Ch 2 The Economic Environment to use a Positive Money :
The economic environment of a positive money is dependent on the liberal capitalist system of power led by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy. As long as it exists in countries, it will be a threat both economically and politically.
On the other hand, if the political threat is expressed firmly and constantly, on the economic level, the crises of capitalism caused by the fundamental contradiction of this system and its mortal risk of not being able to survive a crisis of overproduction, are all signs of opportunity because these flaws favor the abandonment of this system of power.
The lethal risk of the capitalist system’s collapse already arose in the 1920s, after World War I.
Positive Money is for us
Second part: strategic analysis :
II External diagnosis.
Opportunities and threats in the environment of a Positive Money
for new use in life networks.
Chapter 2 The economic environment
Full currency is for us = Positive Money is for us = A currency without debts is for us
Summary of the diagnosis of the external environment of a full currency (PESTEL method)
|Ch 1 The POLITICAL environment||Ch 2 ECONOMIC environment||Ch 3 SOCIOLOGICAL environment||Ch 4 TECHNOLOGICAL environment|
|The Fight Against a Private Central Bank|
Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Kennedy,
Maurice Allais warns politicians
Initiatives for a Positive Monney
The Anglo-Saxon Financial Oligarchy’s Threat
Pierre Leroux and the associations
Karl MARX and the American Bankers
The additional cost of Capital
the debt burden
repayment of public debts
solution to repay debts
|The impoverishment of the population|
violence by the rich
discrediting the elites
Solidarity villages Marinaleda, Ungersheim
les SEL Local Exchange Services
|the sale of financial securities|
the casino economy
the stock markets are rising, the economy is flat
the big bubble machine US
Five ways finance has gone crazy
The blockchain a common good
|Ch5 ÉCOLOGICAL environment||Ch 6 LEGAL environment|
energy transition, sustainable development
What is political ecology
The Climate Convention
|money controls the economy |
the central bank alone creates money
off-balance sheet management of investment banks
Money in Medieval Europe
the Swiss Initiative Monnaie Pleine
|money owned by commercial banks|
Glass-Steagall Act, security solution
Increasing fractional reserves
” The” solution to banking crises.
1) The fundamental problem of a production system is to avoid the barrier of over-capacity production
so as not to produce goods and services that will not be sold because markets are saturated.
This was achieved in the 1920s. Factories that had operated during World War I to produce weapons and ammunition, often with new female factory workers, operating as they did after the war, would henceforth mass-produce consumer goods that in a few years would saturate all markets.
1.1 Jacques Duboin’s distributive economy
This situation was pointed out by Jacques Duboin, who proposed the distributive economy solution: to use positive economies of scale to make the factories of the industrialized countries operate at their optimum yield and therefore at the lowest cost of production.
Unsold surplus in rich countries would be traded with poor countries to boost living standards, which would save the world money by avoiding unwanted immigration from poor countries, the main sources of crime, wars and revolts of misery, colonialism and wars of liberation against colonial countries, and so on. This proposal was in favor of a world government by a responsible and efficient society of nations.
1.2 Bernays and propaganda to sell more
Of course, such prospects ran counter to the interests of the international bank’s families. We know the solution that capitalist leaders have embraced: the propaganda pioneered by Rockefeller’s early public-relations adviser, Bernays. Bernays will demonstrate that if individual needs are met by mass production, production can continue to increase as long as it satisfies not the individual needs but the individual desires that are unlimited as long as marketing manages to create them for consumers who have no idea. Bernays’ first achievement was to boost cigarette production by getting young women to smoke.
We are here at the birth of the power of Marketing in companies producing goods and services.
After the Second World War organized from Wall Street, once the reconstruction of Europe had progressed, the satisfaction of desires was restored with fashion effects and the consumer society. This excess consumption, driven by the trivialities of fashion, intended to create new desires, was facilitated by the development of credit. Household debt drove economic growth and increased banks’ wealth. We know what comes next with this financial strategy, which leads us to speculative bubbles and financial market turmoil to boost short-term profits.
Bernays retired and with his personal fortune founded his Institute to defend the opposite of his youth ideas. He saw and realized that satisfying desires leads to a society of overconsumption and waste. He also understood the ravages of tobacco on women and especially pregnant women.
1.3 Globalization of the economy as a solution to production or as a serious risk for capitalism
The overproduction issue, however, remains underlying. To avoid it we have seen that computing and telecommunications have been used to develop the casino economy disconnected from the real economy. It has allowed wealthy individuals to continue enjoying dividends and plentiful profits.
In the real economy, the pursuit of productivity gains from positive economies of scale (with rising output volume) has been replaced by the pursuit of negative economies of scale (same output volume but with fewer factors of production: technical capital and labor). This increases business concentration. A single large factory is enough for several countries or for a continent, or even the world in the case of factories installed in China by American capital.
The risk is no longer overproduction but the lack of goods or services available during a health crisis such as in spring 2020 with the shortage of protective masks against the virus or in January 2021 the lack of vaccines since the few factories cannot keep up with the level of demand. Likewise, austerity measures in the health sector result in a shortage of staff and situations in which hospital staff have to triage patients while leaving the elderly behind at the end of their lives.
The other risk of this globalization of exchanges is also known: the lack of spare parts, electronic components, food goods following natural disasters in this or that country, wars, financial crises, changes in alliances Geo political as currently between China, Russia and the countries that refuse the domination of the American economy with its dollar.
