L'On.Villarosa interviene al 1:44:42 - 1:47:12 sulla tassazione della creazione di danaro bancario
Risposta
di Carmelo Barbagallo, capo vigilanza Bankitalia: 2:07:17 - 2:07:27 "La
moneta legale presente sul mercato...mi riservo di farle avere una
risposta privata su questo"
e ancora:
2:10:00 "Le farò avere privatamente una risposta"
2:10:24
In questa newsletter si approfondiranno i seguenti temi:
Dibattito su Teleticino, "I Conti in Tasca", mercoledì 1. febbraio 2017
Incontro mensile aperto al pubblico, mercoledì 8 febbraio a Lugano
Il partito dei Liberisti ticinesi sostiene l'iniziativa Monetaintera
Dibattito su Teleticino
Siamo lieti di annunciare il secondo dibattito televisivo in Ticino nel quale verrà discussa l'iniziativa Monetaintera. Come già il primo dibattito, anche questo si terrà nella trasmissione"I conti in tasca"su Teleticino, moderata da Alfonso Tuor.
Nel dibattito saranno discusse le opzioni per riformare il sistema finanziario, tra cui l'iniziativa Monetaintera. Parteciperanno Sergio Rossi e Sergio Morandi, membri del Consiglio scientifico dell'iniziativa Monetaintera e Luca Soncini e Antonio Mele quali rappresentanti del settore bancario e
finanziario.
Teleticino "I conti in tasca" Mercoledì 1. febbraio, ore 20:45
Moderazione: Alfonso Tuor
Parteciperanno:
Sergio Rossi Professore di macroeconnomia ed economia monetaria, Università di Friborgo Membro del Consiglio scientifico dell'iniziativa Monetaintera
Sergio Morandi Economista e imprenditore Membro del Consiglio scientifico dell'iniziativa Monetaintera
Antonio Mele Professore di scienze economiche, USI
I Liberisti ticinesi sostengono l'iniziativa Monetaintera
Siamo lieti di comunicare che il partito deiLiberisti ticinesisostiene l'iniziativa Monetaintera! Questo gradito sostegno conferma che l'iniziativa Monetaintera,
ritenuta da vati critici essere di sinistra, è invece svincolata da
qualsiasi ideologia politica. Essa infatti offre vantaggi per tutti i
cittadini ed è un primo passo essenziale verso una società più equa che
offra pari opportunità a tutti i soggetti economici e verso la
liberazione dalle catene del debito forzato che l'attuale sistema monetario ci impone. Ringraziamo i Liberisti ticinesi per il loro sostegno!
Dopo quasi 9 ore di requisitoria interrotta solo da un paio di brevi
pause-caffè Michele Ruggiero, il coraggioso Pubblico Ministero che ha
processato Fitch e Standard&Poor’s, appariva come un faro che aveva
appena illuminato una porzione di mare buio e tempestoso, rivelandone
inquietanti verità.
Non è stata una requisitoria come altre perché si è spinta ben oltre
l’articolazione delle condotte penali da parte degli imputati e la
conseguente richiesta di condanne. Sulle condotte in sé avrebbe potuto
limitarsi ad un paio di evidenze inconfutabili, che lo stesso PM ha
chiamato “bazooka fumanti”. Ma Michele Ruggiero ha fatto molto di più:
ha svelato i meccanismi opachi che regolano il funzionamento interno dei
gangli del vero potere finanziario che ha sede nella City di Londra e
le interessenze che questo stabilisce con le istituzioni dei Paesi che
di sovrano, ormai, hanno solo il debito, e tramite questo finiscono per
diventare oggetto dell’altrui governo.
La mole di materiale prodotto e ricostruibile sulla base di tre anni
di intensa attività processuale ci ha convinto ad organizzarne la
divulgazione per macro-temi che presenteremo a puntate in esclusiva su
Pandora TV a partire dalla settimana prossima.
