Search This Blog

Friday 23 January 2009

Isn't It Time For A War Crimes Tribunal

 

 

By Robert Fisk

21 January, 2009
The Independent

It's a wrap, a doddle, an Israeli ceasefire just in time for Barack Obama to have a squeaky-clean inauguration with all the world looking at the streets of Washington rather than the rubble of Gaza. Condi and Ms Livni thought their new arms-monitoring agreement – reached without a single Arab being involved – would work. Ban Ki-moon welcomed the unilateral truce. The great and the good gathered for a Sharm el-Sheikh summit. Only Hamas itself was not consulted. Which led, of course, to a few wrinkles in the plan. First, before declaring its own ceasefire, Hamas fired off more rockets at Israel, proving that Israel's primary war aim – to stop the missiles – had failed. Then Cairo shrugged off the deal because no one was going to set up electronic surveillance equipment on Egyptian soil. And not one European leader travelling to the region suggested the survivors might be helped if Israel, the EU and the US ended the food and fuel siege of Gaza.

 

After killing hundreds of women and children, Israel was the good guy again, by declaring a unilateral ceasefire that Hamas was certain to break. But Obama will be smiling on Tuesday. Was not this the reason, after all, why Israel suddenly wanted a truce?

 

Egypt's objections may be theatre – the US spent £18m last year training Egyptian security men to stop arms smuggling into Gaza and since the US bails out Egypt's economy, ignores the corruption of its regime and goes on backing Hosni Mubarak, there's sure to be a "compromise" very soon.

 

And Hamas has had its claws cut. Israel's informers in Gaza handed over the locations of its homes and hideouts and the government of Gaza must be wondering if they can ever close down the spy rings. Hamas thought its militia was the Hizbollah – a serious error – and that the world would eventually come to its aid. The world (although not its pompous leaders) felt enormous pity for the Palestinians, but not for the cynical men of Hamas who staged a coup in Gaza in 2007 which killed 151 Palestinians. As usual, the European statesmen appeared hopelessly out of touch with what their own electorates thought.

 

And history was quite forgotten. The Hamas rockets were the result of the food and fuel siege; Israel broke Hamas's own truce on 4 and 17 November. Forgotten is the fact Hamas won the 2006 elections, although Israel has killed a clutch of the victors.

 

And there'll be little time for the peacemakers of Sharm el-Sheikh to reflect on the three UN schools targeted by the Israelis and the slaughter of the civilians inside. Poor old Ban Ki-moon. He tried to make his voice heard just before the ceasefire, saying Israel's troops had acted "outrageously" and should be "punished" for the third school killing. Some hope. At a Beirut press conference, he admitted he had failed to get a call through to Israel's Foreign Minister to complain.

 

It was pathetic. When I asked Mr Ban if he would consider a UN war crimes tribunal in Gaza, he said this would not be for him to "determine". But only a few journalists bothered to listen to him and his officials were quickly folding up the UN flag on the table. About time too. Bring back the League of Nations. All is forgiven.

 

What no one noticed yesterday – not the Arabs nor the Israelis nor the portentous men from Europe – was that the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting last night was opening on the 90th anniversary – to the day – of the opening of the 1919 Paris peace conference which created the modern Middle East. One of its main topics was "the borders of Palestine". There followed the Versailles Treaty. And we know what happened then. The rest really is history. Bring on the ghosts.





What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out

Thursday 22 January 2009

The Collapse of Capitalism and the Safety Net of Gold

 
The Collapse of Capitalism and the Safety Net of Gold



-- Posted Wednesday, 21 January 2009 | Digg This Article | Source: GoldSeek.com

For Ponzi schemes to succeed, they must expand faster than the request for redemptions. If they do not, they will collapse. This is what happened to Bernard L Madoff Investment Services, the largest Ponzi scheme in history. The same is about to happen to capitalism.

 

Although capitalism is not a Ponzi scheme, credit-based economies, sic capitalism, and Ponzi schemes share the same fatal flaw. Both must constantly expand or they are in danger of collapse. Today, because capitalist economies are no longer expanding, but contracting, their continued contraction will lead to collapse.

 

PUNDITS PUNDIDIOTS & PREDICTIONS

 

Dr. Philip Tetlock, author of Expert Political Judgment (Princeton University Press, 2005), has done remarkable work regarding the ability to accurately predict future events.  In a highly disciplined scientific study, Dr. Tetlock had asked experts to predict future events and over 20 years analyzed their predictive accuracy and methodology of thinking.

 

Tetlock's study concluded that experts are no better in predicting the future than anyone else; in fact, the better known the expert, often the lower the ability to accurately predict. Louis Menand's review of Tetlock's Expert Political Judgment in The New Yorker perhaps says it best:

 

..Tetlock claims that the better known and more frequently quoted they [experts] are, the less reliable their guesses about the future are likely to be. The accuracy of an expert's predictions actually has an inverse relationship to his or her self-confidence, renown, and, beyond a certain point, depth of knowledge.

 

On March 2, 2007, Dr. Tetlock spoke to the Positive Deviant Network by speaker phone as he was unable to attend in person. Martha and I were in the audience along with other members of the PDN.

 

The previous day we had distributed my 148 page analysis of the US and global economy to the PDN. In How To Survive The Crisis And Prosper In The Process, The Time of the Vulture, I had predicted prices of US and global real estate would fall 40 to 70 % and the stock market 70 to 90 %, plunging the US and perhaps the world into another Great Depression.

 

At the time in the early spring of 2007, there was no evidence of an impending economic disaster. The next day when the feedback came back from the PDN, it was neither pleasant nor positive. Perhaps it was a variant of the "shoot the messenger" syndrome, but there was loud and vocal opposition to the dire economic predictions I had made.

