19 Oct 2012

Eurozone transactions in 2011 : €1,192 trillion

Every month the European Central Bank publishes a "Statistics Pocket Book" full of interesting data about the Eurozone. The october edition, which came out on the 11th of October, includes figures for Payments and Transactions in 2011.

Table 10 (on paged 35-6) gives information about "Payment and Settlement Systems". These are broken down into "Transactions involing non-MFIs by type of payment instrument" (Credit transfers, Direct Debits, Card payments, E-money purchases, Cheques, and Other Payment Instruments) which are detailed in table 10.1 and "Payments processed by selected interbank funds transfer systems" (Table 10.2).

I've compiled the numbers together in the following table which shows that the total transactions in 2011 reached an impressive total of €1,192 trillion, up over 8% on 2010. The Eurozone is clearly booming, although you wouldn't know it when you look at all the austerity that is being imposed. 



If you want to know where these transactions are taking place, you can go to the ECB's website where the figures in table 10.1 are broken down by country. Here they are.


As you can see, a substantial proportion of the €143.7 trillion transactions using the various payment mechanisms were based in Germany (nearly €68 trillion), but France managed a respectable €28.4 trillion too.

It seems to me that there is really plenty of scope here for generating large amounts of revenue using a Eurozone based FTT. I really can't understand why the revenue levels that we hear about are so small. For me, 0.1% on €1,192 trillion is over a trillion euros. You could do a lot with that.

17 Oct 2012

EUREKA Postscript : Implement a foreign exchange transaction tax globally

In my post at 5h30 this morning, I was concentrating on the idea of a simple Financial Transaction Tax on all foreign exchange trading involving Euros as a way for the European Central Bank to (a) limit the fluctuations in the value of the Euro and discourage speculation, and (b) gain some very useful (and potentially very large) amounts of tax revenue which could be distributed among the 17 Eurozone countries as a function of each country's population size.

Such a move is clearly justified by the fact that while Euros are involved in nearly 40% of all trades, the BIS data shows that only 11.5% of the trading actually occurs within the 17 Eurozone countries (see the table). It only seems reasonable that the Eurozone should have some control over this speculation.

While a unilateral imposition of such a transaction tax by the European Central Bank is totally justifiable, it is clear that it may be difficult to get other countries to agree. In particular, I can imagine that the UK government will do everything in its power to block such a move. With 36.7% of the transactions being handled in the UK, Cameron and Osborne will probably do what they are paid to do - namely, protect the interests of their chums in the City.
But maybe the solution would be to make the move at a global level. Suppose that all governments could get together and agree that currency speculation is in nobody's interest. This seems like an obvious conclusion. The fact that the exchange rates between dollars and euros and pounds and yen can change literally every minute is a clear handicap for trading. It means that noone can predict how much things will cost them even over a scale of a few weeks. This has to be nonsense.

So, imagine that all governments agreed to impose the tax on currency exchanges, and that the revenue generated would be paid directly to the central banks for each currency - the Federal Reserve in the USA, the Bank of England in the UK, the European Central Bank for the Eurozone and so forth. As you can see from the table on the right, this would mean that each currencies central bank would receive an amount that depended simply on the degree to which their currency was the victim of speculation. The US Treasury would be the biggest winner with 42.4% of the revenue, followed by the European Central Bank with 19.5%, the Japanese Central Bank with 9.5% and the Bank of England with 6.4%.  But all countries would get a share of the pie. And when several countries share the same currency (as in the case of the Euro), then revenue can simply be shared on the basis of population size.

How much could they raise this way? Well, obviously, it depends on the rate of the tax. My suggestion would be to fix the rate at the average rate charged by the banks and the credit card companies for making transactions in foreign currencies. In this way, you could kill two birds with one stone because the banks would be under very strong pressure to reduce the extortionate and totally unjustifiable 2-3% charges they currently levy (see this site for a list of International Transaction Charges for UK based Cards - of the nearly 300 cards on offer, the majority charge either 2.95% or 2.99% and a third of them charge 2.75%.  There are two that charge 2.50%, two that charge 2%, and amazingly, there are actually 12 that don't charge anything. You see, it can be done!).

Obviously, if all cards decided to drop their International Financial Transaction Tax charges, then the central banks might have to impose their own number for the financial transaction tax. I would think that 0.1% would be fine, and could generate up to $1 trillion a year if the traders keep speculating like they do currently. 

The other neat aspect of this method is that it directly punishes the markets when they attempt to attack a currency. The more they speculate, the more they have to pay. It seems extremely fair and reasonable to me.

Is there anyone out there listening?

EUREKA : Solving the Eurozone Crisis using an FTT on Euro foreign exchanges

It's 5.30 am.  But I've got to get this idea onto my blog. Yes, yet another idea for fixing the Eurozone crisis. Back in july, I listed the 10 different propositions I had already made. Since then, I have added a couple of new ideas. First, the idea that the ECB could simply replace money creation by commercial banks within the Eurozone, and generate an equivalent amount of money that could be distributed among the 17 different Eurozone governments simply according to their population sizes (see the youtube video "How the Eurozone countries could fix the global economic crisis").   Then there was my suggestion of  creating an alternative national currency in each Eurozone currency (the N-Euro) which would be a debt-free currency that governments could use for paying public sector wages, pensions and benefits, and which in turn could be used for paying taxes (see the youtube video "The N-Euro Solution").

But if that's not already enough to provide some input for the public debate that is so desperately needed, here's another idea.

On the 9th of October, 11 of the 17 Eurozone countries agreed to implement a Financial Transaction Tax. That was certainly great news, but I have been unable to find much detail about precisely what will be taxed. I get the impression that the objective is mainly to tax share trading.

But how about the European Central Bank imposing a Financial Transaction Tax on all Foreign Exchange trading involving Euros?

The level of foreign exchange trading is quite mind-blowing. It's difficult to get a complete picture, but every three years, the Bank for International Settlements spends a month collecting data. It's an amazing source of information, that I have discussed in detail in previous posts, such as one that I did in january 2011. The last report was based on trading during April 2010, and revealed that on average, the total level of foreign exchange transactions was virtually $4 trillion PER DAY. The number had doubled since 2004, as shown in the following table (from page 7 of the BIS report).


With around 250 trading days per year, we can safely assume that this add up to about $1 quadrillion in a year.  39.1% of that trading involved Euros (see graph from page 13), meaning that we can assume trading in Euros would be about $400 trillion in a year, or a little over €300 trillion if we assume an exchange rate of about $1.30 per euro.

So, it follows that if those transactions were subject to a financial transaction tax, the potential revenues could be hundreds of billions of euros a year. That money could be distributed directly to the 17 eurozone governments simply on the basis of their population size.

Who could object? Well, certainly not the banks. After all, as I have repeatedly complained, the 2-3% surcharge that we all get charged by the banks and the credit card companies everytime we make a credit card payment in another currency is a pure Financial Transaction Tax. If I make a purchase from Amazon.co.uk with my French credit card, they add 2% or even more to the bill, simply for multiplying the amount in pounds sterling by the current exchange rate. There is simply no way that such charges can be justified.

So, imagine what would happen if the ECB charged the people doing Euro foreign exchanges the same "handling charge" imposed by the banks. That would (in principle) generate 2% of €300 trillion every year - i.e. €6 trillion. At that rate, the entire eurozone government debt could be paid off ia couple of years (Eurozone government debt currently stands at €8.2 trillion).

