Richard Werner, USSR money

[white michael]

I was wondering if someone here might have a source for how money was created in the USSR era over there? There are conflicting (and not always well sourced) reports. Prof. Werner's latest paper says that they had pretty much what one would expect of a "communist" system- a uni-bank, as did China from the 1950's to 1980's.

I'm not sure if "having only one central bank & no other banks" (what I call uni-bank) and "fractional reserve" lending are mutually exclusive categories.

https://professorwerner.org/shifting-from-central-planning-to-a-decentralised-economy-do-we-need-central-banks/

[Howard Switzer]

One central bank using "fractional reserve banking" is the only reason I can think of for there to be such a thing as "Russian Oligarchs."

[Charles Fasola]

The Russian central bank opetates and creates money exactly as is done by other central banks tied into the global banking system.  It retards the Russian economy.

On Jan 22, 2017 11:10, "Howard Switzer" <hmsarch...@gmail.com> wrote:

One central bank using "fractional reserve banking" is the only reason I can think of for there to be such a thing as "Russian Oligarchs."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The American Monetary Institute" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-american-monetary-institute+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[white michael]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:10:37 AM UTC-6, Howard Switzer wrote:
> One central bank using "fractional reserve banking" is the only reason I can think of for there to be such a thing as "Russian Oligarchs."

Thanks Howard,

Being a creature of the international banks (from circa 1918 or so), it would seem that at least the earlier ('international socialist') government of the USSR would not have had access to the internationalists' (globalists') Payment System- unless they were playing by the rules.
If I recall correctly, some authors have stated that, post-WWII, the later-era USSR (supposedly) went isolationist and were off of the globalist grid (Payment System). But then again, did they (the USSR government) really need it by that time? I don't think USSR subjects had personal checks (and certainly not credit cards) prior to the breakup... so it would have been an all-cash system (i.e. not in need of an abstract Payment System... except perhaps for the gov't).

I'm not sure if that all cash, uni-bank economy would necessarily have "lent" or "spent" new cash out to the State-Owned Enterprises that comprised nearly all employment during (as in China) the 1950's-1980's... again, the lack of published sources.

Ya'll seem to be saying that the fmr. USSR, in the '90's, went from uni-bank F.R. lending to a larger number of (no longer state-owned) 'oligarch' banks F.R. lending... which makes sense, and makes what Werner wrote about the USSR system something of a red herring.

The theory still seems uncomfirmed, however.

I can get unofficial things like this from the internet, strongly implying that the USSR did have the banks' traditional "2-circuit" system (as Huber called it at the most recent Conference):

"The only great difference I can think of is that there were two types of money: 1] cash (for individuals) and 2] cashless ('beznal') for government-controlled factories/industries/etc. For some time the Soviet rouble existed as **two separate entities**, since for most cases there were no means of legally convert that 'beznal' into cash."

[This (2-classes of money) is basically in line with most monetary history, going back to the ancient days and Sumeria... i.e. 1) for us peasants; 2) for government-elite types.]

[Stephen Zarlenga]

Fellows, This question has been answered for the past ten years or so, on our 32 page brochure in the section of questions and answers. The answer there is quoted from a U.S. Federal Reserve booklet. Hope I'm not being too demanding if I ask that you who post at our google list, read the materials that we have at our website. The 32 page brochure is at the website. 

[Stephen Zarlenga]

[Stephen Zarlenga]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:10:37 AM UTC-6, Howard Switzer wrote:

One central bank using "fractional reserve banking" is the only reason I can think of for there to be such a thing as "Russian Oligarchs."

[Charles Fasola]

This is 2017, Stephen.  The new reality, with the internet, and electronic communication at light speed, is email correspondence makes it very easy to simply ask someone who knows in lieu of personal research.  Some may not wish to like it, unfortunately or fortunately, but reality is reality.  Everyone who joins the group is another potential soldier.

--

[white michael]

Thanks Charles (and Stephen, for offering this forum, and the Fed quote),

I do not share Stephen's opinion that the famous 1966 Fed statement (which I do actually keep in the back of my mind) is sufficient scholarly 'confirmation' of the proposition that the USSR uni-bank economy "lent" [as opposed to "spent"] new cash out to the State-Owned Enterprises... like Ned Beatty/Mr. Jensen said in "Network"- "just like we do."