 

Later that day, again by speaker phone, when PDN members were given the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with Dr. Tetlock, PDN member Dr. James Hardt, a neuroscientist and researcher on the effect of brain waves on human consciousness took the opportunity to say that he had read my economic analysis and found it remarkable.

 

The comment by Dr. Hardt was especially meaningful as Dr. Hardt had scored far higher than all other PDN members in both knowledge-based and predictive tests. The PDN experience underscored the fact that the truth—when unpleasant and predicted—is rarely welcome in any venue.

 

The reason why pundits are popular is not because they tell the truth. Pundits are popular because they tell people what they want to hear, the truth not withstanding. The unpleasant truth is that the truth when unpleasant has never been popular.

 

In the past, I would have laid the cause of America's ignorance of economic issues at the foot of corporate and government interests who gain the most in today's corrupt environment. But the truth is the present state of ignorance and corruption could not have occurred without the abiding and willing denial of the America people.

 

Americans themselves have chosen denial, sound bites and slogans over substantive discourse and understanding. While in the short term it has been easier to do than the alternative, i.e. to think, in the long term it will prove fatal.

 

The bill for collective denial and ignorance is coming due in America; and, when it is paid—as it will be—America will never be the same.  Nor, will the world

 

THE LAST STAGE OF CAPITALISM AND PONZI FINANCE

 

Like Ponzi schemes, capitalist economies must constantly expand or they will collapse. This is because capitalism is a system wherein credit-based money has been substituted for real money, i.e. savings-based money such as gold and silver; and credit-based money soon turns into compounding debt.

 

The end of such systems has always been bankruptcy. When credit-based economies contract, governments, businesses and families are no longer able to pay the principal and compounding interest on their debt and economic collapse results.

 

The current system began when the Bank of England, England's central bank, started issuing credit-based paper banknotes in place of gold and silver in 1694. This system was transferred by private bankers to America in 1913 in the form of the Federal Reserve Bank, the US central bank equivalent of the Bank of England.

 

The credit-based central bank system then spread after WWII to the rest of the world. As the credit-based system spread, so too did the resultant compounding debt and now, the day of reckoning for everyone has arrived.

 

WHY IS EVERYONE SURPRISED?

 

When credit-based capitalist economies contract, they are unable to pay and service previously incurred debt. This is now happening in the US, the UK, the EU and Japan. After economic contraction, corporate, individual and government bankruptcy comes next. After sustained economic contraction, systemic collapse occurs.

 

Alan Greenspan, the pundit's pundit for much of the last three decades, presided over much of the expansion of global credit during and after the 1980s, an expansion that led to extraordinary and unsustainable levels of global debt.

 

The truth is levels of US debt have been untenable for much longer than we believe. Buckminster Fuller stated that the US was actually bankrupt in the 1930s, and that we have only postponed the realization of such and the inevitable day of reckoning by various forms of ledger sheet cheating.

 

While Alan Greenspan reigned as chief pundit for those who believed his economic prognostications to be true, the man who really understood our credit-based economy was Hyman Minsky, a little-known economist who, unlike Greenspan, happened to be right.

 

Hyman Minsky's perhaps greatest contribution to the current economic dialogue is his "financial instability hypothesis", which postulates that when capitalist systems mature, they became increasingly unstable.

 

Minsky's theory did not sit well with those in government and Wall Street who presided over increasingly mature capitalist markets. They instead much preferred the more positive outlook of Alan Greenspan, "the thinking man's Abby Joseph Cohen", who publicly saw only a "bit of froth" as the greatest financial storm of the century, the next Great Depression, was brewing.

 

IF ALAN GREENSPAN WAS A CARDIOLOGIST

ALL HIS PATIENTS WOULD BE DEAD

 

In Minsky's "financial instability hypothesis", the ability to pay the principal and interest on debt is the critical marker. There are three types of "units" in Minksy's financial instability model, each type/unit more unstable than the previous.

 

The first type, hedge financing units, possess the ability to pay both principal and interest payments from existing cash flow. This is the optimal mode. The second type, speculative finance units, cannot repay principal payments but can meet their existing obligations by" rolling over" their debt.

 

The third type in Minsky's model are Ponzi units which can only pay down debt by selling assets or by borrowing. This is the most common form of debt repayment today. This is because as per Minsky's model, capitalist markets are now mature—perhaps overly mature and somewhat incontinent and beginning to smell—and have thus made the progression from hedge to speculative to Ponzi finance.

 

BERNARD MADOFF'S BROTHER SAM

 

In 1960, from the very beginning when Bernard Madoff first began soliciting money, the end of his scheme was destined. But because Bernard Madoff was unusually bright and capable, his Ponzi scheme lasted far longer and was far more successful than any such previous scam.

 

The same can be also said for the Ponzi scheme of Bernie's brother, Sam, aka "Uncle Sam". But unlike Bernie, Uncle Sam did not think up his scheme on his own. He was acting as the agent of the original schemers in England who realized that England's economy was no longer expanding as it had previously in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

So, in the early 20th century, in 1913, the original schemers convinced Uncle Sam to run the same scheme in America that had been so profitable to them in England. The scheme was capitalism, def. commerce in combination with capital markets founded on credit-based paper money issued from a central bank.

 

The scheme was to profit by indebting businesses, entrepreneurs, workers and savers and government and, as bankers, the schemers would get rich off the hard work, savings and productivity of others; and, in the US, their scheme worked as well as it had in England.

 

As the economy expanded and the nation became increasingly indebted, bankers became increasingly wealthy. It is no coincidence that the "financial services sector, sic the paradigm of parasites" recently comprised the largest share of both the UK and US economies, economies which correspondingly had the lowest rate of savings in the world.