OK. I agree that the banks would probably object to 2%. But, logically, there is no reason why the handling charge imposed by the ECB should not be the same as the one charged by the banks on their customers.

So, let's make it 0.1%. That could still generate a very useful €300 billion a year.

Of course, people will say that the €300 trillion of trading in euros would collapse, and there would hardly any money coming in. That's fine too. We really don't need $1 quadrillion of foreign exchange a year. If trading in euros dropped fell to just 1% of the current levels, the only consequences would be that (a) traders would have to find something more useful to do with their money, and (b) the exchange rate instability that plagues international trading would decrease.

Intriguingly, the geographical distribution of foreign exchange trading is incredibly biased. According to the BIS report "Banks located in the United Kingdom accounted for 37% of global foreign exchange market turnover, followed by those in the United States (18%), Japan (6%), Singapore (5%), Switzerland (5%), Hong Kong SAR (5%) and Australia (4%)." The Eurozone countries don't even get a mention (see the graph below)! And yet 39.1% of the trading involves Euros!

Why should all those traders be allowed to play with our money for free? A financial transaction tax on Euro foreign exchanges seems only fair.

What I like about the idea of getting the ECB to impose the tax on Euro trading is that it would not prevent the traders trading other currencies. As you can see from the next table, the traders in the City would still be able to play with the other currency pairing to their hearts content. They would still be able to continue doing $568 billion a day in exchanges between US dollars and Yen, $360 billion a day in dollar/sterling, $249 billion a day in USD/AUD, $168 billion a day in USD/CHF and so on. They won't be out of a job. At least they won't be unless all the other central banks decide to impose a tax on trading in their currencies too.

Finally, in case you are worried that the figures that the BIS provided for April 2010 may no longer be valid, fear not. In fact, something like 68% of all Foreign Exchange trading is handled by a single company - CLS. And, according to their latest news release "The average daily value submitted to CLS was US$5.19 trillion, up 16.9% from US$4.44 trillion in August. And you can download the latest monthly report for August 2012 as a pdf file. And that is just one company.

Taxing Foreign Exchange Transaction carried out in Euros should be a piece of cake when the activity is so highly concentrated.

So, in conclusion, this seems to me like a very fair and reasonable way to (a) limit speculation on the Euro, and (b) provide a substantial source of revenue to the European Central Bank that could be directly used to help Eurozone governments get out of debt.

What are we waiting for?

14 Oct 2012

LCH.Clearnet Ltd : $354.4 trillion of OTC Interest Rate Swaps this year

When I downloaded the BIS data for 2011 last weekend, I was annoyed to see that, yet again, LCH.Clearnet Ltd had neglected to provide details of their levels of transactions. As a result, any attempt to estimate the level of transactions for the UK is almost meaningless. The BIS figures in 2008 showed that LCH.Clearnet managed an impressive £862.6 trillion (of which £745 trillion were "exchange-traded derivative contracts". However, as you can see from the table below (taken from page 405 of the BIS report),  the numbers for 2010 and 2011 are both "nav" (Not available).


But, fear not. It looks like LCH.Clearnet is still doing well. They provide daily numbers for the levels of Over the counter (OTC) Interest Rates Swaps. And their web site today shows that on Friday the 12th of October, they managed to clear $1,863,334,640,045 ($1.8 trillion) in a single day. And you can see from the graph below that 2012 is turning out to be a bumper year.
The total so far this year is $298,599,162,468,235 (nearly €300 trillion), and if we include the last three months of 2011 (to make a full year) we get a total of $354.5 trillion.

As I have complained before, the website only provides details for just one of their "business streams". For the others, it's anyone's guess.

Usury : A new definition and the possiblity of usury-free lending

I'd already mentioned Nicholas Shaxson's discussion of usuary in his book "Treasure Islands". Here's what he said:

"The practise of usury - lending money out at excessive interest rates - has a nasty historical taint. The prophet Ezekiel included it with rape, murder and robbery in a list of abominable things; the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus forbid it, and Plato and Aristotle called it immoral and unjust. In Dante's Inferno 'lewd usurers' sit in the seventh circle of hell, and the Koran states that 'whoever goes back to usury will be an inhabitant of the Fire".

Pretty strong stuff.

The problem is that the definition of what are "excessive interest rates'' is ill-defined.  There are clearly some cases where hopefully everyone would agree. For example, the payday loans companies in the UK are pretty abominable. I see that my favorite payday loan company, Quid24.com, has changed its system. Before, it was offering an APR rate of an unbelievable 14348%. Its website is now offering a much more modest rate of only 5558%. I still think that is "unreasonable".

However, I think that there is potentially a simpler and much more straightforward definition of usuary. How about limiting the term to the case where someone charges interest for lending money that they don't actually have to lend? In other words, interest charged when money is created using fractional reserve banking, the system that allows commercial banks to lend out money that they don't possess. Perhaps it would be fair to include this "with rape, murder and robbery in a list of abominable things".

If banks were acting as the vast majority of people think they do, by lending out money that already exists, then there would be no problem - even if sometimes the difference between the rate of interest their savers and the rate that they use to lend out sometimes gets quite large. 

Interestingly, there are now systems that allow money to be lent directly from one person to another - effectively short circuiting the banks.  For example, in France, there is a newly created system called "PrĂȘt d'union" that organises loans between individuals. Suppose that you have a spare €10,000 that you would like to invest. PrĂȘt d'Union has a system that allows you to lend it for a period that you define in advance. If you lend for 2 years, you get a return of 4% per annum. But if you lend for 3 years, you get 5% increasing to 5.7% over 4 years and 6.5% over 5 years.

On the other side, if you want to borrow money, you pay a rate that is very close than the rate paid to the investors. There is a handling fee, and insurance that means that the actual effective rate paid by the borrower goes up, but the difference between the rates paid to the investor and the rate paid by the borrower are reasonable.... no sign of usury there.   The table shows the details that I got by simulating various loans using the website.
The problem is that you might well ask why you should go and borrow money from the PrĂȘt D'Union sytem when you can often get lower rates from commercial banks. Fair point. But the difference is that the commercial banks don't have to have the money they lend you. As far as they are concerned, any rate of interest allows them to make profits. When they create the money themselves, they don't even have to pay their savers anything. And if they need a bit more backing to keep the books looking OK they just have to go to their freind Mario Draghi at the E.C.B. who will happily generate an extra €1 trillion (as he did in december 2011 and february 2012) and lend it to the commercial banks at 1%.

Sure, the commercial banks do in fact pay their savers something - even though they don't actually have to. But, in my opinion, this is largely cosmetic - to give the impression that they are lending out their savers money when they make loans. The fact is that they don't need savers - and that is the reason why interest rates for savers are so terrible.

The sort of lending mechanism being developed by PrĂȘt d'Union seems to me to demonstrate that there is a real alternative to relying on commercial banks.  A 6.50% rate of return for an investor is actually very good - especially with inflation at only 2-3% a year.

But above all, I think that there is a moral reason for preferring this sort of system. With the sorts of system proposed by PrĂȘt D'Union, there is no creation of money, and no charging of interest for debt creation. Using my proposed definition, there is no usury either. The world would be a better place.