Vi è anzitutto il tema della manipolazione in senso stretto, di cui
alle condotte illecite da parte degli analisti di S&P, una
manipolazione perpetrata da Maggio 2011 a Gennaio 2012 attraverso azioni
“consapevoli e ripetute” di pubblicazione di informazioni
oggettivamente false e palesemente contrastanti con i dati pubblicamente
disponibili. Il caso più eclatante, sebbene non certo l’unico, riguarda
l’argomentazione di S&P richiamata dal PM che condusse al duplice
taglio del rating del Gennaio 2012, secondo la quale il debito pubblico e
bancario italiano detenuto da soggetti esteri sarebbe “alto” e quindi
motivo di forte preoccupazione, mentre i dati pubblicati da organismi
terzi quali FMI, OCSE e Commissione Europea evidenziano proprio
l’opposto, cioè un debito verso l’estero “basso”, molto al di sotto
della media dell’Eurozona e persino in decrescita dal 2010 al 2011.
Vi è poi un secondo tema, che chiamerei politico, dell’ingerenza
indebita nei fatti del Paese, della lesione di sovranità nazionale,
laddove ad esempio la requisitoria dimostra che le revisioni
dell’outlook del Luglio 2011 e del Dicembre 2011 furono selettive nella
tempistica e precedettero di poche ore importanti comunicazioni del
Governo relative, rispettivamente, alla bozza della manovra di bilancio
2011 ed al programma di emergenza dell’appena insediato Governo Monti.
Quindi volevano influenzare le agende governative.
Ma la requisitoria del Pubblico Ministero ha raggiunto il suo apice
quando ha svelato un terzo tema chiave, lo spaccato delle pratiche
quotidiane della City di Londra, in base al quale scopriamo che il 3
Agosto 2011 una analista senior di S&P si lamentò con il Presidente
Deven Sharma (imputato) dell’inadeguatezza dei loro analisti per la
gestione del rating di Paesi sovrani ma venne ignorata; scopriamo che il
12 Gennaio 2012 Renato Panichi, super esperto di Banche di S&P,
cercò con una email di far modificare il report del doppio downgrade
contro l’Italia che i suoi colleghi avevano alterato riportando dati
fasulli sul settore bancario, ma venne scientemente silenziato.
EU Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly opens a probe into ECB links with private banks after a complaint
EU Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly said
today she has opened an investigation into ties European Central Bank
President Mario Draghi and aides have with private banks following a
complaint from a research group.
The non-government organisation Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
filed the complaint over top ECB staff links to the Group of 30.
The Group of 30 brings together the leaders of both the public and private financial sector.
"I have decided to open an inquiry into this complaint," O'Reilly said in a statement.
The CEO made a similar complaint in 2012 to her predecessor who
cleared Draghi of any conflict of interest but filed a new complaint
arguing that the ECB is now operating in a different context.
"I acknowledge the need to reflect on this new context. However, I
have taken no position in relation to any of these matters except to
consider that they warrant further inquiry," Ms O'Reilly said.
Her office will ask the ECB to allow inspection of documents linked
to the G30 as well as to meet with central bank officials to discuss
aspects of the complaint, she said.
Her office will then likely ask the ECB for a written response to the complaint.
"CEO research has exposed a severe lack of critical distance between
the ECB's decision-making bodies and corporate bankers in the G30," the
NGO said.
"As Europe's central bank is tasked with
regulating the financial sector and supervising other central banks in
the euro zone, any perceived or actual conflicts of interests pose a
great risk to the ECB's integrity," the CECO said.
Members of the G30 include the heads of private banks UBS and JP
Morgan, the governors of the central banks of England, Japan and China
as well as other figures like former ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet,
the Nobel economics prize winner Paul Krugman and former head of the US
Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke.
A spokesman for the ECB said: "We look forward to providing the Ombudsman with information on this matter."
Under EU treaties, the ECB is required to "maintain a dialogue with
external stakeholders," and the G30 is a relevant forum to engage with,
the spokesman said.
"We have a range of rules and instruments in place to avoid apparent or potential conflicts of interest," he added.
Il Consiglio federale presume cattiva volontà da
parte della Banca nazionale Gli iniziativisti dell'iniziativa Moneta intera controbattono
Berna – Il comunicato
del Consiglio federale in merito all’iniziativa Moneta intera ignora
l’occasione storica offerta dell’iniziativa e discredita ingiustificatamente la Banca nazionale
svizzera. Questa è l’opinione degli iniziativisti, che controbattono il
messaggio del Consiglio nazionale con una presa di posizione pubblica.