 

It is also no coincidence that as the indebtedness of each nation grew the share of economic activity and the exorbitant salaries and bonuses of bankers grew as well. Unfortunately for the host and parasite in capitalist economies, there is a limit to how much a parasite can safely take from the host before the host dies, a limit only discovered after the process has gone too far.

 

In December 2008, the end came for Bernie's Bernard L Madoff Investment Services. In 2009, the same will happen to his brother, Sam who is now using Ponzi finance to pay for US borrowing. In 2009 or some time shortly thereafter, the credit-based paper money scheme of bankers, sic capitalism, will bring down what but a few decades ago was the most powerful economy in the world, the United States of America. Uncle Sam, just like his brother Bernie, is toast.

 

"Look, they're circling the wagons."

"But we're not in the circle."

"Thought you would be?"

 

When wagon trains would come under attack, the wagon masters would "circle the wagons" for protection. Such is happening today as capitalism itself is now under attack.

 

What Americans are finding out, however, is that only the bankers are currently inside the circle—bankers are now the only ones being protected, the very ones responsible for the crisis in the first place. Observers and especially Americans might believe that something is wrong with this picture.

 

What they do not understand is that the picture is a perfect reflection of the power dynamic underlying capitalism. Bankers could not have accomplished their nefarious ends had they not first secured the full cooperation and protection of government.

 

This they did in England when they promised King William they would extend all the credit he wanted to wage his wars. This was replicated in the US when private bankers staged a midnight coup by passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 which illegally transferred the right to issue money from government into the hands of private bankers.

 

This is the reason the US government has first protected the bankers, not the public, in this crisis. Bankers give government the unlimited credit that governments overspend, thereby indebting the nation and future generations into perpetuity. The US government bailout of bankers, TARP, is "owe-back" time.

 

The rest is history, or is about to become so. When people have their eyes shut and their minds closed, they will not see nor understand what is happening to them. Trust me on this, although many will not understand what is about to happen, it will not prevent it from happening.

 

What we are about to experience is an economic tragedy in personal terms that will exceed anything in recent memory. Even the Great Depression of the 1930s will not equal what is now about to be; and those who thought their adherence to a belief system about God was faith are now about to find out the difference.

 

IGNORANCE DENIAL CONSEQUENCES

 

Uncle Sam is now engaged in the same activity that caused Bernie's investors so much trouble, the use of Ponzi finance to pay bills. It is estimated that the US deficit may increase this year by two trillion dollars. As recently as 1980, the total US debt after 200 years was only $980 billion dollars.

 

Now, 28 years later, US indebtedness will probably exceed $12 trillion, a very, very large sum—unless of course it is not going to be paid back. The truth is all countries are now running deficits and all major economies have determined that extraordinary levels of fiscal stimulus are needed to avert a global deflationary collapse.

 

Where is all the money going to come from? While some economic answers are difficult to come by, the answer to that question is very simple. The currencies of all countries are now fiat, meaning they are but paper coupons printed at will by their governments.

 

The answer is: Governments will print the money they need.

 

It is said that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression and concluded the road not taken was the correct answer to what would have prevented the Great Depression, that infinite liquidity could have prevented the deflationary collapse if made available in time.

 

Ben Bernanke's answer closely resembles that which would be given by a focus group of New York heroin addicts, that only an unlimited and immediate supply of heroin would offset the irreparable pain and harm that would otherwise result if nothing is done.

 

 

HELICOPTER BEN IS AFFECTIONATELY KNOWN AS

NEEDLE BEN TO THE CREDIT JUNKIES ON WALL STREET

 

THE EXPIRATION DATE WRITTEN IN INVISIBLE INK

ON PAPER MONEY WILL BE DETERMINED BY

THE SPEED OF THE PRINTING PRESSES

 

When will the yen go to zero?

When will the dollar disintegrate?

When will the pound become worthless?

When will the time be too late?

 

Listen to the speed of the presses

As money is made overnight

The faster the presses are running

The closer the time will be for flight

 

But no one can tell the hour

When money will lose its worth

For the future is still too cloudy

And tomorrow's yet to be birthed.

 

But the day is coming so trust me

Don't trust the money they print

Whether a dollar a euro or peso

It ain't comin' out of a mint

 

It's printed with ink on some paper

But it used to be silver or gold

When money was more than a promise

Not a fraud that we've been sold

 

THE PRINTING PRESSES ARE RUNNING

 

This process has already begun. M1, the measure of "narrow money aggregates", the amount of cash and coins in circulation and in overnight deposits has been rising in the past six months.

 

M-3, the broadest measure of monetary aggregates is no longer made public by the US government. But M-3 will explode upwards as governments seek to provide even more credit to deflating markets, a fact the US government does not want known.

 

M-1, NARROW MONEY AGGREGATES

13 WEEK RATE-OF-CHANGE. US FEDERAL RESERVE

 

Week ending June 9, 2008 -  0.1 %

Week ending July 28, 2008 + 2.9 %

Week ending Aug 25, 2008 + 6.2 %

Week ending Sept 29, 2008         + 8.8 %

Week ending Oct 27, 2008 +14.8 %

Week ending Nov 24, 2008 +22.6 %

Week ending Dec 29, 2008 +32.2 %

 

Ben Bernanke's antidote to a US deflationary depression may well result in hyperinflation. Hyperinflation will spell the end of the US currency because hyperinflation removes all remaining vestiges of confidence in paper money.

 

Confidence is the essential ingredient in the global con game called capitalism now being run by bankers and their unwitting co-conspirators in government, a game that is now about to end.

 

In the near future, paper money will become increasingly worthless as all governments increase the printing of their respective currencies hoping to prevent deflationary forces from progressing. Governments will be helpless to do so but this will only cause more money to be printed in the futile hope of containing that which cannot be contained.

