(Week 11 - Friday, Oct. 24)
I reported in yesterday's column about someone who sought my advice concerning whether she should borrow money from a bank for what she deemed to be a creative, but not strictly necessary, purchase; and thereby take on more "debt" that she, and ultimately the larger society, would have to bear. I recommended that she follow as much as possible the best option available with respect to benefiting life, and let whether that meant borrowing money, or not, take its course.
Our nation has recently passed through a similar point of choice, though on a vastly greater scale. This was in reference to the decision about whether Congress should pass and the President sign legislation by which the Federal government would borrow $700 billion from the Federal Reserve in an attempt to "rescue", supposedly, the failing financial system. Within the context of the present monetary system one could make a case for either course of action.
For purposes of this discussion, I would first make an argument in favor of the measure. There is a chance that such an injection of funds will succeed in restoring a measure of order and confidence in the financial system that, in a nation which has largely lost its local subsistence capabilities, we all depend on literally for survival. Standing by while it implodes is not an option. In addition, the bill will put into play billions of dollars of circulating medium that are sorely needed to expedite essential economic activities that people in many areas of life are looking for funds to accomplish. This runs the gamut from paying mortgages, to financing business activity, to investing in alternative energy, to repairing infrastructure, to hiring school teachers, to providing health care, to getting the homeless off the street, to feeding the hungry, to (fill in the blank). It is inevitable that some of the money will reward speculation and end up financing otherwise unproductive and unethical enterprise, but is that any reason to let economic activity that is in this moment needed for pressing human needs to go unrealized?
Next I would make an argument against the bill. Sure it might restore a measure of order and confidence in the system, but only temporarily, and at what price? Taking on yet another round of "debt" will come down as an additional burden on the already buckling shoulders of the productive participants in the economy, and will in the long run only serve to compound the problem and put it off to a more terrible day of reckoning? Admittedly it will provide a useful injection of currency into the economy, but in the larger picture is it not really cruel to allow a society that is addicted to "debt" one more fix of the very substance that is bringing it down? In any case, much of this supposedly needed economic activity is not "needed" at all. A large share of the money will go to reward usury (using money to make money at the expense of one's brother or sister, instead of acting as a financial partner to expedite genuinely beneficial enterprise), and it is doubtful whether the added level of economic activity financed will be worth the damage done.
Whatever one's view of the choice that was presented, the bill has been passed. My purpose in revisiting the decision is not to second-guess the road taken, but to use it as an example for how we might approach such dilemmas. The nation could not have avoided selecting on outward course of action, but inwardly we must explore what we are evidently doing wrong that causes such mutually problematic choices to be seemingly our only options.
We need to step up out of the to-borrow-or-not-to-borrow catch-22 into a new way of thinking for the future. Right now financiers, pundits, academicians, politicians and other "leaders of public opinion" are for the most part not offering much of a conversation to help We the People do that.
Too often in the political realm, for example, the options are presented as ideological arguments. We can hear this reflected in the debate between the Presidential candidates at present where the rhetoric of one is designed to sound plausible to a "conservative" base, and the other a "liberal."
It is interesting to note that history has shown that once a President is in office, or a party in power, the demands of their new duties dictate that they act a lot less differently with respect to each other than their ideological pronouncements would have one believe. Witness in this case how Senators McCain and Obama strain to highlight supposed differences in their respective approaches to the present financial crisis, but in the end support the essentially the same course of action. This is a tacit recognition that, when it comes to coping with real-life situations, ideologies don't matter. Acting out of one's highest consciousness of what is needed in the moment matters.
What, then, is needed in this moment? It is not recriminations about whether the $700 billion deed should have been done. The real question is what have we gained from this experience that can help up us move into the future? Cleary, the monetary problem has not been solved, but if the "bailout" is "successful" some time has been bought. This time of "crisis" is truly a gift if we know what to do with it. I say this, not in the spirit of taking lightly the suffering that people have experienced through its travail, but in the fervent hope that such sacrifice can be redeemed to good account, and its lessons contribute ultimately to their economic liberation.
This hope will be in vain if we cannot lift ourselves up into a higher plane than the one on which the to-borrow-or-not-to-borrow-$700-billion issue was debated. To be sure, we need to make the best of whatever options present themselves in the exigencies of the moment, but it is imperative to leave dogmatic biases about whether, or not, to take on more "debt" out of the question. A primary lesson of this whole "debt crisis" episode, I would suggest, is that ultimately we have no choice but to get serious about the matter of restoring the monetary franchise to the public domain.
Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites.
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Column #64 TO BORROW, OR NOT TO BORROW: THAT IS THE QUESTION
(Week 11 - Thursday, Oct. 23)
During a workshop I conducted in Wisconsin, one participant posed a question about a personal financial dilemma in which she felt morally torn between the possibility of borrowing money to purchase a 20 acre parcel of land that was contiguous to a like-sized parcel she was living on, or foregoing the opportunity and thereby obviating the need to go to the bank. She had what she felt were a number of moral reasons for wanting to make the deal, but wasn't sure that such factors adequately justified taking on more "debt". Clearly in this case, to borrow and buy would not be a justification-by-necessity act, but she felt that it could be a humanly creative choice. She wanted my advice on whether she should borrow the money and make the purchase, or not. It was a question for which I could not give a direct answer, but could instead offer conversation that might help her in her determination of what course to take.