By avoiding the risk of overproduction, the liberal system makes itself socially inhumane and politically unpopular. We are then close to a citizens’ shift to demand a different way of managing the economy. But as they have been made ignorant of the existence of the alternative Networks of Life, the leaders are betting on revolts of misery, jacqueries to overcome this opposition to the leaders of the liberal system.
This is why we are here in the presence of an opportunity in the medium term but also a short -term threat as long as citizens’ training has not made it possible to raise the level of skills on the functioning of national economies as in the capitalist system that in national organizations in life networks.
In the Life Networks, we have indicated, there is no risk of overproduction because of the Plan which uses the COQs evaluated by the Quality Circles of the Life Project Teams to find synergies and distribute the amount of labor and skills available between the 3 levels of human activity.
2) The debate between protectionism and free exchange, opportunity or threatens for a positive money.
2.1 the myth of free exchange and its elimination
Capitalist and liberal ideology uses the words and especially the words “free”, “freedom” to affirm that markets should no longer be subject to the will of a king, prince, emperor or a government, a state. Every citizen is free to participate or not to participate in exchanges on a “free” market. The reality, however, is and has never been any different in a system of power: a minority takes power and dominates others. Virtually all markets are controlled by oligopolies owned or financed by the families of international bankers.
We have seen that a positive money is based on an organization of work where everyone uses the Total Quality approach and evaluates the COQ. Then these COQs enter the Plan to find synergies and this plan is validated by the political action of citizens in their political institutions. For mainstream economists of the liberal dogma, a positive money is far worse than protectionism.
But apart from this ideological conflict, in practice, does a positive money guarantee free trade, or does it have to take protectionist measures?
An implacable conviction of Orthodox theories developed mainly by Adam Smith and David Ricardo
Reinert’s book makes a remarkable contribution to this demystification of free trade and to a relentless condemnation of the orthodox theories developed mainly by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, whereas another school defended mainly by Schumpeter and Keynes pursues the vision of the intelligent, innovative, and creative human being that should not be dominated by capital, and of abstract mathematical calculations that base theories and models that take absolutely no account of reality, let alone history’s experiences and lessons.
Rare periods of great technological change that offer speculators of all stripes unlimited faith in market forces. Their credo is well known: all must be free to use the new technologies to enrich themselves in new markets; there should be no obstacles to their development, particularly those related to government financing and social policies.
Each time history shows the failure of these liberal policies and the revolutions that followed those years of scandalous rapid development of social misery. The revolutions of 1789 and 1848 were the result of these monumental economic errors. The wars of 1870-1945 followed such revolutions as if the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy understood that they had better shape human disasters for their own profit than see a workers’ revolution end up being poorly designed for their own private interests.
The end of the Cold War and the revolution in computer and telecommunications technology are two major events that explain this unbridled and unthinking belief in business success and the rise of a world government established by the financial powers of the ruling oligarchy. Speculation against the euro since February 2010 has been curbed by the Chinese central bank’s euro purchases, but that is not enough to avert the threat of a deepening financial crisis and the use of austerity and impoverishment policies by Western populations.
2.2 Good globalization according to Friedrich List (1789-1846)
The exit from our systems of power and the development of networked organizations no longer requires an orthodox or heterodox vision. Reinert defended his reasoning by clinging to the writings of Friederich List (1789-1846)
Excerpts from Reinert’s book:
That is why industrialization’s staunchest advocates – for tariff protection – like Friedrich List (1789-1846), were also the strongest advocates of free trade under globalization, once all countries are industrialized. As early as the 1840s, Friedrich List formulated a recipe for “good globalization”: if free trade developed after all the world’s countries had industrialized, free trade would be the best for everyone. The only point of contention is the timetable for adopting free trade and the structural geographical sequence in which the development towards free trade is taking place. (page 226)
End of extract from Reinert’s book.
The Life Networks go further in this direction since there is no recourse to the notion of a market. Economic regulation is more self-regulation by political institutions between the three levels of human activity. There is inevitably and obviously a regulation of production, since there is no point in producing goods or services when the satisfaction of citizens is achieved. The liberal dogma of scarcity and unlimited needs to satisfy individual desires does not exist in the Networks of Life.
2.3 Keynes claimed that production must remain national as much as possible, this to ensure full employment and eliminate unemployment.
Keynes argued that output should remain national as much as possible, in order to ensure full employment and eliminate unemployment. Keynes argued that money had to be kept strictly national to finance only production, not to be used as a means of speculation through hoarding beyond the control of states. Keynes pointed out that in 2000 it would take 20 hours a week for everyone to have a minimum income to get the goods and services they need to survive.
Keynes, by contrast, never explained what people could do with the rest of the available working time, especially in the non-market economy or to use the primary source of knowledge.
2.4 Intelligent protectionism
Today’s debate focuses on “smart protectionism” – that is, offensive protectionism to defend a young European industry, such as renewable-energy technologies, against low-cost imports from China.
Defensive protectionism to protect agriculture and its diminishing yields.
Smart protectionism to defend the EU economy against the evils of globalization and deregulation of markets.
