SCANDAL: Covid-19 Lockdown Economic Recession is a Manufactured Crisis

Watch
Polymath0
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Our current economic crisis is the inevitable outcome of a monetary architecture that is inherently illogical, and as such, has brought about an artificial and unnecessary economic contraction born of pure artifice. The problem at root of this system can be found in the functions assigned to the banking and political institutions respectively: key roles have been delegated in a fashion that is wholly back to front, thereby upending any prospect of a common sense solution to be implemented.

As a result of this critical design flaw, the business sector has been left to balance its operating costs to meet overheads and remain solvent at a time of enforced closure and diminution in economic demand due to the disruption in the supply chain and rise in unemployment. In effect, government lockdown measures exercised in this pandemic have occasioned the collapse of business and continue to pose a threatening prospect to business pooling resources to survive. It is unacceptable.

Two prime solutions exist that would restore economic stability overnight:

1. Temporarily suspend the repayment of all business and consumer bank loans.
2. Nationalise the utilities: water, energy and gas.

These solutions, in combination, can arrest the free fall into a deflationary spiral and grind to a halt the widespread financial insecurity.

The current institutional set up, however, serves as the primary obstacle to the deployment of such restorative policies. As it stands, to freeze contractual agreements with banks in aggregate would cause the circulation of money to contract and, eventually, cease economic transaction and growth. Society is reliant on the banking sector to extend credit because, in doing so, money is created. As such, in the absence of an alternative source of money creation and issuance, the first solution is not possible as it would discourage bank lending, and as a direct consequence, engender a collapse in the entire payments system. To facilitate trade and commerce, society is dependant upon the banking sector to lubricate it with debt since this is the only way that money can enter the economy; namely, tied to an accompanying liability.

In essence, the system of finance has been flipped on its head. The banks create money and government borrows money. This arrangement ought to be in the inverse. Instead, the activity of bank lending ought to be decoupled from the payments system to end the artificial limitations that arise from the conflation of a debt contract with the electronic payments system. Under a reformed model of finance the banking sector will have to attract money from the public, in a manner not so dissimilar to how the gilt-edged bond market operates, and use the money it borrows in order to make loans, and upon repayment generate a profit for its investors, i.e. the general public, and the Treasury. The payments system will be made independent of the banks and its control restored exclusively to the central bank to serve its dual function of safeguarding customer bank deposits, in aggregate, and facilitating debt-free circulation of money via the Treasury. This will ensure a stable and consistent supply of money that is not affected by myopic private incentives nor governed by manufactured systemic constraints.

Put in context of the present crisis, a rational rearrangement of financial and public institutions as per the above description can enable implementation of the first solution presented, in the absence of any negative externality. Untied from the debt contracts issued by banks, the lifeblood of the economy can be afforded full protection against commercial bank activity and be governed by an integrated ecosystem that recirculates repayment of loans via two channels: public spending and proceeds of investment. In the absence of a profit motive the banks can be mandated to proceed with financial intermediation, in accordance with a revised credit guidance customised for national emergency measures, in spite of the suspension of total loan repayments. For while it puts a temporary pause on both return of investment to the public and return to the Treasury, the mainstay of public finance by means of direct monetary funding will remain undisrupted in order to preserve the healthy circulation of money and thus stabilise economic forces.

The second solution put forward to bring utilities into public ownership, in the context of a reformed monetary system, can yield quantifiably impactful public and private net savings that would enable the cost of nationalisation to pay for itself. The deadweight loss that is occasioned by money being unjustifiably sucked out of the national economy through dividend payments to international private shareholders in the banking and utilities sectors, respectively, could be reversed for the public good. In accordance with the demands of financial reform, the abolition of the national debt alone would release substantial funds from annual interest payments made by taxpayers, in addition to interest payments on bank loan repayments that get siphoned by international finance. The net savings from inflated costs of utility service providers, on its own, would recoup enough funds annually to sustain the cost efficiency of utility provision within a short period of time. Cumulatively, however, its cost efficiency could be realised with immediate effect as the total amount released from the transitions would generate enough funds for allocation toward the provision and maintenance of utilities.

