Archive for December, 2016

Where we went wrong; AMI, Public Banking, and Pos.M with a Soddy Solution.

December 21, 2016

It’s Time to go from T.I.N.A. (There Is No Alternative ) to T.A.R.A. (There Are Realistic Alternatives). ” (justaluckyfool@aol)

The Italian Banking Crisis: No Free Lunch – Or Is There?
Posted on December 21, 2016 by Ellen Brown
It has been called “a bigger risk than Brexit”– the Italian banking crisis that could take down the euro zone. Handwringing officials say “there is no free lunch” and “no magic bullet.” But UK Prof. Richard Werner says the magic bullet is just being ignored.
On December 4, 2016, Italian voters rejected a referendum to amend their constitution to give the government more power, and the Italian prime minister resigned. The resulting chaos has pushed Italy’s already-troubled banks into bankruptcy. First on the chopping block is the 500-year-old Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (BMP), the oldest surviving bank in the world and the third largest bank in Italy. The concern is that its loss could trigger the collapse of other banks and even of the euro zone itself.
There seems little doubt that BMP and other insolvent banks will be rescued. The biggest banks are always rescued, no matter how negligent or corrupt, because in our existing system, banks create the money we use in trade. Virtually, the entire money supply is now created by banks when they make loans, as the Bank of England has acknowledged. When the banks collapse, economies collapse, because bank-created money is the grease that oils the wheels of production.
So the Italian banks will no doubt be rescued. The question is, how? Normally, distressed banks can raise cash by selling their non-performing loans (NPLs) to other investors at a discount; but recovery on the mountain of Italian bad debts is so doubtful that foreign investors are unlikely to bite. In the past, bankrupt too-big-to-fail banks have sometimes been nationalized. That discourages “moral hazard” – rewarding banks for bad behavior – but it’s at the cost of imposing the bad debts on the government. Further, new EU rules require a “bail-in” before a government bailout, something the Italian government is desperate to avoid. As explained on a European website called Social Europe:
The EU’s banking union, which came into force in January 2016, prescribes that when a bank runs into trouble, existing stakeholders – namely, shareholders, junior creditors and, sometimes, even senior creditors and depositors with deposits in excess of the guaranteed amount of €100,000 – are required to take a loss before public funds can be used . . . .
[The problem is that] the subordinated bonds that would take a hit are not simply owned by well-off families and other banks: as much as half of the €60 billion of subordinated bonds are estimated to be owned by around 600,000 small savers, who in many cases were fraudulently mis-sold these bonds by the banks as being risk-free (as good as deposits basically).
The government got a taste of the potential backlash a year ago, when it forced losses onto the bondholders of four small banks. One victim made headlines when he hung himself and left a note blaming his bank, which had taken his entire €100,000 savings.
Goldman Sachs Weighs In
It is not just the small savers that are at risk. According to a July 2016 article titled “Look Who’s Frantically Demanding That Taxpayers Stop Italy’s Bank Meltdown”:
The total exposure of French banks and private investors alone to Italian government debt exceeds €250 billion. Germany holds €83.2 billion worth of Italian bonds. Deutsche Bank alone has nearly €12 billion worth of Italian bonds on its books. The other banking sectors most at risk of contagion are Spain (€44.6 billion), the U.S. (€42.3 billion) the UK (€29.8 billion) and Japan (€27.6 billion).
. . . All of which helps to explain why banks and their representatives at the IMF and the ECB are frantically demanding a no-expenses-spared taxpayer-funded rescue of Italy’s banking system.
It could also explain why Goldman Sachs took it upon itself to propose a way out of this dilemma: instead of buying Italian government bonds in their quantitative easing program, the ECB and the central bank of Italy could buy the insolvent banks’ nonperforming loans.
As observed in a July 2016 article in The Financial Times titled “Goldman: Italy’s Bank Saga – Not Such a Big Deal,” Italy’s NPLs then stood at €210bn, and the ECB was buying €120bn per year of outstanding Italian government bonds as part of its quantitative easing (QE) scheme. The author quoted Goldman’s Francesco Garzarelli, who said, “by the time QE is over – not sooner than end 2017, on our baseline scenario – around a fifth of Italy’s public debt will be sitting on the Bank of Italy’s balance sheet.” Bringing the entire net stock of bad loans onto the government’s balance sheet, he said, would be equivalent to just nine months’ worth of Italian government bond purchases by the ECB.
Buying bank debt with money generated by the central bank would rescue the banks without cost to the taxpayers, the bondholders or the government. So why hasn’t this option been pursued?
The Inflation Objection
Perhaps the concern is that it would be inflationary. But UK Prof. Richard Werner, who invented the term “quantitative easing” when he was advising the Japanese in the 1990s, says inflation would not result. In 2012, he proposed a similar solution to the European banking crisis, citing three successful historical precedents.