 

No experiment with paper money has every worked. The primary intent has always been to spend what does not exist. This underlying intent will in the end destroy whatever paper money has built in the interim.

 

Were it not for the safety concerns about the ink used in the printing of paper money, in the future the best use for paper money would be as toilet paper—of course, the quality of the paper would have to be much improved in order to gain wider acceptance.

 

 

 

FREEDOM VERSUS FRAUD

A CRASH COURSE IN THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

 

Bernard Madoff's fraud lasted 48 years and took in $50 billion. However, the monetary fraud perpetrated by bankers in collusion with government has lasted far longer and has taken in far more than Bernie's home grown Ponzi scheme—and the pain and losses will be commensurately greater as well.

 

Ludwig von Misis, Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and Friedrich Hayek are the best known proponents of the Austrian School of Economics. Like Hyman Minsky, they are not as well known as John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan. The reason being is that they served the truth whereas Keynes, Friedman and Greenspan served power.

 

From Wikipedia:

Austrian School economists advocate the strict enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, the smallest possible imposition of coercive (especially government-imposed) commercial transactions and the maximum openness to individual choice (including free choice as to the voluntary means of exchange).

 

What most do not understand is that today's markets are not free. Believing they are free and being told it is so is not the same as being so. Government intervention occurs no less in today's capitalist markets than it did in yesterday's communist markets. The only difference being method and subtlety.

 

The manipulation of the gold price, intervention in foreign exchange markets, the raising and lowering of interest rates, the use of tax incentives to promote/distort economic activity are all signs of government intervention. Compared to communism, capitalist markets indeed appear free. Compared to free markets, capitalism is a rigged game.

 

GOLD MODERN ECONOMICS AND THE TRUTH

 

We are now approaching the end-game, the resolution of past economic sins that cannot be banished by government intervention. Indeed, it is government intervention at the direction of bankers that caused today's problems. More of the same will only result in more of the same.

 

The bankers' scam could not have happened had not King William allowed England's bankers to replace England's gold and silver coins with paper bank notes in 1694. Capitalism's resultant empire known first as imperialism and later as globalization lasted 315 years. It is now about to end.

 

As paper currencies increasingly lose value, the price of gold and silver will rise. As those in government know all too well, gold and silver move inversely to the value of paper assets in fiat systems.

 

Economics is not rocket science and neither is fraud. But "modern economics" is a misnomer, modern economics is a monetary fraud clothed in the guise of free markets. If you truly want to be free, this is something you might want to think about—that is, if you want to think.

 

PROFESSOR FEKETE AND THE AUSTRIANS

 

Professor Fekete was responsible for bringing the major figures of the Austrian School of Economics to my attention. When this era is over, when the excessive debt created by excessive credit has swept away the hubris of Keynes and Friedman, the Austrians will have been vindicated by history.

 

The theories of the Austrian School were dismissed in the universities that taught that gold and the gold standard were relics of a bygone era, relics which had no relevance to the financially sophisticated markets of today.

 

Recent events have proved the universities wrong and the Austrian School of Economics right. I am forever indebted to Professor Fekete for his introduction to these theories, theories which clearly explain the events of today.

 

I still remember the article in which Professor Antal Fekete pointed that that bank access to cheap credit would not prevent systemic deflationary collapse in these times. That such a policy would result in bankers borrowing freely at the trough of government credit but the credit would not be passed on. Instead, it would be used by banks to invest in bonds and other "safer" financial assets.

 

This is exactly what is happening today and I can do no more than to suggest that those seriously interested in this crisis to further acquaint themselves with Professor Fekete's writings, and if possible, to attend his upcoming lectures March 27-29 in Szombathely, Hungary. I will also be giving a talk. For information, contact GSUL@t-online.hu.

 

Lies will seek you out, but the truth must be sought.

 

Faith, gold and silver will be priceless in the days ahead.

 

Darryl Robert Schoon

www.survivethecrisis.com

www.drschoon.com

Blog www.posdev.net/pdn/index.php?option=com_myblog&blogger=drs&Itemid=81





Are you a PC? Upload your PC story and show the world

Tuesday 20 January 2009

If the state can't save us, we need a licence to print our own money

 

It bypasses greedy banks. It recharges local economies. It's time to think seriously about an alternative currency

 

In Russell Hoban's novel Riddley Walker, the descendants of nuclear holocaust survivors seek amid the rubble the key to recovering their lost civilisation. They end up believing that the answer is to re-invent the atom bomb. I was reminded of this when I read the government's new plans to save us from the credit crunch. It intends - at gobsmacking public expense - to persuade the banks to start lending again, at levels similar to those of 2007. Isn't this what caused the problem in the first place? Are insane levels of lending really the solution to a crisis caused by insane levels of lending?
 
Yes, I know that without money there's no business, and without business there are no jobs. I also know that most of the money in circulation is issued, through fractional reserve banking, in the form of debt. This means that you can't solve one problem (a lack of money) without causing another (a mountain of debt). There must be a better way than this.
 
This isn't my subject and I am venturing way beyond my pay grade. But I want to introduce you to another way of negotiating a credit crunch, which requires no moral hazard, no hair of the dog and no public spending. I'm relying, in explaining it, on the former currency trader and central banker Bernard Lietaer.
 
In his book The Future of Money, Lietaer points out - as the government did yesterday - that in situations like ours everything grinds to a halt for want of money. But he also explains that there is no reason why this money should take the form of sterling or be issued by the banks. Money consists only of "an agreement within a community to use something as a medium of exchange". The medium of exchange could be anything, as long as everyone who uses it trusts that everyone else will recognise its value. During the Great Depression, businesses in the United States issued rabbit tails, seashells and wooden discs as currency, as well as all manner of papers and metal tokens. In 1971, Jaime Lerner, the mayor of Curitiba in Brazil, kick-started the economy of the city and solved two major social problems by issuing currency in the form of bus tokens. People earned them by picking and sorting litter: thus cleaning the streets and acquiring the means to commute to work. Schemes like this helped Curitiba become one of the most prosperous cities in Brazil.
 