I suggested that in making her decision, it might be wisest to ignore the monetary implications with respect to whether or not it would cause more "debt" to come into existence. This seemed to her like a strange response, given that I had just delivered a long dissertation about how borrowing money from a bank causes more compounding "debt" to enter the system, which winds up being carried by the society as a whole on a never-ending basis into the future even after one's loan from the bank is technically paid off. This happens because the proceeds from the "interest" payments are typically converted into more "debt" by "investors" who have purchased the right to be the recipients of these payments. They "recycle" these funds back into circulation by loaning them out at "interest", this time without even the benefit of newly created bank money entering the money supply (see Col. #5, "Where Does Our Money Go?").
How, then, does ignoring the monetary implications of whichever course is taken make sense? It is because, monetarily speaking, the "to borrow, or not to borrow" dilemma is really a Hobson's choice (one with two equally problematic alternatives).
On the one hand, if one goes ahead and borrows the money, whatever benefit flows from the purchase that is financed by the loan is compromised by the burden to the individual and society of the "debt" thereby taken on. It should be noted that if the borrowing was done through a bank, the additional money created does continue to circulate through the money supply after the initial outlay, and this, in turn, does provide to the economy always-needed (but never enough) additional circulating medium.
On the other hand, if one does not take out the loan the "debt" burden is averted, but so is the benefit that might have transpired through whatever the money would have paid for. It should be noted that not borrowing also does not cause additional circulating medium to enter the money supply, and so in effect occasions a contraction of the economy relative to the level of activity it could have supported had the loan been made.
There are other nuances to this choice that could be traced out at length, but the upshot is, I believe, that considered as merely a monetary question, the decision "to borrow, or not to borrow" is, as an economist might say, a "wash" (a choice which has diametrically different, but equally offsetting, outcomes). The reasonable course, then, is to make the decision on the basis of the human merits of the case, and let whether or not the trip to the bank is made follow.
In the case of the lady at the workshop who wanted to know whether she should borrow more money to buy the adjacent land, the decision would presumably be based on a comprehensive consideration of the actual physical and human factors involved. To be sure, such deliberations can run deep, and may even extend in the minds of many to spiritual considerations which are wholly out of the domain of calculation, but whatever the case the question is by its nature uniquely personal, and precisely fitted to the actual people, circumstances and unit of time in which it takes place.
This is not to say that the human cost of carrying a resultant "debt" burden is necessarily not a factor that should be weighed in, but the decision in principle about whether to borrow, or not, is another matter.
The long and short of my advice (if I might presume to offer such) is, when making any economic decision, to follow as much as possible the best option available with respect to benefiting life, and let the finances take their course. Ultimately, the monetary system in its current configuration is not sustainable whether people borrow at a high or low rate. The important point is to not let life suffer anymore than it has to due to the pernicious workings of the system in the knowledge that any determination concerning whether or not to take on "debt" arrived at truly will in the short run avail life, and in the long run buy time for people to come to their senses and remedy the flawed foundation upon which the system is founded. That, in my view, is an optimum course of action, however it might play out in detail in any particular case.
The example we have examined here pertains to the finances of one particular person, but how does that relate to the to-borrow-or-not-to-borrow question for society as a whole? That is a question I will take up in tomorrow's column.
Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites.
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
During a workshop I conducted in Wisconsin, one participant posed a question about a personal financial dilemma in which she felt morally torn between the possibility of borrowing money to purchase a 20 acre parcel of land that was contiguous to a like-sized parcel she was living on, or foregoing the opportunity and thereby obviating the need to go to the bank. She had what she felt were a number of moral reasons for wanting to make the deal, but wasn't sure that such factors adequately justified taking on more "debt". Clearly in this case, to borrow and buy would not be a justification-by-necessity act, but she felt that it could be a humanly creative choice. She wanted my advice on whether she should borrow the money and make the purchase, or not. It was a question for which I could not give a direct answer, but could instead offer conversation that might help her in her determination of what course to take.
I suggested that in making her decision, it might be wisest to ignore the monetary implications with respect to whether or not it would cause more "debt" to come into existence. This seemed to her like a strange response, given that I had just delivered a long dissertation about how borrowing money from a bank causes more compounding "debt" to enter the system, which winds up being carried by the society as a whole on a never-ending basis into the future even after one's loan from the bank is technically paid off. This happens because the proceeds from the "interest" payments are typically converted into more "debt" by "investors" who have purchased the right to be the recipients of these payments. They "recycle" these funds back into circulation by loaning them out at "interest", this time without even the benefit of newly created bank money entering the money supply (see Col. #5, "Where Does Our Money Go?").
How, then, does ignoring the monetary implications of whichever course is taken make sense? It is because, monetarily speaking, the "to borrow, or not to borrow" dilemma is really a Hobson's choice (one with two equally problematic alternatives).
On the one hand, if one goes ahead and borrows the money, whatever benefit flows from the purchase that is financed by the loan is compromised by the burden to the individual and society of the "debt" thereby taken on. It should be noted that if the borrowing was done through a bank, the additional money created does continue to circulate through the money supply after the initial outlay, and this, in turn, does provide to the economy always-needed (but never enough) additional circulating medium.
On the other hand, if one does not take out the loan the "debt" burden is averted, but so is the benefit that might have transpired through whatever the money would have paid for. It should be noted that not borrowing also does not cause additional circulating medium to enter the money supply, and so in effect occasions a contraction of the economy relative to the level of activity it could have supported had the loan been made.
There are other nuances to this choice that could be traced out at length, but the upshot is, I believe, that considered as merely a monetary question, the decision "to borrow, or not to borrow" is, as an economist might say, a "wash" (a choice which has diametrically different, but equally offsetting, outcomes). The reasonable course, then, is to make the decision on the basis of the human merits of the case, and let whether or not the trip to the bank is made follow.