One was the US Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program, in which it bought $1.7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities from the banks. These securities were widely understood to be “toxic” – Wall Street’s own burden of NPLs. The move was highly controversial, but it worked for its intended purpose: the banks did not collapse, the economy got back on its feet, and the much-feared inflation did not result. Werner says this was because no new money entered the non-bank economy. The QE was just an accounting maneuver, an asset swap in the reserve accounts of the banks themselves.
His second example was in Britain in 1914, when the British banking sector collapsed after the government declared war on Germany. This was not a good time for a banking crisis, so the Bank of England simply bought the banks’ NPLs. “There was no credit crunch,” wrote Werner, “and no recession. The problem was solved at zero cost to the taxpayer.”
For a third example, he cited the Japanese banking crisis of 1945. The banks had totally collapsed, with NPLs that amounted to virtually 100 percent of their assets:
But in 1945 the Bank of Japan had no interest in creating a banking crisis and a credit crunch recession. Instead, it wanted to ensure that bank credit would flow again, delivering economic growth. So, the Bank of Japan bought the non-performing assets from the banks – not at market value (close to zero), but significantly above market value.
In each of these cases, Werner wrote:
The operations were a complete success. No inflation resulted. The currency did not weaken. Despite massive non-performing assets wiping out the solvency and equity of the banking sector, the banks’ health was quickly restored. In the UK and Japanese case, bank credit started to recover quickly, so that there was virtually no recession at all as a result.
For Italy and other “peripheral” euro zone countries, Werner suggests a two-pronged approach: (1) the central bank should buy the distressed banks’ NPLs with QE, and (2) the government should borrow from the banks rather than from bondholders. Borrowing in the bond market fattens the underwriters but creates no new money in the form of bank credit for the economy. Borrowing from banks does create new money as bank credit. (See my earlier article here.)
Clearly, when central banks want to save the banking system without cost to the government or the people, they know how to do it. So the question remains, why hasn’t the ECB followed the Federal Reserve’s lead and pursued this option?
The Moral Hazard Objection
Perhaps it is because banks that know they will be rescued from their bad loans will keep making bad loans. But the same moral hazard would ensue from a bailout or a bail-in, which virtually all interested parties seem to be advocating. And as was observed in an article titled “Italy: Banking Crisis or Euro Crisis?”, the cause of the banks’ insolvency, in this case, was actually something beyond the banks’ control – the longest and deepest recession in Italy’s history.
Werner argues that the moral hazard argument should instead be applied to the central bank, which actually was responsible for the recession due to the massive credit bubbles its policies allowed and encouraged. Rather than being punished for these policies, however, the ECB has been rewarded with even more power and control. Werner writes:
There is thus a form of regulatory moral hazard in place: regulators that obtain more powers after crises may not have sufficient incentives to avoid such crises.
What May Really Be Going On
Werner and other observers suspect that saving the economies of the peripheral eurozone countries is not the real goal of ECB policy. Rather, the ECB and the European Commission are working to force a political union on the euro zone countries, one controlled by unelected bureaucrats in the service of a few very large corporations and banks. Werner quotes David Shipley on Bloomberg:
Central bank officials may be hoping that by keeping the threat of financial Armageddon alive, they can coerce the region’s people and governments into moving toward the deeper union that the euro’s creators envisioned.
ECB and EC officials claim that “there is no free lunch” and “no alternative,” says Werner. But there is an alternative, one that is cost-free to the people and the government. The European banks could be rescued by the central bank, just as US banks were rescued by the Federal Reserve.
To avoid the moral hazard of bank malfeasance in the future, the banks could then be regulated so that they were harnessed to serve the public interest, or they could be nationalized. This could be done without cost to the government since the NPLs would have been erased from the books.
For a long-term solution, the money that is now created by banks in pursuit of their own profit either needs to be issued by governments (as has been done quite successfully in the past, going back to the American colonies) or it needs to be created by banks that are required to serve the public interest. And for that to happen, the banks need to be made public utilities.
Ellen Brown is an attorney and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at She can be heard biweekly on “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.

