Do as you’re told, or we’ll destroy your economy!

The Turkish Lira has been taking a battering in the “money markets” recently. Could there be a connection between that and Turkey’s defiance of US plans in Syria? (That’s a rhetorical question) And , surprise, surprise, the only currency doing worse is the Russian ruble! The sooner the world escapes from the hegemony of the Yankee dollar, the better for all of us!

Erdoğan blasts investors amid tumbling Turkish Lira

shadow bankers[Turkey’s] President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hit out at international investors on April 12, saying “no one could bring Turkey to heel using exchange rates,” casting the recent sharp drop in the value of the Turkish Lira as a conspiracy by outside powers. 

“Don’t worry, Turkey is continuing on its path with determined steps. Nobody can bring us to heel using exchange rates,” Erdoğan said in a speech in Ankara.

“The rise in exchange rates has no reasonable, logical or regular explanation,” he added.

His comments came as the lira took a breather after plumbing record lows for five straight trading days. 

Jacob RothschildThe lira, which has been highly sensitive to developments in neighboring Syria, recovered slightly to trade at 4.1010 per dollar after hitting a record low of 4.1920 on April 11, with investors’ anxiety over a threatened clash between Western powers and Russia in Syria easing.

The lira is down 2 percent so far this week, also hit by concern about high inflation and the country’s current account deficit.

The lira was the second worst performing emergency currency over the last month after Russian ruble with a nearly 7 percent loss in its value.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogan-blasts-investors-amid-tumbling-turkish-lira-130212

Advertisements

Jeremy Corbyn threatens to make bankers ‘servants of industry’ in fresh attack on the City

I don’t like Labour’s chances of winning power in the UK – and even if they do, they have a history of changing their tune once they take the reins of power – but this guy’s analysis of the problem is accurate, as far as it goes:

jeremy corbyn

But, has he got the guts and the backing to do anything about it?

“[UK Labour Party leader] Jeremy Corbyn has launched a fresh attack on the City of London by promising to make financiers “the servants of industry” if he becomes prime minister. 

[He] claimed in a speech to manufacturing leaders in London that the finance sector’s “destructive” dominance over “the real economy” and “undemocratic” control over politics needed to be tackled so that the economy can be rebalanced. 

Mr Corbyn told the EEF conference: “We will take decisive action to make finance the servant of industry not the masters of us all.

“For a generation, instead of finance serving industry, politicians have served finance. We’ve seen where that ends.”

robber barons

Cartoon published in “Puck” in 1889

[In fact, the problem goes back far beyond the current generation!]

In a speech that will send shivers through the banking industry, Mr Corbyn vowed that the next Labour government would be “the first in 40 years to stand up for the real economy” and combat the “financial wizardry” running through the City.

Mr Corbyn said: “When private debt is twice the size of the real economy, when traders no longer understand the products they’re trading, and banks are funding their own speculation rather than productive investment, something has gone grossly and badly wrong.” 

We need a fundamental rethink of whom finance should serve and how it should be regulated,” he said. “There can be no rebalancing of our distorted, sluggish and unequal economy without taking on the unfettered power of finance.”

[Actually, we need “a fundamental rethink” of how new money enters the economy – and I’m not convinced that Labour party leaders anywhere know how to implement that!]

Response from the Money marketeers – totally predictable, of course:

city bankers

City parasites making hay while the sun shines

Brexiteer Tory MP and former hedge fund manager Jacob Rees-Mogg hit back at the “ill-informed” comments that he said would hit industry.

Nicky Morgan, the Remain-backing chair of the Treasury select committee, told The Daily Telegraph that Mr Corbyn’s comments were “barmy” and displayed a lack of understanding. 

The business community spoke out in defence of British bankers on Tuesday. The Institute of Directors said that while it was true that the hangover of the financial crisis still loomed large, the City contributed huge amounts to the UK’s growth through jobs and taxes.

Meanwhile the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) added that the [finance] sector was the “lifeblood of Britain’s economy, enabling all other sectors to deliver jobs, develop, innovate and grow”.