7 Oct 2012

More on the N-Euro idea

I've been thinking more about the N-Euro idea that I proposed in my latest Youtube presentation a week ago. Essentially, my proposition is that each of the 17 eurozone governments could introduce a parallel national level money system called the "N-Euro" for "National Euro" or "New Euro". This would be debt-free money that the government could manage using a single national citizens bank. Each citizen could have an account and could choose to receive payments in N-Euros rather than on a conventional Euro bank account. The government would accept N-Euros for the payment of taxes and other charges at the same value as conventional Euros.

As my brother-in-law John pointed out, it wasn't necessarilly obvious to people watching the video why it is such a good thing to be paid in N-Euros. Indeed, why have N-Euros when you can have conventional Euros instead?

Good point John! I guess that for me, the fact that I have now read a whole pile of books about the nature of money and the fact that I am now convinced that creating the money supply as debt is a very bad thing means that the N-Euro option is obviously a good idea. But I was probably going too fast.

So, what would be the advantages of shifting to a debt-free alternative currency? And why should citizens want to be paid with N-Euros?

Remember that most of the money supply in circulation is not in the form of bank notes and coins. Most of it is electronically generated by commercial banks when they make loans. And the critical point is someone has to pay the banks the interest on those loans. That fact is almost certainly the cause of most of the worlds economic misery. We are all having to fight to get our hands on enough of the money to keep our heads above water. But, as Michael Rowbotham pointed out in his book "The Grip of Death", it is a fight that we can never win  together. To keep your head above water in the sea of debt, you are forced to push someone else under in your place. It doesn't have to be that way. Governments could and should be creating the money supply debt free.

The proportion of money that depends on debt is clear from the latest  figures provided by the BIS.  For example, in the UK, there are £57.75 billion in notes and coins in circulation.  But the "Narrow money supply" (M2) is £1,271.62 billion, meaning that 95.5% of all the money in circulation is bank generated.

For the Eurozone, there are currently €913.68 billion in Euro notes and coins in circulation. But the Narrow money supply (M1) is €4,865.5 billion, meaning that 81.2% of the money supply  is in the form of debt-bearing loans made by the banks.  It's less that in the UK, but it is still ridiculous that we have allowed so much of the money supply to be created by commercial banks with no controls.

It is time to break this insane system. But how? The financial sector has managed to get the requirement that governments have to borrow money from the banks written into the Lisbon treaty. I've already argued that there may be a way round this by using paragraph 2 of article 123 of the treaty that leaves the door open for Central banks to lend to "publicly-owned credit institutions" - an idea that I developed in my youtube video "Solving the Debt Problem".

However, I fear that the ability of vested interests to block such moves may be too powerful to allow any progress. We need alternatives. And this is where the N-Euro idea comes in.

Yes, Eurozone governments have to go to the commercial banks and beg if they want euros. But what if they were to use some other payment means? If citizens could be persuaded that N-Euros are valuable and don't insist to be paid in conventional Euros, then their governments could pay them their salaries, pensions and benefits in a form of money that did not need to be borrowed from the markets. As I mentioned in the video, there are now literally hundreds of alternative currencies that have been set up across the globe. And some of these are working well. There are several that have emerged in places like Greece, where there has been a lot of coverage of the TEM, a local currency that has been introduced in the port city of Volos (see the reports on the BBC and elsewhere). But, while these schemes can be very useful,  they lack the official stamp that would come by making those currencies valid for paying one of the most significant things that we all have to pay - namely taxes.

So, all that would be needed is for a government to set up its own system. And it would clearly be in the governments interest. For example, the Greek government can't afford to pay its employees in Euros because it is being crippled by extortionate interest payments that it is having to pay the markets for lending euros. But if its citizens are happy to take N-Euros, there is no problem for the government to "print" the money. Of course, it would have to accept that it won't get paid taxes in conventional euros, but that is alright.

And for the citizens who accept to be paid in N-Euros, they would have the satisfaction of knowing that they are helping to get their government off the hook.

Once the system is off the ground, I strongly suspect that it will rapidly take an increasingly important place in the national life. Shopkeepers and merchants would be happy to take N-Euros in payment because they know that those N-Euros are perfectly valid for paying taxes. And the more merchants join the system, the better.

Within a year or two, it may be possible to have a system where governments can manage much of the economy without the need for begging from the financial markets. Ratings agencies would become virtually irrelevant. 

And along with all that, there would be a host of other benefits.

For example, the governments could no longer be threatened by markets who could threaten to move all their money elsewhere. That is because each countries N-Euro supply can only exist in one place - namely, on the computer that belongs to the citizens bank. You cannot move the money elsewhere. It can't be moved to the Cayman Islands or hidden under a mattress. It has to stay in the economy.

My proposal is that each of the 17 Eurozone governments could set up their own local currency. There would be French N-Euros managed by the French government, Spanish N-Euros managed by the Spanish government, Greek N-Euros managed by the Greek government and so on. Normally, these different local currencies could not be exchanged. That is important because it is essential that each country can keep track of the N-Euro money supply in its own economy.

However, there would be some flexibility. For example, it would be possible that the French government could allow the Greek government to open an account in the French N-Euro system and vice versa. If they wanted to, the two governments could decide to add an equivalent sum to eachothers accounts, thus allowing purchases to be made locally.

But, very importantly, it is the governments that would be able to control this sort of process. It would no longer be the commercial banks that would have the monopoly on money creation. Money would be finally used for what it should be used for - as a way of allowing citizens to develop the economy by providing each other with goods and services - rather than as a way of allowing a tiny group to wield almost unlimited power over the rest of us.

BIS Transaction Data for 2011: Roughly $3 quadrillion in the USA

In my final post based on the dataset provided by the Bank for International Settlements Preliminary results for 2011 ("Statistics on payment, clearing and settlement systems"), I would like to provide an update on the figures for the USA. Here they are.

As you can see, the numbers are really very close to those that were reported in 2010 - with a total that is very close to €3 quadrillion (a 3 with 15 zeros), despite the fact that the figures for "Card payments" are currently "nav" (not available). We can probably assume another $4 trillion there.

What I find very interesting here is that this total is something like 1200 times larger than the total tax revenue of the US government.That means that the US government could probably abolish all the existing taxes and replace the whole lot with a universal financial transaction tax of only about 0.1%.

It's truly tragic that Andrew VanHooks TRAN$ACTION  TAX website in the US still only has 110 "likes" (they are hoping for a million). Barack Obama - are you listening?? Surely, introducing a financial transaction tax in the US has to be a No-brainer. Who would not vote for getting rid of all taxes and just paying a fraction of one percent on all electronic transactions? Even the Tea-party should be salivating at the prospect.

I also note that the €3 quadrillion number is also roughly 20 times the entire US governments national debt (currently standing at around $15 trillion). How long would it take to pay off the whole sum using a Financial Transaction Tax?


BIS Transaction Data for 2011 : €1.7 quadrillion in 5 Eurozone countries

Following on from yesterdays post showing that in the 23 countries covered by the B.I.S. dataset managed well over $9 quadrillion in transactions last year, I've compiled the figures for the 5 countries in the Eurozone that are included.

The winner is Germany, with a very respectable total of nearly €751 trillion - up 6% on 2010, and nearly beating the record of €753 trillion in 2007.