A rational and practical, yet effective, framework of monetary management can therefore be achieved to supplant the complex, counterproductive and limiting structural arrangements of a debt-based system of money. In doing so, the economic vulnerabilities to which society has been exposed in this crisis can be addressed with comprehensive readjustments that target the systemic error which remains hidden at the root of the system.
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
No, just no.

Two prime solutions exist that would restore economic stability overnight:

1. Temporarily suspend the repayment of all business and consumer bank loans.
2. Nationalise the utilities: water, energy and gas.

These solutions, in combination, can arrest the free fall into a deflationary spiral and grind to a halt the widespread financial insecurity.
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by Polymath0)
Our current economic crisis is the inevitable outcome of a monetary architecture that is inherently illogical, and as such, has brought about an artificial and unnecessary economic contraction born of pure artifice. The problem at root of this system can be found in the functions assigned to the banking and political institutions respectively: key roles have been delegated in a fashion that is wholly back to front, thereby upending any prospect of a common sense solution to be implemented.

As a result of this critical design flaw, the business sector has been left to balance its operating costs to meet overheads and remain solvent at a time of enforced closure and diminution in economic demand due to the disruption in the supply chain and rise in unemployment. In effect, government lockdown measures exercised in this pandemic have occasioned the collapse of business and continue to pose a threatening prospect to business pooling resources to survive. It is unacceptable.

Two prime solutions exist that would restore economic stability overnight:

1. Temporarily suspend the repayment of all business and consumer bank loans.
2. Nationalise the utilities: water, energy and gas.

These solutions, in combination, can arrest the free fall into a deflationary spiral and grind to a halt the widespread financial insecurity.

The current institutional set up, however, serves as the primary obstacle to the deployment of such restorative policies. As it stands, to freeze contractual agreements with banks in aggregate would cause the circulation of money to contract and, eventually, cease economic transaction and growth. Society is reliant on the banking sector to extend credit because, in doing so, money is created. As such, in the absence of an alternative source of money creation and issuance, the first solution is not possible as it would discourage bank lending, and as a direct consequence, engender a collapse in the entire payments system. To facilitate trade and commerce, society is dependant upon the banking sector to lubricate it with debt since this is the only way that money can enter the economy; namely, tied to an accompanying liability.

In essence, the system of finance has been flipped on its head. The banks create money and government borrows money. This arrangement ought to be in the inverse. Instead, the activity of bank lending ought to be decoupled from the payments system to end the artificial limitations that arise from the conflation of a debt contract with the electronic payments system. Under a reformed model of finance the banking sector will have to attract money from the public, in a manner not so dissimilar to how the gilt-edged bond market operates, and use the money it borrows in order to make loans, and upon repayment generate a profit for its investors, i.e. the general public, and the Treasury. The payments system will be made independent of the banks and its control restored exclusively to the central bank to serve its dual function of safeguarding customer bank deposits, in aggregate, and facilitating debt-free circulation of money via the Treasury. This will ensure a stable and consistent supply of money that is not affected by myopic private incentives nor governed by manufactured systemic constraints.

Put in context of the present crisis, a rational rearrangement of financial and public institutions as per the above description can enable implementation of the first solution presented, in the absence of any negative externality. Untied from the debt contracts issued by banks, the lifeblood of the economy can be afforded full protection against commercial bank activity and be governed by an integrated ecosystem that recirculates repayment of loans via two channels: public spending and proceeds of investment. In the absence of a profit motive the banks can be mandated to proceed with financial intermediation, in accordance with a revised credit guidance customised for national emergency measures, in spite of the suspension of total loan repayments. For while it puts a temporary pause on both return of investment to the public and return to the Treasury, the mainstay of public finance by means of direct monetary funding will remain undisrupted in order to preserve the healthy circulation of money and thus stabilise economic forces.