After all, it has been 49 years since then. Even in this field, someone somewhere should have published something in agreement or to that effect.
But, as they say, stranger things have happened (or in this case have failed to have happened).

I do think the proposition is true, and will post an update here if I do in fact find something that seconds the Fed statement.

The Werner articles' reference to the USSR seems, rhetorically, intended to shift focus away from that system's Fractional Reserve Lending (which requires the age-old "2-circuits" of money), and on to its unibank aspect instead.

[white michael]

Sorry 2017-1966 = 51 years, not 49.
(I'm used to editing comments)

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 8:48:36 PM UTC-6, white michael wrote:
> Thanks Charles (and Stephen, for offering this forum, and the Fed quote),
>
> I do not share Stephen's opinion that the famous 1966 Fed statement (which I do actually keep in the back of my mind) is sufficient scholarly 'confirmation' of the proposition that the USSR uni-bank economy "lent" [as opposed to "spent"] new cash out to the State-Owned Enterprises... like Ned Beatty/Mr. Jensen said in "Network"- "just like we do."
>
> After all, it has been 49 years since then. Even in this field, someone somewhere should have published something in agreement or to that effect.
> But, as they say, stranger things have happened (or in this case have failed to have happened).
>
> I do think the proposition is true, and will post an update here if I do in fact find something that seconds the Fed statement.
>

> The Werner articles' reference to the USSR seems- rhetorically- intended to shift focus away from that system's Fractional Reserve Lending (which requires the age-old "2-circuits" of money)... and on to its unibank aspect instead.

[white michael]

Speaking of "unibanks" and would-be demonization thereof, Dan Sullivan at the Facebook page has just pointed out that none other than John Adams proposed the following, at some undisclosed point in time:
"At my Table in Philadelphia, I once proposed to you to unite in
endeavours to obtain an Amendment of the Constitution, prohibiting
to the separate States the Power of creating Banks; but giving
**Congress Authority to establish one Bank, with a branch in each
State; the whole limited to Millions of dollars.** Whether this
Project was wise or unwise, I know not, for I had deliberated
little on it then and have never thought it worth thinking much of
since. But you [Jefferson] spurned the Proposition from you with
disdain.
This System of Banks begotten, hatched and brooded by Duer, Robert
and Governeur Morris, Hamilton and Washington, I have always
considered as a System of national Injustice. A Sacrifice of
public and private Interest to a few Aristocratical Friends and
Favourites. **My scheme could have had no such Effect.**"
- letter to Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 15, 1813

To me, this proposal sounds more like a "debt-free" money-issuing unibank (or "one Bank", as he called it) than it does a USSR-style Fractional Reserve Lending unibank.

Would anyone here have an opinion on the matter?
It hasn't been easy to determine even when Adams actually made such a proposal.

[John Howell]

Thanks, Michael, for sharing this. Adams may well have had in mind, either consciously or subconsciously, that by nationalizing banking, money creation would be nationalized, with the benefits going to the people at large, rather than to “a few Aristocratical Friends and Favourites.” Perhaps his failure to be clearer reflects a limited level of clarity in his own mind on the matter.

It seems to me that the problem of wealth concentration cannot be fully addressed just with the introduction of public (sovereign) money. There will still be a role for banks and other financial institutions in private lending and borrowing. Private lending will inevitably tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of the lenders as long as there is interest charged.

If all lending were done by a publicly owned bank or banks, then interest goes back into the public coffers and does not itself tend to concentrate wealth. It would seem to follow that in order to address the concentration of wealth problem, nationalization of banking as well as of money creation is necessary.

But hazards come to mind. The decisions for all lending would be concentrated in government hands and perhaps be at least as susceptible to abuse on political grounds than a private, distributed lending system. There are other ways to limit the concentration of wealth, namely through fiscal and tax policies that were in place following WWII. Maybe a mix of methods should be considered.

There are, of course, other compelling reasons to nationalize money creation, such as relieving the public sector of the austerity imposed by the debt money system, the need to be able to accommodate environmental sustainability, i.e., a no growth or shrinking economy (consumption) without collapse (“bust”), and the simple issue of fairness. Libertarians like to say, “Equal opportunity for all; special privilege to none.” The debt money system certainly represent a special privilege for one group of business people.