Next comes Belgium, which saw a record-breaking total of nearly €367 trillion - up a very impressive 12.5% on 2010 - thanks in large part to the fact that the EuroClear Bank is based in Belgium.  And since EuroClear Bank managed nearly €333 trillion on its own....

France came third with a total of close on €293 trillion - 9% up on the previous year, but substantially below the record sum of €358 trillion in 2007. Not bad though.

As everyone knows, Italy is in crisis. And their total of €190 trillion is actually 1% down on 2010. But it's still nearly a record for them.


Finally, we have the Netherlands, which manage to break all previous records with a total of nearly €95 trillion - up more than 2% on 2010.

The chart for the Netherlands also includes the total figure for all 5 countries, which at over €1.7 quadrillion is over 8.5% up  on the previous year.

These are pretty impressive numbers, especially when you consider that they only cover 5 of the 23 Eurozone countries. I suspect that Luxembourg would manage some pretty eye-watering numbers too, based on the numbers from the European Central Bank. So much for the theory that there is no money in the Eurozone. There must be plenty if just five countries can generate €1,704,990,000,000,000 in transactions in a single year.

And it only goes to demonstrate that if the Eurozone countries led by France and Germany actually get a Financial Transaction Tax introduced, the tax's potential for generating revenue is truly impressive. Specfically, a 0.1% FTT on that lot would generate up to €1.7 trillion. What are we waiting for?

Sure, a 0.1% tax would no doubt result in a drop in the total level of transactions. So what? Are those transactions doing anything useful? Or are they pointless and parasitic? I think you can probably guess what I think....

6 Oct 2012

BIS Transaction Data for 2011 : Over $9 quadrillion in financial transactions

The Eurozone may be about to collapse and governments may be queuing up to impose intolerable levels of austerity on their citizens, but the financial world is still going strong.

The Bank for International Settlements has just released its preliminary "Statistics on payment, clearing and settlements in the CPSS countries" for 2011. You can download the tables from the BIS website here.

You have a choice between a 575 page pdf file,  an Excel file with the data for each of the 23 countries (2 Megabytes of data sheets) or alternatively comparative tables in Excel forma.

It's quite hard work going through all that data, because they don't bother combining the data to make it easy to work out what the totals are. But as in the last two years, I have put the numbers together to get some overall numbers.

Here is the break down using the various tables in the comparative tables, showing the totals for the last five years. The column called "Source" refers to the place in the BIS dataset where I got the numbers.


As you can seen, it was 2007-8 where the numbers were highest, with more than $10.5 quadrillion in transactions in 2008. The numbers dropped in 2009 and 2010, but they are coming back up again with over $9 quadrillion in 2011. Note that the numbers are clearly underestimates - the numbers refer to payments and trades using "selected" interbank transfer systems and exchanges.

I've also done the figures separately for the 23 countries - the totals aren't quite identical - I'm not quite sure why. But what's $10 billion of error when you you are talking about numbers that are nearly 1000 times larger.

As last year, I am annoyed to see that numbers for the UK are clearly massively underestimated (which is why they are in red). This is essentially due to the fact that both the London Stock Exchange and LCH.Clearnet Ltd have failed (yet again) to supply their numbers to the BIS. I think we can safely add several hundred billion extra there.  Indeed, my own calculations put the level of transactions in the UK at something like £1760 billion a year. And Australia is another place where a lot of the figures are "nav" (Not available). -

The conclusion from all this? Well, it is clear that with at least $9 quadrillion in transactions going on in just 23 countries (and well over $10 quadrillion if you include sensible numbers for the UK), it would not take much by way of a financial transaction tax to generate enough revenue to allow many governments to scrap conventional taxes altogether. It's the idea that I have been pushing for close on two years, and which I have explained in detail in my Youtube video called the "0-0-0-0.x Tax Reform Plan" - zero percent income tax, zero percent sales tax (VAT), zero percent tax on company profits (eg. corporation tax) and replace the lot with an FTT that in many cases would be a fraction of a percent.

And of course, the idea that there is no alternative to austerity is completely farcical. It really would be simple to get the financial sector to pay for the mess that it caused back in 2008. There can be no justification for making citizens carry the can for the financial sectors irresponsible behaviour.

30 Sep 2012

The N-Euro Solution - My latest Youtube Presentation

Following on from my previous offerings, here is my latest proposal for fixing the economic system. It's called "The N-Euro Solution".  In this video (under 13 minutes) I propose a way of allowing Eurozone governments to introduce a nationally based, debt-free parallel currency that could be called the N-Euro (for "National-Euro" or "New-Euro"). Each country would set up a national citizens bank with accounts for all citizens. Citizens receiving payments from the government (such as salaries, pensions and benefits) could choose to have a proportion of the payment made in N-Euros. It would be completely voluntary, with the percentage varying from 0% to 100%. The government would ensure that the N-Euros had value because they would be accepted for payment of taxes. Businesses could also have N-Euro accounts, and would be able to accept payments from customers using an N-Euro payment card. The government would be able to run the payment system free of charge, meaning that merchants could avoid the fees normally charged by credit card companies.

Such a system would have the enormous advantage that the governments could create N-Euros without having to borrow from the commercial banking system, which currently has a virtual monopoly on creating the Euro money supply. This would save hundreds of billions a year in totally unnecessary interest payments.

It's pretty much the idea that I presented last week in my blog post "Eureka - Replace the Euro with the N-Euro". But there are a few differences.

First, I acknowledge the debt to all the other alternative currency systems that have sprung up around the world since the first LETS system started by Michael Linton in British Columbia in 1983. There is a very interesting site called the "Community Exchange System" that lists no less than 425 different alternative systems around the world. My proposal is essentially just the same idea, but done at an official governmental level - with the possiblity that the alternative currency can be used to pay taxes. This is a very powerful way of guaranteeing that the alternative currency has real value.

Seccond, after a lot of reflection (and an exchange with John Morrison on the Positive Money Forum), I came to the conclusion that it would be best not to allow N-Euros to be convertible into conventional Euros - at least not officially. The value of the N-Euro should be clearly guaranteed by the fact that each N-Euro is worth precisely one conventional Euro when it comes to paying taxes. There's no need to provide a way for people to swap one for the other. If there was, it would be an invitation to speculators.

Third, I noted one very interesting feature of such a scheme. Since the N-Euros can only exist in one place - namely on the government's computer that keeps tabs on who has N-Euros on their accounts - there is no way that N-Euros can be moved anywhere else. There's no way you can move N-Euros to the Cayman Islands, and no way to hide them under your mattress. The government will at all times know exactly where the N-Euro stock is held.

Anyway, here's the video. Enjoy!

21 Sep 2012

Guardian : UK politicians with links to tax havens

Hats off to the journalists at the Guardian who today released a list of no less than 68 UK politicians who are linked to companies that make use of taxhavens. There are 27 Tories - six of whom are MPs – 17 Labour peers, three Lib Dem peers and another 21 are either crossbench or non-affiliated peers. These people are either directors or non-executive directors of companies linked to tax-havens such as the Cayman Islands. Clearly, with so many politicians having a vested interest in keeping the current system on the rails, it will not be easy to get reform.