But the projects that have proved most effective were those inspired by the German economist Silvio Gessell, who became finance minister in Gustav Landauer's doomed Bavarian republic. He proposed that communities seeking to rescue themselves from economic collapse should issue their own currency. To discourage people from hoarding it, they should impose a fee (called demurrage), which has the same effect as negative interest. The back of each banknote would contain 12 boxes. For the note to remain valid, the owner had to buy a stamp every month and stick it in one of the boxes. It would be withdrawn from circulation after a year. Money of this kind is called stamp scrip: a privately issued currency that becomes less valuable the longer you hold on to it.
 
One of the first places to experiment with this scheme was the small German town of Schwanenkirchen. In 1923, hyperinflation had caused a credit crunch of a different kind. A Dr Hebecker, owner of a coalmine in Schwanenkirchen, told his workers that if they wouldn't accept the coal-backed stamp scrip he had invented - the Wara - he would have to close the mine. He promised to exchange it, in the first instance, for food. The scheme immediately took off. It saved both the mine and the town. It was soon adopted by 2,000 corporations across Germany. But in 1931, under pressure from the central bank, the ministry of finance closed the project down, with catastrophic consequences for the communities that had come to depend on it. Lietaer points out that the only remaining option for the German economy was ruthless centralised economic planning. Would Hitler have come to power if the Wara and similar schemes had been allowed to survive?
 
The Austrian town of Wörgl also tried out Gessell's idea, in 1932. Like most communities in Europe at the time, it suffered from mass unemployment and a shortage of money for public works. Instead of spending the town's meagre funds on new works, the mayor put them on deposit as a guarantee for the stamp scrip he issued. By paying workers in the new currency, he paved the streets, restored the water system and built a bridge, new houses and a ski jump. Because they would soon lose their value, Wörgl's own schillings circulated much faster than the official money, with the result that each unit of currency generated 12 to 14 times more employment. Scores of other towns sought to copy the scheme, at which point - in 1933 - the central bank stamped it out. Wörgl's workers were thrown out of work again.
 
Similar projects took off at the same time in dozens of countries. Almost all of them were closed down (just one, Switzerland's WIR system, still exists) as the central banks panicked about losing their monopoly over the control of money. Roosevelt prohibited complementary currencies by executive decree, though they might have offered a faster, cheaper and more effective means of pulling the US out of the Depression than his New Deal.
 
No one is suggesting that we replace official currencies with local scrip: this is a complementary system, not an alternative. Nor does Lietaer propose this as a solution to all economic ills. But even before you consider how it could be improved through modern information technology, several features of Gessell's system grab your attention. We need not wait for the government or the central bank to save us: we can set this system up ourselves. It costs taxpayers nothing. It bypasses the greedy banks. It recharges local economies and gives local businesses an advantage over multinationals. It can be tailored to the needs of the community. It does not require - as Eddie George, the former governor of the Bank of England, insisted - that one part of the country be squeezed so that another can prosper.
 
Perhaps most importantly, a demurrage system reverses the ecological problem of discount rates. If you have to pay to keep your money, the later you receive your income, the more valuable it will be. So it makes economic sense, under this system, to invest long term. As resources in the ground are a better store of value than money in the bank, the system encourages their conservation.
 
I make no claim to expertise. I'm not qualified to identify the flaws in this scheme, nor am I confident that I have made the best case for it. All I ask is that, if you haven't come across it before, you don't dismiss it before learning more. As we confront the failure of the government's first bailout and the astonishing costs of the second, isn't it time we considered the alternatives?


Are you a PC? Upload your PC story and show the world

Sunday 18 January 2009

The Credit Card Dragnet

 

 

Problems with this universal piece of plastic

In Economics, by 'money', we mean anything that is accepted for clearing a debt. To illustrate, if we go to a bookshop and buy a book, priced at $15, the moment the deal is struck and the shopkeeper hands over the book to us, we become indebted to him and this debt can be cleared by handing him anything, ranging from grains, secondhand books, etc. to currency notes. We can also discharge this debt by transferring $15 from our bank deposit through cheque. Please note that cheque is not money but only an instrument to transfer a particular sum from our bank deposit, which is money. In case our bank deposit is nil or insufficient, the cheque becomes meaningless and is dishonoured.

 

Traditionally, a person's capacity to spend has been circumscribed by the cash with him, his total deposits in banks and his movable and immovable property. He can borrow against his term deposits in banks and his property. Normally, he cannot borrow against his property more than its market value. Obviously, his ability to buy goods and services is limited. Moreover, a sane person always tries to save money for future exigencies and other needs like old age, ceremonies, education of children and so on. Thus his capacity to spend has been generally restricted. No creditor has normally dared to lend him more than his present worth and against his future earnings.

 

This limit to his capacity to borrow and spend has disappeared once the credit card, popularly known as plastic money, has come into existence. He can now go on shopping till he becomes tired and falls to the ground. To translate a Sanskrit saying, "one can now borrow and drink refined butter!" This has given a great boost to the phenomenon of consumerism when, with the beginning of the ongoing globalization, credit cards has become internationally acceptable.

 

Even though the credit card came into existence in the 1950s, its concept was visualized by Edward Bellamy, a leading American novelist of the second half of the 19th century. Bellamy was a Marxian socialist. As early as 1887, he published his novel Looking Backward. Its hero, Julian West, goes into a deep slumber in Boston towards the end of the 19th century and gets up in the year 2000. He finds that he is still in Boston but everything else has changed beyond recognition. The world has changed and become completely stranger to him. He is naturally bewildered. Fortunately, he gets a guide in Doctor Leete who explains that socialism of Marxian conception has come to prevail. One of its facets is that people do not have to carry cash for making purchases. Instead, they carry a card which is widely accepted. Thus Bellamy visualizes the advent of credit (more appropriately, modern day debit) card in chapters 9-11, 13 and 25-26.