2.5 The opportunistic ignorance of Gunnar Myrdal (Nobel Prize 1974)
In this political debate, Reinert echoes the words of Gunnar Myrdal (1974 Nobel Prize winner) to denounce the sham:
” opportunistic ignorance” is based on the fact that we are open to a world where economic “science” assumptions are manipulated to achieve political goals. Technology and rising returns, the main sources of economic power, are creating entry barriers. By forgetting this, economists serve the vested interests of nations in power.”
Here we find the limit of these economic theories: Ricardo’s diminishing yields and free trade are useful for leaving people in poverty, or for destroying industry and crafts in a country in order to impoverish it. A poorer population will have less means to revolt because it will be deprived above all of knowledge and technology. It will be sidelined from the virtuous circle of rising returns and will be weaker in the balance of power with the richest countries.
2.6 The dogma of free exchange makes it possible to destroy societies and their national economies
The leaders of the financial oligarchy are using the dogma of free trade totally disconnected from reality precisely to break education systems, training, public services and health services to weaken a society and make it incapable of opposing the plundering of its markets by neo-colonialism.
When a period of great innovation presents itself, wealth normally must increase because of that innovation, so, like the trawl of the fisherman at sea, world financial leaders must arm themselves to capture as much of that wealth as possible and thus ask people to pay more taxes, to pay more for consumer goods and services.
The financial mechanism is straightforward and has been used cyclically since the eighteenth century: private central banks take advantage of innovations to sell credit in abundance, and suddenly, in an organized financial crisis, ask for it to be repaid immediately, or organize creditors’ insolvency to force them to sell at low prices the assets they have purchased, mainly real estate.
In recent years, this mechanism has also affected states that have taken on debt from private central banks, and we are in the sovereign debt crisis that citizens have to pay back by sacrificing their standard of living. For the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, the current masters of the world, the use of decreasing yields vis-à-vis commodity exporting countries and the use of free trade to justify the deregulation of financial markets are the two pillars of their power in the domination of the capitalist economic system.
2.7 Politicians do not want to share the growing yields, this “hot potato” which burns their fingers
As Reinert writes after the authors of the other school, that of intelligence and knowledge, increasing returns are indeed “a hot potato” in the hands of politicians..
Creating a virtuous circle of wealth creation and development is not difficult, but for a ruling minority in a system of power that wants to enrich itself at the expense of others, the insurmountable difficulty arises when it comes to sharing the wealth produced.
How can we explain all of a sudden that the wealth produced by well-trained, educated, intelligent and creative human beings, who are capable of managing and finding synergies, can we explain that this wealth produced in abundance is almost exclusively allocated to a ruling minority and not to the rest of the social group? This is absurd!
No one can accept such theft, such a plunder of wealth, unless the social group is dominated by a political regime that legitimizes and hides this plunder and maintains its domination through a balance of power guaranteed by the army and masked through social conformism towards this domination of a ruling minority.
We know that this confiscation of wealth so far uses the tax system, taxes and taxes as well as austerity policies to no longer finance public services and privatize them. This is the raison d’être of states and their governments in representative democracies. But this situation is only temporary.
The world government by 2030 aims to eliminate national states and decide directly on the price levels and especially the level of the supply of goods and services. Its purpose is to no longer finance social spending by drastically reducing the level of the population starting with the reduction of food goods. This is the raison d’être of punitive ecology. For example, under the pretext of reducing CO2 emissions, the number of cattle and animals intended for food, must decrease sharply. Proteins will be provided by chemistry and biology or by the production of insects. As for hot potatoes, their fate is also strongly compromised.
We have on fileane.com, shown the history of ongoing conflicts between systems of power and networked organizations. We have here confirmation of the contradictory nature between these two ways of organizing a society:
- the networked organization is based on the common good, the common property which is the only form of property capable of equitably distributing the wealth produced;
- the systems of power prohibit this common property to use individual or collective property in order to take the wealth produced for the benefit of the ruling minority.
Democracies are the political system that has so far produced the best development possible without being able to avoid widening inequality and the outrageous enrichment of their leaders. People no longer believe in the merits of representative democracies, and they begin to learn, to discover the knowledge, the knowledge that is hidden from them under the shams of the leaders of our systems of power.
The social and political crisis of the pension reform in early 2023 once again illustrates this major distrust between citizens and politicians, the intermediate bodies of the State, the unique unions in front of this destructive rise in authoritarian neo -liberal policies. The choice of civilization becomes even more necessary and essential to leave these power systems
As Reinert points out and shows through his book: the knowledge we need to emerge from our economic and financial crises organized by the financial oligarchy, is found in history, in the facts of political, economic and social history that show us how cities, peoples and nations have developed. And the history of the first peoples, the Mosos, the confederation of Iroquois nations, the indigenous peoples of the Trobriand Islands in Melanesia, the indigenous peoples of the Amazon, the Himalayas, are not the last to show us how to live better, how to develop peace and our loves.
A restart of the vocabulary around the concept of work
In the Networks of Life, freedom is exercised at the level of political action in political institutions in compliance with the values and norms of humanist culture. There is no longer an abuse of language to use the word “labor” exclusively in a relationship between the individual owners of the means of production of wealth and the non-individual owners of those means of production.
Work is a form of human activity and this word has been used to name work indispensable to life and survival, the first level of human activity.
The realization of works that raise the standard of living and are passed on to future generations, political action are the other two levels of human activity.
In the Networks of Life, the word “work” aptly refers to a human activity, but it is necessary to situate this activity on a precise level of human activity. Citizens work in three different ways depending on whether they are involved in one or the other or in the three levels of activity. There is a lot of freedom of trade, but it starts at the work level.