The Guardian also leads with the news that the Tory party treasurer, Lord Fink, has been campaigning to get the UK turned into a tax haven. He disclosed that "that he had lobbied George Osborne for a cut in taxes on invisible earnings so that he and other hedge funders no longer feel obliged to set up companies in places such as the Cayman Islands."

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with him. Yes, the government could indeed turn the UK into a tax-haven. As I have repeatedly argued, if the UK introduced a tiny tax on financial transactions it could abolish corporation tax, income tax and VAT. Financial transations going through the City of London are currently running at someting like £1.7 quadrillion a year. You would only need to tax that at about 0.03% to replace all the other taxes.

So, why don't the 68 press for such changes? Well, I suspect that one reason is that they have never even imagined that such an option is possible. But the other reason is that many of the people who use tax-havens need to be able to do their transactions without the authorities knowing what they are up to.

17 Sep 2012

EUREKA! - Replace the Euro with the N-Euro

It's 4am in the morning, but I've just got to get this written down. It might just be that I have an idea that could fix the economic crisis (Yes, I know, yet another one - sorry.....)

So, what's the recipe today Jim?

Well, in case you haven't been following this, it is now abundantly clear that there is one big problem that is at the root of virtually all our woes. It's the fact that 97% of the money in circulation in the economy is created as interest bearing debt by commercial banks. When governments need money, they have to go cap in hand to the banks, and ask - no beg - them for money. Those banks then create the money out of thin air and then  lend it to the governments. The problem is that the banks then charge governments (and hence taxpayers) interest on those loans. And so, in the European Union, governments have handed over €5.6  trillion in interest charges since 1995 - more than half the total government debt which currently stands at €10.4 trillion.

How can we end this insane system?

Here's my proposed solution.

Governments should introduce a parallel currency called the N-Euro - for National-Euro. This parallel currency would be handled by a special National Citizen's bank, that would be the only financial structure with the right to use the N-Euro. Any citizen or business would be allowed to open an account at the Citizens bank, and accounts would be automatically opened for all public sector workers and people receiving state payments such as pensions or benefits.

All those people receiving money from the government would have the option of receiving a proportion of their payments as N-Euros on their citizen's account - the rest would be paid into their standard bank account in conventional Euros.

The percentage paid in N-Euros could be modified at will by each person, from 0% (in which case there would be no change from the current system), to 100%.

N-Euros could be used to pay any government charges including taxes (income tax, local property taxes, television licence fees, hospital charges, fines etc). It is this fact that gives the N-Euro its value. And, indeed, it would have exactly the same value for these transactions as the conventional euro.

Indivduals would also have the right to transfer N-Euros from their own account to anyone else's account. This means that N-Euros could be used for making payments for other items including food, clothing, or other services. Since the N-Euros could be used for paying tax bills, they would be welcome as a means of payment by many businesses - even those not directly connected with the state.

Individuals and businesses with an N-euro account can at all times decide to convert their N-Euros into conventional Euros on their normal bank accounts. However, there would be a fixed percentage cost to making this convertion which could be for example 5%. The ability to convert N-Euros into conventional Euros would be guaranteed by the government, which again would be part of giving the N-Euro its value.

The critical feature of N-Euros is that the government would be able to use them without having to borrow them from the commercial banks. Indeed, there would be no real limit to the number of N-euros that could be generated. But here's the vital point - there would be no interest to pay on them. They can be created debt-free!

Note that there would be no actual N-Euros printed - no N-Euro notes and coins. N-Euros would only be numbers on accounts in the National Citizen's bank.

Account holders could be provided with special N-Euro payment cards that could be used to pay merchants (shops, restaurants etc) if the merchants had a sign saying "N-euros accepted here". The government could make this particularly attractive by not charging the merchants for running the system. This would give them an incentive to allow people to use their N-euro cards rather than Visa or MasterCard who both charge the merchants 3% or more on every transaction. 

Note also that you could never have a negative amount on your N-Euro account. You could never get into debt, and you would never have to pay any interest.

In principle, N-Euros would only be used within the country, although it is not inconceivable that they could end up being used elsewhere if non residents were permitted to open up an N-Euro account.

Could this work? I sincerely believe that the answer is yes. It could be an immediate solution for countries like Greece where the government is simply unable to obtain euro loans on the open financial markets without paying extortionate rates. 

What percentage of their salary would public sector workers choose to receive in N-Euros? Well, you might as well at least receive enough to pay all your taxes in N-Euros - since this would cost you nothing at all. But beyond that, as long as you had enough conventional euros on your standard bank account, you might as well get paid all the rest in N-Euros. It's likely that before long you would be able to pay for all sorts of things with your N-Euro card because merchants might well appreciate not having to pay fees to the credit card companies. And you would no doubt be happy to be paid in N-Euros, safe in the knowledge that your government didn't have to go into debt to the commercial banks to produce them.

Who knows - within a few years, many citizens might find that they are much happier being paid entirely in debt-free N-Euros. 

Since a very large proportion of government expenditure is in the form of salaries, pensions and other benefits, this means that the government would be able to make very substantial savings by not having to borrow from the banks. And indeed, there would be nothing to stop the government increasing the money supply by generating even larger quanties of N-Euros to get the economy moving again.

Could it work? I really hope so....

And I must admit that, as a neuroscientist, the idea of using Neuros as a currency system is rather amusing....

14 Sep 2012

Money Creation by Banks : A personal story

After reading Michael Rowbotham's claim that when banks make loans, not only do they create the money out of thin air, they actually treat the money as their own, I was reminded of the time back in 1986 when the Société Générale lent my wife and me the money we needed to buy our first house.

It's difficult to believe now, but at the time, interest rates were around 14%. We were young with a 3 year old son, and we really had to struggle to borrow enough money to buy the house we wanted. We were both working for the CNRS with government jobs where you knew precisely when you would be getting pay rises. And as a result we were able to negotiate a loan that we could pay back over 15 years with a fixed rate, but where our monthly repayments increased every year for the first five years. Normally, they would only let you pay a maximum of 30% of your combined salaries in repayments. But thanks to our government jobs, and the fact that we could show the bank our projected salaries for the following years, the bank generously allowed us to take on even more debt.

The repayments went up from 5886.58 francs a month for the first 12 months (around €900), to 7161.91 francs a month in year 6. And then from year 7 till the end the repayments were 7448.46 francs a month.

We thought ourselves very lucky. Unlike my friends in the UK, we actually knew precisely what we would be paying every month for the next 15 years. Fixed rate mortages like that have (for some inexplicable reason) never been available in the UK - and they still don't exist. As a result,  in the UK, you could easily recieve a letter one day from the bank to let you know that they had unfortunately been forced to increase the interest rate. Indeed, as many homeowners found out to their cost, the banks could effectively increase the interest rate to any random figure they like.

As it happened, we sold our house about 7 years later, and it turned out that its value had nearly doubled. It was fantastic - we had earned more on the increase in the value of the house than we did with our combined salaries. Great... right?

Well, with hindsight, the whole system seems outrageous.

We only borrowed 568,000 francs to buy the house. And yet, if you add up the total cost of the repayments, the bank gets a grand total of 1,272,980.16 francs at the end of the 15 years. That means nearly 705,000 francs in interest charges.