Il
Consiglio
federale presenta come centrale argomento per la sua reiezione
dell’iniziativa
Moneta intera che con la moneta intera la Banca nazionale svizzera
dovrebbe effetuare una politica monetaria nociva alla Svizzera. “Perché
la BNS dovrebbe
fare ciò, se con l’iniziativa Moneta intera essa ottiene ulteriori
possibilità
per praticare una politica monetaria saggia ed efficace?” si chiede
l’iniziativista Dr. eoc. Reinhold Harringer. Ciò in effetti non è
comprensibile. Il Testo
costituzionale dell’iniziativa Moneta intera non prescrive alla BNS
alcuna
politica monetaria concreta, bensì le trasferisce unicamente la
competenza sull’emissione di denaro elettronico. “Con l’iniziativa
Moneta intera la BNS
non viene costretta a nessuna pratica che sia in contraddizione con
l’interesse
generale del Paese e con la stabilità dei prezzi. Grazie all’iniziativa
moneta
intera, la BNS può invece risolvere proprio quei problemi che oggi
fondamentalmente non è in grado di risolvere poiché gli mancano gli
strumenti necessari”,
continua l’economista.
Il Consiglio federale perde
un’occasione storica. Malgrado il
Consiglio federale attesti all’iniziativa Moneta intera la giustificazione
dell’obiettivo, la qualità tecnica e la fattibilità pratica – anche nel
contesto internazionale – egli ignora le grandi opportunità per l’economia
svizzera e per la popolazione. Dr. eoc. Reinhold Harringer: ”Il Consiglio
federale non entra in merito al fatto che l’iniziativa Moneta intera attenua
sostanzialmente l’urgente problematica del too-big-to-fail, rende possibile una
riduzione dei debiti come pure che studi scientifici concludono che l’iniziativa
Moneta intera porterebbe a maggiore occupazione, a stabilità economica e ad una
maggiore stabilità dei prezzi.”
Il Consiglio federale inventa una
tassa per la riduzione della massa monetaria. Nel suo
comunicato, il Consiglio federale sostiene inoltre che con la moneta intera la
massa monetaria possa essere ridotta solo tramite una tassa speciale. In realtà
invece la BNS potrebbe ridurrre la massa monetaria in qualsiasi momento, come
oggi, non rinnovando crediti alle banche oppure vendendo valute e altri attivi
in cambio di franchi. Con la moneta intera le possibilità della BNS di
adempiere al suo mandato costituzionale sono maggiori, non minori.
L’iniziativa
Moneta intera richiede che il denaro elettronico (moneta scritturale o
bancaria) sia equivalente al denaro contante, vale a dire un mezzo legale di
pagamento. In dicembre 2015 l’iniziativa Moneta intera, per denaro a prova di
crisi e la creazione di denaro riservata alla Banca nazionale, è stata
inoltrata con oltre 110'000 firme. Probabilmente alla fine del 2017 i cittadini
saranno chiamati a votare in merito. L’iniziativa Moneta intera è stata
lanciata dall’associazione apartitica Modernizzazione
Monetaria (MoMo). Del suo Consiglio scientifico fanno parte, tra altri, Philippe
Mastronardi, Professore emerito di Diritto pubblico, Sergio Rossi, Professore
di macroeconomia ed economie monetaria e Peter Ulrich, Professore emerito di
etica economica.
Avete domande, desiderate citazioni o interviste?
Il
nostro responsabile e gli altri membri del Comitato dell'iniziativa
Moneta intera sono a vostra disposizione per informazioni e
interviste.
Per favore non esitate a contattarci. Siamo lieti di potervi informare ulteriormente.
Paper presented at the 14th Rhodes Forum: Dialogue of Civilisations Research Institute,
Panel 2: Economic Alternatives when Conventional Models Fail
Rhodos, Greece
on 1 October 2016
I. The Central Bank Narrative
For more than the past four decades, public policy discourse,
especially when touching on macroeconomic and monetary policy, has been
dominated by the views held and actively sponsored by the central
banks, particularly in Europe and North-America, as well as Japan.
Their policy narrative has been consistent over time and virtually
identical between central banks, which is why I shall refer to it
collectively as the ‘central bank narrative’. It has been mirrored in
the type of economics that central bankers have supported and that has
indeed subsequently become dominant in academia and among the economists
selected as the experts of choice in the major newspapers and
television channels: the theoreticians advancing neo-classical
economics.