“Capitalism is the “best” system to date devised by mankind. As it is administrated, perhaps, is where the “flaw” is manifested. If capitalism used its Honest Central Bank properly, that is for the betterment of the common good, with equality and justice for all, capitalism could be the greatest achievement of mankind.
An Honest Central Bank (via Amend The Fed) were formed using PBI’s Public Bank System of51 public banks (50 states plus 1,- DC combined with territories.) plus  AMI’s “Separation of Private For Profit Banks (PFPB) from Government.
Create an Income stream “For The People,” simply by doing what they had been doing for the PFPB i.e., charging a service fee ( Instead of that which was allowed  banks to earn a Net Interest Income of over $20 trillion by charging interest on issuance (loans) over the last 20 years).
“Reverse..“… an economic recovery program that has privileged the recovery of financial markets and corporate profits has fueled the increase in wealth inequality, in the United States and across the world.”
Reverse that program, make the money FLOW to “…help form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”
Quote Frederick Soddy (The Role Of Money-1932),
“… every monetary system must at long last conform if it is to fulfill its proper role
as the distributive mechanism of society. To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government.”

Where We Went Wrong: In God We Trust by JUSTALUCKYFOOL
After 5000 years; an answer.
Yes, Virginia, banks do create money “Out of Thin Air.”
“Verified by Empirical Evidence”
****Can banks individually create money out of nothing? – The theories and the empirical evidence ☆***by Richard A. Werner

This paper presents the first empirical evidence in the history of banking on the question of whether banks can create money out of nothing. The banking crisis has revived interest in this issue, but it had remained unsettled. Three hypotheses are recognized in the literature. According to the financial intermediation theory of banking, banks are merely intermediaries like other non-bank financial institutions, collecting deposits that are then lent out. According to the fractional reserve theory of banking, individual banks are mere financial intermediaries that cannot create money, but collectively they end up creating money through systemic interaction. A third theory maintains that each individual bank has the power to create money ‘out of nothing’ and does so when it extends credit (the credit creation theory of banking). The question which of the theories is correct has far-reaching implications for research and policy. Surprisingly, despite the longstanding controversy, until now no empirical study has tested the theories. This is the contribution of the present paper. An empirical test is conducted, whereby money is borrowed from a cooperating bank, while its internal records are being monitored, to establish whether in the process of making the loan available to the borrower, the bank transfers these funds from other accounts within or outside the bank, or whether they are newly created. This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks individually, “out of thin air.”

”This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks individually, “out of thin air”.
AFTER more than 80 years-Vindication for the “crank” Frederick Soddy.
”It is important to realize that whichever way it works it is a case for the bank of
”Heads I win, tails you lose “…”…(U)sually by some such lying phrase as” Every
loan makes a deposit ”
“Genuine and Fictitious Loans.
For a loan, if it is a genuine loan, does not make a deposit, because what the borrower gets the lender gives up,
and there is no increase in the quantity of money, but
only an alteration in the identity of the individual owners of it. But if the lender gives up nothing
at all what the borrower receives is a new issue of money and the quantity is proportionately
increased. So elaborately, has the real nature of this ridiculous proceeding been surrounded with
confusion by some of the cleverest and most skillful advocates the world has ever known, that
it still is something of a mystery to ordinary people, who hold their heads and confess they
are ” unable to understand finance “. It is not intended that they should.”(The Role Of Money)
”Money is a concept” when ‘coined’,’printed’,or digital form (an entry on a balance sheet) it is a physical representation of “money”.