The second solution put forward to bring utilities into public ownership, in the context of a reformed monetary system, can yield quantifiably impactful public and private net savings that would enable the cost of nationalisation to pay for itself. The deadweight loss that is occasioned by money being unjustifiably sucked out of the national economy through dividend payments to international private shareholders in the banking and utilities sectors, respectively, could be reversed for the public good. In accordance with the demands of financial reform, the abolition of the national debt alone would release substantial funds from annual interest payments made by taxpayers, in addition to interest payments on bank loan repayments that get siphoned by international finance. The net savings from inflated costs of utility service providers, on its own, would recoup enough funds annually to sustain the cost efficiency of utility provision within a short period of time. Cumulatively, however, its cost efficiency could be realised with immediate effect as the total amount released from the transitions would generate enough funds for allocation toward the provision and maintenance of utilities.

A rational and practical, yet effective, framework of monetary management can therefore be achieved to supplant the complex, counterproductive and limiting structural arrangements of a debt-based system of money. In doing so, the economic vulnerabilities to which society has been exposed in this crisis can be addressed with comprehensive readjustments that target the systemic error which remains hidden at the root of the system.
Great essay. Here are my thoughts.
1. Your writing is good but over complicated. You use big words when big words are not required which makes your ideas difficult to understand because the reader is trying to grasp words that are not frequently encountered.
e.g. You wrote In effect, government lockdown measures exercised in this pandemic have occasioned the collapse of business. Could you not have written that the measures "caused" the collapse of business?

2. Given your premise that "the system" is fundamentally flawed I find it bizarre that your solution is to alleviate business loans and utility costs - of all things. Many companies don't have debt but are still struggling and as utilities are generally a tiny fraction of any companies outgoings, nationalising the utilities with a view to subsidising businesses would cost a great deal and give back very little.

3. Banks do not create money out of thin air. The lend on the basis of the assets they have, namely our savings. Similarly, the government creates money by selling bonds which are basically future 'I owe yous' backed by tax payer's money. I fail to see how this system is flawed. It is working very well right now. The government is able to create / borrow the money it needs to finance the country.

4. Dividend payments to utility companies are not a dead weight loss. To give you an example, we spend around £100 a month on utilities out of a monthly household budget of £2000. Should you remove the dividend, we might save £5 a month. Hardly a blessing. And in any case, as someone who has a pension, that £5 in a way is working for me and my pension fund that will sustain me in later life.

I feel the government are doing the right thing through the furlow scheme and rent / rate breaks for businesses. The biggest cost to any employer is staff followed by rent and business rates. All of these have been covered by the government's response. You only need to see what is happening in the US where none of these have been done to see the devastation. The difficulty now is reintroduce normality without lots of people falling through the gaps that will inevitably form and specifically, allowing businesses to open somehow knowing that footfall will be significantly down due to social distancing.
Last edited by username1799249; 1 year ago
2
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Napp)
No, just no.
Of course not.

It is best if voters keep voting for Boris Johnson again and again for several years.

Have you not seen the economic success of the UK the last decade?!
The triumph of Brexit?!
Have you not seen what policies have been applied for the NHS?! We only have the most deaths in Europe and as Johnson said if it wasn't for the big decisions we would have had 500,000 deaths by now....

If not satisfied with Johnson then we can vote for Rees Mogg or Priti Patel and demand they be prime ministers..

Next time guys vote more for Johnson. The results are very expectable. Don't worry.
0
reply
Polymath0
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by ByEeek)
Great essay. Here are my thoughts.
1. Your writing is good but over complicated. You use big words when big words are not required which makes your ideas difficult to understand because the reader is trying to grasp words that are not frequently encountered.
e.g. You wrote In effect, government lockdown measures exercised in this pandemic have occasioned the collapse of business. Could you not have written that the measures "caused" the collapse of business?
I disagree. The syntax and vocabulary I employ is perfectly intelligible. I don't believe a sophisticated, and yet accurate, mode of expression deserves to be watered down to appease a demographic who lack a finer appreciation for linguistic precision. By and large, the verbs and adjectives I use throughout are clear. If the verb occasion is understood by you as a synonym for cause, it stands to reason that the linguistic competence of the general audience is not to be undermined.