This central bank narrative (and hence also the dominant
neo-classical economics, also known as ‘mainstream economics’) has at
least five major pillars, which I shall list briefly:
Interest rates are the main policy variable to move the economy
The first pillar of the central bank narrative is the well-known
claim that interest rates are the main tool of monetary policy. This
narrative is backed by the familiar theory that, ceteris paribus, lower
interest rates will stimulate economic growth and higher interest rates
will slow growth. Thus by lowering rates, central banks accelerate
growth and by raising rates, they slow it, allowing impressive
fine-tuning of the economy. Hence the central bankers’ constant
obsession with minute changes in interest rates that are said to have
the power to rattle global markets and, consequently, are dominating the
media coverage of central bank actions as if they will stand out in
sharp relief in any future account of the history of mankind.
Markets are in equilibrium, thanks to price movements that have equated demand and supply.
The interest rate theory is in turn backed by this second pillar of
the central bank narrative: Market equilibrium. This equilibrium which
markets are said to be usually found in, is a state of effective
resource allocation that results from virtually automatic or ‘natural’
price movements which ensure that demand equals supply almost all of the
time. These price movements not only create pervasive ‘general
equilibrium’, as economists and central bank models assume, but they
also ensure that it is sufficient to focus on prices when conducting
economic analysis, since prices lead (generating the equilibrium) and
quantities fall into line. Hence policy should focus on prices. This
logic is consistently applied across markets, including the markets for
money and credit, which are said to be dominated by their price (the
rate of interest). As a result, the first pillar of the central banking
narrative is justified: what else but interest rates should one use as
policy tool in such a world of equilibrium and the dominance of prices?
Banks are just financial intermediaries, like other non-bank
financial firms. They thus do not need to be singled out in the
analysis or modelled explicitly.
The third pillar of the narrative further tidies up the analysis by
following through on the dominance of interest rates when it comes to
financial institutions: While ordinary mortals might have the naïve
belief that banks matter for the economy and could indeed be powerful –
or even be the key agents of change or influence – central bankers and
their hired neo-classical theorists know better than that: banks are
mere financial intermediaries, transferring existing savings from
depositors to investors, just like non-bank financial intermediaries are
doing. In other words, banks are not special or different from other
financial firms, and hence they do not have to be singled out in
economic models – which explains why economists and all the major
central banks have indeed failed to include banks at all in their
economic models for the past 40 years. (This was a little embarrassing,
when the 2008 banking crisis hit, but the central bankers and
neo-classical economists are hoping you have already forgotten that).
We need to save in order to fund investments that are the
precondition of economic growth and development. If domestic savings are
insufficient, we need to borrow from abroad or attract foreign
investment.
The fourth pillar of the central bankers’ narrative has been the
claim that nations that would like to develop and grow the economy need
to accumulate scarce savings first, in order to fund the necessary
investments. To attract these scarce savings, interest rates are needed,
linking into claim 1. Moreover, since many developing countries were
seen to have insufficient savings, the central banking narrative
maintained that they needed to borrow the necessary funds from abroad.
Thus it was fortuitous – if not serendipitous – that at the very moment
when the developing countries had been educated into understanding their
need of foreign borrowing, it just so happened that foreign bankers
stood ready to engage in this selfless task. This need to borrow from
foreign bankers has been the basis for postwar IMF and World Bank
policies that drove home this point with developing countries over the
past decades – if, that is – and this is a major caveat – they were in
possession of attractive assets, such as raw materials and resources
that are needed by industrialised countries. (Notice that countries
without attractive assets never got into debt, because nobody would lend
to them in the first place; likewise it was always a little curious
that the global financiers at JP Morgan and other big global banks, the
world’s experts in the latest derivative instruments, genuinely believed
that developing countries like Ghana or Sudan were in fact much
better at managing foreign exchange risk than the top teams at JP Morgan
– for why else would the global bankers insist on lending to the
eveloping countries in foreign currency, leaving any hedging to their
exposed customers?).
Both the foreign investors and the domestic goal of high
growth require deregulation, liberalization and privatization, since
only in such an economy can market forces deliver high and stable
growth.
The final pillar of the central banking narrative is that economic
growth requires markets to function in an unimpeded fashion, not held
back by such barbarous relics as regulations and government
intervention. Hence the mainstay central bank advice – or demand –
directed at the governments to deregulate, liberalise and privatize,
while generally adopting a laissez-faire attitude: no matter how big and
influential a small number of multinationals or mega-banks get, their
lobbyists are probably aiming at general public welfare and so their
good work should not be hampered through unnecessary red tape or
restrictions on their activities.