Stephen Jones, the chief executive of industry trade association UK Finance, said the sector has “undertaken significant reform in the last 10 years to ensure that the taxpayer should never need to bail out a bank again”.

Source: The Telegraph

Where did the money go?

There will always be prophets of doom, I guess, forecasting the end of the world. The care-taker at the school where I work insists that the Koran tells of a war-to-end-all -wars in the Middle East, followed by the final Day of Judgment. Who knows? Turkey and the United States look to be on a collision course right now. Who’ll blink first, I wonder? Or will they actually come to blows?

But getting back to the economy, that is no doubt the biggest danger. Wars are generally a side effect of the uber-rich seeking new ways of grasping more of the world’s wealth to themselves and ensuring that the rest of us are kept in our place.

Dropped wallet

Bill Gates lost $2.25 billion!

Last Monday the US Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 1,500 points, and I read that the fortunes of the world’s 500 richest people, including Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, fell by $114 billion.

“Berkshire Hathaway Inc. chairman Warren Buffett, the world’s third-richest person, was hardest hit, losing $5.1 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

“Facebook Inc. Chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg’s fortune tumbled by $3.6 billion, the second-biggest decline.

“Even Amazon.com Inc. chief executive officer Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, wasn’t immune to the carnage. His fortune slipped $3.3 billion to $116.4 billion. Alphabet Inc.’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin each took hits of about $2.3 billion.”

pickpocket-barcelona

Sheldon Adelson lost $1.21 billion!

Time Magazine reported that nineteen people in the world managed to lose $1 billion or more each. See the list here.

Since, then, things seem to have settled down, and economist lackeys of the capitalist world are reassuring us that “what happened to the markets amounts to a correction rather than a crash.”

On the other hand, an aristocratic-sounding fellow writing in the UK’s Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, says “The Fed and fellow central banks have stimulated a titanic expansion of debt over the last quarter century: an asymmetric policy of letting booms run their course while always intervening to prevent busts, culminating in the final throw of QE.

This has driven down the natural Wicksellian rate of interest and led to grievous intertemporal distortions. It has lifted the world debt ratio by 51 per cent of GDP to 327 per cent since the pre-Lehman peak, and led to a synchronised “everything bubble”, from bonds, equities, property, to art and Bitcoin.”

I confess I got lost with some of the jargon. The “natural Wicksellian rate of interest” and “intertemporal distortions” sound like things Douglas Adams might have invented, but Mr E-P does sound a little worried, doesn’t he! In fact, he began his analysis with the words, “Say your prayers”.

Well, I guess if you have $120 billion to start with, losing a paltry $3 billion is not going to worry you unduly. I’m wondering, however, if there weren’t a few people in the USA, outside the billionaire bracket, who took losses they couldn’t afford. I haven’t read anything about them, however, so I’m purely speculating.

But the real issue that concerns me here is not the small change of a few filthy rich planet-rapers, nor even ma and pa investor in homeland USA.

The question I want an answer to is: Where did that money go? It’s not as though young Mr Bezos left his wallet on the bus with $3.3 billion in it, and some lucky guy found it; or Warren B had an envelope stuffed with $5.1 billion in his back pocket, and someone snatched it. That I can understand. I lose money, you find it, lucky you.

Funny-Disney-Dollars-Picture

Just have faith, people, and everything will be fine!

But this money, as far as I understand, actually disappeared into thin air. No one is any better off as a result. How can this be? What does that say about what money actually is if it can just vanish without trace? And that, of course, begs the question, where did it come from in the first place?

Until we all start to focus on demanding answers to these questions, or maybe seeing the answer that is under our nose, instead of allowing ourselves to be distracted by red herring minority interest social issues, our world is surely on the road to Armageddon – and those uber-wealthy zillionaires and their lapdog economist experts are running out of Band-Aid solutions.

What is money, and where does it come from?

One thing I can tell you for sure – it doesn’t grow on trees! But that doesn’t really answer the question. An article in the New Zealand Herald today caught my eye:

Show me the money: Reserve Bank reveals the ins and outs of printing cash

There is about five and a half billion New Zealand dollars circulating at the moment – in the country and offshore – and hundreds of thousands of notes being destroyed every week.