Labor precedes Capital.
This is not a question relating to the economy but of the political and social organization of a society organized in life networks with a direct participatory local democracy and its institutions.
Protectionism inevitably is present
Protectionism inevitably exists, as Friederich List points out: the goal of a production is to meet local needs, saturate the domestic market, and then there is the question of producing more for exports.
The world government of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy which controls the economy of the liberal capitalist system claims something else: the individual owners of the means of production seek to produce and sell as much as possible to maximize their profits and therefore they must be free to access the world market since the possibilities of transport and telecommunications allow it. They are free to own the barriers to entry into the world market on their own, since they have power in this system of power.
The world government’s project for 2030 aims to eliminate individual property from the means of production and to use collective property exclusively. The leaders of Wall Street had already given this objective to the communist leaders of the Soviet Union in 1905-1907 and then from 1917 to 1989. The industrial tool was already under their control. It remains to eliminate the private property of farmers. In 2022, it has already started in the Netherlands.
We must restore a level sufficient protectionism to defend our national economies no longer against competitors but now against this world government of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy led by the sect of Puritans who claim to be predestined to govern the world according to their divine precepts .
Once the use of words specified in life networks, freedom of exchanges and protectionism are not a threat to the use of a full currency. Nor is it an opportunity since life networks have a different conception of these two economic concepts.
In life networks, the economy based on the use of a full currency and everything that goes with is the opposite of the capitalist power system. It does not use the dogmas, fictions and practices of neo -liberal, politicians or financial leaders at the service of this power system.
Clearly, hot potatoes are used to nourish the whole of the social group and they do not burn our fingers.
3) the extra cost of capital, opportunity or threat for a positive money?
The economic capital necessary for the production of goods, services and equipment, in the capitalist system governed by high finance, must also bear the financial cost of capital: the interest on loans, the high level of dividends demanded by shareholders and also the cost of managing investment funds, banks with their extravagant expenses and their magnificent salaries.
In short, a whole financial economy that is not necessary, let alone indispensable, to produce what people need.
The elimination of this extra financial cost of capital represents a real opportunity to influence and persuade citizens to abandon the liberal and financial system. This is a logical argument.
But there is also a threat, as the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy are so keen to mask, hide this additional cost of capital, and as a result as citizens are unaware of this additional cost and are unable to calculate and evaluate it.
It becomes visible when economic redundancies are carried out for financial reasons and to preserve, increase in the short term the dividends of shareholders. Defended by legislation and the behavior of politicians paid by financiers, this threat to a positive money is eliminated essentially by abandoning the liberal system, which is difficult to envisage as ignorant citizens on these economic and political issues, will continue to want to imagine that through the game of political parties, they will be able to access power and change this liberal system while remaining in a logic of the system of power.
This means changing to replace the system of domination and submission of peoples with theirs based on the domination of their personal interests.
Cost of Capital, the All-Changing Issue by Laurent Cordinier, July 2013
link to this article from Le Monde diplomatique du 21/08/2014.
In order to justify all sorts of reforms, the media and government officials have invoked their willingness to shake up “archaisms” and show courage. Ultimately, though, the challenge is still to reduce wages and benefits.
But there is a taboo against anyone who wants to invest and create jobs: the prohibitive cost of capital.
A study by economists from the Center Lille d’études et de recherche sociologique et économique (Clersé), commissioned by the General Confederation of Labor (CGT) and the Institut de recherche économique et sociale (IRES).
The authors of this study explain, after others, that the increase in the cost of capital—or rather, its additional cost—in the wake of the financialization of the economy largely reflects the poor performance of the formerly developed economies over the past thirty years: the dusty pace of capital accumulation that they have experienced, the increase in inequality, the explosion of financial income, the persistence of massive underemployment… They also show the soaring rise in this capital overcost, proposing a less stressful indicator than the famous “weighted average cost of capital” popularized by the financial doctrine standard.
What if the donkey started to rush?
To understand what we are talking about, we must distinguish between two notions of cost of capital: the economic cost and the financial cost.
The economic cost is the productive effort required to manufacture the tools and, more generally, all the means of production: machines, buildings, factories, transport equipment, infrastructure, patents, software… This productive effort represents in a way the “true” cost of capital, the one that must necessarily be spent on labor to manufacture this capital, understood here in the sense of “productive capital”. The measurement of this effort (e.g. over a year) is more commonly referred to as capital expenditure, and national accountants refer to gross fixed capital formation (GFCF). This expenditure represents about 20% of the annual production of French firms.
But the cost of producing productive capital, as measured by its purchase price, is not the only burden on firms. When they want to buy and use these means of production, they also have to pay the people or institutions that have provided them with money (money also called “capital”, but in the financial sense this time). Thus, in addition to the “true” cost of capital, there are interest payments to lenders and dividends paid to shareholders (as remuneration for the latter’s cash contributions during capital increases, or when they leave part of “their” profits in reserve in the company).
But much of this financial cost (interest and dividends) does not correspond to any economic service rendered, either to the companies themselves or to society as a whole. It is therefore important to know what this totally unproductive part of the financial cost, resulting from a rent phenomenon, represents, which could clearly be dispensed with by organizing other ways to finance the company; for example, by imagining a system based solely on bank credit, charged at the lowest possible cost.