We are all familiar with parts or all of this central bank narrative,
even if we are not trained economists or not commonly interested in
economic issues: This is because this narrative has been repeated ad nauseam
hundreds of times in the past four decades. As a result, even astute
observers assume that empirical research has long established these five
insights from the central bankers, in uncountable meticulous
quantitative research studies.
But this is not the case. The truth could not be further from it: There is in fact no
empirical evidence to support any of these five claims. They are mere
assertions. Claims that have, in fact, been disproven by the facts.
There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and this has become
increasingly obvious since the 2008 financial crisis.
II. The Central Banking Narrative Has Collapsed
While voices of those pointing out that the central banking narrative
has been wrong (e.g. Werner, 1992, 1994, 2003a) had been successfully
drowned out by central banks and their large-scale and meticulously
planned PR campaigns for many years (see Ishii and Werner, 2003; Werner,
2003b, on the ‘information management’ of central banks), it is now
becoming apparent and visible even to laymen that the central banking
narrative has collapsed on all fronts.
1. Banks are not financial intermediaries, but creators of the money supply
Chaque mois, la Banque centrale européenne achète 8 milliards en obligations de sociétés. Ainsi, il fournit quelques-unes des plus grandes entreprises de prêts bon marché en Europe. Cet argent devrait venir dans l'économie réelle justifiée, mais dans la pratique, peu ici. En outre, les PME européennes sont mises d'une façon abusive à un désavantage. Est-ce autorisé?
Shell, Volkswagen, Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy (LVMH) - pas exactement affaires que vous attendez d'avoir besoin d'aide. Pourtant , ce sont des noms représentatifs sur la longue liste des grandes entreprises qui bénéficient du programme que l' on appelle le secteur des entreprises d' achat (CSPP) de la Banque centrale européenne (BCE).
Le CSPP fait partie du plus grand programme de rachat qui exécute la
BCE, dans ses propres mots, pour ramener l'inflation vers 2 pour cent et
ainsi stimuler l'économie. Dans mon article précédent j'ai donné un aperçu de l'ensemble du programme. Aujourd'hui, nous prenons une plongée profonde dans la partie des achats de la dette des entreprises.
Les actes de la BCE reste en ligne avec la fondation de la Communauté européenne?
270 millions par jour
flux quotidien des sommes énormes de l'Europe vers le milieu des affaires. Depuis le 8 Juin, 2016, la BCE achète des prêts de grandes entreprises d'une valeur de 8 milliards par mois. l'argent numérique pour ces achats, la BCE peut créer à partir de rien. Un pouvoir spécial, que vous pouvez espérer que est manipulé avec soin, dans le service de nous tous.
Pourtant, 10 pour cent du budget total de rachat de la BCE (80
milliards d'euros par mois) ne prête pas à des gouvernements ou des
organismes sans but lucratif, mais pour les grandes entreprises à but
lucratif.
En d'autres termes, la banque centrale crée un simple de 270 millions
par jour pour acheter sélectivement des titres de créance de sociétés
spécifiques au sein du CSPP. La BCE agit donc toujours en ligne avec la fondation de la Communauté européenne , à savoir le principe d'une économie de marché ouverte où la concurrence est libre?
Seules les grandes multinationales
Les entreprises admissibles au CSPP doivent répondre à un certain nombre d' exigences à respecter. Seulement en euros échangé la dette des entreprises non bancaires avec une certaine cote de crédit (investment grade , ils l' appellent) peuvent être achetés.
Les entreprises doivent être basés en Europe, mais ne doivent pas
nécessairement venir d'ici: Coca-Cola est par exemple également sur la liste .
Les entreprises qui sont assez grands pour régler tous les coins du
monde et aussi écrire des prêts en euros, essentiellement répondre aux
critères automatiques. Il ne sera pas surprenant que surtout les grandes multinationales peuvent utiliser les prêts bon marché. De toutes les entreprises européennes dans le top 25 du classement Fortune 500
, la BCE a déjà acheté des obligations, ainsi que les achats de la BCE
les plus fréquents peuvent être trouvés sur la liste des plus grandes
entreprises du monde.
Votazione sull’introduzione della monetaintera
possibile già quest’anno
Il termine per la votazione si avvicina a grandi passi.