In the case of the lady at the workshop who wanted to know whether she should borrow more money to buy the adjacent land, the decision would presumably be based on a comprehensive consideration of the actual physical and human factors involved. To be sure, such deliberations can run deep, and may even extend in the minds of many to spiritual considerations which are wholly out of the domain of calculation, but whatever the case the question is by its nature uniquely personal, and precisely fitted to the actual people, circumstances and unit of time in which it takes place.
This is not to say that the human cost of carrying a resultant "debt" burden is necessarily not a factor that should be weighed in, but the decision in principle about whether to borrow, or not, is another matter.
The long and short of my advice (if I might presume to offer such) is, when making any economic decision, to follow as much as possible the best option available with respect to benefiting life, and let the finances take their course. Ultimately, the monetary system in its current configuration is not sustainable whether people borrow at a high or low rate. The important point is to not let life suffer anymore than it has to due to the pernicious workings of the system in the knowledge that any determination concerning whether or not to take on "debt" arrived at truly will in the short run avail life, and in the long run buy time for people to come to their senses and remedy the flawed foundation upon which the system is founded. That, in my view, is an optimum course of action, however it might play out in detail in any particular case.
The example we have examined here pertains to the finances of one particular person, but how does that relate to the to-borrow-or-not-to-borrow question for society as a whole? That is a question I will take up in tomorrow's column.
Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites.
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Column #63 "WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT MONEY?"
(Week 11 - Wednesday, Oct. 22)
The most common question I hear is "What can I do about money?" This is commonly meant in one of two ways, one inward looking, the other outward.
The inward looking is focused on what the inquirer can do to preserve, expedite or otherwise conduct his or her personal financial situation in a way consistent with the greater realities in the world today. The outward is aimed at determining how he or she can act in a way beneficial to the larger economic concerns of the world from his or her own unique position in it.
What I find encouraging at present is that people are asking ever more earnest questions about the nature and realities of money itself. Heretofore, it has been treated more as a given, and the main concern has been to about how to catch one's share of its currents as it passes through from wherever it came, to wherever it goes. Now people are waking up to the more fundamental questions of "What is money?", "Where does it come from?", "What is its effect?" and "What can I do about it?"
I am not a financial advisor, political pundit or ideological proponent, and have no specific answers or moral judgments to render. My inclination is to offer a conversation out of my own experience that can perhaps help others to clarify their own thoughts and feelings related to matters of money, and thereby come to a determination of what in their life is to be done with it.
This is not to say that matters of substantive personal relevance can't be talked about; only that it is incumbent upon each of us to come to our own final determination of what is to be done.
One thing that can be offered of which I have a sense of certainty is that, whatever our disposition with respect to money, any contemplation needs to begin with ourselves. In a phrase, what is called for is "soul searching". My observation is that the human race has a most disorderly and disharmonious relationship to money at present, and virtually every one of us has contributed to, and indeed continues to participate in, the problem. There is no criticism or judgment in this, in that it is a natural stage in the evolution of a soul from innocence to adulthood.
But now we are adults, and are called upon by the demands of maturity to put away childish things.
Like children looking for whom to blame, the public dialogue on our current monetary straits is filled with expressions of accusation, recrimination and denial. If only, so the thinking goes, we could find out who is responsible for this mess, then we could hold them responsible and somehow clean it up. The culprits may include bankers, the Fed, Wall Street financiers, politicians, the "conservative right", the "liberal left", communists, the media, the corporations, the mega-rich, a coddled middle class, the destitute poor, welfare moms, the Chinese, Islamic terrorists . . . The list goes on ad infinitum.
To be sure, people in each of these spheres have played a role, but the realities they live with are never simple. It would serve the situation well to hold the attitude of removing the beam from one's own eye before attempting to extract the mote from the other.
In the modern world we are all economic creatures, and the actions we take, both by commission and omission, have an economic dimension. Even to move to the woods and live like a hermit is a profound economic act. This is a condition of our age, and it cannot be avoided.
The attitude that we are all responsible, then, becomes the starting point for an intrepid introspection that will lead ultimately to a unique answer for each to the question, "What can I do about money?" I will have more specific thoughts to offer on this in the next few columns.
Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites.
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
The most common question I hear is "What can I do about money?" This is commonly meant in one of two ways, one inward looking, the other outward.
The inward looking is focused on what the inquirer can do to preserve, expedite or otherwise conduct his or her personal financial situation in a way consistent with the greater realities in the world today. The outward is aimed at determining how he or she can act in a way beneficial to the larger economic concerns of the world from his or her own unique position in it.
What I find encouraging at present is that people are asking ever more earnest questions about the nature and realities of money itself. Heretofore, it has been treated more as a given, and the main concern has been to about how to catch one's share of its currents as it passes through from wherever it came, to wherever it goes. Now people are waking up to the more fundamental questions of "What is money?", "Where does it come from?", "What is its effect?" and "What can I do about it?"
I am not a financial advisor, political pundit or ideological proponent, and have no specific answers or moral judgments to render. My inclination is to offer a conversation out of my own experience that can perhaps help others to clarify their own thoughts and feelings related to matters of money, and thereby come to a determination of what in their life is to be done with it.
This is not to say that matters of substantive personal relevance can't be talked about; only that it is incumbent upon each of us to come to our own final determination of what is to be done.
One thing that can be offered of which I have a sense of certainty is that, whatever our disposition with respect to money, any contemplation needs to begin with ourselves. In a phrase, what is called for is "soul searching". My observation is that the human race has a most disorderly and disharmonious relationship to money at present, and virtually every one of us has contributed to, and indeed continues to participate in, the problem. There is no criticism or judgment in this, in that it is a natural stage in the evolution of a soul from innocence to adulthood.
