende. Åtstramningar och utförsäljningar gynnar inte vår gemensamma ekonomi.
Inte heller gynnar det våra inhemska företag på något sätt.

Vi får heller inte vårt välstånd att växa generellt med detta, det är faktiskt tvärtom.

Staten sparar inte pengar för bättre tider genom åtstramningar. För att kunna spara pengar måste någon först skapa pengar som spenderas in i ekonomin.
Vart ska pengarna annars komma ifrån?
Säljer vi ut våra inhemska resurser blir vi ju beroende av andra när dom inte längre finns kvar.
Se vad som händer med Grekland, Finland, Spanien, Portugal, Irland när man överger kontrollen över den egna valutan.
Vad kommer inte dom att tvingas sälja ut för att få nya pengar?
Detta förhållandet gäller om vi ersätter vår egen valuta med någon annans, t.ex euron, eller om det är våra banker som får ge ut och bestämma hur våra pengar först ska användas.
Alla nya pengar kommer först att som nu användas på det sätt som gynnar våra bankers kapitalförvaltning bäst.

Nationalekonomiskt handlar det nu om en brist på pengar som skapats av en ekonomisk teori utan verklighetsförankring, och därför också om dess nuvarande långsiktiga politiska verkan som privilegierar långivare och kapital över arbetskraft.
Ett förhållande som naturligtvis inte är bra för våra inhemska företag, eftersom företagen och dess arbetskraft ju också är konsumenter av det som produceras i den lokala ekonomin.

Pengar i det nuvarande systemet är skuld, och pengar kan just nu bara tillföras ekonomin genom att hushållen och företagen lånar dem.

Så länge vi också föreställer oss att det är våra globala exportföretag som är “mäklare” av alla pengar som finns tillgängliga för oss, så gynnar vi bara dom globala exportföretagen eftersom dom på ett indirekt sätt får styra en omvandling av självförsörjande lokala marknader till beroende konsumenter av globala försörjningskedjor.

Detta i sin tur åstadkommer stora svårigheter för våra lokala ekonomier, och för dom inhemska företagen, för vår landsbygd och för våra mindre städer.

Skulle inte vi bättre gynnas av att skicka våra pengar till andra nationer och bidra till vår faktiska levnadsstandard genom att få varor i gengäld, hellre än att lägga till deras verkliga standard och erhålla andras pengar tillbaka i gengäld?
Det dom kan göra med våra pengar dom fått i utbyte, är ju att antingen köpa mera varor och tjänster, eller spara dom för att göra detta vid ett senare tillfälle.

Det enda sättet för våra regeringar att ändra på detta i vårt nuvarande finansiella system är att skapa förutsättningar för alla att antingen kunna ta på sig mer skuld, eller att återta den konstitutionella kontrollen över penningmängden.

Vi skulle faktisk kunna använda vår välfärd och våra outnyttjade inhemska resurser så, att när nya pengar spenderas in i ekonomin, istället för att först hamna på våra finansmarknader, först spenderas på våra allmänna och gemensamma behov.

Varför tillåta att våra banker får finansiera sin egen likviditet genom att skapa och kontrollera tillgången på pengar?
Ett första steg att ändra på detta är genom att först se till att våra banker inte får skapa insättningar på konton ur tomma intet när dom ger ut lån.

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.

Who Needs Balanced Trade? Who Needs a Balanced Budget?

“Exports are real costs; and Imports are real benefits.”

The book analyzes and critiques: Free Trade Policy; Balanced Trade Policy (including Warren Buffett’s proposal); three types of Fair Trade Policy; Trade for Public Purpose Policy; Impact Assessment for Trade Policy; Balanced Budget Fiscal Policy; Deficit Neutrality in the Long Run Fiscal Policy; Budgeting for Public Purpose Fiscal Policy; A Holistic Approach to Trade and Fiscal Policy; and A Critique of the Current Trade Deals.

Who Needs Balanced Trade? Who Needs a Balanced Budget? e-book »

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.

A questionable programme

Right now, 60 billion Euros are being created by the European Central Bank every month through its programme of Quantitative Easing (QE).

This money is flooding financial markets, inflating share and bond prices. This does little or next to nothing to help ordinary people and businesses.

Did you know that if the European bank gave this money directly to the people instead of flooding the financial markets, every citizen in the Eurozone would get 3,271 EUR to be used in the real economy.