Poco dopo la pubblicazione del messaggio del Consiglio federale in merito
all’iniziativa Monetaintera (qui trovate la nostra presa di posizione, in tedesco, ed un suo riassunto in italiano) abbiamo ottenuto l’invito della Commissione
dell’economia e dei tributi del Consiglio degli Stati (CET-S) per presentare l’iniziativa e rispondere ad
eventuali domande. L’incontro avrà luogo in febbraio. È stata invitata anche la
Banca nazionale svizzera. Per noi questo appuntamento ufficiale è un chiaro
segnale che il Parlamento tratterà l’iniziativa alla sessione primaverile o al
più tardi a quella autunnale e che la votazione potrebbe aver luogo già nel
terzo o nel quarto trimestre del 2017.
Fateci coronare gli sforzi fatti finora e diventate una
parte attiva del movimento. È richiesta anche l’iniziativa personale, in rete, nella
vostra comunità e ad eventi. Solo unendo le nostre forze possiamo far entrare nei
libri di storia il 2017 quale anno della Monetaintera!
Nous mettons à la disposition du public francophone des documents tenus secrets par le FMI. Il s’agit de documents authentiques qui ont été mis à la disposition de la Commission pour la vérité sur la dette
publique grecque par Zoe Konstantopoulou, la présidente du Parlement
grec en fonction entre le 6 février et le 3 octobre 2015. Le contenu de
ces 2 documents qui datent de mars et de mai 2010 est accablant pour le
FMI.
L’argent suisse au secours du Trésor américain. Vincent Held
Au
moment où les créanciers craignent le défaut de paiement du
gouvernement américain, l’argent des Suisses vient en soutien des dettes
publiques… Sans contrepartie bien sûr…. LHK
C’est un fait : les investisseurs internationaux (au premier rang desquels la Banque populaire de Chine) se débarrassent à une cadence record de la dette d’État américaine.
Un phénomène qui était déjà relevé par CNN au mois de mai dernier et qui s’est, depuis, considérablement accéléré (cf. Annexe ci-dessous).
Pendant ce temps, la Suisse maintient
ses positions. Mieux : elle continue à augmenter son soutien financier à
cet État désespérément surendetté – et à l’attitude pas toujours très
amicale.
Gauging market dynamics
using trade repository data: the case of the Swiss franc de-pegging –
Olga Cielinska, Andreas Joseph, Ujwal Shreyas, John Tanner and Michalis
Vasios
Germany's banking supervisor BaFin has introduced a new
anonymous online portal so that bank whistleblowers can report
wrongdoing. But NGOs say it is the least that Germany could do - and
that it offers no protection.
Germany's Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) has created
an online portal for bank workers who want to report money-laundering
and corruption - but whistleblowing NGOs say the measure is no
substitute for proper whistleblower protection.
"This system
guarantees the absolute anonymity of the whistleblower, but also makes
it possible for BaFin to get in contact with the whistleblower," the
authority said in a statement. The new system is an expansion of the old
communication channels that whistleblowers had - email, post,
telephone, or in person - but unlike those, the online platform
guarantees anonymity by making it impossible to trace tip-offs
technologically.
"If whistleblowers tell BaFin their names and
reveal their professional or personal relationship to the supervised
company, BaFin is able to communicate with them beyond the initial
disclosure," the supervisor says on its website. "However, there may be
situations in which insiders with particular knowledge of processes in
supervised companies are hesitant to provide BaFin with information out
of fear of the consequences."
To ensure anonymity, the new system
provides the chance to create an anonymous online postbox where BaFin
can leave messages, and the authority hopes this will encourage
potential whistleblowers to come forward.
BaFin installed a new report center in the past year
A good start but no protection
The
action was welcomed cautiously by whistleblower protection NGOs. "It's a
first step. We welcome the fact that a German regulator has finally
developed a system for employees to report crime and misconduct, and
that the system actually includes the word 'whistleblowing,'" said Mark
Worth of the German office of Blueprint for Free Speech, an NGO that
aims to protect free speech rights. "As far as we know this is the first
time the word whistleblower has appeared on a German government
system."
But Worth was skeptical that the measure would break any
new ground beyond the extra technological facility, since employees
have always had the opportunity to report crime anonymously. "The only
thing this protects is their identity," he told DW. "There's no
protection from retaliation, from being fired, being harassed, or being
demoted. And there's nothing in this new system about being compensated,
or a guarantee that disclosures will be followed up on."