 

During the 1930s and 1940s, a rectangular metal plate (2½×1¼), bearing holder's name and his place of residence, was generally issued by merchants with a large number of branches to their regular customers whose credit worthiness was beyond doubt. They were billed at regular intervals.

 

The credit card in the present form was introduced in 1950 by Ralph Schneider and Frank X McNamara, the founders of Diners Club. This was followed by the Bank of America's card in 1958, which, in the course of time, came to be known as Visa card. This became acceptable in America and a number of countries abroad. In 1966, Master Card came into existence when a host of banks joined hands and established MasterCharge. It received a big boost when the Citibank merged its own Everything Card with it. Later on, other banks came with their own cards.

 

Every credit card holder has his PIN or Personal Identification Number whose genuineness is verified by the shopkeeper and the cardholder is then allowed to shop with no cash in his wallet, and on the basis of income likely to accrue to him in future. The shopkeeper, too, gains by increasing his sale. The company that has issued the card guarantees the payment to the shopkeeper and recovers it from the cardholder after a fixed period of time. In case the cardholder is unable to repay the debt, the company charges interest usually at very high rates. In some countries, coercion including muscle power is also used by the company to recover its dues.

 

Since a cardholder is allowed teleshopping, there are instances of his PIN being stolen and misused. There are organized criminal gangs, specializing in this business. Three years ago, The Guardian (November 8, 2005) wrote: 'Credit-card fraudsters are increasingly turning to the internet now that the "chip and pin" system has closed other money-making avenues, new figures show.

 

'"card-not-present" fraud—in which criminals get hold of people's credit and debit card details and use them to buy goods online, over the phone or by mail order—has grown by 29% in a year... Online banking fraud has also risen sharply.'

 

The 2006 documentary film, "Mixed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and The Era of Predatory Lenders" vividly depicts the various unsavoury aspects of credit cards. A credit card is used as an ATM card too and this has induced criminals to steal it along with the pass word and withdraw money from holder's account. Moreover, the credit card companies fleece holders by way of hidden costs and terms and conditions not being made explicit at the time of issuing cards.

 

With the onset of the worldwide recession, both the cardholders and credit-card companies are in trouble. With growing incidence of unemployment, the demand for cards has slumped and the arrears of bills of credit-card companies have been accumulating. In India, as a result, a prominent bank like the ICICI is in great trouble. Now credit- card companies are realizing their folly of issuing cards without properly evaluating the creditworthiness of the clients. In fact, till 2007, companies used to lure prospective clients by hook or by crook and give them cards. A large number of cardholders have simply disappeared without clearing their dues. Since they have lost jobs and vacated their rented apartments with no permanent address. It is extremely difficult to trace them out.

 

The situation in America is extremely bad. Out of the total population of 300 million, the number of cardholders is 70 million, i.e., roughly one-fourth. It is reported that, initially, card-issuing companies indulged in extortion by charging high rates and resorting to complex terms and conditions, which very few customers could comprehend. As The Christian Science Monitor (December 18, 2008) has reported, more than fifty per cent of the college-going students in the USA has four or more credit cards per head. In the present era of recession, they find it extremely difficult to clear off their dues to card-companies.

 

The Americans owe more than $1 trillion by way of arrears to card- companies. The growing pressure from the Federal Reserve has forced them to apply tough measures to recover the arrears and they have adopted strict norms for the issuance of cards. To quote a report by Bloomberg.com (Dec. 18), "Credit-card companies, facing an increase in defaults and a decline in consumer spending, and raising some rates, adding fees and cutting credit lines as the Federal Reserve makes the most sweeping changes to the industry in 30 years." On the other hand, existing cardholders have begun reducing their purchases. Consequently, there is a continuous decline in the volume of effective demand, adding fuel to the fire of recession. It is feared that during next one and a half years, there may be a decline to the tune of $2 trillion only due to strictness as regards credit cards.

 

It is needless to add that consumerism, banking, credit proliferation, etc. will be adversely affected.



Are you a PC?  Upload your PC story and show the world Click Here!

Friday 16 January 2009

Slumdog Millionaire could only have been made by a westerner

  After its rapturous reception in Britain and America, knives are being sharpened for Slumdog Millionaire. "Vile," is how Alice Miles described the movie in The Times. "Slumdog Millionaire is poverty porn" that invites the viewer to enjoy the miseries it depicts, she adds.
 
Even that old iconic Bollywood blusterer, Amitabh Bachchan, has thrown his empty-headed two rupees' worth into the mix. "If Slumdog Millionaire projects India as a third-world, dirty, underbelly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky underbelly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations," he bellowed. "It's just that the Slumdog Millionaire idea, authored by an Indian and conceived and cinematically put together by a westerner, gets creative global recognition," he added.
 
Bachchan is no doubt riled, as many other Bollwood no-talents will be, about the fact that the best film to be made about India in recent times has been made by a white man, Danny Boyle. Just as Spike Lee got hissy with Quentin Tarantino after he proved he could make hipper films about black people than Lee could (Lee ostentatiously criticised Tarantino's use of the word "nigger" while littering his own films with the same language), so many Indians will be upset about a westerner having a better understanding of their country than they do. Bachchan gave one of the worst English-language performances in cinematic history with his embarrassingly stupid portrayal of an ageing thespian in The Last Lear. Having failed miserably at cultivating a western audience, it must hurt him to be so monumentally upstaged by white folk on his home turf.
 