BUT beware; use the word ‘money’ without defining what the definition of that word is and should mean, your message is being distorted.

So how is this, to most people not understood, that money is wealth while at the same time money can not increase wealth, but merely store or exchange what has already been given up.
What is the “basic flaw” ?
Why is that flaw not understood ?
Soddy answered these questions, ““So elaborately has the real nature of this ridiculous proceeding been surrounded with confusion by some of the cleverest and most skillful advocates the world has ever known, that it still is something of a mystery to ordinary people, who hold their heads and confess they are” unable to understand finance“. It is not intended that they should.”
As Soddy stated,
“Money now is the NOTHING you get for SOMETHING before you can get ANYTHING,”
Frederick Soddy (The Role Of Money.”
Economists mention the “Fatal Flaw,” or ” BOOM & BUST,” yet do not ‘see it coming’
ASK again,”Did Soddy get it right?”
The “Fatal Flaw” is the ability of mankind to exponentially create more “Fictitious” money then “Genuine” money; when unrestrained
you have-inflation-systemic failure, or monetary collapse.

All banks that create ‘money’ out of thin air’ create two owners for the same value; while one owner has given up a real  value, yet the new owner has given up “thin air”.

There exists in this world,this universe more wealth than mankind could possibly use. Man has been given dominion
over this wealth. Mankind can not create any wealth and must distribute that which already exists.
Wealth is SOMETHING of value.
ALL Wealth on earth and in the universe exists and is expanding.

“As the worlds population has gone up, the total amount of product available per capita…has gone up.
…exactly the opposite of what…predicted. Indeed, the correlation of increased population with increased
per capita product is so strong that any scientist examining these data would immediately suspect causality..
.(S)o the more people there are, the faster the rate of technological progress, which multiples product per capita,
and whose are cumulative.
So the more of us there are, the more there will be to go around.”(The Human Factor, Robert Zubrin…2015)

We now no longer believe “In God We Trust” as having created all wealth that is needed by mankind.
Yes, we have loss our TRUST In God; now We Trust In Man to create “wealth” from nothing.
” All smoke and mirrors.
All designed with ONE intention: ‘To Hide The Issuers Alchemy‘. It does not matter how the ‘money’ is coined, printed, or digitized – It is not wealth. When one understands this basic universal law, they will know of this deceit.”(SODDY)
Wealth is SOMETHING of value.
ALL Wealth on earth and in the universe exists and is expanding.

Money now is the NOTHING you get for SOMETHING (a created value)
before you can get ANYTHING (a created value).
Money is a receipt for SOMETHING (a value given up).
Money can not create ANYTHING (an exchangeable value).

“The Monetary System Impedes the Flow.
Since, in all monetary civilizations, it is money that alone
can effect the exchange of wealth and the continuous flow of goods and services
throughout the nation, money has become the life-blood of
the community, and for each individual a veritable license to live at all.
The monetary system is the
distributory mechanism, and this reading of
history therefore supports up to the hilt the con-
clusions of those who have made a special study
of what our monetary system has become. It is
the primary and infinitely most important source
of all our present social and international unrest
and for the failure, hitherto, of democracy.

A very slight knowledge of our actual existing
monetary system makes it abundantly clear that,
without democracy knowing or allowing it, and
without the matter ever being before the electorate
even as a secondary or minor political issue, the
power of uttering money has been taken out of
national hands and usurped as a perquisite by
the moneylender. Practically every genuine
monetary reformer is unanimous that the only
hope of safety and peace lies in the nation
instantly resuming its prerogative over the issue
of all forms of money, which, legally, it has never
surrendered at all.”

“WHAT is Money? Let us commence our
study of the role of money by a compre-
hensive definition of what modern money is.

Money now is the NOTHING you get for SOMETHING
before you can get ANYTHING.