Worth,
along with many whistleblower campaigners, is worried that the new
system will be presented as a major new enlightened plan, and leave
German lawmakers complacent about the protection that Germany provides.
He was particularly concerned by BaFin's warning, on its website, that
"under certain circumstances, such as a criminal prosecution, it may be
necessary for other bodies, such as the relevant public prosecutor's
office, to be informed of the data available at BaFin so that they can
continue to take action against the reported breach." In the US, Worth
said, whistleblowers would only be forced to disclose their identity in
"extreme cases," and could usually be heard in camera if the case went
to trial. In fact, there are legal provisions in the US for tax
whistleblowers to have their confidentiality protected as much as
possible.
Germany's poor record
A string
of fines imposed by US oversight authorities on Germany's biggest bank,
Deutsche Bank, show how important whistleblowers in the financial sector
can be - but they normally only come forward in the United States, or
other countries where whistleblower protections are strongest.
In
May 2015, Deutsche Bank ended up paying a $55 million (52.6 million
euro) fine to the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle
charges after three former employees reported that the institution had
misled the investor community by inflating the value of its derivatives
portfolio during the financial crisis. Similarly, in 2013, Gary
DeDilectis sued Deutsche Bank in the US after he was fired for revealing
that it had overcharged its customers without notifying them.
Deutsche Bank has fallen foul of US regulators more than once
In
Germany, by comparison, there seems to be very little political will to
take action. In 2011, the German judiciary lost a case at the European
Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg over the case of Brigitte Heinisch, a
care worker who lost her job after filing charges against her employer
Vivantes for ignoring her warnings about the sub-standard care in the
old people's home where she worked.
"But even losing that case
has had no impact in terms of Germany improving whistleblower
protections. Germany is doing nothing on its own initiative," said
Worth, who is lobbying parliamentarians to introduce the kind of
whistleblower protection law that already exists in many developed
countries.
The last coalition contract drawn up in 2013 by
Chancellor Angela Merkel's government promised to commission an inquiry
into how well German law can provide protection, but that hasn't
materialized, says Worth. "The only three known public cases of
whistleblowing in Germany in the last 10 years - all three people were
fired. If someone makes a report and their name does get leaked and they
get fired, they have almost no rights under German law to be
reinstated, or to be compensated if they are harassed at work."
When
contacted by DW, BaFin said it did not yet have figures on how many
people had used the new portal, or the centralized reporting system it
had set up last July. Worth said that the first few whistleblowing cases
in any new system were always very important, and that the oversight
authority had to make sure that its system was watertight.
Richard
Werner, the German professor famous for inventing the term
‘quantitative easing’, says the world is finally waking up to the fact
that “banks create money out of nothing” – but warns this realisation
has given rise to a new “Orwellian” threat.
In an exclusive interview with The New Daily, Professor Werner says the recent campaigns around the world, including in India and Australia, to get rid of cash are coordinated attempts by central bankers to monopolise money creation.
“This
sudden global talk by the usual suspects about the ‘need to get rid of
cash’, ostensibly to fight tax evasion etc, has been so coordinated that
it cannot but be part of another plan by central bankers, this time to
stay in charge of any emerging reform agenda, by trying to control, and
themselves run, the ‘opposition’,” he says.
“Essentially, the Bank
of England and others are saying: okay, we admit it, you guys were
right, banks create money out of nothing. So now we need to make sure
that you guys will not be able to set the agenda of what happens in
terms of reforms.”
Professor Werner (pronounced ‘Verner’),
currently the Chair of International Banking at the University of
Southampton, is one of the first academics in the world to bring
attention to the fact that banks loan money into existence. He has been
arguing this for more than two decades, and has publishedseveralpapers on the subject.
Professor Richard Werner championed ‘quantitative easing’ and the realisation that banks create money. Photo: GettyTwo Australian economists, Steve Keen and Bill Mitchell, have also led the charge.
The
old theory, taught in high school economics classes and to university
undergrads, is that banks receive deposits and loan out of a percentage
of that money, while keeping some in reserve.
This is a rough
approximation. The main point is that the banks do not lend existing
money, but add to deposits and the money supply when they ‘lend’. And
when those loans are repaid, money is removed from circulation.
Thus,
the supply of money is constantly being expanded and contracted by
banks – which may explain why the ‘credit crunch’ of the global
financial crisis was so devastating. Banks weren’t lending, so there was
a shortage of money.