Remember that, in fact, the bank didn't even have the money that they lent us - they just created the 568,000 francs out of thin air. So the idea that they could charge us more than twice that sum in interest just seems obscene. And if it turns out that Michael Rowbotham is right, and the bank not only "earned" 705,000 francs of interest charges for lending us their "money", they also got to keep the money they created, then I think that there is something very very wrong with the way the system works.
Yes, if the bank has to get the money from someone else, and has to pay that someone interest on their deposits, then it is normal that they can charge me a higher rate of interest to borrrow that money. If someone who puts their savings in the bank gets paid 10% interest, then I can handle the idea that the bank will charge me 4% to borrow that money.  But if the bank just created the money out of thin air, what possible justification can there be for charging interest at all?

None of this makes any sense. Commercial banks should not be allowed to create money. Full stop.

12 Sep 2012

Michael Rowbotham : The Grip of Death

I'm in the middle of reading Michael Rowbotham's incredible 1998 book "The Grip of Death : A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive economics". It was one of the very first books in recent times that really exposed the truth behind the way money is created as debt by banks. Indeed, it was this book that Ben Dyson picked up by chance in the university library, and which led him to set up Positive Money a few years later.

I've not finished it, but I have to tell you that there was one bit of chapter 2 that has already made my jaw hit the floor.

I had already got used to the idea that banks can create money when they make loans. And that they can charge interest on those loans.

But I had naively assumed that when those loans get paid off, the "money" effectively disappears in a puff of smoke. Obviously, the bank will have sucked out of the economy all the interest payments that were made during the loan period, but I honestly believed that the money that was lent would get destroyed when the repayment was made. That's the story that we are all told as soon as we cotton on to the fact that commercial banks are allowed to create the money supply as debt.

This is one reason why I have been arguing for some months that if Central Banks (like the ECB and the Bank of England) were to lend money to governments (via a "'publicly-owned credit institution" to get round the restrictions in the Lisbon Treaty), and the governments were to use that money to repay their loans to the banking system, then this could not cause inflation. I thought that the "money" would simply disappear in a proverbial puff of smoke. No chance for inflation. As a consquence, I really could not understand why the Germans (in particular) could object to repayment of government debt on the grounds that it could be inflationary.

But then, on pages 28-30 of Michael Rowbotham's book, I read the following:
"The banking system is able, at a pinch, to claim that it does indeed create money, and does so in large quantities, but 'only as a service to the borrrower'[....]

"This claim, that money is created as a service to the borrower, like the suggestion that they are 'only lending their depositors' money', is utterly false, and an argument that completely ignores all the facts of standard banking practice. Banks make money and although the act of lending might be regarded as a service, the truth is that banks account all the money they create as their own. In total effect, banks create money for themselves." [....]

"It used to be argued that money repaid to banks in respect of a loan was effectively destroyed. This was portrayed as the simple reverse of the spiral money creation process. In the same way that a bank loan created a new deposit of number-money or credit, the repayment of a loan or mortage was held to cancel out an equivalent amount of credit. It was argued that when someone paid money into their overdrawn account, the debt and that amount of money were set against each other and cancelled each other out." [....]

"But this is not what actually happens at all! As any bank manager will confirm, when money is repaid into an overdrawn account, the bank cancels the debt, but the money is not cancelled or destroyed. The money is regarded as every bit as real as a deposit; it is regarded by the bank as the repayment of money that they have lent. And that money is held and accounted as an asset of the bank."
"The fact that upon repayment, money that they have created is not destroyed, but is accounted as an asset of the bank, proves beyond dispute that when banks create money and issue it as debt, they ultimately account for that money as their own. The only factor which disguises their indisputable ownership of the money they create is that this returning money is usually rapidly reloaned. Borrowing in the modern economy almost always outpaces repayments, which is why the money supply escalates. This means that the money returning as repayments does not accumulate embarrassingly in the bank's own account, but is quickly reloaned, along with more debt."
I am completely gob-smacked.  What difference is there between this and counterfeiting money? Nothing, except that what banks do is legal.

I am so amazed by this that I am tempted to think that Michael Rowbotham must have been mistaken. If so, can someone in the banking system please explain to me and everyone else what really does happen when someone pays back a loan? Does the money disappear (as it should)? Or does the bank just keep it?

Answers on a postcard please....

7 Sep 2012

Did the ECB fix the crisis yesterday?

Well, there is potential in the announcements made by Mario Draghi yesterday. The ECB has said that it has unlimited firepower to buy up government bonds. But, importantly, no government will be able to get that sort of help unless they sign up for massive austerity. Furthermore, it is clear that it is the ECB that will decide how much bond-buying is needed.

Let's make it clear. If any Eurozone government is paying interest rates to the markets that are higher than the rates that the banks pay the ECB, then there is something very wrong. The banks that lend the money to governments create the money out of thin air, and they lend to Eurozone governments with (virtually) zero risk, and then sit back and charge interest. There is no excuse for the excessive and unfair rates that are visible in the graphs for interest rates for the 17 Eurozone governments - graphs that reveal that while the rates had converged at around 4.5% at the end of 2008, the spread is now completely ridiculous - 1.24% for Germany, 25.82% for Greece.

But I fear that the ECB will only buy enough bonds to keep the interest rates at what is supposed to be a "sustainable" level of interest rates - namely 6%. If that is all they do, then all that will happen is that the banks will be guaranteed that they can continue to make huge profits for creating the money supply.

Nevertheless, the existence of a mechanism for transfering government debt from the financial markets and the banks to the central bank is a good thing. I can still hope that one day it will be possible to transfer all government debt to the ECB and allowing all governments in the Eurozone to pay the same low interest rates.

6 Sep 2012

Could the ECB fix the crisis today?

According to a report from Bloomberg yesterday, Mario Draghi, head of the ECB could announce a plan to buy unlimited amounts of government bonds. Apparently, the plan is to buy up massive amounts of government bonds, but will be accompanied by measures to neutralize the effect on the money supply. As the Bloomberg report puts it : "To sterilize the bond purchases, the ECB will remove from the system elsewhere the same amount of money it spends, ensuring the program has a neutral impact on the money supply". If that involved  imposing a financial transaction tax to mop up the excess money supply, then my dreams will have come true! That is really getting pretty close to what I proposed recently in my youtube presentation "Some radical propositions for monetary reform".

It is important to realize that this sort of scheme really could work. As you hopefully already know if you have been reading my blog, eurozone government debt currently stands at €8.2 trillion, and cost €286 billion in interest payments last year. The total for interest payments since 1995 is €4.5 trillion - i.e. more than half of all government debt. The numbers are all here.

If the ECB took on all the debt by buying unlimited amounts of bonds, and charged the governments the same very favorable rates it offers commercial banks (or even no interest at all), the Euro crisis would be dead. But so would the goose that has been laying golden eggs for the banks for centuries. Could Mario Draghi, the ex-European director of Goldman Sachs have the courage to do this? I really hope so...

4 Sep 2012

The IMF on Taxing Finance

Following the amazing news that two IMF economists fully back the original Chicago Plan for full reserve banking, I'm impressed to find another IMF report showing that there seem to be people working there who are prepared to rock the boat.

There's a paper that has just come out called "Taxing Finance", written by Geoff Gottlieb who is an economist, and two IMF staff members - Gregorio Impavido and Anna Ivanova. You can download a pdf version of the document here.