But now we are adults, and are called upon by the demands of maturity to put away childish things.
Like children looking for whom to blame, the public dialogue on our current monetary straits is filled with expressions of accusation, recrimination and denial. If only, so the thinking goes, we could find out who is responsible for this mess, then we could hold them responsible and somehow clean it up. The culprits may include bankers, the Fed, Wall Street financiers, politicians, the "conservative right", the "liberal left", communists, the media, the corporations, the mega-rich, a coddled middle class, the destitute poor, welfare moms, the Chinese, Islamic terrorists . . . The list goes on ad infinitum.
To be sure, people in each of these spheres have played a role, but the realities they live with are never simple. It would serve the situation well to hold the attitude of removing the beam from one's own eye before attempting to extract the mote from the other.
In the modern world we are all economic creatures, and the actions we take, both by commission and omission, have an economic dimension. Even to move to the woods and live like a hermit is a profound economic act. This is a condition of our age, and it cannot be avoided.
The attitude that we are all responsible, then, becomes the starting point for an intrepid introspection that will lead ultimately to a unique answer for each to the question, "What can I do about money?" I will have more specific thoughts to offer on this in the next few columns.
Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites.
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Column #62 THE CONCORD RESOLUTION REVISITED
(Week 11 - Tuesday, Oct. 21)
In Col. #9 (Wednesday, August 6) I reported about an initiative being undertaken by citizens of Concord, Massachusetts that seeks, in a form suited to our time and circumstances, to recreate the momentous step taken by the Colonial Assembly of Massachusetts in 1690, by which the political body that represented their social order as a whole began to issue the colony's own money supply.
I can imagine that, for the most part, the deed was not contemplated by these loyal British subjects as an act of revolution with respect the England and the Crown, notwithstanding that in time it did indeed lead to a train of events that took on that character. It was more likely conceived of as a straightforward measure that was meant to address a pressing problem of immediate import in a simpler time; the need for a circulating medium. Surely these colonists had little or no sense of the world-changing developments that would unfold from what must have seemed to them to be an audacious, but seemingly limited, act.
We live in a vastly different era, and whatever problems were manifest then are redoubled many times over. That said, we are now, like they were, faced with a stark choice. That is, should we as a society submit to borrowing our money supply from the modern equivalent of the Bank of England (Federal Reserve System) backed by the power of the state, or should it be issued publicly (out of the U.S. Treasury) backed by the sovereign political prerogative of We the People.
The primary advantage we have over our colonial forebears is being able to see the implications of this act as it played out in almost three hundred and twenty years of history. America has been a veritable laboratory for monetary development, and its lessons can now be drawn upon in the interests of serving human evolution, with transformative benefit to the individual, the nation and the world.
The Concord Resolution was originally contemplated as a grassroots educational and political initiative aimed at formulating and bringing to the Concord town meeting a Warrant Article ("resolution" in more common language) to petition the town's Congressional representatives to introduce a bill which would set up a procedure whereby counties and municipalities across the nation could, in an orderly way, apply for interest-free loans issued directly out of the U.S. Treasury to pay for essential public works. This would be in lieu of their feeling obliged to sell bonds on the private bond market to raise needed funds, which typically causes the cost of a project to double or triple due to the "interest" payments associated with the bonds. Presumably, if the idea behind the Resolution caught on across the country, that would open the door for the eventual transformation of the monetary system itself, perhaps within a few years.
What has changed since then is that there is a newly palpable sense of urgency about the condition of our economic life due to the unfolding worldwide financial crisis. I was reminded of this again today as I heard reports in the media that our representatives in Congress are considering a proposal for yet another "financial stimulus" package. This is political speak for having the Federal government borrow even more money, and passing out the proceeds as a way to mollify a citizenry that is smarting over feeling obliged to foot the bill for the $700 billion "bailout" of the "speculative financial industry." All this is after the massive monetary expansion facilitated by borrowing to fund the Iraq and Afghan wars, and the "tax rebates" sent out earlier this year.
The "debt-money system is essentially a confidence game, and confidence on the part of the public, and even the bankers, is hemorrhaging. It seems that there is no amount of new "debt"-money transfusion that can stabilize the situation. I sense that there has occurred amongst the populace a virtual acquiescence to the idea of letting the government and the Fed have their way in taking any they like to patch the system, while being in denial of the terrible price that will have to be paid in the long run for this relinquishing of our responsibility as a citizenry for our own economic life.
Urgency does not mean panic. Our monetary house is indeed burning, but there is still time and opportunity to put out the fire and save the structure essentially intact. The moment is now, however, when we must be about facing what needs to be reckoned with, or the whole question will become catastrophically moot.
Over the last two months what seemed like the revolutionary scope of the Concord Resolution is now shown to be inadequate in the context the financial tsunami that has swept over the global financial order. A more direct and transformative approach is called for. Accordingly, the focus of the Concord Resolution has moved from funding infrastructure, to changing principle by which the monetary system operates; i.e. restoring the monetary franchise to the public sector.
Truth be told, the Massachusetts colonists who in 1690 initiated the first publicly issued paper money in the Western world founded on the free enterprise and backed by the sovereignty of We the People did (whatever may have been their conscious thoughts on the matter) nothing less, and that has made all the difference.
Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
Postscript:
For more information on the Concord Resolution go to http://www.concordresolution.org/
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites.
