Watch 97% Owned - the new documentary featuring Positive Money which reveals how money is at the root of our current social and economic crisis.

 

Michael Hudson (the man who once fired Alan Greenspan) is research professor of economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City  and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. He is a former Wall Street analyst and consultant. Michael acts as an economic advisor to governments worldwide including Iceland, Latvia and China on finance and tax law.

In his most recent article he writes :

 

If there is any silver lining to today’s debt crisis, it is that the present situation and trends cannot continue. So this is not only an opportunity to restructure banking; we have little choice. The urgent issue is who will control the economy: governments, or the financial sector and monopolies with which it has made an alliance.

Fortunately, it is not necessary to re-invent the wheel. Already a century ago the outlines of a productive industrial banking system were well understood. But recent bank lobbying has been remarkably successful in distracting attention away from classical analyses of how to shape the financial and tax system to best promote economic growth – by public checks on bank privileges.

 

The first step toward today’s mutual interdependence between high finance and government was for central banks to act as lenders of last resort to mitigate the liquidity crises that periodically resulted from the banks’ privilege of credit creation. In due course governments also provided public deposit insurance, recognizing the need to mobilize and recycle savings into capital investment as the Industrial Revolution gained momentum. In exchange for this support, they regulated banks as public utilities.

Over time, banks have sought to disable this regulatory oversight, even to the point of decriminalizing fraud.

The problem is that the financial time frame is notoriously short-term and often self-destructive. And in as much as the banking system’s product is debt, its business plan tends to be extractive and predatory, leaving economies high-cost.

 

The popular media and even academic economic theorists have been mobilized to pose as experts in an attempt to convince the public that financial policy is best left to technocrats – of the banks’ own choosing, as if there is no alternative policy but for governments to subsidize a financial free lunch and crown bankers as society’s rulers.

The endgame in times past was to write down bad debts. That meant losses for banks and investors. But today’s debt overhead is being kept in place – shifting bad loans off bank balance sheets to become public debts owed by taxpayers to save banks and their creditors from loss. Governments have given banks newly minted bonds or central bank credit in exchange for junk mortgages and bad gambles – without re-structuring the financial system to create a more stable, less debt-ridden economy. The pretense is that these bailouts will enable banks to lend enough to revive the economy by enough to pay its debts.

 

Governments can create new credit electronically on their own computer keyboards as easily as commercial banks can. And unlike banks, their spending is expected to serve a broad social purpose, to be determined democratically. When commercial banks gain policy control over governments and central banks, they tend to support their own remunerative policy of creating asset-inflationary credit – leaving the clean-up costs to be solved by a post-bubble austerity. This makes the debt overhead even harder to pay – indeed, impossible.

As economies polarize between debtors and creditors, planning is shifting out of public hands into those of bankers. The easiest way for them to keep this power is to block a true central bank or strong public sector from interfering with their monopoly of credit creation. The counter is for central banks and governments to act as they were intended to, by providing a public option for credit creation.

Read the whole article here.

 

 

  • Joao Granchinho

    “Article 123 of the Lisbon Treaty forbids the ECB or other central banks to lend to government. But central banks were created specifically – to finance government deficits.”

    “Yet to keep the bank casino winning, global bankers now want governments not only to bail them out but to enable them to renew their failed business plan – and to keep the present debts in place so that creditors will not have to take a loss.
    This wish means that society should lose, and even suffer depression. We are dealing here not only with greed, but with outright antisocial behavior and hostility.
    Europe thus has reached a critical point in having to decide whose interest to put first: that of banks, or the “real” economy. History provides a wealth of examples illustrating the dangers of capitulating to bankers, and also for how to restructure banking along more productive lines.”

    Great article, worth a read.

    • Peter J. Morgan

      I agree — it’s a very insightful article and is extremely well written.
      However, it begs the question: What was/is the rationale for allowing banks to create ANY credit out of thin air in the first place. Surely, once people understand the private credit creation process and its implications, they will want banks to do only what the vast majority of people believe is ALL they do now, (namely act as intermediaries on-lending existing money at a margin, which is a useful function to perform in an economy) and instead they will want the credit creation system espoused by Positive Money.
      I wonder, is Michael Hudson aware of the Positive Money proposals? Does anybody know?

  • RJ

    The endgame in times past was to write down bad debts.

    But as Hudson should know times have changed markedly.

    In the past a few held the debt asset and the majority the debt liability. Today many hold the debt assets in pension funds and one (Governments) if need be can hold a large part of the debt liability.

    So any debt write down will smash the many (pension funds). The exact opposite to the past.

  • RJ

    “Governments have given banks newly minted bonds or central bank credit in exchange for junk mortgages and bad gambles – without re-structuring the financial system to create a more stable, less debt-ridden economy.”

    What Govts have done this. As far as I know the Uk did not do this. The Govt took over the bad banks which was preferable to letting them collapse.

    And if we want to save for our retirement then debt is inevitable. Either Govt or private. Otherwise we return to a few holding all the debt assets and everyone else the debt liabilities.

    Banks benefit mainly from credit scarcity which he does not mention. This article badly distorts facts about money and banking.

    • Peter J. Morgan

      “This article” (by Michael Hudson) “badly distorts facts about money and banking.” So, RJ, what you are saying is that Michael Hudson doesn’t know what he’s talking about. We can all find Mr Hudson’s credentials on the Internet. So introduce yourself, RJ, and give us you real name and give us your credentials to help us believe that you know what you are talking about.

Contact Us

You can contact us here.

Search Positive Money

Donate

We rely on individual donors to keep this campaign running. If you can, please help with a monthly or one-off donation.