(Original post by ByEeek)
2. Given your premise that "the system" is fundamentally flawed I find it bizarre that your solution is to alleviate business loans and utility costs - of all things. Many companies don't have debt but are still struggling and as utilities are generally a tiny fraction of any companies outgoings, nationalising the utilities with a view to subsidising businesses would cost a great deal and give back very little.
The core purpose of these solutions is to foster a significant increase overall in disposable incomes and shield business from the unfavourable impact of the political measures imposed in a health pandemic of this nature. The foremost fixed costs, beside labour, that are a deciding factor for whether a business endures or folds, comprise premises and utilities. To expect business to reliably meet such liabilities in the midst of political measures that have negatively impacted sales performance is inherently unfair. It is unreasonable to expect business to absorb shocks that have been induced in a fashion that is both deliberate and unnatural. By applying the counter measures as suggested, business can withstand the shocks irrespective of economic demand. The fundamental issue, however, is that bank lending has been systemically fused with the payments system, rendering them indistinguishable by design, which actively prevents painless implementation of the proposals.

In regard to the system of taxation as it stands, asymmetries and inefficiencies are produced which concentrates the collection of tax on narrow sources of income-generating activity. The present system needs to be revamped by eliminating personal and corporate income taxes, sales, excise, capital gains, gift and estate taxes and replacing them with a single comprehensive revenue neutral Automated Payment Transaction (APT) tax that is simple, transparent, efficient and equitable. The APT tax will enable the tax base to be substantially broadened by capitalising on the aggregate volume of transaction flows occurring throughout the economy. It will tap into its overall monetary value with a small flat levy on the respective payment service providers, Bacs; CHAPS; Faster Payments; and C&CCC, which have the collective potential to generate an amount significantly above the current tax take. In contrast, the added value of each payment transaction system amounts to circa £90.8 trillion, a flat-rate percentage of which can turn into a consistent and sizeable revenue stream for the Treasury. It will constitute a meaningful tax reform that can remove the deadweight loss that arises from the wide-ranging opportunity costs of raising tax directly from intermediate sources, as well as render the collection and administration of tax far more efficient in terms of procedure and cost. A taxation system that pivots on the source of aggregate transactional payment flows instead of the narrow, isolated components that comprise economic activity is, by far, an optimal arrangement that would yield contrastive boons to society by orders of magnitude.

(Original post by ByEeek)
3. Banks do not create money out of thin air. The lend on the basis of the assets they have, namely our savings. Similarly, the government creates money by selling bonds which are basically future 'I owe yous' backed by tax payer's money. I fail to see how this system is flawed. It is working very well right now. The government is able to create / borrow the money it needs to finance the country.
The fact that bank loans create deposits, and not in the opposite as ought to be the case, has been established by the Bank of England.

The current banking system operates as a dual-tiered structure in which central bank reserves [i.e. digital equivalent of notes and coins] constitute an expense to banks as it is required to meet their obligations to customers in the event of deposit withdrawals. The central bank reserves represent a liability to banks since it depletes their assets which comprise interest received, securities sold and shareholder investments. As banks grant loans, electronic bank deposits in the system are created upon which banks are required to secure a fraction of reserves through the proceeds of such assets to meet the demand of notes and coins, as and when necessary.

The reserves, per se, represent the proceeds of value generated through economic activity. Upon issuance of government bonds, the Treasury receives reserves packaged as a public debt to be repaid to its creditor upon maturity at a rate of interest. The source from which government borrows money already exists prior to it having been borrowed; it only involves a shift of existing proceeds of income from a customer account to a central government account. As such, fiscal policy exercises secondary allocation of money as the overall stock of money remains unchanged, while the banking system wields power over primary allocation since the aggregate deposits from which the government borrows represents the net result from the primary creation of a bank loan.

A fallacy that is commonly perpetuated, in the form of a propagandised political narrative, is that “there is not enough money.” To claim that there is a lack of sufficient money for the purposes of which to develop and deploy idle potential in the economy is equivalent to the claim that there are, in an abstract sense, not enough inches, metres or centimetres in existence. It is, axiomatically, a logical impossibility to run out of a unit of measurement unless there is a complete absence of physical goods or resources on which to measure. In effect, the model of interest-bearing debt to finance public expenditure is a ruse designed to engender artificial scarcity. The limited assistance of the Furlough Scheme, in addition to the fact that assistance is due to be drawn back or ended prematurely only vindicates the observation that the model is governed by deceit.