In 2016, the Reserve Bank destroyed 43 million notes, with a value around $1 billion.

The money is “granulated” down into “very small sort of confetti-sized bits of bank notes” then sent away to a specialised company that recycles them into plastic items one might find at home.

All this money being transformed into plastic on a weekly basis must be replaced.

print money

Thank God for Canada!

New Zealand money is printed much less frequently than it is destroyed, and it’s done overseas.

The notes are printed in Canada because it is not financially viable to run a printing factory in New Zealand. With money only ordered once a year at most, such a factory would lie unused much of the time.

Despite the increased use of Eftpos cards and online banking, the amount of New Zealand cash circulating here and overseas is growing, something that “around the currency world gets discussed a fair bit”.

There are a few “industry theories” on why the around $5.5b in cash is growing. One is that low interest rates means it doesn’t “hurt as much” to hold on to cash.

“You’re not losing interest revenue by holding it to any extent.”

Other reasons could include that New Zealand money was popular overseas, people using cash to avoid taxation, and using cash in the “dark economy” for illegal dealings.

But another thought was simply that increased spending led to increased needs for cash.

One way or another, the Reserve Bank has so far always had enough to circulate, and didn’t have “masses of unused notes sitting around”.

_____________________________

Well, I don’t know about you, but for me, this article raised more questions than it answered.

moneypig

Everyone needs something to believe in

First of all, millions of dollars in “legal tender” are created and destroyed every year – so clearly those paper notes have no intrinsic value. In fact, they’re not worth the paper (or plastic) they’re printed on.

Second, NZ money is printed in Canada – and if that money factory is working all year round, I guess those Canadians must be printing money for a few other countries as well, yeah?

“New Zealand money is printed much less frequently than it is destroyed, [but despite this, and] “Despite the increased use of Eftpos cards and online banking, the amount of New Zealand cash circulating here and overseas is growing.” How so? Was there more cash in the past? And are people hoarding old banknotes? But the government keeps issuing new designs and the old ones become obsolete, so that can’t be true.

The Reserve Bank doesn’t have masses of unused notes sitting around but always has enough to circulate even at Christmas time when demand increases, and the “around $5.5b in cash is growing” all the time.

Smells fishy to me! Obviously, there’s something they’re not telling us. And it could be this:

It’s been estimated that notes and coins in all the world’s currencies represents about 8% of the total world money supply. What? Yes!

If you think you know what money is, and you’re happy now that you know it comes from Canada, I’ve got bad news for you. Even the best economist brains in the world can’t agree on what money is. But one thing I’m sure they will agree on – It doesn’t come from a printing factory in Canada.

What they’ll tell you, if you insist on a definition, is that there is a mysterious algebraic thing they call “M”. There used to be three of these things, M1, M2 and M3 – but now it seems another has been added: M0. Well, actually I think that was a con, because M0 is notes and coins, and all those other “M”s have actually been moved further up into the realms of virtual reality – bank overdrafts, credit card limits, futures, toxic mortgages, quantitative easings, and other stuff we mortals earning normal wages or salaries have no concept of.

How-to-Have-an-AWESOME-Marriage-when-drowning-in-debt

Borrow money from your friendly local banker 🙂

Let me give a simple example. Just before a big commercial shopping event like Christmas, my bank texts me to say there is $20,000 waiting for me. All I have to do is send a text reply to a four-digit number, that $20,000 will magically appear in my account, and I can get on with the business of spreading good cheer to relatives and friends.

I never ask for it – but I can’t help wondering: Is that $20,000 sitting at the bank in a bag waiting for me, or do they give it someone else? What if I change my mind later and ask for it? Do they say, “Sorry, buddy, we gave it to Joe Bloggs”?

And I also wonder, how many other people around the world got the same offer from their banks? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million? What if we all take up the offer? What if we all don’t? Will they print more? Or shred the unclaimed millions?