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
In Col. #9 (Wednesday, August 6) I reported about an initiative being undertaken by citizens of Concord, Massachusetts that seeks, in a form suited to our time and circumstances, to recreate the momentous step taken by the Colonial Assembly of Massachusetts in 1690, by which the political body that represented their social order as a whole began to issue the colony's own money supply.
I can imagine that, for the most part, the deed was not contemplated by these loyal British subjects as an act of revolution with respect the England and the Crown, notwithstanding that in time it did indeed lead to a train of events that took on that character. It was more likely conceived of as a straightforward measure that was meant to address a pressing problem of immediate import in a simpler time; the need for a circulating medium. Surely these colonists had little or no sense of the world-changing developments that would unfold from what must have seemed to them to be an audacious, but seemingly limited, act.
We live in a vastly different era, and whatever problems were manifest then are redoubled many times over. That said, we are now, like they were, faced with a stark choice. That is, should we as a society submit to borrowing our money supply from the modern equivalent of the Bank of England (Federal Reserve System) backed by the power of the state, or should it be issued publicly (out of the U.S. Treasury) backed by the sovereign political prerogative of We the People.
The primary advantage we have over our colonial forebears is being able to see the implications of this act as it played out in almost three hundred and twenty years of history. America has been a veritable laboratory for monetary development, and its lessons can now be drawn upon in the interests of serving human evolution, with transformative benefit to the individual, the nation and the world.
The Concord Resolution was originally contemplated as a grassroots educational and political initiative aimed at formulating and bringing to the Concord town meeting a Warrant Article ("resolution" in more common language) to petition the town's Congressional representatives to introduce a bill which would set up a procedure whereby counties and municipalities across the nation could, in an orderly way, apply for interest-free loans issued directly out of the U.S. Treasury to pay for essential public works. This would be in lieu of their feeling obliged to sell bonds on the private bond market to raise needed funds, which typically causes the cost of a project to double or triple due to the "interest" payments associated with the bonds. Presumably, if the idea behind the Resolution caught on across the country, that would open the door for the eventual transformation of the monetary system itself, perhaps within a few years.
What has changed since then is that there is a newly palpable sense of urgency about the condition of our economic life due to the unfolding worldwide financial crisis. I was reminded of this again today as I heard reports in the media that our representatives in Congress are considering a proposal for yet another "financial stimulus" package. This is political speak for having the Federal government borrow even more money, and passing out the proceeds as a way to mollify a citizenry that is smarting over feeling obliged to foot the bill for the $700 billion "bailout" of the "speculative financial industry." All this is after the massive monetary expansion facilitated by borrowing to fund the Iraq and Afghan wars, and the "tax rebates" sent out earlier this year.
The "debt-money system is essentially a confidence game, and confidence on the part of the public, and even the bankers, is hemorrhaging. It seems that there is no amount of new "debt"-money transfusion that can stabilize the situation. I sense that there has occurred amongst the populace a virtual acquiescence to the idea of letting the government and the Fed have their way in taking any they like to patch the system, while being in denial of the terrible price that will have to be paid in the long run for this relinquishing of our responsibility as a citizenry for our own economic life.
Urgency does not mean panic. Our monetary house is indeed burning, but there is still time and opportunity to put out the fire and save the structure essentially intact. The moment is now, however, when we must be about facing what needs to be reckoned with, or the whole question will become catastrophically moot.
Over the last two months what seemed like the revolutionary scope of the Concord Resolution is now shown to be inadequate in the context the financial tsunami that has swept over the global financial order. A more direct and transformative approach is called for. Accordingly, the focus of the Concord Resolution has moved from funding infrastructure, to changing principle by which the monetary system operates; i.e. restoring the monetary franchise to the public sector.
Truth be told, the Massachusetts colonists who in 1690 initiated the first publicly issued paper money in the Western world founded on the free enterprise and backed by the sovereignty of We the People did (whatever may have been their conscious thoughts on the matter) nothing less, and that has made all the difference.
Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
Postscript:
For more information on the Concord Resolution go to http://www.concordresolution.org/
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites.
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
Monday, October 20, 2008
Column #61 AMERICAN MODE OF CREATING & ISSUING MONEY
(Week 11 - Monday, Oct. 20)
We the People of the United States need a public money supply with which to conduct our commerce. Under the current Federal Reserve System, our money is issued via loans from a private banking system.
When a private person, corporate entity or government body borrows money from a bank, the banker creates the money he is loaning when he writes the check for the loan or credits the account of the borrower. That is the rule upon which the Federal Reserve System is founded. In a booklet published by the Fed, "Everyday Economics", the section titled "How Banks Create Money" states as its opening sentence -"Banks actually create money when they lend it."
The borrower then goes out and spends that money for whatever purpose he took out the loan to fulfill. The money from the loan (principal proceeds) thereby enters into general circulation.
Over time, the borrower will be required to pay back the loan. The terms of the loan contract, however, will state that he will be required, not only to pay back the money he borrowed, but also pay a compounding fee described as "interest on the loan". A problem arises because the money from the loan entered into circulation and is therefore available to be paid back, but the money to make the interest payments was never created and issued. It can only be obtained by taking it out of the money from other loans that are still in circulation.
This means that there will not be enough money in circulation for others to pay their loans. The only way this shortfall can be coped with in practice is for people to borrow more-and-more money into circulation on a continuously increasing basis, both to service the principal and interest payments on old loans, plus bring enough newly borrowed money into circulation to maintain an adequate money supply. People almost certainly will not think of what they are doing as being motivated by maintaining an adequate money supply, but as the amount of money in circulation drops, people are progressively less able to pay their bills, and so will tend to resort to borrowing from banks to make their financial ends meet, which, in turn, has the effect of filling up the monetary pool.