This money would then be much better spent directly on our domestic markets and local businesses, creating jobs and economic growth.

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.

How to commit to real change

real change can only be achieved by a fundamental reform of our monetary system.

Members of the Icelandic Parliament have submitted a motion to review Iceland’s monetary system and look at alternative monetary systems.

The resolution comes six months after the release of a report commissioned by the Prime Minister of Iceland entitled Monetary Reform – A better monetary system for Iceland that outlined the need for a fundamental reform of Iceland’s monetary system.

This report emphasises the limits of the current monetary system and sets out the merits of a Sovereign Money system, as advocated by Positive Money.

Read more here »

The ideology of money scarcity

the transformation of self-sufficient local economies into the unwitting and dependent consumers of global supply chains is bad macroeconomic policy.

“..the primary beneficiary of the ideology of money scarcity, however, is the modern corporation -especially the multi-national corporation which has as its business model the transformation of self-sufficient local economies into the unwitting and dependent consumers of global supply chains from which the corporations greatly profit. The ideology of money scarcity assists this business model in numerous ways. The most powerful assist derives from the perception that the corporate economy itself is the “broker” of the money that’s available to be used in the world. This perception is projected and reinforced by the global stock and financial markets which seem to be the exclusive decision-makers about who gets to spend money, and for what purpose—even to the point of establishing and reinforcing the belief that sovereign governments themselves must borrow their money from the corporate economy’s “financial industry.”
Thus the multi-national corporations are positioned perfectly to manipulate and guide the political decisions that support their business model, and their bottom line.”

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 the domestic companies, our common domestic economy, and for the people in the thinly populated areas of our country.

More at New economic perspectives »

Bostadspriserna drivs upp av alla nya pengar som bankerna skapar

det är den verkliga ekonomin som behöver mer pengar inte den finansiella.

Så länge våra bostadsmarknader drivs av en kreditgivning där våra banker får skapa nya pengar som leder till att allt högre priser skapas på bostäder, så kommer människor att behöva en allt högre och högre skuldsättning för sitt boende. Och eftersom bolån utgör nästan 80 procent av hushållens skuld är en sådan kredittillväxt ohållbar.

Det är viktigt att komma ihåg att pengarna vi lånar inte kommer från andras insättningar. Det är nya pengar som bankerna tillåts skapa när dom ger ut lån.
Pengar i det nuvarande systemet är skuld, så det enda sättet som vi kan tillföra pengar till ekonomin och förse hushållen och företagen med nya pengar är om vi lånar dem från våra banker.
Våra banker skapar nya pengar på ett konto genom att helt enkelt använda en dator och ändra siffrorna på det kontot som ska ändras. Det är förvillande likt, men inte samma sak som att trycka nya pengar eftersom dom här pengarna skapas digitalt.

Till Artikel i SVD här »

Svenska systersiten till Positive Money, Positiva pengar » har skrivit mer om detta.

En grundläggande ekonomisk skillnad

om fler få lön, och om tillgången på nya pengar ökar, ökar inte den inhemska efterfrågan och tillväxten då?

En intressant sak som helt gått vår mainstream media förbi är det faktum att man med den nyliberala ekonomiska teorin här i Sverige har skapat nya differenser mellan reallönernas tillväxt och produktivitetstillväxten. Jag syftar alltså inte på det politiska spelet utan på den makroekonomiska funktionaliteten hos en teori.
Våra politiska beslutsfattare har genomfört ett grundläggande ekonomiskt skifte i vilket man har skapat ett nytt förhållandet mellan arbete och kapital. De har på detta sätt låtit våra finansmarknader få en allt större andel av nationalinkomsten och låtit bygga in en omsättning av kapital som pumpar in mer och mer pengar i de avreglerade finansmarknaderna istället för att de hamnar in i den gemensamma ekonomin.

Det här i sin tur leder till att våra företag och hushåll kommer att pressas hårt för att uppnå likviditet eftersom staten samtidigt ska bygga budgetöverskott. Budgetöverskott bidrar också till att minska tillgången på pengar.

Den ekonomiska styrningen och den ekonomiska teorin har mer eller mindre medvetet sett till att vi fallit offer för att skapa så mycket skuld som möjligt för så många människor som möjligt, för att därigenom säkerställa att företagens vinster växer och att produktionen säljs. Det här gynnar framför allt dom stora globala exportföretagen, inte dom inhemska.