Then there’s the small matter of debt. The United States of America is proud possessor of the world’s largest economy. It also happens that they are the world’s largest debtor nation. According to Wikipedia, on November 7, 2016, US total gross national debt stood at $19.8 trillion (about 106% of the previous 12 months GDP). I checked the US online debt clock at 10.23 last night, and found that their figure is nearly $70 trillion. Clearly it depends who’s measuring, and how they measure it. Whichever figure you decide to run with, it’s a sizable heap of money!

Well, the next question that arises is, who do they owe it to? I asked a mate at work who seems to know a lot about politics, economics and world affairs. “China,” he asserted confidently, “and Japan.” So, I checked them out.

Turns out that China’s “national debt” as of March 2016 (the most recent figure I could find) stood at the equivalent of $4.3 trillion. The same source informed me that Japanese “public debt” in 2013 passed the quadrillion yen barrier in 2013 (about $10.5 trillion at that time).

Debt

Looks like a tricky situation – and he’s not alone.

Government debt in the UK (ie not counting private and commercial borrowings) amounted to £1.56 trillion, or 81.58% of total GDP, and the annual cost of servicing (paying the interest on) this debt amounted to around £43 billion. The Conservative government pledged in 2010 that they would eliminate the deficit by the 2015/16 financial year. However, “the target of a return to surplus at any particular time was finally abandoned by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne in July 2016”. And sad to say, until they start running a surplus, that debt’s only going to get bigger.

Evidently none of the world’s biggest national economies is in any position to lend money to their insolvent neighbours. Fortunately, we have banks that can come to the rescue. Fractional-reserve banking is the current form of banking practised in most countries worldwide. In a nutshell, this system allows banks to lend up to 90% of the money they have in deposits.

The beauty of the system, from the banks’ point-of-view, is that they don’t have to apologise to you when you go to make a withdrawal: “Oh, sorry, we loaned your money to John Doe.” You can have yours, and he can keep his – and the bank can collect interest on the new money it created.

Rolling_Stone_Banksters

Happy bankers 🙂

But what if we all go and demand our deposits at the same time? Luckily every country has an LOLR – which apparently stands for “Lender of Last Resort”, not “Laughing Out Loud, Really”). This is normally the country’s central bank eg the US “Fed”, or the Bank of England, which guarantee to bail out the too-big-to-fail banks when they get caught out, as in 2008.

And since we are assured that those central banks don’t have large stocks of money in their cellars, and tax-payer dollars are already insufficient to balance their government’s books, I guess that means they have to borrow more money from the private banks.

Either that or go cap-in-hand to the money printing factory in Canada. Think about it.

Economic gobbledegook – and why the world is going to hell on a fast train

This is by some guy called Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writing in the UK’s Daily Telegraph. Well, with a name like that you wouldn’t imagine he’d have missed too many meals in his life. He’s probably right in picking that it’s not a good sign for the future of the world when someone can pay $450 million for a painting, even if Leonardo da Vinci did paint it. Reading between the lines of overblown pretentious verbiage, I reckon he’s saying the world is in for another major financial crash, engineered by the same grotesquely over-paid, grasping, selfish “financiers” that brought us the last one.

Cy twomble

$46 million painting by Cy Twombly

Leonardo da Vinci has special cachet. What is striking about the Christie’s soiree in New York last week was not so much the US$450m ($661m) paid for his rediscovered Salvator Mundi but the prices fetched by everyone else.

Buyers forked out $46m for vermilion spirals from the Bacchus series by Cy Twombly, executed 12 years ago with a paint-drenched brush on a pole. Soothing sands called Saffron by Mark Rothko fetched US$32m.

The week’s haul at Christie’s and Sotheby’s topped US$1.5 billion, with Asian buyers snapping up Monets. Fernand Leger’s abstract Contrastes de Formes fetched US$62m.

It screams late-cycle liquidity, recalling Japan’s impressionist fever in the late Eighties before the Nikkei collapsed and the bottom fell out of the art market.

092216-best-paidBitcoin clinches the argument. It has risen more than 1,200 per cent over the past year to more than US$8000 – five times an ounce of gold – on a “greater fool” presumption.