On the same line of reasoning, the political officials that operate within the given worldview of a debt-based monetary system advocate the necessity for the nation to abide by the principle of “living within its means.” It is a truism, however, that is not coherent in the current set up as it equivocates on the term “means.” In an intuitive sense, the only means one must live within are the observable constraints of physical resources, raw material, human capital and environment-related constraints; in other words, natural limits beyond which it would not be possible to exceed. The current means are counterintuitive as it is dictated by the inner workings of a system that occasion superficial constraints that bear no consonance with the means of reality.

(Original post by ByEeek)
4. Dividend payments to utility companies are not a dead weight loss. To give you an example, we spend around £100 a month on utilities out of a monthly household budget of £2000. Should you remove the dividend, we might save £5 a month. Hardly a blessing. And in any case, as someone who has a pension, that £5 in a way is working for me and my pension fund that will sustain me in later life.
The figure on your household utility bill per se does not reveal the macro dynamics at play that cause utilities to be overcharged, and unlike your household, the average annual usage of utilities by SMEs amount to a signifiant annual figure that represents forfeited disposable income that otherwise could be allocated fruitfully, especially in the midst of a crisis. Equally important to note is that your household income-to-utility expense ratio is not uniform across all households, and to eliminate the household utility expense for a business owner would be an added relief.

The dividend payments are made by private utility companies to their shareholders. A blend of private debt and private investment assists utility service providers to cover the costs of wholesale energy, its distribution and maintenance, and charge the consumer an inflated cost to be profitable. To bring utilities into public ownership would abolish cost-inefficiency and boost the income capacity of society. In this sense, a pension fund built on a foundation of exploitation is not legitimate; and thus compensation returned to shareholders ought to be calculated strictly on book value, not excess market value.
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Polymath0)
The figure on your household utility bill per se does not reveal the macro dynamics at play that cause utilities to be overcharged, and unlike your household, the average annual usage of utilities by SMEs amount to a signifiant annual figure
I'm really sorry - but your writing is really really difficult to understand. It just doesn't flow. I don't have time to respond to each point but will pick up on this one because I am afraid you are just wrong.

Take a company of say 100 people. Average pay in the UK is around £28k per person. Using that figure, the cost of employing those people is going to be £280k a year - let's call it £400k to take into account National Insurance, pensions and addition pay for senior staff.

You can rent a desk in Manchester for around £350 a month so for a 100 people, that is £420k a year.

Business rates are also going to be a significant cost, roughly half the rent.

Now, if the income of a company like this is hit by low revenue, any form of assistance under half a million is going to be worthless. Are you really suggesting that a company employing 100 people is going to be paying out half a million in electricity?

Unless you are a steel manufacturer, the biggest cost to any business is their staff, followed by rent and rates. All of which have been given assistance by the chancellor.
0
reply
Polymath0
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by ByEeek)
Now, if the income of a company like this is hit by low revenue, any form of assistance under half a million is going to be worthless. Are you really suggesting that a company employing 100 people is going to be paying out half a million in electricity?
No. I am saying that a business that loses its staff as a result of political measures which enforce closure of non-essential sectors and, in turn, disrupts the regular pattern of operation throughout the economy should be afforded unmitigated protection from insolvency and closing shop for as long as the crisis persists. The proposals I have suggested can preserve stability for business in the face of external shocks and nurture a positive cash position overall notwithstanding its profitability metrics. However, it is only by means of undoing the commingling between money and debt that a rational order of economic organisation can be delivered.

