RegionalGeld / RegioGeld / RegioCurrency / Regional Money

(scroll down for German)

If one assumes that a war is” only “a very deadly and family traumatizing” job creation measure ” or a private economic subsidy program (the state is indebted to spend a lot of money on weapons), wouldn’t it be an intelligent Alternative?

Dirk Müller explains in this Video

the 4-5x possibilities of debt-reduction (there is more than one!).

The gap poor vs rich: even the rich want to be able to roam the streets save and freely – with their Porsches to the Golf course. (of course, where else?)

(80%).

Income from performance-related (e.g. craftsmanship, innovation, actual work that adds value) little tax 20%

Currently, the self-employed pays 40% income tax in Germany, that is too much, no one wants to be self-employed, also because the self-employed are legally inferior to the employee. (Health insurance contributions are flat-rate not percentage, no entitlement to ALG1 etc.)

German:

Wenn man davon aus geht, dass ein Krieg “nur” eine sehr tödliche und Familien traumatisierende “Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme” bzw. ein privat  Wirtschafts-Subventions-Programm (der Staat verschuldet sich um sehr viel Geld für Waffen auszugeben) ist, gäbe es dazu nicht eine intelligente Alternative?

Dirk Müller erklärt in diesem Video

die 4-5x Möglichkeiten eines Schulden-Abbaus (es gibt mehr als eine!).

Die Schere Arm vs Reich: auch die Reichen wollen sich frei bewegen können und sich sicher fühlen

Leistungslose (aus Besitz generierte) Einkommen stark besteuern (80%).

Einnahmen aus Leistungsgebundenen (zB handwerklichen) Tätigkeiten wenig besteuern 20%

Aktuell zahlt der selbständige 40% Einkommenssteuer in Deutschland, das ist zu viel, keiner möchte mehr Selbständig sein, auch weil Selbständige rechtlich dem Angestellten gegenüber schlechter gestellt sind. (Krankenkassenbeiträge sind Pauschal nicht Prozentual, kein Anspruch auf ALG1 etc.)

 

Geld:

Klingt erst mal spannend – das (über)Leben des modernen Homo “Sapiens” hängt davon ab – trotzdem verliert man in Schule und Universität kein Wort darüber – das Thema Geld(System).

Es wird ähnlich der Gravitation als “Gott gegeben” angenommen – und wird schon irgendeiner Logik folgen – die Banker fühlen sich selbst vermutlich wie Gott – entscheiden diese doch wer einen neuen Kredit bekommt und wer pleite geht – Armut ist bis heute eine der größten Todesursachen auf diesem Planeten.

Und: die Menschheit weiß bis heute nicht wie Gravitation genau funktioniert – beim Geldsystem ist es leider kaum anders.

Mehr und mehr Menschen machen sich zu recht Gedanken darüber ob das aktuelle Schuld-Geld-System überhaupt Sinn macht – ob es uns in den nächsten Weltkrieg (These der brutalsten Form der Schuldenbereinigung nach Prof Dr Kreiß) stürzt?

Waren die letzten beiden Weltkriege evtl. nur eine brutale Form des Schuldenschnittes?

Warum die Scheere Arm vs Reich immer weiter auseinander geht?

Die Menschen sind in den Ländern am glücklichsten in welchen es am besten garkeine Scheere Arm vs Reich gibt oder diese nicht zu weit auseinander driftet. (Steuern haben sich scheinbar als Umverteilungsmechanismen nicht bewährt, weil Apple, Starbucks, Amazon und Co immer wieder eine Steuer-Oase finden?)

Wer macht das System? “Wer hat’s erfunden?” (ein Schweizer vielleicht? oder doch der Draghi der Goldene Sachse?)

Ist der (in jedem Produkt versteckte) Zins das Problem?

Wie bereinigen wir die Schulden? (welche niemals realwirtschaftlich bezahlt werden können)

Warum Crasht es dauernd? Der nächste Crash kommt bestimmt aber keiner weiß genau wann… sicher ist nur: Börsen-Zocker können mit “Puts”/Short Selling auch mit fallenden Kursen (! d.h. wenn Firmen pleite gehen und Jobs streichen!) Geld verdienen – im Kontrast zu der Realwirtschaft – nur ein Beispiel wie die  Finanzwirtschaft mit der Realwirtschaft absolut nichts mehr zu tun hat – auch wenn das oft behauptet wird.

Baron Rothschild: “the time to buy is when there’s blood in the streets.”

Geht es evtl. sogar so weit – dass “die Big Boys” Kriege, Katastrophen und Terror-Anschläge gezielt produzieren – um davon finanziell zu profitieren?

(da diese informierten Menschen genau wissen, welcher Kurs steigen und welcher Fallen wird… eine sehr brutale Art der Markt-Manipulation)

Was könnte man tun um “das System” zu reparieren?

Stabiler zu machen?

Gerechter zu machen?

Zu Reformieren?

Warum werden Griechische Rentner in den Selbstmord getrieben?

