Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Facebook Libra

It's over.

Facebook finally conquered the world.

And not in the way we usually say companies "conquered the world".

I mean they already own our social network (ie. all our friends and relationships) and have become the only way that people can talk to each other. Now they will become money and be the only way people can pay each other.

I don't have a FB account. That means I am continually excluded by default from a range of things that people send information about. I miss events because they are posted on Facebook and Instagram and nobody remembers to use an alternative channel which I might see.

Tomorrow I might not even be able to be paid without being signed up to have Facebook as my Identity Provider.

With Uber signed up, I might not even be able to find work without Facebook's permission.

Here's a hint to the nation states of the world. If you want to still be in business in 20 or 30 years, ban Facebook Libra NOW!

Friday, December 20, 2013

Acceleration, Money and Identity

Today's somewhat random move. Had a couple of interesting political / philosophical conversations over the last week or so. So Hilan and I decided we'd resurrect the OPTIMAES blog as venue for them.

First post here.

We'll see how this goes. Not really planning to get back into OPTIMAES at the moment ... but who knows what next year will bring. (Certainly not me.)

Wednesday, April 03, 2013

BBC Admits Misleading Video

Sometimes it's a slog to try to get the country's leading public service broadcaster to actually, you know, do a bit of public service by correctly educating people.

Three cheers for Conrad Jones for going through it.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Europe’s Deadly Transition From Social Democracy to Oligarchy

Read this

I know I'm sounding like I'm just repeating the same story again and again. But what the hell else is there to do? This is now so blatantly happening. Another week, another story of a redistribution of wealth and power from the 99% (and government agencies that still have democratic responsibility to them) to the 1% wealthy elite.

So many people seem to vaguely perceive this. Many people are talking. But no one seems capable of stopping it.

Money quote :

This competition between banks and government explains the false accusations made that government credit creation is more inflationary than when commercial banks do it.


Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Positive Money vs. The FT

Positive Money have a good response to a critical comment in the FT that accuses them of naivety.

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Seumas Milne :
No wonder nationalist anger is growing. And all this to deliver a death spiral of spending cuts and tax increases that are sending Greece ever deeper into slump and debt. It makes no sense. Unless it's understood that it's not the Greek economy that's being rescued, but European and US banks exposed to Greek debt. To protect the rentiers and prevent their own failures from seizing up the European credit system, Greece has undergone the deepest ever fiscal squeeze in a developed state without the possibility of any compensating monetary stimulus or devaluation – because of its euro membership.

What If Greece Exits?

The Guardian is pulling in opinions about what happens if Greece exits the Euro. Fascinating and disturbing.

Here are a couple of thoughts. What would happen if, instead of Greece, Germany unilaterally exited the Euro?

Presumably the value of the Euro would fall, Germany's reinstated Deutsche Mark might rise, it would pay a cost in exports. But, without Germany, perhaps the Eurozone could become more economically homogenous, with policies and devaluing currency more appropriate to its economic status.

A variation, what if the Eurozone was to split itself into two currency blocks? One of wealthier, industrial nations like Germany, France and the Netherlands. The other of the PIIGS and poorer Eastern European nations.  The zone would strive to retain much of its political and economic co-ordination, but the two currencies would be allowed to float against each other, giving a safety valve to tensions between the productivity of different blocks. 

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Where Does Money Come From? (Revisited)

I just came back from the excellent Positive Money conference today and can highly recommend that everyone take a serious look at their site, their analysis and their suggestions.

Here's the basic outline of the Positive Money analysis (which they've undertaken with the help of some economics professors and one guy from the Bank of England).

Q: Where does money come from?

Largely money is created by banks making loans. That is, you ask the bank if you can borrow some money; the bank says yes, and credits your account with the money and their balance-sheet with the asset of your debt to them.

That's it. That's how money is made in the economy. The money the bank lends to you DID NOT have to come from a deposit that someone else made with the bank.

Most people (including economists, bankers and politicians) find this incredibly hard to believe and assume it must be wrong. But no-one can give any other explanation for where money actually comes from. (Well, some is made by, say Quantitative Easing, but that's just small proportion of the total money in the economy.)

Q2 : What restrictions are there on banks creating money this way?

There *used to be* restrictions that said banks could only create some multiplier of the deposits they held.

And you can still read this story on some websites and even economics textbooks. Positive Money's assertion is that various deregulations since the 1970s have effectively removed these constraints. (There are still some, but they're mainly around the "clearing" of different banks' debts to each other. And, as long as all banks are not getting into serious debt with each other, it seems there's no real constraint on how much new money they can create.)

Furthermore, nowadays banks have adopted a sales culture where everyone is incentivated to sell as many loans as possible and, until the crash, this is what banks tried to do.

That's why your bank was always trying to get you to take out a second mortgage to go on holiday or buy a new sofa.

Q3 : So what's the problem?

Well, the first problem is that every pound created this way is "debt money" ie. when the pound is created, the person who receives it receives a debt. Mostly the debt is a pound + interest.

In other words, when money is created by loans, it means debts are also created. And because the debt includes extra interest, the size of debt created is *bigger* than the quantity of money.

So there is always MORE debt in the economy than there is money to repay it.

And that's why most people in the country have such a debt problem. It's not even economically *possible* to pay off all the debt. The money for it doesn't exist. And you can't create more money without creating more debt.

Q4 : Is that the only problem?

No.

The banks like to make loans because they make their income from the interest on loan repayments. But they prefer some kinds of loans to others.