Den minskade lönedelen av ekonomin har på det här sättet blivit en del av företagens vinstmarginal.
En lön som ju i sin tur omsätter den inhemska produktionen genom att den betalar för att förbruka den.

Ju mindre pengar som finns för att betala för den inhemska produktionen, ju mindre kommer vi att sälja av den och ju mer kommer detta att öka beroendet av globala exportföretag på bekostnad av våra inhemska företag.

Vi har hamnat i en ond cirkel. Så länge vi fortsätter att skuldsätta oss så kommer nya pengar att skapas i ekonomin. Om vi sparar, skapar överskott eller gör åtstramningar så minskar pengarna. Vi får en ekonomisk recession och hela ekonomin kommer att gå kräftgång och kön till arbetsförmedlingarna växer.

Vi kan faktiskt inte göra någonting åt detta med avregleringar eller åtstramningar. Det gör faktiskt bara saken värre eftersom nästan hela vår penningmängd(96%) tillåts vara privatiserad.

En ytterligare reflektion att göra här, är att det är precis tillvägagångssättet för hur skuldsättningen av utvecklingsländerna har gått till.
Genom att låna i en annan valuta eller ersätta den egna helt med en annan, tvingas länder 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 kan gå omkull. På det här sättet tvingas länder att öka sitt beroende för att skapa ytterligare förutsättningar att kunna skuldsätta sig än mer.
Det här skulle alltså kunna vara mallen för att på ett ekonomiskt sätt ta över en nation. Genom att tvinga dem att sälja tillgångar, råvaror eller resurser, eller att tvinga fram privatiseringar, och att ersätta den inhemska produktionen eller dom inhemska lokala företagen med någon annans globala företag. Eller helt enkelt för att ta kontrollen över en demokrati från dess folkvalda och dess befolkning och tvinga fram politiska förändringar dom kanske inte vill gå med på.
Vi ser samma scenario hända i Europa med Finland, Portugal, Grekland, Spanien, och Irland, som med länder i Afrika och Latinamerika.

När Staten har överskott har någon annan sektor underskott

Statens överskott går inte att jämföra med ett överskott för en hushållsekonomi. Hushållen ger inte ut pengar.

Det offentliga underskottet är ju lika med det icke-offentliga överskottet.
Alltså själva källan till dom finansiella nettotillgångarna i den icke-statliga sektorn.

Det är helt enkelt en logisk konsekvens av den makroekonomiska balansräkningen med sektorbalanser vilken är tillämplig på alla nationer och alla tidsperioder.

”Det är alltså önskvärt att ha det största och mest effektiva spenderandet av vår regering utan att detta skapar prisinflation. Detta i sin tur begränsas bara av att det finns verkliga och hållbara resurser i utbyte mot pengarna som spenderas.”

I Augusti minskade tillgångarna i den privata sektorn med 21,1 miljarder. Våra företag och hushåll hade alltså 21,1 miljarder mindre att spendera i den inhemska ekonomin i Augusti eftersom exporten också har överskott.

De totala inkomsterna i statens budget för augusti blev 80,2 miljarder kronor, medan de totala utgifterna uppgick till 59,0 miljarder kronor. Därmed blev saldot i statens budget för månaden ett överskott på 21,1 miljarder kronor. Det är 9,4 miljarder kronor högre än samma månad föregående år.

Till Ekonomistyrningsverkets hemsida »

Hittills i år är överskottet i statens budget 38,1 miljarder kronor, 6,2 miljarder mer än förra året …

Kvantitativ lättnad på rätt sätt

Det är uppenbart att den monetära policyn inte fungerar. Den åstadkommer heller inte de effekter man hoppats på.

Tryck mer pengar. Det finns lägen då det är skadligt att budgetera stramt, och vi är där nu. Penningpolitiken klarar bevisligen inte att på egen hand bekämpa lågkonjunkturen eller ens någorlunda uppnå inflationsmålet.