This is not a criticism of blockchain technology. It will flourish. But you cannot yet buy and sell things in any meaningful way with cryptocurrencies worth US$180b.

Bitcoin will end badly, either when the Chicago Mercantile Exchange launches its futures contracts in two weeks and allows traders to short it, or when the global cycle turns. A runaway asset boom can last a long time when the G4 central banks are holding real interest at minus 1.5 per cent and spending US$2 trillion a year soaking up “safe assets”

And here’sAcademic bulls say the stock of central bank assets is still growing. Market bears counter that the flow is falling, which matters more to them. Hence the recent rout in high-yield credit. Junk bond funds saw the biggest outflows since 2014 last week.

A parallel retreat is under way in East Asia where US$800m of bond sales in steel, solar and palm oil were cancelled. These are minor tremors. What threatens the universe of stretched asset values is the return of US inflation. The boom is built on the premise that the Fed will bathe the global system with ample liquidity.

banking-2015

2015 figures for the UK

Yet that is precisely what is now in doubt as US unemployment drops to a 17-year low and the dormant Phillips curve reawakens. The New York Fed’s underlying inflation gauge has jumped to a post-Lehman peak of 2.96 per cent.

All it will take from now on is a single piece of hard data to confirm this trend and the markets will reprice interest rate futures abruptly, shaking the whole edifice of global risk appetite.

Staccato rate rises by the Fed would ignite a dollar surge, squeezing an estimated US$10.7t of offshore dollar debt. There is a further US$14t of global dollar debt hidden in derivatives and FX swap contracts, pushing the total to US$25t.

The Wolf of Wall Street

“Watching with wolfish concentration . . . “

I didn’t want to upload the whole pretentious, jargon-loaded article – just give you a taste – but here’s Evans-Pritchard’s conclusion:

“Major players in the City are watching with wolfish concentration. Bank of America says the air is getting thinner for risk assets but tells clients to stay with the “Icarus trade” as long as you can still breathe.

Mark Haefele, investment chief at UBS, says it is too early to bail out but the coming inflection point is “something we think about a lot”.

End of Labour as a major political force?

The Light Dawns – The Penny Drops!

eureka

It came to me in the bathtub!

It was a favourite saying of my old middle school teacher, Mr Hislop. It was a mildly sarcastic form of congratulations when one, or all of his pupils finally showed signs of understanding something he had been at pains for some time to explain.

The words came to my own lips as I read an opinion piece in New Zealand’s own Herald newspaper/website. The writer was commenting on the woes of the NZ Labour Party in the lead-up to this year’s General Election. The conservative National Party has been in power since 2008. The Prime Minister for most of those years was an unabashedly rich finance mogul whose standard response to news media questions about the numerous scandals that broke during his term of office was, “Oh, nobody cares about that!” New Zealand has a ludicrously inflated housing market, a playground for wealthy local and foreign “investors”. The country has received dishonourable mention in global reports on child poverty and international money laundering.

In spite of that, and more, the main opposition Labour Party is plunging rather than rising in public opinion polls, and the party’s panicked response has been to choose a new leader, four months out from Election Day. It’s the beginning of the end of Labour as an automatic major political force,” says this political commentator.

Interesting choice of words, don’t you think? automatic major political force”? Unfortunately, that’s what it is, and has been for the last 40 years – and not just in New Zealand A brain-dead response by people unhappy with the social injustice created by traditional conservative economics. Political pundits in the UK are desperately trying to convince voters that the local Labour Party has found, in Jeremy Corbyn, a leader to take them back to their roots. The US Democrats managed to sell Barack Obama to their well-heeled, trendy-lefty supporters, and nearly did it again with Bernie Sanders. The sad fact is that Labour Parties (and their alter egos) in these countries and Australia, and others for all I know, are just a construct of the established financial elite who wield the real power while conning a pathetically gullible electorate into thinking they have a choice at the ballot box.

walking dead

Labour back from the dead – again?