Eventually, the amount of outstanding indebtedness becomes so great that people are simply not able to pay it, and a wave of financial defaults results. This temporarily relieves pressure on the money supply relative to the amount of "debt" it is being called upon to service, but at great cost in personal trauma to those who are obliged to bear the resultant bankruptcies.
As a domino-like default phenomenon gains momentum, a psychological state takes over whereby people become more prone to consolidate their financial position by paying off old "debts" (as opposed to taking on new "debts"), and even banks become reluctant to create and lend more money. The net effect is that the money supply goes into a contraction, which, if not arrested, can lead to economic depression.
One further effect is that the "investments" (bonds, mortgages and other "debt" contracts) bought up by financial speculators are in jeopardy of becoming worthless paper. Technically this is not really a danger to the economy, as the collapse of such paper would relieve pressure on the existing money supply to service "debt", but it does create a great disorder and confusion of interests because many ordinary people also are significantly invested in "debt" paper (as held in money-market accounts, retirement portfolios and the like). In any case there will be voices from the academic, political and financial arenas that will try to convince the public that their distress can only be relieved by rescuing the "investments" of the "speculative industry".
Complicating the whole picture is the fact that the "fractional reserve formula" that governs the banking system will start to break down, sending the banks themselves into technical "bankruptcy".
The upshot of all this financial mayhem is that there arises a general fear in the populace that the monetary system is in danger of "collapsing" if it is not "rescued" with a massive injection of freshly-borrow private-bank money. In truth there is such a danger, but mainly because widespread belief in such a scenario makes it self-fulfilling. This fear, plus the lack of realization concerning what to do about the situation, is precisely what is driving the headlines announcing a general monetary meltdown at present, and the promulgation of a $700 billion "bailout" plan.
Such a plan may (or may not, if a degree of confidence and order cannot be restored) stave off near total disruption of the economy in the short run, but it will inevitably result in the citizenry taking on an ever greater amount of "debt", in this case indirectly through government borrowing. An increasing portion of tax receipts will be diverted into making more hundreds-of-billions of dollars of "interest" payments on a ballooning "national debt", until even the Federal government will not be able to borrow enough new money into circulation to meet its operating expenses.
The churning of the monetary system will continue amidst increasingly unbearable complications. We live in unprecedented times, and where this all may lead is difficult to envision, but the end thereof, and the rough ride getting there, can only be catastrophic in the extreme.
Turning the leaf over, the remedy to the crisis is simple, straightforward and quintessentially American; that is to restore the authority to create our money to the public sector (as stipulated in Art. 1, Sec. 8, Par. 5 of the U.S. Constitution). Money is created "out of thin air", whether this function is performed by a public body that serves the people as a whole (the U.S. Treasury), or a corporation that serves the interests of private gain at the expense of the whole (the Federal Reserve).
If the public's money is borrowed at "interest" from a private corporation, the social order as a whole cannot help but fall increasingly into "debt" to the financial interests that that corporate entity serves.
If, on the other hand, our money supply is issued publicly out of the U.S. Treasury, We the People issue it to ourselves, and no "debt" of the economy as a whole to private financial interests can result.
This was the very monetary principle the Founding Fathers incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, which would, if reinstated, resolve the crisis of crushing "debt" that is today plaguing individuals, the nation, and the world.
Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites:
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
Postscript: I have attached to this column a note from a colleague, Stuart Weeks, who has in many ways played a vital role in helping me to produce these columns. It introduces the matter of possible audience participation in the greater ongoing effort of which the columns are but one part. For my part, I thank you for your considerate interest in the journey through this most critical subject of money so far. (second link listed)
We the People of the United States need a public money supply with which to conduct our commerce. Under the current Federal Reserve System, our money is issued via loans from a private banking system.
When a private person, corporate entity or government body borrows money from a bank, the banker creates the money he is loaning when he writes the check for the loan or credits the account of the borrower. That is the rule upon which the Federal Reserve System is founded. In a booklet published by the Fed, "Everyday Economics", the section titled "How Banks Create Money" states as its opening sentence -"Banks actually create money when they lend it."
The borrower then goes out and spends that money for whatever purpose he took out the loan to fulfill. The money from the loan (principal proceeds) thereby enters into general circulation.
Over time, the borrower will be required to pay back the loan. The terms of the loan contract, however, will state that he will be required, not only to pay back the money he borrowed, but also pay a compounding fee described as "interest on the loan". A problem arises because the money from the loan entered into circulation and is therefore available to be paid back, but the money to make the interest payments was never created and issued. It can only be obtained by taking it out of the money from other loans that are still in circulation.
This means that there will not be enough money in circulation for others to pay their loans. The only way this shortfall can be coped with in practice is for people to borrow more-and-more money into circulation on a continuously increasing basis, both to service the principal and interest payments on old loans, plus bring enough newly borrowed money into circulation to maintain an adequate money supply. People almost certainly will not think of what they are doing as being motivated by maintaining an adequate money supply, but as the amount of money in circulation drops, people are progressively less able to pay their bills, and so will tend to resort to borrowing from banks to make their financial ends meet, which, in turn, has the effect of filling up the monetary pool.
Eventually, the amount of outstanding indebtedness becomes so great that people are simply not able to pay it, and a wave of financial defaults results. This temporarily relieves pressure on the money supply relative to the amount of "debt" it is being called upon to service, but at great cost in personal trauma to those who are obliged to bear the resultant bankruptcies.