To determine the amount of this undue annuity, it is sufficient to subtract from the financial income the portion that could be justified… for good economic reasons. Some of the interest and dividends cover the risk that lenders and shareholders will never see their money again, owing to the bankruptcy potential inherent in all business plans. This is what we can call entrepreneurial risk. Another part of this income may also be justified by the cost of administering financial activity, which consists in transforming and directing cash savings to enterprises.
When these two justifiable components (entrepreneurial risk and administrative cost) are removed from the total financial income, a measure of the undue rent is obtained. It can be referred to as an ‘extra cost of capital’, since it is a cost borne by internal stakeholders in the company that unnecessarily overburdens the ‘real’ cost of capital.
The study of Clersé shows that this additional cost is considerable.
For example, in 2011, it amounted to €94.7 billion in France for all non-financial companies. By relating it to the ‘true’ cost of capital, i.e. the investment in productive capital in the same year (GFCF), which was EUR 202,3 billion, a capital overcharge of 50 % is obtained… If we were to relate this additional cost to the only part of the investment that corresponds to the amortization of capital—which, in the eyes of many economists, would represent the “true” cost of capital—we would get an even more astonishing valuation: in the order of 70%!
This means that when French workers are able to produce their machines, factories, buildings, infrastructure, etc., at a total price of EUR 100 per year (including the profit margin), it costs in practice between EUR 150 and EUR 170 per year to the companies that use this productive capital, simply because they have to pay a rent, without economic justification, to the contributors of money..
Such an increase in the cost of capital is neither necessary nor fatal. In the period 1961-1981, which preceded the global financial “big bang,” the average was 13.8%. It even turned negative in the late “glorious thirty” (1973-1974), owing to the resurgence of inflation
The restrictive policies of the monetarist revolution initially pushed up financial rents, sending real interest rates soaring. When the decline in these rates began in the 1990s, the accelerated payment of dividends took over. Shareholder power, restored by the rise of institutional investors (mutual savings funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc.), was based on market discipline, shareholder activism, and new corporate governance in order not to let the rent slip into other hands.
All in all, it can be said that the surge in the cost of capital over the past three decades is the direct result of raising the financial standard imposed on firms with the help of their managers, whose interests have been properly aligned with those of shareholders. In order to change the capital return requirement from 15 % per annum to the capital cost surcharge, it is in a way sufficient to correct the measure. Such requirements correspond in practice to an additional cost imposed on any investment project of the order of 50 to 70 %
The effects of this rise in financial standards, though imaginable, are incalculable.
Perhaps the most important is not the most visible one. To be sure, wealth transfers to lenders and shareholders represent a significant bonanza, which has steadily increased (from 3% of French value-added in 1980 to 9% today) and goes neither into the pockets of entrepreneurial people (unless they also own their businesses) nor into the pockets of workers.
It could be argued already that the exploitation of workers has clearly increased. But there is more: who can say the enormous waste of wealth never produced, of jobs never created, of collective, social, environmental projects never undertaken just because the eligibility threshold to implement them is to achieve an annual profitability of 15%?
Only a donkey can carry a load equivalent to 70% of its own weight
When the burden on any firm, public or private, increases its real cost by 50-70%, is it any wonder that our financially constrained economies remain sluggish? Only a donkey can carry a load equivalent to 70% of its own weight.
The problem is not that overburdening siphons off investment funds. Rather, the reverse is true. Money given to lenders and shareholders is exactly the counterpart of profits that companies no longer need, because they limit their own investment projects to the most profitable range.
So the right question is this: in a world of individual or collective action that yields 15-30% annually, how big is the graveyard of ideas – good or bad, unfortunately – that never came to pass, because they would yield only 0-15%?
As we begin to make the ecological and social transition in our economies, one might think that a genuinely social-democratic political project should at least have this goal in mind: unleashing the agency of entrepreneurial people, the employed, and all those seeking economic and social progress, from the yoke of property and rent. Liquidate the annuity, rather than work and enterprise.
To be sure, such ambition is beyond the reach of a single man – however “normal.” But it is surely within reach of a collective ambition.
« This is not to say,” John Maynard Keynes warned, “that the use of capital goods would cost next to nothing, but only that the income derived therefrom would need to cover little more than the depreciation due to usury and obsolescence, increased by a margin to compensate for the risks and the exercise of skill and judgment. »
Keynes offered consolation to those who saw the end of the world in front of him :
« This state of affairs would be perfectly compatible with a certain degree of individualism. But it would also mean euthanasia of the rentier and, consequently, the progressive disappearance of the additional oppressive power of capitalists to exploit the value conferred on capital by its scarcity. ».
end of document
Positive Money ends this additional financial cost in the use of capital
and the real economy of the country which adopts this restoration of citizen power over money creation is freed from a financial yoke which is particularly destructive of jobs and real economic growth.
It is not only a question of eliminating the creation of money ex nihilo as counterfeiters do, but also of eliminating the weight of financial rent on the development of the real economy.
In short, a positive money eliminates the violence of the rich.
In this additional financial cost, this tyranny of the shareholder who chooses projects according to their short-term financial profitability and eliminates the other projects which are nevertheless capable of meeting the needs of the citizens, there is the particular case of private and public debts following the use of money debts, the system of control of the economy by credit which diffuses the false currency of Anglo-Saxon high finance.