They start by stating that during the 2007-8 financial crisis "governments in  North America and  Europe spent an average of 3 to 5 percent  of GDP to support"... "to stave off a systemwide financial collapse". And they go on to discuss four different tax instruments that are currently being used to recover these sums.
  • A  financial stability contribution which would be a simple levey on a financial institutions balance sheet
  • A financial transaction tax (FTT) that can be levied on the value of specific financial transactions such as equity trading
  • A financial activity tax that can be applied to the sum of an institution's profits and remuneration
  • A reform of corporate income tax to reduce leverage in the financial sector
They provide a graph of  the amount of money that is curently being raised using these methods in western Europe which I show here.

Overall all, they note that these various devices are currently only recovering about 0.2% of GDP per year on average, "suggesting that it would take 15 to 25 years to generate resources equivalanet to the direct costs of the current crisis". 

My reading of the article suggests that the IMF thinks that at lot more needs to be done to redress the balance. I couldn't agree more.

30 Aug 2012

The causes of US government debt

There's an interesting piece in Today's Washington Post. The report contains a graph produced by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that does something very simple. It takes US public debt since 2001 — which is the last year that the budget saw surpluses — and breaks it into its component parts. The graph plots the numbers as a percentage of GDP. Here is the figure.

It shows that half the projected public debt can be directly attributed to Bush-Era Tax Cuts and the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A fair propostion is the result of the economic downturn and the cost of various bailouts. Obama's recovery measures (light blue) are having a relatively modest effect.

What intrigued me in particular was the grey bit - "Other Debt". I wonder what is in there?

Well, in one of my earlier blogs, I looked at the US Treasury figures for the cost of interest payments on US Government Debt. Specifically, you can find numbers for the Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding which includes the monthly interest for:
The total in interest payments in 2011 was $454,393,280,417.03. The USA's GDP in 2011 was $15.09 trillion, which means that 3% of the total is simply interest charges.

It goes without saying that if that 3% was removed from the bill by allowing the US Treasury to create the US Dollar money supply directly, instead of borrowing money from a consortium of private banks (i.e. the Federal Reserve), then things would rapidly get a lot better.

It would also help a lot if the super rich Americans who finance the Republican party actually paid the same level of tax that they paid pre-Bush, and if the US didn't plough so much money into fighting wars. But that's another story.

29 Aug 2012

Money Creation by Commercial Banks : The house price bubble

There was an interesting bit BBC Radio 4 this morning - a discussion with Karl Case who, with Robert Shiller developed an index for comparing repeat sales of the same homes in an effort to study home pricing trends, the Case-Shiller index.

The news is that today, the index has just gone slightly positive following an incredible period in which house prices had plummeted in the USA since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. I extracted the graph from a press article, and you can see it here. You can see that year on year prices increases reached an unbelievable 16% at the peak, before dropping by up to 20% in 2009.


What amazed me was Karl Case's statement that the banks had pumped $10 trillion in new credit into the housing market between 2000 and 2005, and that because of the crash, $6 trillion of that value has simply disappeared in smoke. That's $10 trillion dollars that the banks just created out of thin air.

$10 trillion dollars! That is what happens when the money creation process is put in the hands of commercial banks. They create money for buying the same houses over and over again, causing a totally insane cycle of inflation that eventually ends with a crash.

I simply cannot believe that there is any reasonable way of keeping this sort of insane money creation under control unless the the money creation mechanism is changed fundamentally. If all money creation was done by central banks who would then allow governments to spend the money into the economy (or pay off debt), then such problems would be a thing of the past.

24 Aug 2012

Campaigners for monetary reform unite!

There seem to be more and more people across the world who have realized that many the real problems that face us could be fixed by reforming the money creation mechanism.

In my recent video, I said that while there are active and well-organized groups in the UK (Positive Money) and the USA (the American Monetary Institute, who are organising a very tempting Monetary Reform Conference in a few weeks time),  efforts in the Eurozone appear to be fragmented.

In the last few days, I've been in contact with a number of other people, including Joseph Huber who was the co-author with James Robertson of a very important book on "Creating Money : A monetary reform for the information age" that came out in 2000. Joseph is active in Germany where there are a number of vocal groups. But we were bemoaning the fact that there don't seem to be many people in countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal who have realized that monetary reform could be THE solution for them.

One of the most active groups in Germany is the Monetative movement. Joseph pointed out that they have an interesting list of sister organisations and websites that I recommend.

The list includes the AMI and Positive Money of course, but also
There is also a list of personal website's including a certain guy in France who has one called "Simon Thorpe's Ideas" (Thanks Monetative!!).

But there are loads of holes. Only 6 of the 17 Eurozone countries appear to have anything - correct me if I'm wrong.

There are a few other ones that I can add:
And we also need something at the European level. 

Given that Positive Money now has a New Zealand branch, could it be that we could build on the Positive Money framework and spread that across Continental Europe and in particular the Eurozone? Or maybe we could build up from the Monetative base?

Whatever option is chosen, it seems to me that we absolutely need to try and get an international movement going. And this is particularly critical for the 17 Eurozone countries. The current policies being implemented by Mario Draghi (ex European Director of Goldman Sachs, and now head of the European Central Bank) simply cannot be allowed to continue.

Louis Even and the Michael Journal

My thanks to Paul Nollen for pointing me towards the work of a truly remarkable man - Louis Even (1885-1974). He was a lay Christian leader who founded the social credit movement in Quebec and a movement called the Pilgrims of Saint Michael. The Pilgrims produce something called the Michael Journal which turns out to be a treasure trove of fascinating ideas.

Take for example Louis Even's fable about five people washed up on a desert ile, which explains how money is created as debt by private banks. The story was first published in 1940 in the magazine "Vers Demain".  It's a great story - just 8 pages long - that you can read in English "The Money Myth Exploded", French "L'Ăźle des naufragĂ©s", Spanish "La Isla de los Naufragos", Portugeuse "A Ilha dos Naufragos", German "Die Insel der ShiffbrĂŒchigen" and Polish "Wyspa rozbitkow". No excuses - you have to read this.!

The "Michael Journal" is available in several languages.

In the English section you can find many true gems. For example:
As I say - a real treasure trove. 

Quantitative Easing - a fantastic deal for the very wealthy

The Bank of England has published a report in which it admits that the effects of its Quantatative Easing strategy has mainly benefited the top 5% of households, because they hold 40% of financial assets. You can read the full report here, and it was discussed in an article in today's Guardian - "Britain's richest 5% gained most from quantitative easing - Bank of England".

I had a look at the report, and one figure particularly grabbed my eye. It was the distribution of financial assets - the figure where you get to see that 40% of the assets are held by 5% of households.

I can imagine that in the break down was even finer, it would have been even clearer. The assets held by the top 1% of households will certainly be even more skewed, and the relative advantage would be even more eye watering.

Can we seriously be expected to believe that QE is a sensible way to put central bank money into the economy? It clearly  goes to people who are highly likely to move their assets out to tax-havens. The probability of anything even remotely like "trickle-down" is zero.

22 Aug 2012

TARGET : €2,159,025,000,000,000 in transactions since 2009

Yep. That's right. The European system for interbank transfers called TARGET (Trans-European Real-Time Gross Settlement Express Transfer System) has processed over 2 quadrillion euros worth of transactions since 2009.