Hier gibt die intellektuelle Elite Deutschlands – die Creme de la Creme der Vordenker – ihre wirklich fundierten Antworten  und Argumente – Sollte jeder Schüler und Lehrer bis zur 10ten Klasse gesehen haben – wer sich keine Zeit nimmt riskiert eine RIESIGE Bildungslücke.

Und die Demokratie funktioniert laut Sokrates nur mit einem guten Bildungssystem.

Teil1:

 

Teil2:

http://youtu.be/_cnxVUxcg1A (Teil 2) Eine Produktion von http://rasendeReporterin.de Eine Veranstaltung der Vereinigung für Ökologische Ökonomie.

http://www.voeoe.de/

Podiumsdiskussion vom 20.09.2012 in der Universität Freiburg zum Thema

“Geld, Wachstum, Verschuldung, Finanzchaos — wer blickt noch durch?”

Öffentliche Auftaktveranstaltung zur Jahrestagung der Vereinigung für Ökologische Ökonomie (VÖÖ) mit

Danke an DieRasendeReporterin für diese Aufnahmen!

Mein Fazit: Die Realwirtschaft kann das Wettrennen gegen den Zinses-Zins nur verlieren.

Wir rennen und rennen und rennen und arbeiten mehr und mehr und werden immer effizienter – aber auch ein Baum hört irgendwann mal auf zu wachsen.

Ein natürliches Wachstums-Ende naht.

Auch wenn Herr Müller schon richtig statuiert – im Grunde müssten wir alle unsere Benziner und Diesel – durch einen sehr günstigen Staatskredit mit 0% gegen Batterie und Wasserstoff-Autos tauschen können.

Passiert aber nur Ansatzweise. (4000€ bald 6000€ “Wechselprämie”)

Für den die Zeit arbeitet – wird gewinnen – jeder der Schulden hat – gegen den Arbeitet die Zeit – jeder der seine Kinder gut behandelt und einen Baum gepflanzt hat – für den arbeitet die Zeit.

Dieses System funktioniert nur über immer neue Schulden – jeder Schuld steht eine Forderung gegenüber.

Dieses System ist Lug und Betrug und mafiös – oder steht auf ihrem Cappuccino “enthält 30Cent Schuld-Zinsen”? (Annahme ist dass der Cappuccino 1€ kostet, hm…. sehr moderat berechnet)

Nein – da steht nur “enthält 7% MwSt.”

This article is excerpted from Ellen Brown’s new book Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age, available in paperback.

The U.S. federal debt has more than doubled since the 2008 financial crisis, shooting up from $9.4 trillion in mid-2008 to over $22 trillion in April 2019. The debt is never paid off. The government just keeps paying the interest on it, and interest rates are rising.

“Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age from Democracy Collaborative”
Purchase in the Truthdig Bazaar

In 2018, the Fed announced plans to raise rates by 2020 to “normal” levels — a fed funds target of 3.375 percent — and to sell about $1.5 trillion in federal securities at the rate of $50 billion monthly, further growing the mountain of federal debt on the market. When the Fed holds government securities, it returns the interest to the government after deducting its costs; but the private buyers of these securities will be pocketing the interest, adding to the taxpayers’ bill.

In fact it is the interest, not the debt itself, that is the problem with a burgeoning federal debt

The principal just gets rolled over from year to year.

But the interest must be paid to private bondholders annually by the taxpayers and constitutes one of the biggest items in the federal budget.

Currently the Fed’s plans for “quantitative tightening” are on hold; but assuming it follows through with them, projections are that by 2027 U.S. taxpayers will owe $1 trillion annually just in interest on the federal debt.

That is enough to fund President Donald Trump’s trillion-dollar infrastructure plan every year, and it is a direct transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy investors holding most of the bonds.

Where will this money come from? Crippling taxes, wholesale privatization of public assets, and elimination of social services will not be sufficient to cover the bill.

Bondholder Debt Is Unnecessary

The irony is that the United States does not need to carry a debt to bondholders at all. It has been financially sovereign ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the dollar off the gold standard domestically in 1933.

This was recognized by Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in a 1945 presentation before the American Bar Association titled “Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete.”

“The necessity for government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments,” he said, “but it is not true for a national government.”

The government was now at liberty to spend as needed to meet its budget, drawing on credit issued by its own central bank. It could do this until price inflation indicated a weakened purchasing power of the currency.

Then, and only then, would the government need to levy taxes — not to fund the budget but to counteract inflation by contracting the money supply.

The principal purpose of taxes, said Ruml, was “the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power over the years. Sometimes this purpose is stated as ‘the avoidance of inflation.’

The government could be funded without taxes by drawing on credit from its own central bank; and since there was no longer a need for gold to cover the loan, the central bank would not have to borrow.

It could just create the money on its books.

This insight is a basic tenet of Modern Monetary Theory: the government does not need to borrow or tax, at least until prices are driven up.

It can just create the money it needs.

The government could create money by issuing it directly; or by borrowing it directly from the central bank, which would create the money on its books; or by taking a perpetual overdraft on the Treasury’s account at the central bank, which would have the same effect.