4) debt burdens and austerity measures
to promote repayment, opportunity, or threat to a positive money.
While the additional cost of capital, which we have just seen, remains a little-known and difficult to assess issue, the question of public and private debts, their amounts as a percentage of GDP, is on the contrary well known and precisely quantified. This is to make people understand that they are consuming too much on credit, that they live beyond their means and that therefore it is now necessary to submit to the austerity measures to pay all these debts and first the public debts by paying more taxes and paying “at the fair price of the markets” the public services finally became private according to the inescapable dogmas of neo-liberal ideology. This neo-liberal argument was echoed so clearly by at least one candidate in the 2017 French presidential election, because it also corresponds to the position of radical Catholics who have distinguished for two millennia the “righteous and sinners” and who support political parties that manage to correct the inclinations and mistakes of those who indulge in excesses of all kinds.
The economic crises, the stock market crashes and the political crises that follow them allow to ruin the economic actors and the financiers who organize these crises, buy them back at low prices to extend their domination on the world economy and maximize their profits that during these crises become huge, impossible to obtain in normal times or without wars, without crises.
4.1 the indebtedness of monarchies and states by international bankers.
Apart from these crises or better, between these repeated crises of wealth-destroying capitalism, the usual operation of international high finance since the destruction of the Templars and their common bank in 1307, is to lend money to kings and princes, lords to make war at the slightest opportunity. But kings and princes used to coerce their bankers into writing off debts. With the development of royal absolutism and the first colonial conquests, international bankers managed to lend and indebt the monarchies by capturing the revenues from taxes and charges over long periods.
Liberal financial logic is basic: customer debts are bankers’ source of profit. So to multiply the debts, it’s about having clients who have a great need for financing and if possible who offer all the repayment guarantees.
Once upon a time, these customers were kings and princes, the rulers of the monarchies, and we know how the bankers succeeded in subduing the monarchies to the power of the banks. Second, the republics and democracies had to submit to the power of the banks as well. We have seen earlier the conflicts between a few politicians and the families of international bankers. The events that led a country to submit to the power of bankers are known and thanks to social networks on the web, this knowledge is no longer kept secret but becomes accessible to citizens.
For the UK, it was in 1815 when Rothschild Bank, speculating on false news about the Battle of Waterloo, managed to get its hands on the London Stock Exchange.
In 1913, the United States created the Federal Reserve. This was the result of a secret policy of the Financial Trust which, after organizing the crash of 1907, wanted to force the US government to submit to its power. JP Morgan, sensing the future and fearing like the plague that the US would discard monetarism by reverting to productive public lending through a true national bank in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, decided to stay ahead of events.
In France, it was in 1973 with the law that forbids the government from using the currency created directly by the Banque de France and that obliges the public authorities to borrow on the financial markets. The French economy had already been under the control of Rothschild Bank of Paris since 1818 after the English economy had been under the control of Rothschild London. The law is nicknamed the “Pompidou-Giscard Law,” or “Rothschild Law,” a reference to the fact that Pompidou was the chief executive of Rothschild Bank and the young finance inspector largely behind the idea of this law was Michel Pebereau, then a technical adviser in Giscard’s office and has since become Chairman of the Board of Directors of BNP Paribas.
In Switzerland, this was done in 2004 with the corresponding amendment to the Swiss Constitution. Article 11(2) of the Swiss National Bank Act states: The Swiss National Bank may neither grant credits and overdraft facilities to the Confederation nor acquire, at issue, securities of the public debt. It may authorize, against sufficient guarantees, account overdrafts during the day.
This article was written by an expert panel appointed by the then head of finance department Kaspar Villiger… In 2009, he became chairman of the board of directors of the largest bank in the country, UBS, following his career in the Federal Council. The experts introduced the doctrine of the time into Swiss law. (quite a few years behind our neighbors as often!).
The lesson of the doctrine is a visceral fear of inflation. This fear is also the first reflex that fuels criticism among Swiss leaders of the currency initiative.
At the heart of the political debate on the restoration of full money: to remove laws that promote the debt of states.
Here, we are at the center of the political debate about restoring the positive money. Restoring the power of the citizen over money creation does indeed represent the suppression of the measures that financiers have secretly introduced into the laws and constitutions of our countries to develop their world government and the disproportionate increase in their profits thanks to the massive indebtedness of the states.
It is because they did so that citizens today must seek to change constitutions and laws to preserve the public interest and eliminate public debts and their attendant policies of austerity, lack of growth and future for several generations of citizens.
These measures were taken in a broad movement of liberalization of the financial markets organized by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy and which led to the current globalization of the economy and to the financial crises of 1987, 1997, 2007…
The record of this de facto if not de jure obligation on governments to borrow on financial markets is edifying.
On the positive side, these measures were taken to prevent inflation from ruining savings and the value of currencies. The argument is classic: governments should not use the printing press to finance their dubious political agendas, because most of the time they seek election or re-election to stay in power. Indeed, even since the 2007 crisis, inflation has never been so low, with central banks’ interest rates so low and deflation threats so high.
The upshot is that the rich are well protected against inflation by the liberal financial system, and that potential deflation makes paying down public debts even more difficult and demands subservience from citizens more terrible.
A graph shows this indebtedness of monarchies and then states since 1850 to 2020.
4.2 current public debts, especially in France.