Our task is to understand all that this implies.
The definition is, of course,an economic one
referring to ordinary transactions such as earning,
buying, and selling among ordinary folk generous
uncles and other voluntary benefactors not being
under contemplation and the nothing, something,
and anything of the definition refer to things of
real value in themselves, usually termed goods and
services, or simply wealth, unless hair-splitting
or purely technical distinctions turning on the
precise definition of wealth are involved. More-
over, it refers to ordinary people,
in the sense of those who neither have the opportunity nor the
power of uttering money themselves. ”

Nowhere is there a mandate to create wealth (money),
the “giving up of SOMETHING before you can get ANYTHING (money).”
The Fatal Flaw is that we do not recognize that MONEY AS WEALTH must be in existence before it can be created (issued). We are flawed in calling…bank issuance MONEY when that issuance is made “out of thin air.” BTW, that has been empirically proven as being ‘credit money’. The same “word”-“money” is used with two opposite meaning. One as a receipt of a value of wealth that is to be redeemed at a future time for wealth. The other use is a copy of a receipt (made out of thin air,’Fairy Dust”), a copy of wealth already owned by someone else.
ALL wealth has already been created, the entire expanding universe.
A government  can not create new wealth. A government can by law ‘coin or print’ transferable receipts of wealth in a transferable measured form for its sovereignty.
A government may  be allowed to “borrow” from the wealth of the entirety
at zero cost, use that ‘borrowed’ money to help fund “a more perfect union.
Remembering that it must put that money back into its secure holdings so the lawful owners may redeem their individual value upon demand.
We must go back to “IN GOD WE TRUST.”
We have dominion over this universe, all its wealth. As mankind exponentially grows so does the universe; a perfect system.
Only we can screw it up!
Our forefathers understood what “In God We Trust” meant
An HONEST CENTRAL BANK can not, or shall not create wealth.
An honest Central Bank is the guardian of the community wealth given up and in storage…
…the sole and only entity that may issue receipts on the community wealth,

…may be allowed to borrow
…must operate with transparency,
…be held accountable.

“THEY” have used the same words to create different meanings!
“MONEY”as a receipt of wealth; “MONEY” as a creation of wealth “out of thin air”.
Nowhere is there a mandate to create wealth (money), the “giving up of SOMETHING
before you can get ANYTHING (money.”
The Constitution allows Congress
…TO ‘Coin’
…TO punish counterfeiting.
This is clear in that borrowing,coining,or printing
is authorized of that which is already “wealth given up” and this is also clear
“other then that is ‘counterfeit.”

*** U.S. Constitution.
“The Congress shall have Power …(A). To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
…(B).To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
The Congress shall have Power …(C).To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;…”
What the Constitution declares:
****(A) “TO BORROW.” It may not ‘create’ Genuine money; that is SOMETHING already owned by individuals and the community.N.B.,There is no reason (or request) to pay interest when borrowing from your own sovereign wealth.
**** (B) “TO COIN MONEY, REGULATE. It may either by printing, making stamped tokens, digital dots maintain and control that standard of Weights and
Measures,i.e., the physical representative form of Genuine Money.
**** (C)”To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting…”
No entity may “create out of thin air” and turn it into SOMETHING that is guaranteed to be redeemable as Genuine money.

SODDY, “Let us right from the start get the signs right.
The owner of money is the creditor and the issuer of it is the debtor, for the owner of money gives up goods and services to the issuer. In an honest
money system the issuer of money who gets
for nothing goods and services would do so on
trust for the benefit of the community. In
a fraudulent money system he does so for the
benefit of himself. It makes no difference whether
he passes off the money and puts it into circulation
himself or lends it at interest for others to pass off
for him. In every case what he so gets to spend or
lend is given up by someone else. Ex nihilo nihil
fit. Nothing comes from nothing…”

“Capitalism is the “best” system to date devised by mankind. As it is administrated, perhaps, is where the “flaw” is manifested. If capitalism used its Central Bank properly,that is for the betterment of the common good, with equality and justice for all, capitalism could be the greatest achievement of mankind.



N.B. An Honest Central Bank
….. to be formed using PBI’s Public Bank System (51 public banks-50 states plus 1 for D.C.)
….. combined with AMI’s “Separation of Private For Profit Banks (PFPB) from Government.

….combined with Positive Money concepts.