The “Power Revolution” — Transferring the “Money Power” to the Banks

The Treasury could do that in theory, but some laws would need to be changed.

Currently the federal government is not allowed to borrow directly from the Fed and is required to have the money in its account before spending it.

After the dollar went off the gold standard in 1933, Congress could have had the Fed just print money and lend it to the government, cutting the banks out.

But Wall Street lobbied for an amendment to the Federal Reserve Act, forbidding the Fed to buy bonds directly from the Treasury as it had done in the past.

The Treasury can borrow from itself by transferring money from “intragovernmental accounts” — Social Security and other trust funds that are under the auspices of the Treasury and have a surplus – but these funds do not include the Federal Reserve, which can lend to the government only by buying federal securities from bond dealers.

The Fed is considered independent of the government.

Its website states, “The Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities are categorized as ‘held by the public,’ because they are not in government accounts.”

According to Marriner Eccles, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1934 to 1948, the prohibition against allowing the government to borrow directly from its own central bank was written into the Banking Act of 1935 at the behest of those bond dealers that have an exclusive right to purchase directly from the Fed.

A historical review on the website of the New York Federal Reserve quotes Eccles as stating, “I think the real reasons for writing the prohibition into the [Banking Act] … can be traced to certain Government bond dealers who quite naturally had their eyes on business that might be lost to them if direct purchasing were permitted.”

The government was required to sell bonds through Wall Street middlemen, which the Fed could buy only through “open market operations” – purchases on the private bond market.

Open market operations are conducted by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which meets behind closed doors and is dominated by private banker interests.

The FOMC has no obligation to buy the government’s debt and generally does so only when it serves the purposes of the Fed and the banks.

Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency from 1963 to 1975, called the official sanctioning of the Federal Open Market Committee in the banking laws of 1933 and 1935 “the power revolution” — the transfer of the “money power” to the banks. Patman said, “The ‘open market’ is in reality a tightly closed market.” Only a selected few bond dealers were entitled to bid on the bonds the Treasury made available for auction each week.

The practical effect, he said, was to take money from the taxpayer and give it to these dealers.

Feeding Off the Real Economy

That massive Wall Street subsidy was the subject of testimony by Eccles to the House Committee on Banking and Currency on March 3-5, 1947.

Patman asked Eccles, “Now, since 1935, in order for the Federal Reserve banks to buy Government bonds, they had to go through a middleman, is that correct?”

Eccles replied in the affirmative.

Patman then launched into a prophetic warning, stating, “I am opposed to the United States Government, which possesses the sovereign and exclusive privilege of creating money, paying private bankers for the use of its own money.

… I insist it is absolutely wrong for this committee to permit this condition to continue and saddle the taxpayers of this Nation with a burden of debt that they will not be able to liquidate in a hundred years or two hundred years.”

The truth of that statement is painfully evident today, when we have a $22 trillion debt that cannot possibly be repaid.

The government just keeps rolling it over and paying the interest to banks and bondholders, feeding the “financialized” economy in which money makes money without producing new goods and services.

The financialized economy has become a parasite feeding off the real economy, driving producers and workers further and further into debt.

In the 1960s, Patman attempted to have the Fed nationalized.

The effort failed, but his committee did succeed in forcing the central bank to return its profits to the Treasury after deducting its costs.

The prohibition against direct lending by the central bank to the government, however, remains in force.

The money power is still with the FOMC and the banks.

A Model We Can No Longer Afford

Today, the debt-growth model has reached its limits, as even the Bank for International Settlements, the “central bankers’ bank” in Switzerland, acknowledges.

In its June 2016 annual report, the BIS said that debt levels were too high, productivity growth was too low, and the room for policy maneuver was too narrow.

“The global economy cannot afford to rely any longer on the debt-fueled growth model that has brought it to the current juncture,” the BIS warned.

But the solutions it proposed would continue the austerity policies long imposed on countries that cannot pay their debts. It prescribed “prudential, fiscal and, above all, structural policies” — “structural readjustment.”

That means privatizing public assets, slashing services, and raising taxes, choking off the very productivity needed to pay the nations’ debts.

That approach has repeatedly been tried and has failed, as witnessed for example in the devastated economy of Greece.

Meanwhile, according to Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari, financial regulation since 2008 has reduced the chances of another government bailout only modestly, from 84 percent to 67 percent.

That means there is still a 67 percent chance of another major systemwide crisis, and this one could be worse than the last.

The biggest banks are bigger, local banks are fewer, and global debt levels are higher.

The economy has farther to fall.

The regulators’ models are obsolete, aimed at a form of “old-fashioned banking” that has long since been abandoned.

We need a new model, one designed to serve the needs of the public and the economy rather than to maximize shareholder profits at public expense.

_____________________

An earlier version of this article was published in Truthout.org.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution.

Her latest book is Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age, published by the Democracy Collaborative.

She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.”

Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

Ellen Brown
Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including “Web of Debt” and “The Public Bank Solution.”