tiistai 26. elokuuta 2008

Ellen Brownin - Monetary Proposal

Tässä minun mielestäni yksi parhaimpia teoreettisia malleja tulevaisuuden rahapoliittiseksi järjestelmäksi. Pahoittelen että teksti on englanniksi ja koskee USA:ta mutta voisi helposti olla muokattavissa mille tahansa maalle. Käännän siitä tärkeimmät osat myöhemmin. Ehdotuksen on siis laatinut Ellen Brown.

Two centuries after the Revolution was fought, the pyramid scheme of lending 10 dollars and requiring 11 back has reached its mathematical limits. We are “all borrowed up” and the banking system is imploding. It is time we tried the system for which our forefathers fought and died: real, debt-free, publicly-issued U.S. money.
Monetary Proposal

1. Amending the Federal Reserve ActFederal Reserve Act to make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting under the auspices of Congress in conjunction with the Treasury.

2. Updating the Constitutional provision that “Congress shall have the exclusive power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof” to read, “Congress shall have the exclusive power to create the national currency in all its forms, including not only coins and paper dollars but the nation’s credit issued as commercial loans; and it shall not delegate this power to any private entity.”

3. Authorizing new issues of federal legal tender backed by “the full faith and credit of the United States,” to be spent on programs that promoted the general welfare. To prevent inflation, this currency would be advanced only for programs that contributed new goods and services to the economy, keeping supply in balance with demand. Issues of the new currency would also be capped by some ceiling — the unused productive capacity of the national work force, or the difference between the Gross Domestic Product and the nation’s purchasing power (wages and spendable income).

4. Advancing credit interest-free to state and local governments, for rebuilding infrastructure and other public projects. The emphasis would be on projects that were self-sustaining, such as the development of cheap, effective alternative sources of energy (wind, solar, ocean wave, etc.) that could be sold to the public for a fee; or the repurchase of homes in default, to be resold or rented as low-income housing.

5. Establishing a network of national banks to serve as local bank branches of the newly-federalized banking system, either by FDIC takeover of currently insolvent banks or by the purchase of viable banks with newly-issued U.S. currency. Besides serving depository banking functions, these national banks would be authorized to service the credit needs of the public by advancing the national credit as loans. Any interest charged on advances of this credit would be returned to the Treasury, to be used in place of taxes.

6. Authorizing the Treasury to buy back and retire the federal government’s outstanding debt as it comes due, using newly-issued U.S. Notes or Federal Reserve Notes. In most cases this could be done online, without physical paper transfers.

(lisää kohtia on lue ne klikkaamalla tästä )


6 kommenttia:

pasi kirjoitti...

Jos uusia tuotteita ja palveluita vastaan voidaan luoda uutta rahaa (kohta 3), poistetaanko rahaa kierrosta kun rikkinäisiä, käytettyjä ja vanhentuneita tuotteita poistetaan käytöstä? Jos ei, niin kyseinen keino taistelee inflaatiota vastaan kovin heikoin eväin.

Lars Osterman kirjoitti...

Hyvä huomio Pasi. Tästä on ollut polemiikkaa Ellen Brownin sivuilla ja ratkaisuna tosiaankin laskennallisen kulumisen myötä esitetty saman verran rahaa poistettavaksi. Toisaalta korjaus ja ehostustoimenpiteiden myötä arvo jälleen nousee ja tähän käytetyn rahan voisi siis jälleen lisätä...

pasi kirjoitti...

Rothbard on aika vakuuttavasti osoittanut, ettei ihmisille tai taloudelle ole mitään hyötyä rahan määrän lisäämisestä (olettaen että vaihdon välineitä on riittävästi ts. pienin yksikkö ei ole liian suuri). Rahan määrän säätelyt ovat siis turhia, puoleen ja toiseen, joten miksi vaivautua?

Lars Osterman kirjoitti...

En tiedä Rothbardin teorioiden persuteluista. Laita lainaus tänne ?

Kyllähän taloudellinen toimeliaisuus yhteiskunnassa selvästi vilkastuu kun rahamäärä kasvaa - tästä tuskin kukaan voi olla eri mieltä.

Tätähän USA:ssa hiljan yritettiin toteuttaa kun kansalaisille jaettiin se veronpalautusshekki - kulutukseen. Go shopping!

Ja kun pankeille asia on nykyisellään hyvin merkittävä. Eli lisäpääomaa tilillä - joskin asiakkaitten - niin pankinjohtaja hieroo jo käsiään koska pääsee nyt sääntöjen mukaan tyrkyttämään taas jollekin uutta luottoa.

pasi kirjoitti...

Murray Rothbard: What Has Government Done To Our Money?, Part II, Chapter 8, The "Proper" Supply of Money, keskeinen lainaus alla, joskin koko luku (ja kirja!) kannattaa lukea myös.

What is the effect of a change in the money supply? Following the example of David Hume, one of the first economists, we may ask ourselves what would happen if, overnight, some good fairy slipped into pockets, purses, and bank vaults, and doubled our supply of money. In our example, she magically doubled our supply of gold. Would we be twice as rich? Obviously not. What makes us rich is an abundance of goods, and what limits that abundance is a scarcity of resources: namely land, labor and capital. Multiplying coin will not whisk these resources into being. We may feel twice as rich for the moment, but clearly all we are doing is diluting the money supply. As the public rushes out to spend its new-found wealth, prices will, very roughly, double--or at least rise until the demand is satisfied, and money no longer bids against itself for the existing goods.

Thus, we see that while an increase in the money supply, like an increase in the supply of any good, lowers its price, the change does not--unlike other goods--confer a social benefit. The public at large is not made richer. Whereas new consumer or capital goods add to standards of living, new money only raises prices--i.e., dilutes its own purchasing power. The reason for this puzzle is that money is only useful for its exchange value. Other goods have various "real" utilities, so than an increase in their supply satisfies more consumer wants. Money has only utility for prospective exchange; its utility lies in its exchange value, or "purchasing power." Our law--that an increase in money does not confer a social benefit--stems from its unique use as a medium of exchange.

An increase in the money supply, then, only dilutes the effectiveness of each gold ounce; on the other hand, a fall in the supply of money raises the power of each gold ounce to do its work. We come to the startling truth that it doesn't matter what the supply of money is. Any supply will do as well as any other supply. The free market will simply adjust by changing the purchasing power, or effectiveness of the gold-unit. There is no need to tamper with the market in order to alter the money supply that it determines.

Lars Osterman kirjoitti...

Ihan hyvä ote ja varmaan ihan vilpittömästi tehty - mutta kaiken taustalla on se kultamörkö. Tuossa Rothbardin selityksessä kaikki arvo on kullassa joten raha on aina heijastus siitä. Talousdemokratiassa kultaa ei tarvita vaan raha on laillistettu sopimuksella yhteisössä.

Siksi Ellen Brown ja Murray R eivät koskaan olisi samaa mieltä tuosta asiasta.

;-)