Let me quote you some facts and figures. New Zealand voters elected their first Labour Government in 1935, in the depths of the Great Global Economic Depression. That government did actually manage to implement some genuine socialist reforms, on which their successors have been dining out ever since. By 1949, however, they had turned their back on most of their founding principles, got rid of any dissenting voices in their own ranks, and were deservedly thrown out in that year’s general Election.

68 years have passed since then. Conservative National governments have held the reins of power for 47 of those, and pale pinkish-blue pseudo-Labour governments, the remaining 21. The last possibly true old-style Labour Prime Minister, Norman Kirk, was elected in 1972 on the slogan, “It’s time for a change” – which voters were ready to accept after twelve years of National rule. Unfortunately, Big Norm died two years later, and Labour were thrown out in 1975, having failed to achieve much at all.

puppet

Work it our for yourself.

National returned to office and proceeded to make themselves pretty unpopular, nevertheless winning again in ‘78 owing to their own electoral gerrymandering and Labour’s predictable incompetence. Despite NZ’s manifestly unfair first-past-the-post electoral system, a rejuvenated force had appeared on the NZ political scene. The Social Credit Political League began picking up support from voters fed up with the lies and deceit of the two main parties. After giving the National Party two shock defeats in by-elections, Social Credit actually replaced Labour as the country’s preferred opposition party in public opinion polls in 1980.

That was when the business/financial elite showed their true colours. Going against almost total international opinion, the National Prime Minister arranged for the NZ Rugby Union to host a tour of the country by a team from apartheid South Africa. Whatever naïve political writers tell you, it was a deliberately cynical ploy to divide the country along conventional lines, with the rugby-mad and the libertarians supporting the tour, and left-leaning union-leaders, armchair liberals and “intellectuals” coming out strongly against it. The 1981 General Election returned to the same-old-same-old, manipulators-extraordinaire National and a temporarily ideologically renewed Labour.

The victory went again to National, but by 1984 NZ voters had definitely had enough of them. Seeing the writing on the wall, the same business/financial elite set up a well-financed straw party to siphon off the protest vote and ensure that Labour would finally return to office. But what a Labour Government!! Their public relations creation windbag Prime Minister led a government that implemented libertarian reforms drawing inspiration from the UK’s Iron Witch Margaret Thatcher and US Wild West hero Ronald Reagan.

yellowbrickroad

Sorry, folks – Labour won’t take you to the Emerald City.

The simple fact of the matter is those who hold the real power in New Zealand (and other Western pseudo-democracies) want to retain the Labour Party as the main political “opposition” to maintain the illusion that voters have a choice. “The end of Labour as a political force?” Sorry, mate, that happened decades ago. They’ve been dead for years – they just won’t lie down.

I’d like to believe that the light is finally dawning in New Zealand, and the penny will drop to activate the machinery of a new political age – but I don’t hold out much hope. Too many people want to believe in the yellow brick road.

Who is that economist working for?

41wtMZTrtVL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_

If you believe that . . .

Economics has been called the dismal science. Well, “dismal” it may be, certainly in the way it is used to justify the gross inequalities in the distribution of our planet’s wealth – but “science”? Possibly a “human” science, ranking with other notoriously imprecise fields of human knowledge such as psychology and sociology.

I have noted previously that Alfred Nobel did not include economics in his list of prizes. Not only did he think it unfit to sit alongside the true sciences (physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine), he didn’t even consider it as objectively assessable as Literature and Peace!

Bearing that in mind, then, it seems to me that I have as much right as anyone to have my ideas on the subject taken seriously. It could even be argued that the views of a high profile rugby player in New Zealand have greater validity than those of a former Governor of my country’s Reserve Bank.

We are all aware that high-level sport these days is mostly about money, and economics has inserted its dismal finger so that honesty, fair play, clean living and sportsmanship now rank well down the list of priorities. The home ground of Istanbul’s Beşiktaş football club, formerly commemorating the republic’s second president and close friend of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, has recently been rebuilt and reopened as the Vodafone Arena, commemorating . . . the power of money.

banksters-300x199It’s a brave sportsman or woman these days who can cite moral principles to his or her paymasters as Sonny Bill Williams has done in New Zealand. Williams has the advantage of being an extremely valuable property, moving seamlessly between two rugby “codes” (league and union) in a way that would once have been frowned upon. So, when he announced that he would not wear a team strip emblazoned with the logo of the Bank of NZ, he opened a can of worms. Williams is, apparently, a Muslim, and follows that religion’s injunction against usury – the lending of money at interest.