In particular, they prefer *secured* loans. That is, loans which, if you don't repay, they have something to repossess.

So, they don't like lending to businesses with limited liability because if the business goes bust most of money was probably spent on wages and materials anyway, and the capital equipment is probably not worth that much when sold second-hand.

On the other hand, they LOVE lending to individuals to buy houses ie. giving mortgages, because if the individual can't repay, the bank repossesses the house which, normally, has held / increased its value.)

Positive Money estimate that of all the billions of pounds that banks create, only about 8% is lent to businesses that create jobs and produce goods and services in the economy, and the other 92% goes into the mortgage market or other financial products with "known" risk profiles.

And that's why :

a) house prices have increased much faster than wages in recent years (ie. lots of newly created money went into bigger mortgages for more expensive houses) and you can't get on the housing ladder.

b) it's been so hard to finance your usefully productive company (unless you have something to repossess like land or intellectual property)

c) banks bought so many packages of collateralized debt.

In conclusion :

Banks have been given the monopoly on creating money.

There is no oversight.

They have incentives to create as much money (sell as much debt) as they can.

There is always more debt in society than money to repay it.

Because money is created by and in private banks, they choose how it is allocated in the economy.

Because the banks prefer secured loans, the new money goes mainly to places we don't want it to go (ie. to  inflating house prices and speculating on financial products) and doesn't go where we do want it to go (ie. to financing expansion by businesses that create jobs, goods and services.)

Economists, politicians, most bankers themselves, and certainly the general public have no fucking idea that this is how the system works, and most of them can't believe it when you tell them.

Q5 : So what can we do?

Positive Money's recommendation is as follows :

1) Take the power to create money (ie. to loan money that you don't have) away from private banks, and give it to the Bank of England.

2) Because you don't want the Bank of England to print money whenever it suits politicians, give the power to decide **when** to create the money to an independent committee. Probably with some fairly stringent criteria for when they should. Positive Money's own suggestion is that every month when inflation is around 2%, they should authorize the creation of new money. If inflation creeps above 2%, they shouldn't create more that month.

3) Rather than the new money being given to government or banks to allocate it should be given directly to the public in a slightly *progressive* form :

a) as VAT cuts. (Everyone benefits and you stimulate more economic activity)

b) by raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax. (So the lowest wage earners benefit.)

I have to say, I think this is an absolutely brilliant blend of radicalism and realism. They've spent a lot of time thinking about this. (The analysis / book has taken their team about 18 months to put together, based on about 500 different documents. Apparently they asked the Bank of England for its own training manuals / documentation on how money is created and were told that there is none.)



Monday, October 10, 2011

The Origin of Money

Gosh, I'm doing a lot of internet surfing today. And it's not like I don't have dozens of other things to do ...

Nevertheless, I'm seriously enjoying David Graeber on the origin of money.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Here's a fascinating Quora answer which shows why BitCoin could be very interesting indeed.

Meanwhile, I asked a question about bitCoin and Botnets.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Fascinating. I just went to Kiva and found that they have no loans available. Apparently there are more Kiva funders than micro-borrowers.

The site says this is likely to be a temporary outage. (The equivalent of the Twitter FailWhale). But what does it say about the global economy? Is it a sign of a world-wide depression that there are so few entrepreneurs borrowing? Or a "savings glut" that so many people are moving into micro-lending? Are the Kiva partners proving to be an inefficient bottle-neck? Are entrepreneurs too risky a bet for Kiva to consider them?

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Ireland will do anything to fix it's economy ...

except tax the rich and powerful.

An object lesson in how the world works.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Interesting. I just made a micro-loan to someone in Nicaragua via Kiva and saw a warning about the No Pago movement.

Got some details here and here.

Couple of thoughts.

I'm clearly not usuring at this point. I'm not making any profit off my micro-loans. So that's no justification for not repaying me!!! ;-)

It's possible that the partners are. Don't know if Kiva allows or controls this. 28% does sound pretty high.

Here's an issue (from that second link) :
It’s now commonplace for people to take out a loan from one MFI [Micro Finance Initiative], fall into arrears and then go to another one and another, bailing themselves out of debt with one by getting into debt with two more. This phenomenon is generalizing because while a micro-financing operation may evaluate that a person has the capacity to pay, it might not be able to learn whether that client has other creditors, so its evaluation is inadvertently inadequate. For example, we had a woman in ASOMIF who was a kite maker and seemed to be doing very well, but in the end got in debt with all 19 of our affiliates


Quoted in the first link :
Many loan officers were incentivized based on the growth of their portfolio alone.
In other words, micro-finance as "sub-prime mortgage".

I've tended to feel sympathetic to Daniel Ortega. I'll be disappointed if this really is cynical patronage-politics.

Overall, micro-finance is clearly now big and influential enough to attract carpetbaggers : unscrupulous lenders, attacks from politicians who see it as a rival to their patronage, and even feckless borrowers. I guess that's a sign of success. Even if it means we have to take off the rose-tinted specs. when looking at it.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Linkfest!

Why your industrial applications should use open-source software, and how an open-source guy plans to hack together a free clone of a serious industrial piece of kit.


The Guy Who Worked For Money. A fantastic sci-fi story about the tensions between money and whuffie (attentional currency) in an attention dominated world. I'm impressed how sophisticated the understanding of this has become in some circles.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Could, after many false starts, the world really be abandoning the dollar as its reserve currency?