By some estimates, the banks create upwards
of 97 per cent of money, in the form of electronic funds stored in
online accounts. Banknotes and coins? They are just tokens of value,
printed to represent the money already created by banks.
Most of the money in circulation is electronic, and created by banks. It is not in banknotes or coins. Photo: GettyThis ‘theory’ is now widely accepted as fact. In 2014, the Bank of England published a bulletin confirming it is its official position.
Mervyn King, former Bank of England governor, explains the process – and its dangers – in his 2016 book, The Alchemy of Money.
“During
the 20th century, governments allowed the creation of money to become
the byproduct of the process of credit creation. Most money today is
created by private sector institutions – banks. This is the most serious
fault-line in the management of money in our societies today,”
Baron King writes.
He goes on: “Banks are part of our daily life.
Most of us use them regularly, either to obtain cash, pay bills or take
out loans. But banks are also dangerous. They are at the heart of the
alchemy of our financial system. Banks are the main source of money
creation. They create deposits as a byproduct of making loans to risky
borrowers. Those deposits are used as money.”
Journalistic writers like Felix Martin have also tried their hand at explaining the magic of money creation.
In Money: The Unauthorised Biography,
first published in 2013, Mr Martin explains that “almost all of [a
bank’s] assets are nothing but promises to pay, and almost all its
liabilities likewise”.
In effect, a deposit at a bank is a promise to pay you, the customer, and a home loan is a promise by you to pay the bank.
By balancing when these promises are likely to come due, a bank can
effectively create money by juggling all the balls in the air at once.
Only a fraction will ever be demanded in cash at any one time, but all
of the debts can be used as money.
This is what Mr Martin calls
“the essence of the banker’s art”. He writes: “It is nothing more than
ensuring the synchronisation, in the aggregate, of incoming and outgoing
payments due on his assets and liabilities.”
Former Bank of England governor Mervyn King agreesthat banks create most of our money – and that it is a problem. Photo: GettyProfessor
Werner is pleased the world is waking up to the truth of how money is
created, but is very displeased with what he sees as the central
bankers’ reaction: the death of cash and the rise of central
bank-controlled digital currency.
This will further centralise
what he describes as the “already excessive and unaccountable powers” of
centrals banks, which he argues has been responsible for the bulk of
the more than 100 banking crises and boom-bust cycles in the past
half-century.
“To appear active reformers, they will push the
agenda to get rid of bank credit creation. This suits them anyway, as
long as they can fix the policy recommendation of any such reform, to be
… that the central banks should be the sole issuers of money.”
The professor also fears the global push for ‘basic income’, which is being trialled in parts of Europe and widely discussed in the media, will form part of the central bankers’ attempt to kill off cash.
‘Basic
income’ is a popular idea that can be traced back to Sydney and
Beatrice Webb, founders of the London School of Economics. It proposes
we abolish all welfare payments and replace them with a single ‘basic
income’ that everyone, from billionaires to unemployed single mothers,
receives.
Either we accept the digital currency issued by central
banks, or we miss out on basic income payments. That is Professor
Werner’s theory of what might happen.
His solution to this
“Orwellian” future is decentralisation, in the form of lots of
non-profit community banks, as exist in his native Germany.
Seen
here is the Swiss headquarters of the Bank for International Settlements, the ultimate central bank. Professor Werner fears that central banks will monopolise money. Photo: Getty“We
need to push for the opposite of this massive and Orwellian increase in
centralisation, by decentralising money power. Hence the creation of
community banks across countries, operated and controlled locally,
accountable to local communities, and not-for-profit.
“The best
working example is Germany, where for the past almost 200 years about 70
per cent of banking has been in the hands of not-for-profit community
banks.”
Professor Werner’s predictions have been right before. He invented the term ‘quantitative easing’ in a 1995 paper,
in which he argued that struggling economies could boost GDP by using
their central banks to relieve commercial banks of their bad debts, thus
freeing them to make new loans (i.e. new money).
The US followed
his definition the closest. The Federal Reserve purchased non-performing
assets from banks, and the economy is recovering.
Japan and the
Eurozone did virtually the opposite. Instead of buying bad debts, their
central banks bought corporate bonds and other financial assets. This,
he argues, explains why Europe and Japan have remained mired in
recession.
We can only hope his “Orwellian” prediction of central bank control is less accurate.