The bitter truth is, Slumdog Millionaire could only have been made by westerners. The talent exists in India for such movies: much of it, like the brilliant actor Irrfan Khan, contributed to this film. But Bollywood producers, fixated with making flimsy films about the lives of the middle class, will never throw their weight behind such projects. Like Bachchan, they are too blind to what India really is to deal with it. Poor Indians, like those in Slumdog, do not constitute India's "murky underbelly" as Bachchan moronically describes them. They, in fact, are the nation. Over 80% of Indians live on less than $2.50 (£1.70) a day; 40% on less than $1.25. A third of the world's poorest people are Indian, as are 40% of all malnourished children. In Mumbai alone, 2.6 million children live on the street or in slums, and 400,000 work in prostitution. But these people are absent from mainstream Bollywood cinema.
 
Bachchan's blinkered comments prove how hopelessly blind he and most of Bollywood are to the reality of India and how wholly incapable they are of making films that can address it. Instead, they produce worthless trash like Jaane Tu, Rock On!! and Love Story 2050, full of affluent young Indians desperately, and mostly idiotically, trying to look cool and modern.
 
Slumdog Millionaire is based on the novel, Q&A, by Vikas Swarup. I know Vikas – an Indian diplomat, he loves his country as much as anyone and did it the service of telling its truth with great warmth and humanity. And Danny Boyle's film continues in precisely the same vein. His innovative brilliance, fresh perspective and foreign money was vital. As an outsider, he saw the truth that middle-class Indians are too often inured to: that countless people exist in conditions close to hell yet maintain a breath-taking exuberance, dignity and decency. These people embody the tremendous spirit and strength of India and its civilisation. They deserve the attention of its film-makers. I have no doubt that Slumdog Millionaire will encourage many more honest films to be produced in India. But they should be ashamed that it took a white man to show India how to do it.



Are you a PC? Upload your PC story and show the world

Wednesday 14 January 2009

Time to end the work experience scam

Johann Hari: 

 

We want a Britain where the smart kids pull ahead whoever their parents are

 
When you get to work today, will your coffee be fetched by an unpaid intern? Have you wangled a work experience placement for your own child? Does your business rest on this bottom layer of the unpaid and unmerited? Then you are part of a scam – one that disfigures and damages Britain.
 
Today, when a student leaves university and embarks on a job hunt, she often smacks into a wall. Many of the best jobs require her to work unpaid for months on end before she has enough points on her CV to even start applying for paid positions. Automatically, most of the population is ruled out and only the children of the rich remain to pick the juiciest plums.
 
It nearly happened to me. When I graduated in 2001, I knew I wanted to be a journalist, but I also knew there was no way I could work unpaid for some indefinite period. My parents didn't have the money. I couldn't see a way in. I knew people who had been skivvying in television studios and newspaper offices for six months. One friend of mine was even sleeping at night on the floor of the think-tank where she had been working, unpaid, for nearly a year. Now I was freakishly lucky: after I explained this dilemma to Peter Wilby, the principled editor of The New Statesman, he paid me enough to live on. But huge numbers of people who are more talented than me fell at that hurdle and ended up in jobs that under-use their abilities.
 
This is happening all over Britain's professions. The wealthy writer (and self-confessed "pushy mum") Rachel Johnson is admirably honest about it. She says: "The truth is getting a job depends almost entirely on getting work experience, which depends almost entirely on whom you or your family knows ... This back-scratching cycle of privilege is the middle-class Circle of Life. So it's all jolly unfair, frankly."
 
Who does this cheat? Johnson says: "All those students who support themselves through university, only to find out when they leave that the glittering prizes have already been handed out, at a ceremony they never knew was taking place, to the undergraduate with the best connections."
This isn't just bad for the people who are shut out. It is bad for the professions – and the country. Talent is distributed throughout the population – but we are only picking from a tiny tier, based on their parents' bank balance. Imagine if the England football team was made up of the sons of the 1966 winners and their mates. How would they perform? Imagine if films could be cast using only the children of actors. How many talents would we exclude?
We don't have to speculate: a recent study showed just how corrosive nepotism is. Social scientists at the London School of Economics wanted to discover why Britain's productivity was so much lower than many rivals, and they found the single biggest cause was our large number of family-run businesses. By definition, these businesses do not seek out the best person, they simply hand them on to their kids. The LSE researchers wrote: "Half of the difference between British companies [and others] is due to the number of second generation-run businesses ... If you want to ruin your family business, give it to your eldest son."
 
Nepotism in the professions draws on a slightly wider pool: it is not just your own kids but the children of other rich people. Yet it still debars millions of people of greater merit. This is why you see the same surnames endlessly cropping up in British public life, dripping with mediocrity.
 
In one of those revealing moments that dramatises the differences that remain between Labour and the Conservatives, Gordon Brown this week proposed to shut this scam down. He wants the Government to pay for three months of work experience for everyone, and six months for people from the poorest families. This would mean that, for the first time, significant numbers of people would be financially able to get on the first rung of the professions. He has commissioned Alan Milburn, the former health secretary, to figure out how to make sure poorer young people have access to the best work experience placements. I think there is a strong case for requiring companies to advertise for applicants, and judge them on merit – just as the public sector does.
The Conservatives have savaged the plan. Chris Grayling, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said: "This is all about Gordon Brown fighting class wars." Perhaps it isn't surprising that David Cameron's Tories don't see the problem: when Cameron himself applied for a job at the Conservative Research Department, he didn't get it, so he got his uncle, the Queen's equerry, to call from Buckingham Palace. Then he was hired.
 