(Original post by ByEeek)
Unless you are a steel manufacturer, the biggest cost to any business is their staff, followed by rent and rates. All of which have been given assistance by the chancellor.
The impact of the Furlough Scheme has been truly inadequate and tinkers around the edges. It does not represent a comprehensively impactful package that can restore collective stability during this period. I present recent news articles below to illustrate this point:

British high street pleads for state help with rent | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/95599cf5-...b-dc0f1a900eac

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...nts-go-unpaid/

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...yments-2851137

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...ault-payments/
1
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Polymath0)
No. I am saying that a business that loses its staff as a result of political measures which enforce closure of non-essential sectors and, in turn, disrupts the regular pattern of operation throughout the economy should be afforded unmitigated protection from insolvency and closing shop for as long as the crisis persists. The proposals I have suggested can preserve stability for business in the face of external shocks and nurture a positive cash position overall notwithstanding its profitability metrics. However, it is only by means of undoing the commingling between money and debt that a rational order of economic organisation can be delivered.



The impact of the Furlough Scheme has been truly inadequate and tinkers around the edges. It does not represent a comprehensively impactful package that can restore collective stability during this period. I present recent news articles below to illustrate this point:

British high street pleads for state help with rent | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/95599cf5-...b-dc0f1a900eac

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...nts-go-unpaid/

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...yments-2851137

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...ault-payments/
I'm not saying the furlow system is perfect but surely paying everyone's energy bill isn't going to help anyone?

The furlow scheme protects employees not employers which is fair enough. People who run companies enjoy lower income tax and tax options in return for the risk they take in investing their money. Seems reasonable to me.
0
reply
Polymath0
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by ByEeek)
I'm not saying the furlow system is perfect but surely paying everyone's energy bill isn't going to help anyone?
In normal times, this particular proposal taken alone can potentially save household and business thousands of pounds in utility costs annually, but more fundamentally it restores the supply of energy, gas and water to the public domain to which access can become a right rather than a privilege.

In a crisis situation, however, this proposal alone is insufficient to address the wide-scale ramifications at play. It must be combined with the primary proposal which is to suspend the repayment on bank loans in order to reap the interim relief of the second proposal.

A notable third proposal is to revamp the tax system which I have covered in post #5. The cumulative effects of these proposals would provide an effective and comprehensive solution to the ongoing challenges.

(Original post by ByEeek)
The furlow scheme protects employees not employers which is fair enough. People who run companies enjoy lower income tax and tax options in return for the risk they take in investing their money. Seems reasonable to me.
Justifying the inadequacy of support to business by pointing to the tax benefits enjoyed by business, in the context of the situation at hand, constitutes a red herring. The state has interfered in a fashion that has rendered market conditions unfavourable and left business owners to struggle as a consequence. For government to introduce policies that foster a volatile economic environment and withhold support to protect business from shocks for which they are not responsible is not reasonable at all.
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Polymath0)
Our current economic crisis is the inevitable outcome of a monetary architecture that is inherently illogical, and as such, has brought about an artificial and unnecessary economic contraction born of pure artifice. The problem at root of this system can be found in the functions assigned to the banking and political institutions respectively: key roles have been delegated in a fashion that is wholly back to front, thereby upending any prospect of a common sense solution to be implemented.

As a result of this critical design flaw, the business sector has been left to balance its operating costs to meet overheads and remain solvent at a time of enforced closure and diminution in economic demand due to the disruption in the supply chain and rise in unemployment. In effect, government lockdown measures exercised in this pandemic have occasioned the collapse of business and continue to pose a threatening prospect to business pooling resources to survive. It is unacceptable.

Two prime solutions exist that would restore economic stability overnight:

1. Temporarily suspend the repayment of all business and consumer bank loans.
2. Nationalise the utilities: water, energy and gas.

These solutions, in combination, can arrest the free fall into a deflationary spiral and grind to a halt the widespread financial insecurity.

The current institutional set up, however, serves as the primary obstacle to the deployment of such restorative policies. As it stands, to freeze contractual agreements with banks in aggregate would cause the circulation of money to contract and, eventually, cease economic transaction and growth. Society is reliant on the banking sector to extend credit because, in doing so, money is created. As such, in the absence of an alternative source of money creation and issuance, the first solution is not possible as it would discourage bank lending, and as a direct consequence, engender a collapse in the entire payments system. To facilitate trade and commerce, society is dependant upon the banking sector to lubricate it with debt since this is the only way that money can enter the economy; namely, tied to an accompanying liability.