A columnist for the NZ Herald, Brian Gould, picked up on Williams’s moral stand, writing an opinion piece entitled “Banking should be under closer Government control”. Supporting the Muslim rugby player’s position, Gould said, Most people believe, and it is a belief assiduously promoted by the banks themselves, that the banks act as intermediaries between those wishing to save and those wishing to borrow, usually on mortgage. . . But this benign view of their operations is inaccurate and misleading. The banks do not lend you on mortgage money deposited with them by someone else. They lend you money that they themselves create out of nothing, through the stroke of a pen or, today, a computer entry.”

The next day, the Herald published a reply from a gentleman by the name of Don Brash insisting that both Williams and Gould were wrong.

“Mr Gould is not alone in peddling this nonsense, but that certainly doesn’t make it correct.

How the Fed works

How the banking system creates MONEY. Money is not wealth, especially if you have to borrow it at commercial interest rates. (Source: Time Magazine)

“The banking system does create money. When Bank A lends money to one of its customers, the customer may use those funds to buy something from somebody who banks with Bank B. Bank B then finds itself with an additional deposit, a part of which it can lend out to its customers (keeping some of the additional deposit as a liquidity reserve). So an initial loan may end up considerably increasing the total lending by the banking system.

“If individual banks really could create money by “the stroke of a pen or a computer entry”, as Mr Gould contends, why do they bother paying interest on deposits, why do they borrow funds from parent banks overseas, why do they borrow funds in the international market, why do they need to hold some funds in government securities as a liquidity reserve, why do some banks occasionally run out of money when customers lose confidence in them?

As well as being a former Governor of the Reserve Bank, I now chair the small New Zealand subsidiary of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the largest bank in the world. It would certainly make life very much easier if we could, “by the stroke of a pen or a computer entry”, simply create the money which we lend out to New Zealand borrowers. Unfortunately, we can’t.” (My highlighting)

Pinocchio

Would I lie to you?

So, according to Brash, Gould and Williams are wrong – but the banking system does create money. Huh? Look at the weasel words in the last sentence. OK, that’s not how they do it exactly, Don. And Bill Clinton did NOT have sex with that woman.

As I hinted above, Don Brash was Governor of New Zealand’s Reserve Bank from 1988 to 2002. He has held academic positions at several universities at home and abroad, sat in big chairs in large offices in several well-known banks, and even been involved in politics at the highest level. Clearly he, and the editor of the NZ Herald, and other naïve souls too for all I know, believe his words carry the power of gospel truth in matters of economics.

Look closer, though, and ask yourself if a guy who works at the upper levels of banking administration can possibly express publicly an unbiased view of the workings of the banking system.

Check the guy’s record, and you’ll see that he is a loser from way back. His first foray into politics was in 1980 as National Party candidate for the “safe” National seat of East Coast Bays. He lost, not to the main opposition Labour Party, but to an opponent representing Social Credit, a party whose main platform was exactly the view of banks expressed by Messrs Williams and Gould. That was a by-election. He failed to win the seat back in the General Election of 1981 and was dumped.

es514f00bfSomehow he managed to get himself elected as leader of the parliamentary National Party, despite his inability to actually win an electoral seat – holding the position from 2003 to 2006, then resigning from Parliament in 2007 to take up another academic post as economics guru.

He returned to politics in 2011 as leader of the right wing ACT Party, holding the post for seven months before resigning again after failing to make any impact in that year’s General Election. Clearly the average New Zealand voter is more perceptive than those who appoint general managers in banks or professors of economics at universities.

Brash is a hired lackey of the capitalist establishment, and a loser whenever he has offered his services to the New Zealand public. I’m not going to stoop to discussing his private life. If you’re interested you can get an overview on his Wikipedia page.