Of course, work experience isn't the only hurdle that prevents kids from normal families getting ahead – but it is a crucial one. Yet right-wing newspapers have denounced the proposals as a "war on the middle class", designed to "persecute" them. This is odd on two fronts. The language of the "middle class" is misleading: the median wage in Britain is £22,000 a year: half of the population earns less, and half earns more. Professionals earning more than £60,000 a year are in the top 7 per cent. They aren't the middle; they're the wealthy. And how is asking their children to compete in an open process based on merit "persecution"?
 
Nepotism is so unjust that few people try to defend it, but it is worth taking a look at those who try, because they state the assumptions that lie beneath this talk. Adam Bellow (the son of Saul) wrote a book celebrating nepotism as "natural". He is right to say that wealthy parents will naturally want to pass on their privilege – but it is equally natural for everyone else to want their children to have a chance to rise. Why see one of these natural instincts as sacrosanct, yet dismiss the other?
 
This is a question about what kind of country we want to live in. Do we want a Britain where the smartest kids pull ahead whoever their parents are – or do we want the wealthy to be a separate, self-reinforcing caste, united under the motto "no string unpulled"?




Choose the perfect PC or mobile phone for you. Click here

Don't bank on a caring, sharing recession


 

There is a constant refrain that hard times will encourage people to look after each other. In fact they bring crime and racism

 

 
One way that people try to cheer themselves up as the economic climate worsens is by hoping that recession will make us a less materialistic, more sharing nation. It won't. If anything, it will make us nastier and meaner.
 
Start with the basics. A recession is not the zeitgeist or the new black. It is merely a fall in national income. And a small fall. The consensus among economic forecasters is for real GDP to drop by 1.5 per cent this year. Even if they are wrong - it has been known - and GDP falls by more than 2 per cent, this would be only equivalent, on average, to us all taking a week's unpaid holiday this year. That would be only a mild inconvenience.
 
How, then, can recession be such a bad thing? Because the pain is not so evenly spread. It falls upon the small proportion of folk who lose their jobs or businesses, or who find it harder to get into work; recession causes job creation to slow as well as job destruction to rise.
 
Recessions, then, are a minority activity. A study of the last serious downturn by the late Paul Geroski and Paul Gregg, of Bristol University, estimated that the worst-hit 10 per cent of companies accounted for 85 per cent of job losses between 1989 and 1991.
 
The problem is that few of us know for sure that we will not be in this minority. For most, then, the main effect of recession is not to cause poverty, but insecurity. And when people are insecure and anxious, they care less for others. As Adam Smith said: "Before we can feel much for others, we must in some measure be at ease ourselves." Recessions mean that we are not at ease - and, as Smith recognised, more selfish as a result.
 
Smith was anticipating Abraham Maslow's theory of the hierarchy of needs. This says it is only after we have satisfied our basic needs for financial security that we care about others. When our security is in doubt, concern for others takes a back seat.
 
In his book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, Benjamin Friedman, of Harvard University, gives historic evidence for this. He shows how times of economic insecurity, such as the 1880s, the early 1920s or the 1970s, were associated with increasing intolerance, racism and hostility to immigration, while better times led to more liberal attitudes.
 
The same thing is true for the UK. In the good times of the 1960s, people wore flowers in their hair. When boom turned to bust in the 1970s, they watched Love Thy Neighbour. At the peak of the 1980s boom, 2.2 million voted for the Green Party in the 1989 European Parliamentary elections. In the 1994 elections - after the recession - this slumped to under half a million. So much for recessions making us greener.
 
They also make us meaner in another way - some of us turn to crime. In September a leaked Home Office report said that a recession would lead to a rise in burglaries. It might have added that the Pope is Catholic.
 
People commit crime for the same reason that I am writing this article - because the benefits outweigh the costs. In a boom, the costs of crime exceed the benefits for many people. Why go to the hassle of robbing someone when you can make money by working overtime? And the costs of being caught are greater if you are in work; going to prison or doing community service can cost you your job.
 
But if you are out of work, this calculus changes. If you can't make money honestly, making it dishonestly becomes more attractive. And a big cost of getting caught - the threat of losing your job - disappears.
 
Unemployment, then, increases the incentives to commit crime. This does not, of course, mean all the unemployed become criminals. We are talking about what happens at the margin. But this margin can be quite extensive. The best research here comes from the US, where economists can look at variations in unemployment by state and so control for nationwide factors such as demography (younger people commit more crime than older ones) or culture. One paper by Rudolf-Winter Ebmer, of the University of Linz, and Steven Raphael, of the University of California, San Diego estimates that a 1 percentage point rise in unemployment is associated with a 4.5 per cent rise in the number of burglaries and 6.5 per cent rise in car theft. A huge chunk of the fall in US crime in the 1990s, they concluded, was due merely to falling unemployment.
 
There is worse. Recessions can also increase racism. The last one hit black workers harder than whites. Between 1990 and 1992, the unemployment rate among white workers rose by 2.6 percentage points, from 6.8 to 9.4 per cent. But the jobless rate among black people rose by 9.4 points, from 12.5 to 21.9per cent.
 
In large part this is because black men are, on average, less qualified than their white counterparts and employers prefer to shed less-skilled workers. But it can also be that recessions give bosses freedom to indulge racist attitudes. When the labour market is slack, they can pick and choose more freely who to hire and fire. Guess who gets the dirty end of this stick? Kenneth Crouch of the University of Connecticut has shown that the US racial unemployment gap varies over the business cycle in a manner consistent with the fact that discrimination is easier in recession.
All this means that the standard view is plain wrong. This regards recession as a macroeconomic calamity but a cultural blessing. The truth, however, is the exact opposite.
 
In macroeconomic terms, recessions are no big deal: even a big one would leave 2009 the third-richest year in British history, and it's an open question whether recessions are good or bad for long-run economic growth. But in ethical terms, the effects of recession are usually pernicious.
 
Chris Dillow is an economics writer at the Investors Chronicle




What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out