You can get all the details from the wonderful ECB databank here.  Of course, you won't find the totals there. They only give you the total values month by month, and country by country. But, if you put all the numbers into an excel sheet, and add them up (something that I have done), you get the following
  • 2009 :                €551,172 billion
  • 2010 :                €593.195 billion
  • 2011 :                €612,936 billion
  • 2012 (Jan-Jul) : €401,722 billion
Since the average in 2012 is so far €57,389 billion a month, it looks like 2012 is going to be a truly bumper year for the banks. They should be able to manage over €688 trillion if they keep it up. That's over 12% up on last year.  It's nice to know that there are some people out there for whom business is booming.

Here's a table showing the breakdown country by country

Germany is obviously doing a lot for the levels of transactions, with a whopping €721 trillion - well done Germany! But France, Spain and the Netherlands aren't doing badly either, with over €300 trillion each.

One country is very notable by its absence - the UK. They don't want to join up with those in Continental Europe. So we can certainly add some more eye watering numbers for CHAPS (who had processed a total of  1 quadrilion pounds by the 25th of July 2011) , CLS Ltd ($4.8 trillion a day in 2011),  NYSE Liffe (who managed €2.67 trillion in a single day on the 13th of January this year) as well as many others.

The moral to all this? Well, just imagine if the 0.1% Financial transaction tax had been in place since 2009. The TARGET system alone would have generated something like €2 trillion in revenue for Europe.

And we are told that there is no money about. Something tells me that someone is pulling the wool over our eyes.

21 Aug 2012

Ending the Eurozone debt problem in a decade (or less)

In my latest youtube video on "How the Eurozone countries could fix the global economic crisis" I proposed that we should push to replace money creation by commercial banks (who charge interest on loans made with money that they create out of thin air) by direct interest free money creation by the European Central Bank.

I specifically proposed that the ECB should be able to generate at least as much money as the commercial banks have been doing. M3 has been increasing by around €450 billion a year since 2005, although the rate of increase reached a staggering €968 billion in the single year leading up to November 2007 (those are the numbers from the Eurostat website).

Could the ECB generate that much money in a year? The answer is clearly yes. They've already done it, since Mario Draghi pumped over €1 trillion of cheap money into the banking system in two rounds of financing in the space of just 3 months. And I have it on the word of the ECB that there was actually no upper limit to the amount that could be generated.

So, for the sake of argument, lets just imagine what could be done with €1 trillion of nice fresh debt free money.

Well, the proposition that I made in my video was that the newly created money supply could be simply divided up according to the populations of the 17 eurozone countries. What could the countries do with the money?

One option would be simply to use the money to get the countries out of debt. The table shows the populations of each of the countries and the percentage. It also shows how much they would get of the €1 trillion created by the ECB, the size of the government debt, and the number of years that it would take to pay off the whole loan.

Germany would pay off all its debt in 8.5 years, France in 8.7 years and so on. Even Greece would pay off all its debts in little more than 10 years. Even the worst case, Ireland, would be out of debt by 2025.

Can anyone explain to me why this is not a perfectly good way of solving the Eurozone debt crisis?
And this is based on the very modest suggestion that the ECB creates only the same amount that it just did for the banks, and the same amount that the banks themselves produced in 2007. Increase the amounts further and you could solve the entire problem in three years or less.

The reason why we don't do this is simple. It would mean that the commercial banks would be deprived of the €286 billion in interest that they extracted from Eurozone taxpayers in 2011 alone.  And if anyone else tries to tell you that there is no alternative to austerity to solve the Eurozone debt crisis, it might just be worth checking that they are not directly receiving some of the money that gets creamed off. Objectively, it is impossible to justify the current system - unless you are a member of  the 1% who are on the gravy train.

Oh, and by the way, fixing the Eurozone crisis this way could not possibly result in inflation. Since the governments would be paying off debts that correspond to money that the banks have created out of thin air, when those debts get paid, the money disappears in a puff of smoke. The banks cannot relend the money - especially if their licence to use fractional reserve banking to create more will have been removed. But at the same time, it would reduce the exposure of the banks enormously - something which normally they should like, except of course for the fact that we would have killed their golden goose.

So, given that the ECB could pump €1 trillion a year into paying off the Eurozone government debt without producing any inflation at all, there is no reason not to add a few hundred billion more every year for doing some even more useful things. 

Finally, the idea that the money is dispatched purely on the basis of population size means that those countries whose govenments have been prudent in the past will start getting money they can use for these other projects much more rapidly. Estonia would be able to pay off its debt in just a few months, and start doing useful stuff. Even Spain would be out of the red in only 5 years - way before the Germans, who, contrary to the myth, are actually the worst culprits of all for the size of their government debt.

In other words, there is real justice here. But justice is not something that seems to have a very high priority among our leaders.

19 Aug 2012

The Chicago Plan Revisited

My thanks to a couple of people who have pointed me to a new paper by a Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof from the IMF called "The Chicago Plan Revisited". The paper will be presented at next meeting of the American Monetary Insitute next month (see the program here). I also note that the appearance of this paper caused the people at the Positive Money group to enter a state of mild shock! It is indeed a real surprise to see an IMF working paper offering support for full reserve banking!

The paper looks really important because, finally, it has a look at some of the key claims made by the authors of the original Chicago Plan - published in the mid 1930s by a group of prominant economists. They were proposing exactly the sort of reforms that an increasing number of authors are arguing for today - including myself. Namely, the abolition of the ability of commercial banks to create credit (money) out of thin air, and the replacement of the money creation mechanims by central banks.

Here's what the abstract of the article says:
"At the height of the Great Depression a number of leading U.S. economists advanced a proposal for monetary reform that became known as the Chicago Plan. It envisaged the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, by requiring 100% reserve backing for deposits. Irving Fisher (1936) claimed the following advantages for this plan: (1) Much better control of a major source of business cycle fluctuations, sudden increases and contractions of bank credit and of the supply of bank-created money. (2) Complete elimination of bank runs. (3) Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt. (4) Dramatic reduction of private debt, as money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation. We study these claims by embedding a comprehensive and carefully calibrated model of the banking system in a DSGE model of the U.S. economy. We find support for all four of Fisher's claims. Furthermore, output gains approach 10 percent, and steady state inflation can drop to zero without posing problems for the conduct of monetary policy."
 The text is full of interesting material. For example, when discussing the idea that central banks have can influence the amount of money creation by the commercial bank sector, the authors note that, "the “deposit multiplier” of the undergraduate economics textbook, where monetary aggregates are created at the initiative of the central bank, through an initial injection of high-powered money into the banking system that gets multiplied through bank lending... is simply, in the words of Kydland and Prescott (1990), a myth. And because of this, private banks are almost fully in control of the money creation process."

Nice to hear real economists admitting that this idea is a complete fiction. Commercial banks do precisely what they want.

The authors also note that "This is of course the reason why quantitative easing, at least the kind that works by making greater reserves available to banks and not the public, can be ineffective if banks decide that lending remains too risky." I think we can probably replace the "can be ineffective" by "is ineffective".

Perhaps someone could mention this to Mervyn King and Mario Draghi before they embark on yet another round of completely pointless Quantitative Easing.

Note added 22nd August:

Bill Still has a great and inspirational presentation on this subject  - "IMF Paper Supports Monetary Reform"
Do watch it!