For citizens, the consequences are disastrous and scandalous. To emerge from the financial crisis, a logical and simple solution is to wipe out debts that cannot be repaid, especially when these debts represent not so much the repayment of capital as the repayment of interest that can quickly become enormous.
“For example, between 1980 and 2008, the debt increased by 1088 billion euros and we paid 1306 billion euros in interest,” summarizes Mai68.org. Subtract from this: without the illegitimate interest earned by private financial banksters, France’s public debt would have amounted, at the end of 2008, to €21.4 billion – instead of €1.327.1 billion! Can a crook dream of such loot? And no one ever denounces this absolute scandal!
Here we are reaching the height of this tragic financial sham: in France in 2010, for every 1500 billion public debts, 1350 billion are the result of compound interest and only 150 billion are real claims.
source: Lecture of 2 December 2010 by Patrick Viveret. Foundation and proposals for a sustainable economy,
Another chart that incorporates the crisis from 2008 to 2016 shows that the debt burden increased sharply during this crisis.
To complement this analysis of the public debts that subject states to the liberal system of financial power, it is necessary to explain how the weight of public debt can quickly become enormous with the application of compound interest.
We are here at the causes of public and private debts.
Assuming a 50-year loan at a 10% interest rate, the long 50-year maturity ensures low monthly payments every year, and the high 10% corresponds to a greater risk of default over a 50-year period; after 50 years, the aggregate repayment corresponds to 117 times the sum borrowed.
To mollify politicians who have little room for maneuver and are already indebted since 1973, financiers offer long, very long-term loans, which means relatively low monthly payments but a very high interest cost because the risk of non-repayment over a very long period is high.
If, on the assumption, there had been no change in the way money was created, if there continued to be public money created without interest, the French debt would now be 150 billion and not 1500 billion euros, which changes everything.
Other information on French debt. The debt at the end of 1979 was EUR 239 billion, already unjustifiable; the debt at the end of 2008 was EUR 1 327 billion. For example, between 1980 and 2008, the debt increased by EUR 1 088 billion and we paid EUR 1 306 billion in interest. If we had been able to create our currency — doing exactly what private banks are allowed to do — the public debt would be virtually non-existent today.
When these public debts became huge, cynically financiers cut industrial production facilities and research centers in Western countries (except the US) to weaken these states and subject them further to their global government.
In a paper published in late May 2013, the US investment-banking giant JPMorgan Chase called for the abrogation of bourgeois democratic constitutions established after World War II in a range of European countries and the establishment of authoritarian regimes.
Second, we can show that the financial system’s dominance makes it easy to buy up huge assets in the real economy thanks to the crisis that it engineered. Simply put, financiers can buy new firms to reinforce their economic dominance. This is a natural continuation of the crisis: in the end, bankers make their market prey weak and cashless. The post-2010 FED is the leading player in financial markets that is buying assets en masse.
We are here in terms of the consequences of the financial crisis :
Gross operating surplus (EBE) indicates the profitability of a company’s production system. Knowing the gross operating surplus is essential for any business, as it allows to compare the turnover without taxes with all the costs incurred to produce.
If the EBE is positive, it means the company is selling more for money than it produces. If it is negative, the company loses money.
We have known since the previous financial and economic crises and since the 1929 crisis that financiers organize these crises to drive down the financial values of real economy enterprises and then buy them back at low prices, which are huge capital gains when the crisis disappeared..
This graph shows that US financiers who own the private central bank and multinationals do reap huge profits, especially after 2012, when the FED’s printing press rescued commercial banks.
It was not US firms in the real economy that achieved this dramatic increase in EBE. But the wealth they produced did become the property of US companies, selling more because they bought up other companies weakened by the crisis, or because other competitors had disappeared during the crisis.
One of the main buyers is identified: the FED, which is buying back a lot of assets, because, according to it, it is a question of placing the huge sums that the commercial banks have paid back after they were rescued, or else the sums that the FED created with the printing press and that the “friendly” commercial banks did not need.
The crisis has once again allowed enormous savings of scale for multinationals and a new and high concentration of wealth for the richest, especially since the stock market values increase sharply: 30% in 2013. In short, this graphic illustrates the complete success of the management of the crisis for the benefit of Anglo-Saxon financiers in New York.
This stage of a financial crisis organized by High Anglo-Saxon finance is called “La Razzia”. This graph shows the importance and level of this raid led by the financiers of Wall Street and the families of bankers owners of the Fed.
Usually, it indicates the end of the financial crisis. But this is not the case for the 2006 and 2008 crisis. The crisis continues and since the 2020s, the 2030 agenda of the World Government, sets the aim of this crisis: to definitively and permanently establish the world government Rich on all the savings on the planet.
The news that General Electric may take over the Alstom Group in April 2014 illustrates the grip of US multinationals on the real economy.
. General Electric is controlled by the Rockefeller family, at least in 1976, and that has not changed.
The French group has emerged weakened from the crisis and has a problem with its shareholders whose stock prices have been low since the crisis because its rather independent and French strategy puts it at risk against competitors whose concentration of activities has not ceased since the crisis. The intervention of the French state in the capital of Alstom secures the relative independence of the industrial group. But President Macron’s government will sell GE most of the energy business and compromise the independence of France’s nuclear sector.
4.3 Debt repayment in the liberal system
run by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.
In 2021, we are there and the crisis is still not over because the repayments of debts and especially public debts will last for another 30 years for the most optimistic.