In essence, the system of finance has been flipped on its head. The banks create money and government borrows money. This arrangement ought to be in the inverse. Instead, the activity of bank lending ought to be decoupled from the payments system to end the artificial limitations that arise from the conflation of a debt contract with the electronic payments system. Under a reformed model of finance the banking sector will have to attract money from the public, in a manner not so dissimilar to how the gilt-edged bond market operates, and use the money it borrows in order to make loans, and upon repayment generate a profit for its investors, i.e. the general public, and the Treasury. The payments system will be made independent of the banks and its control restored exclusively to the central bank to serve its dual function of safeguarding customer bank deposits, in aggregate, and facilitating debt-free circulation of money via the Treasury. This will ensure a stable and consistent supply of money that is not affected by myopic private incentives nor governed by manufactured systemic constraints.

Put in context of the present crisis, a rational rearrangement of financial and public institutions as per the above description can enable implementation of the first solution presented, in the absence of any negative externality. Untied from the debt contracts issued by banks, the lifeblood of the economy can be afforded full protection against commercial bank activity and be governed by an integrated ecosystem that recirculates repayment of loans via two channels: public spending and proceeds of investment. In the absence of a profit motive the banks can be mandated to proceed with financial intermediation, in accordance with a revised credit guidance customised for national emergency measures, in spite of the suspension of total loan repayments. For while it puts a temporary pause on both return of investment to the public and return to the Treasury, the mainstay of public finance by means of direct monetary funding will remain undisrupted in order to preserve the healthy circulation of money and thus stabilise economic forces.

The second solution put forward to bring utilities into public ownership, in the context of a reformed monetary system, can yield quantifiably impactful public and private net savings that would enable the cost of nationalisation to pay for itself. The deadweight loss that is occasioned by money being unjustifiably sucked out of the national economy through dividend payments to international private shareholders in the banking and utilities sectors, respectively, could be reversed for the public good. In accordance with the demands of financial reform, the abolition of the national debt alone would release substantial funds from annual interest payments made by taxpayers, in addition to interest payments on bank loan repayments that get siphoned by international finance. The net savings from inflated costs of utility service providers, on its own, would recoup enough funds annually to sustain the cost efficiency of utility provision within a short period of time. Cumulatively, however, its cost efficiency could be realised with immediate effect as the total amount released from the transitions would generate enough funds for allocation toward the provision and maintenance of utilities.

A rational and practical, yet effective, framework of monetary management can therefore be achieved to supplant the complex, counterproductive and limiting structural arrangements of a debt-based system of money. In doing so, the economic vulnerabilities to which society has been exposed in this crisis can be addressed with comprehensive readjustments that target the systemic error which remains hidden at the root of the system.
"Nationalise the utilities: water, energy and gas"

Are you a Communist in disguise?
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
"Nationalise the utilities: water, energy and gas"

Are you a Communist in disguise?
You don't have to be a communist vto want to take back utilities.

The Army, the Police, the NHS, the Schools and obviously the Utilities should be under state control for several reasons.

One of each is National Security.

Water for example is a matter of National Security.
There is nothing more serious than this utility.
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by Lucifer323)
You don't have to be a communist vto want to take back utilities.

The Army, the Police, the NHS, the Schools and obviously the Utilities should be under state control for several reasons.

One of each is National Security.

Water for example is a matter of National Security.
There is nothing more serious than this utility.
You could always buy Pepsi instead of using water.
0
reply
Polymath0
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Lucifer323)
You don't have to be a communist to want to take back utilities.
The custom of political discourse is cancerous in nature as it is governed by the attendant counterproductive traits of dualistic thinking. The design of the current monetary system drives an unnecessary wedge between people and creates narrow ideological pockets. A harmony of interests can be forged by merging the ideas of the left and right to produce a system that strips away the mechanisms which provoke disharmony to begin with. This can only be achieved by nationalising money and, in turn, rendering debt-fuelled public finance obsolete.