Om staten ökar mängden kronor i ekonomin sjunker så småningom penningvärdet och inflationsmålet kan uppnås. Produktionen kommer snabbt att höjas, eftersom en del av de extra kronorna kommer att spenderas direkt. Lediga resurser tas i anspråk. Arbetslösheten kommer att sjunka snabbare än annars vore fallet. Även när priserna stiger, kommer en högre efterfrågan att hålla i sig, åtminstone så länge räntorna inte höjs i motsvarande mån.

Till Artikel i DN »

Höstbudgeten och skatter i ett historiskt perspektiv

sagt av Thomas Pikkety om beskattning.

”Mellan 1930 och 1980 var genomsnittsbeskattningen för dom högst betalda i USA 82%. Vilket till och med var högre än i Sverige, Frankrike och Tyskland.

– Vilka lärdomar kan vi dra av detta då?

För det första förstörde det inte den amerikanska kapitalismen eller demokratin. Den fanns kvar i slutet av perioden.

Den andra slutsatsen handlar om tillväxttakt, produktivitet och innovation.
Det är intressant därför att den amerikanska tillväxten under 1950, -60 och -70 talen faktiskt var högre än de varit sedan 1980 talet.

Nu är det Finlands tur

Finlands sak är vår.

Nu är det Finlands tur att fundera på om vi ska fortsätta att tillåta att våra finansmarknader ska få diktera vår ekonomiska politik via våra affärsbanker, eller om vi faktiskt vill kunna styra över den själva för att kunna tillgodose våra allmänna och gemensamma politiska mål.

Det är alltså Finlands tur att tvingas till samma självdestruktiva åtstramningar som Grekland tvingades till.

Det är ingen skillnad mellan ett medlemskap i eurozonen, eller som vi gjort i Sverige, att överlåta vår konstitutionella rätt att skapa pengar och därigenom också kontrollen över penningmängden till våra privata banker. Vi har ju under dessa förhållanden ändå övergett riksdagens och regeringens rätt att i verkligheten kunna styra över finanspolitiken och därigenom också att bestämma hur pengar först ska användas, till någon annan.

“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.”
– L. Randall Wray in his 1998 book, Understanding Modern Money

Det är viktigt att notera att tanken bakom dessa åtstramningar är föreställningen att det kommer en dag då våra regeringar kommer att “få slut på pengar”. Att en nation kommer att gå omkull om den inte skär ner på dom offentliga utgifterna och säljer ut sina tillgångar.

Men under nuvarande förhållanden kommer det här bara leda till att en Nation ökar sitt beroende, att ett land tvingas att skapa ytterligare förutsättningar att skuldsätta sig än mer.

En nation kan visst gå omkull, helt sant, men inte alla nationer.

En nation kan faktiskt bara bli oförmögen att betala sina utgifter om valutan som används ges ut av någon annan, svarar mot en myntfot(t.ex. guldet.), eller om landets skulder är i någon annans valuta än den egna.

Finland delar den här minsta gemensamma finanspolitiska nämnaren med många andra länder. Inte bara i västeuropa. Utan även med alla de länder som vi vanligtvis kallar “utvecklingsländer”.

Vi kan ha hur många åsikter som helst om detta, men vad vi egentligen borde diskutera är grundläggande fakta.

En förändring kan faktiskt bara ske om vi först gör en grundläggande förändring av vårt monetära system.

Till Artikel i SVD »

Det måste bli ett slut på daltandet med bankerna

av Andreas Cervenka – SVD Näringsliv »

Men Björn Wahlroos har rätt när det gäller Sveriges Riksdag. Ur bankernas perspektiv är de regeringar som sammansätts ur riksdagen verkligen finansiella idioter. Våra regeringar kommer och går, den politiska orienteringen skiftar, men vårt monetära system består. Här sker inte någon verklig förändring.

Jo förresten, våra banker får fortsätta skapa pengar för sin egen kapitalförvaltnings skull. Vilket bl.a gör att våra inhemska banker kan växa sig större än Sveriges BNP, och genom att dom kontrollerar penningmängden så bestämmer dom också hur alla pengar först ska användas. Det är ingen tillfällighet att den finansiella sektorn växer 3ggr snabbare än ekonomin i övrigt, trots att staten har konstitutionell ensamrätt på utgivningen av svenska pengar.

Folket i en hel nation ägnar sig här åt att diskutera åsikter istället för grundläggande fakta.

Det är därför vi på ett självdestruktivt sätt skär ner och gör åtstramningar.

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.