As a domino-like default phenomenon gains momentum, a psychological state takes over whereby people become more prone to consolidate their financial position by paying off old "debts" (as opposed to taking on new "debts"), and even banks become reluctant to create and lend more money. The net effect is that the money supply goes into a contraction, which, if not arrested, can lead to economic depression.
One further effect is that the "investments" (bonds, mortgages and other "debt" contracts) bought up by financial speculators are in jeopardy of becoming worthless paper. Technically this is not really a danger to the economy, as the collapse of such paper would relieve pressure on the existing money supply to service "debt", but it does create a great disorder and confusion of interests because many ordinary people also are significantly invested in "debt" paper (as held in money-market accounts, retirement portfolios and the like). In any case there will be voices from the academic, political and financial arenas that will try to convince the public that their distress can only be relieved by rescuing the "investments" of the "speculative industry".
Complicating the whole picture is the fact that the "fractional reserve formula" that governs the banking system will start to break down, sending the banks themselves into technical "bankruptcy".
The upshot of all this financial mayhem is that there arises a general fear in the populace that the monetary system is in danger of "collapsing" if it is not "rescued" with a massive injection of freshly-borrow private-bank money. In truth there is such a danger, but mainly because widespread belief in such a scenario makes it self-fulfilling. This fear, plus the lack of realization concerning what to do about the situation, is precisely what is driving the headlines announcing a general monetary meltdown at present, and the promulgation of a $700 billion "bailout" plan.
Such a plan may (or may not, if a degree of confidence and order cannot be restored) stave off near total disruption of the economy in the short run, but it will inevitably result in the citizenry taking on an ever greater amount of "debt", in this case indirectly through government borrowing. An increasing portion of tax receipts will be diverted into making more hundreds-of-billions of dollars of "interest" payments on a ballooning "national debt", until even the Federal government will not be able to borrow enough new money into circulation to meet its operating expenses.
The churning of the monetary system will continue amidst increasingly unbearable complications. We live in unprecedented times, and where this all may lead is difficult to envision, but the end thereof, and the rough ride getting there, can only be catastrophic in the extreme.
Turning the leaf over, the remedy to the crisis is simple, straightforward and quintessentially American; that is to restore the authority to create our money to the public sector (as stipulated in Art. 1, Sec. 8, Par. 5 of the U.S. Constitution). Money is created "out of thin air", whether this function is performed by a public body that serves the people as a whole (the U.S. Treasury), or a corporation that serves the interests of private gain at the expense of the whole (the Federal Reserve).
If the public's money is borrowed at "interest" from a private corporation, the social order as a whole cannot help but fall increasingly into "debt" to the financial interests that that corporate entity serves.
If, on the other hand, our money supply is issued publicly out of the U.S. Treasury, We the People issue it to ourselves, and no "debt" of the economy as a whole to private financial interests can result.
This was the very monetary principle the Founding Fathers incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, which would, if reinstated, resolve the crisis of crushing "debt" that is today plaguing individuals, the nation, and the world.
Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites:
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
Postscript: I have attached to this column a note from a colleague, Stuart Weeks, who has in many ways played a vital role in helping me to produce these columns. It introduces the matter of possible audience participation in the greater ongoing effort of which the columns are but one part. For my part, I thank you for your considerate interest in the journey through this most critical subject of money so far. (second link listed)
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Column #60 KINDLING A FLAME
(Week 10 - Saturday, Oct. 4)
This is the last of the first sixty columns before I, and those readers that have accompanied me on this journey, take a two-week hiatus. I plan to resume the series on October 20. It is time, not only for a chance to catch our breath, but also for inner reflection on what has been said.
The writing has had its satisfactions, but it is a poor substitute for meeting in person. If it were possible I would have each of you in front of me for a face-to-face conversation. That goal is not attainable realistically, but it can be realized in part through voice-to-voice conversation over the phone. Accordingly, I am herein listing my phone number: 218-828-1366 (many of those on my distribution list have it already). I invite critiques, questions and commentaries. I also welcome the many written responses I have been receiving, but often I can see in them subtle, but important, issues of understanding that can only be addressed in voice-to-voice conversation.
The tenor of these articles might, if one is not fully attentive, seem to be a broadside against bankers and banking. Let me be clear; the enemy is not bankers or banking. Rather, it a powerfully perverse principle that has gotten a hold on the human heart and mind. To be sure, bankers have often played their unfortunate part, and the institution of banking has to a great extent been the agent for the devil's work, but they are by no means unique in that status. In this modern age we are virtually all economic players, and have in our own particular niches contributed to the difficult circumstances that are unfolding in our financial life at present. I had intended to speak to greater depth upon this subject, but that idea was overtaken by events in the financial world that had to be addressed.
I have worked at this monetary "obsession" for going-on three decades, and have encountered a receptiveness, and even hunger, that has grown over the years for the conversation about money. There is a palpable impulse for change emerging in the people I meet. Many times the discussion is animated and the demeanor eager. Often, there is a reluctance to let the epiphany of the encounter come to an end. The next time we meet the personal warmth and enthusiasm is still there, but that special moment of recognition of the fatally flawed nature of the present monetary system, and the way out, has not taken root.
I have seen the flame of awakening on the subject of money kindled many times, but it has been, for the most part, a kindling of green wood. It will burn as long as the flame of my or other's speaking in person to the matter is held to it, and perhaps a while after, but the awareness needed for it to sustain itself is not yet arrived, and so it goes out. Still, something remains. A glowing ember from the moment of recognition when the hearer could peer through the veil of the present malaise and see that there is indeed an answer remains deep in the hearer's memory, but is not sufficient to re-kindle the flame on its own.
