I have not been blogging much this summer because I have been using Zotero to drink from the firehose of police brutality news.
For years, the Elusive Wapiti has been advocating that the USA move to a government-controlled fiat currency. Now, while Anaheim erases the distinction between “military” and “police” functions, Paul Craig Roberts has granted his web space to Herman Daly in order to advocate the same idea.
The best way to sabotage a system is hobble it by tying together two of its separate parts, creating an unnecessary and obstructive connection. Why should the public pay interest to the private banking sector to provide a medium of exchange that the government can provide at little or no cost? Why should seigniorage (profit to the issuer of fiat money) go largely to the private sector rather than entirely to the government (the commonwealth)?
Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be abrupt—we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%. Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements.
Banks cannot create money under 100% reserves (the reserve deposit multiplier would be unity), and banks would earn their profit by financial intermediation only, lending savers’ money for them (charging a loan rate higher than the rate paid to savings or “time-account” depositors) and charging for checking, safekeeping, and other services. With 100% reserves every dollar loaned to a borrower would be a dollar previously saved by a depositor (and not available to the depositor during the period of the loan), thereby re-establishing the classical balance between abstinence and investment. With credit limited by saving (abstinence from consumption) there will be less lending and borrowing and it will be done more carefully—no more easy credit to finance the leveraged purchase of “assets” that are nothing but bets on dodgy debts.
To make up for the decline and eventual elimination of bank- created, interest-bearing money, the government can pay some of its expenses by issuing more non interest-bearing fiat money. However, it can only do this up to a strict limit imposed by inflation. If the government issues more money than the public voluntarily wants to hold, the public will trade it for goods, driving the price level up. As soon as the price index begins to rise the government must print less. Thus a policy of maintaining a constant price index would govern the internal value of the dollar. The external value of the dollar could be left to freely fluctuating exchange rates.
I will be very interested to see whether such ideas can gain a foothold among the masses of the USA citizenry. I suspect that the current system of bankster crime-in-high-places will be able to endure for at least another year, even in a best-case scenario. But if some group of Americans manages to dislodge the banksters, an alternate monetary system could be established. Alternatively, the bankster-controlled thugs might manage to disarm the American citizenry and transfer the truly vocal objectors to FEMA camps while the less-committed rowdies are pushed into yet another foreign war in the Middle East. I would do a Tarot card reading and cast a horoscope, but my schedule is a little too crowded this month – and in any event, my predictions would not give me any new means to influence the outcome.