John

[Howard Switzer]

“Equal opportunity for all; special privilege to none.” 

In Robert De Fremery's book he attributed that statement to Thomas Jefferson as a "Jeffersonian Principle."

I think publicly issued money does eliminate the systematic concentration of wealth as money is no longer issued as an interest bearing debt to the banks. Banks could lend money but not create it so they are limited to a more normal business profit margin which I don't believe would concentrate wealth in and of itself.  If public money is spent (social and physical infrastructure) and gifted (national dividend) into the economy then the money is going to the people, coming in at the bottom of the economy where it is circulated instead of the top, so-to-speak, where it is used for speculation and controlling what gets funded.  I'm reminded of what Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain said;

"The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The American Monetary Institute" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/the-american-monetary-institute/uu9opdCgyNo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to the-american-monetary-institute+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Howard Switzer - Architect
668 Hurricane Creek Road
Linden, TN 37096
931 589 6513
www.earthandstraw.com

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
― Richard Buckminster Fuller

[John Howell]

Howard,

I hope you are right. I suppose it depends on interest rates charged, a debate throughout history. If rates produce profit comparable to the profit margins of other businesses, then there would indeed be no more tendency for concentration of wealth in lending than there is in any other business. I suppose it can also be argued that competition between lenders in a public money system will keep rates under control. Perhaps under a public money system there will be less dependency upon borrowing as money becomes less scarce and savings. at least to some extent, replace debt, reducing the amount of lending/borrowing which occurs.

How does one get a handle on this quantitatively in order to make it a compelling argument?

John

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Howard Switzer <hmsarch...@gmail.com> wrote:

“Equal opportunity for all; special privilege to none.” 

In Robert De Fremery's book he attributed that statement to Thomas Jefferson as a "Jeffersonian Principle."

I think publicly issued money does eliminate the systematic concentration of wealth as money is no longer issued as an interest bearing debt to the banks. Banks could lend money but not create it so they are limited to a more normal business profit margin which I don't believe would concentrate wealth in and of itself.  If public money is spent (social and physical infrastructure) and gifted (national dividend) into the economy then the money is going to the people, coming in at the bottom of the economy where it is circulated instead of the top, so-to-speak, where it is used for speculation and controlling what gets funded.  I'm reminded of what Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain said;

"The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to the-american-monetary-institute+unsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Howard Switzer - Architect
668 Hurricane Creek Road
Linden, TN 37096
931 589 6513
www.earthandstraw.com

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
― Richard Buckminster Fuller

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The American Monetary Institute" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-american-monetary-institute+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Howard Switzer]

Yes, I guess that is why the 8% limit on interest in the NEED Act... but yeah I think it would work the way you describe. How to get the numbers?  I don't know but if we had the political will to make that change others would not be too hard to make.

Howard

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to the-american-monetary-institute+unsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The American Monetary Institute" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/the-american-monetary-institute/uu9opdCgyNo/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to the-american-monetary-institute+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[white michael]

I've searched "Rights vs. Privileges" online, but have found no refs. to the Adams quote, which does seem to be real (genuinely sourced, not a paraphrase).

http://s6.zetaboards.com/Bill_Still_Reforum/topic/1177385/2/

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:33:27 AM UTC-6, Howard Switzer wrote:
> “Equal opportunity for all; special privilege to none.” 
>
>
>
> In Robert De Fremery's book he attributed that statement to Thomas Jefferson as a "Jeffersonian Principle."
>
>
> I think publicly issued money does eliminate the systematic concentration of wealth as money is no longer issued as an interest bearing debt to the banks. Banks could lend money but not create it so they are limited to a more normal business profit margin which I don't believe would concentrate wealth in and of itself.  If public money is spent (social and physical infrastructure) and gifted (national dividend) into the economy then the money is going to the people, coming in at the bottom of the economy where it is circulated instead of the top, so-to-speak, where it is used for speculation and controlling what gets funded.  I'm reminded of what Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain said;
>
>
> "The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to the-american-monetary...@googlegroups.com.