The time approaches in the progression of human evolution where a living consciousness about money can, and indeed must, be sustained on its own. It has been the conscious purpose of this series of treatises to expedite that transformation. The idea has been to break down a subject that is bewilderingly vast, complex and immersive into daily digestible bites that can be taken in as an antidote to what is, in my view, misguided, misleading and depressing media fare. My hope is that whatever merit is contained in these tomes will serve as lessons that will, over time, season the inner timber of mindfulness on the subject of money.
The success or failure of this initiative will be measured by how much it encourages and inspires people to take up spontaneously the seeking of truth about money in the context of their own life experiences, and their own original thoughts. Only then can the flame of understanding be said to have been lit. From there it can be shared with others until it kindles a mighty conflagration of realization that no force on earth can hold back.
At least that is my idea. If it is my delusion, let it be so, but I can't spend the day worrying about what others think. There is too much to do. The headlines, of late, have sewn a seed of urgency in many I have met or who have contacted me. Humankind has come a long way without coming to a deep realization of "what is money", the sophisticated world-encompassing financial structures we have built up notwithstanding. But the question can no longer be put by. It demands an answer, or fearful forces out of our control will impose one on us.
In my perception, all the signs of the times converge in a worldly sense upon the same reckoning, and that is what to do about money. If we would see it, the very occurrence of the present world financial chaos is a priceless opportunity. Whether we seize upon it for good or ill will make all the difference. I suggest that this is something to contemplate until we resume.
Thank you all for your interest.
Respectfully and lovingly submitted, Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites:
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
This is the last of the first sixty columns before I, and those readers that have accompanied me on this journey, take a two-week hiatus. I plan to resume the series on October 20. It is time, not only for a chance to catch our breath, but also for inner reflection on what has been said.
The writing has had its satisfactions, but it is a poor substitute for meeting in person. If it were possible I would have each of you in front of me for a face-to-face conversation. That goal is not attainable realistically, but it can be realized in part through voice-to-voice conversation over the phone. Accordingly, I am herein listing my phone number: 218-828-1366 (many of those on my distribution list have it already). I invite critiques, questions and commentaries. I also welcome the many written responses I have been receiving, but often I can see in them subtle, but important, issues of understanding that can only be addressed in voice-to-voice conversation.
The tenor of these articles might, if one is not fully attentive, seem to be a broadside against bankers and banking. Let me be clear; the enemy is not bankers or banking. Rather, it a powerfully perverse principle that has gotten a hold on the human heart and mind. To be sure, bankers have often played their unfortunate part, and the institution of banking has to a great extent been the agent for the devil's work, but they are by no means unique in that status. In this modern age we are virtually all economic players, and have in our own particular niches contributed to the difficult circumstances that are unfolding in our financial life at present. I had intended to speak to greater depth upon this subject, but that idea was overtaken by events in the financial world that had to be addressed.
I have worked at this monetary "obsession" for going-on three decades, and have encountered a receptiveness, and even hunger, that has grown over the years for the conversation about money. There is a palpable impulse for change emerging in the people I meet. Many times the discussion is animated and the demeanor eager. Often, there is a reluctance to let the epiphany of the encounter come to an end. The next time we meet the personal warmth and enthusiasm is still there, but that special moment of recognition of the fatally flawed nature of the present monetary system, and the way out, has not taken root.
I have seen the flame of awakening on the subject of money kindled many times, but it has been, for the most part, a kindling of green wood. It will burn as long as the flame of my or other's speaking in person to the matter is held to it, and perhaps a while after, but the awareness needed for it to sustain itself is not yet arrived, and so it goes out. Still, something remains. A glowing ember from the moment of recognition when the hearer could peer through the veil of the present malaise and see that there is indeed an answer remains deep in the hearer's memory, but is not sufficient to re-kindle the flame on its own.
The time approaches in the progression of human evolution where a living consciousness about money can, and indeed must, be sustained on its own. It has been the conscious purpose of this series of treatises to expedite that transformation. The idea has been to break down a subject that is bewilderingly vast, complex and immersive into daily digestible bites that can be taken in as an antidote to what is, in my view, misguided, misleading and depressing media fare. My hope is that whatever merit is contained in these tomes will serve as lessons that will, over time, season the inner timber of mindfulness on the subject of money.
The success or failure of this initiative will be measured by how much it encourages and inspires people to take up spontaneously the seeking of truth about money in the context of their own life experiences, and their own original thoughts. Only then can the flame of understanding be said to have been lit. From there it can be shared with others until it kindles a mighty conflagration of realization that no force on earth can hold back.
At least that is my idea. If it is my delusion, let it be so, but I can't spend the day worrying about what others think. There is too much to do. The headlines, of late, have sewn a seed of urgency in many I have met or who have contacted me. Humankind has come a long way without coming to a deep realization of "what is money", the sophisticated world-encompassing financial structures we have built up notwithstanding. But the question can no longer be put by. It demands an answer, or fearful forces out of our control will impose one on us.
In my perception, all the signs of the times converge in a worldly sense upon the same reckoning, and that is what to do about money. If we would see it, the very occurrence of the present world financial chaos is a priceless opportunity. Whether we seize upon it for good or ill will make all the difference. I suggest that this is something to contemplate until we resume.
Thank you all for your interest.
Respectfully and lovingly submitted, Richard Kotlarz
richkotlarz@gmail.com
The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites:
http://economictree.blogspot.com/
http://www.concordresolution.org/column.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)