The success of these repayments remains problematic and conditioned by the submission of citizens to the austerity policies that governments are obliged to carry out. JP Morgan has been calling for authoritarian regimes in Europe: “In a paper published at the end of May, the US investment banking giant JPMorgan Chase has called for the abrogation of bourgeois democratic constitutions established after World War II in a number of European countries and the establishment of authoritarian regimes”.
In 2023, 10 years later, the authoritarian regime in France imposed its retirement reform without vote of deputies and against the majority of citizens. And it’s not over … by 2030 or 2050 !
The solution to accelerate the repayment of debts and the rescue of banks is well known and it was applied during the crisis of 1929: the private central bank, after allowing the increase in credit, suddenly closes the refinancing gates with commercial banks and demands the repayment of their debts or recalls their margins. Of course, the banks that are most exposed to credit are in trouble, first they sell their shares en masse, which causes a stock market crash, then they can no longer repay and are declared bankrupt, hence customers ruined, etc.
Having reduced society to poverty, the bankers of the Federal Reserve decided to abolish the gold standard. To do so, they had to acquire the rest of the gold in circulation. Under the pretext of “helping to end the crisis”, a gold seizure was organized in 1933. Under penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, every American citizen was required to hand over his gold bars to the public treasury, thus succeeding in dispossessing the population of the little wealth that remained to them. And by the end of 1933, the gold standard was abolished. If one looks at a $1 bill before 1933, it is written equivalent value in gold.
If you look at a dollar today, it says it has legal value, which means it’s based on absolutely nothing. It’s worth a piece of paper. The only thing that gives value to our currency is the quantity put into circulation. Now the power to regulate the money supply is also the power to regulate its value, it is also the power to bring entire economies and entire societies to their knees.
“Give me control over the money supply, and I don’t care who makes the laws.” MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD, founder of ROTHSCHILD BANKS
end of document
The 2007 crisis goes further in the customary cynicism of crisis management.
Public debt forgiveness remains at the level of philanthropic ideas and vain. The solution imposed by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy is to pay off debts at all costs, not during the next period of strong economic growth, but immediately when the consequences of the crisis are still being felt.
Since 2014, the exit from the current crisis has taken exactly the same path. With no gold left in the public coffers and two world wars transferring most other countries’ gold reserves to the US, the solution today is to tap directly into people’s savings. The private central bank requires commercial banks to take a certain percentage of the savings deposited by their customers.
backgrounder: to read the Challenges article
In a crisis, banks will be able to take deposits from savers
Following the withdrawal of Cypriot savers this year, and the IMF’s suggestion of a 10% supertax on wealth, Europe has now endorsed depositor participation in bank bailouts in the event of a serious crisis. The deal, sealed on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, went relatively unnoticed, even though it could be of paramount importance for savers.
The Europeans have agreed on a law providing for bail-in rules for banks, to avoid involving only states in the rescue of financial institutions.
If a bank is close to bankruptcy, bail-in will apply, as opposed to the crisis-era bail-out, in which public money was used and deficits rose.
The first to pay will be shareholders and then creditors (that is, savers with funds in their accounts), who will have to cover at least 8% of the bank’s losses before national resolution funds, which are crowded by the banking sector, can be called on.
The “bail-in” rules will enter into force on 1 January 2016.
end of document
The positive money is used to pay for the establishment of technical capital, but its logic is that the interest is limited to paying management fees and not interest which represents the amount of capital or twice, ten times, 117 times the capital.
It is a matter of culture, of humanist values and not of the contractual freedom granted to banks to make themselves extremely rich. There is no possible compromise between these two cultures to accommodate certain privileged interests hitherto.
Eliminating public debt thus represents a major opportunity for the use of a positive money.
We have seen that it allows wealth production to continue even in times of economic crisis or war when the financial needs are enormous. The threat is always the same: ignorance by officials in the liberal and financial system about the mechanism of monetary creation, and the fundamental distinction between money owed by loans with compound interest on the one hand and a positive money without debt on the other.
In conclusion of Analysis of the economic environment
The use of a full currency
- On the one hand removes the financial rent which increases the cost of capital and the amount of public debts
- And on the other hand this full currency makes it possible to develop the virtuous circles of the growth of the wealth of a nation by guaranteeing a distribution of these much better wealth than their confiscation by Anglo-Saxon financiers.
It is not necessary to establish a very precise evaluation of the gains and advantages obtained by the use of a full currency compared to the current scandalous situation in the neo liberalism imposed by the world government of Anglo- Saxons.
This difference is enormous and it alone justifies this choice of civilization to leave these power systems and once again develop our life networks.
- La conception de la monnaie dans les deux cultures qui s’affrontent depuis le développement industriel
- Le diagnostic interne pour une Monnaie Pleine, sans dettes.
- La Monnaie pleine
- chers ennemis qui sont-ils ?
- chers ennemis les procédés qu’ils utilisent
- les crises économiques et financières
- les guerres et le contrôle total de l’être humain
- le financement et la direction des guerres
- le management de la seconde guerre mondiale par les banquiers
- La Sécurité et la Défense des Réseaux de Vie
- L’ordre militaire du Temple
- documents à télécharger pour votre lecture
- Le diagnostic externe pour la remise en place de notre monnaie pleine
- Les secrets de la réserve fédérale