The fiscal budget is veiled in technicality, and the tools involved behind the scenes are perceived to be entirely neutral and somehow a default in the proceedings rather than part and parcel of the problem reinforcing itself. Somehow the very mechanism which determines our economic system at its core is less interesting a subject to broach than a political debate that strictly revolves around the false dilemmas and artificially limited options occasioned by its internal architecture, thereby leaving a nation perpetually ensnared in its illusory manifestation. Is it not utterly bizarre the fact that the political class, on all sides, tackle a problem within the confines of an assumed premise and avoid to look at the economic tools and institutional arrangements complicit in occasioning the problem at its very root? Instead the focus pivots mindlessly on mechanisms that comprise the system which gives the false impression that the laws governing the structure are immutable, rather than to take a systemic snapshot of the monetary design in an attempt to add, remove and rearrange elements that serve the purposes of political unity, not political tribalism which serves nothing beside ego; as a result encouraging the display of the worst qualities of the human condition. To place a band aid on structural issues only creates fertile ground for collective conflict and discontent.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Polymath0)
The custom of political discourse is cancerous in nature as it is governed by the attendant counterproductive traits of dualistic thinking. The design of the current monetary system drives an unnecessary wedge between people and creates narrow ideological pockets. A harmony of interests can be forged by merging the ideas of the left and right to produce a system that strips away the mechanisms which provoke disharmony to begin with. This can only be achieved by nationalising money and, in turn, rendering debt-fuelled public finance obsolete.

The fiscal budget is veiled in technicality, and the tools involved behind the scenes are perceived to be entirely neutral and somehow a default in the proceedings rather than part and parcel of the problem reinforcing itself. Somehow the very mechanism which determines our economic system at its core is less interesting a subject to broach than a political debate that strictly revolves around the false dilemmas and artificially limited options occasioned by its internal architecture, thereby leaving a nation perpetually ensnared in its illusory manifestation. Is it not utterly bizarre the fact that the political class, on all sides, tackle a problem within the confines of an assumed premise and avoid to look at the economic tools and institutional arrangements complicit in occasioning the problem at its very root? Instead the focus pivots mindlessly on mechanisms that comprise the system which gives the false impression that the laws governing the structure are immutable, rather than to take a systemic snapshot of the monetary design in an attempt to add, remove and rearrange elements that serve the purposes of political unity, not political tribalism which serves nothing beside ego; as a result encouraging the display of the worst qualities of the human condition. To place a band aid on structural issues only creates fertile ground for collective conflict and discontent.
Mostly agree with your points.
I once asked a Professor of Economics what is the purpose of the existence of private banks and the private banking sector. He wasn't able to answer me and nobody has answered me since then..

Consider this. The state creates banks that then privatizes so it can owe to them Billions and Trillions after it has handled them the right to create money out of thin air through borrowing. This is one of the greatest anomalies...
The cost of borrowing is much higher from private banks than if the loan was taken directly from the state.

Then you go to the Bank of England and you realise that is a..... Private Organization...

Just for the record, the Army, The Police, Utilities, the NHS, the Banking System must always be in the hands of the state so to serve the public interest at a reasonable cost.

Countries should go ahead after this crisis and delete all known debt. As we say push the button to refresh the system.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
You could always buy Pepsi instead of using water.
Pepsi is bad

Gatorade is better...
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Pepsi is bad

Gatorade is better...
Why actually drinks "Gatorade"?
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
Why actually drinks "Gatorade"?
You mean who?
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Lucifer323)
You mean who?
Sorry typo. But why actually drink that when you can drink Pepsi?
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
Sorry typo. But why actually drink that when you can drink Pepsi?
Pepsi is haram according to Islam.
But let's not derail the conversation...

Gatorade is not Haram...
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Pepsi is haram according to Islam.
But let's not derail the conversation...

Gatorade is not Haram...
Are you muslim?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Feeling behind at school/college? What is the best thing your teachers could to help you catch up?

Extra compulsory independent learning activities (eg, homework tasks) (13)
7.14%
Run extra compulsory lessons or workshops (30)
16.48%
Focus on making the normal lesson time with them as high quality as possible (30)
16.48%
Focus on making the normal learning resources as high quality/accessible as possible (27)
14.84%
Provide extra optional activities, lessons and/or workshops (49)
26.92%
Assess students, decide who needs extra support and focus on these students (33)
18.13%

Watched Threads

View All