SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In the news media (e.g. NPR, BBC, CNN, etc.) there is a dominate consensus that Greece must eventually give in to demands to reduce pensions and make further cuts in government spending in exchange for a new loan to help pay off defaulted loans, even if acknowledging that the Greek people have high unemployment and a failing economy.
However, for those not yet exposed to an alternate perspective which is not generally aired in the news media, you might read this bit of a rant by Prof. William K. Black. William Kurt Black is an American lawyer, academic, author, and a former bank regulator. Black's expertise is in white-collar crime, public finance, regulation, and other topics in law and economics. He developed the concept of "control fraud", in which a business or national executive uses the entity he or she controls as a "weapon" to commit fraud. In this piece, William Black make ssome some interesting points about the Greek crisis, of which I cut and paste a few excerpted points:
1. That economists overwhelmingly believe on the basis of theory and experience that austerity in response to a Great Recession constitutes economic malpractice akin to bleeding a patient until it restores him to health.
2. That austerity has caused, as predicted, a human catastrophe in Greece
3. That austerity and the oxymoronic "labor reforms," by reducing wages and the safety net throughout the eurozone, the bailout of German banks, and the sale of Greek infrastructure and islands to wealthy Germans at fire sale prices are very much in the interests of the elite German corporate and banking CEOs that dominate domestic German politics, the Germany economy, and the troika
4. That when a debtor has unsustainable debts, the normal and desirable response is to negotiate a troubled debt restructuring (TDR) to reduce the debt to a level that can be repaid. Even the IMF, the mother of monstrous austerity, admits that the Greek debt is unsustainable.
5. That a TDR was done for German[y], which was essential to its economic recovery. (after WWII)
6. That the Greek "bailout" was a bailout of foreign EU banks, primarily French and German – not the Greek government or people. That bailout of the eurozone's largest banks is funded by eurozone taxpayers. The muted reaction of the commercial markets to the Greek "No" vote is largely attributable to the fact that the bailout of French and German banks by eurozone taxpayers has been completed. The remaining loss exposure of the large eurozone banks on the loans they made seven or more years ago to Greek banks is tiny. The reason EU elected officials are so apoplectic to the Greek "No" vote is that the eurozone taxpayers are on the hook because they bailed out the (primarily) French and German banks. If the eurozone taxpayers suffer losses in the range of one hundred billion euros those taxpayers might turn on those EU elected officials who represent the interests of elite bankers at the expense of the peoples of the eurozone. The NYT article ignores all this and, without any analysis, treats the bailout as if it were a bailout of the Greek people.
To me it this final point which resonates after witnessing the the U.S. bailout of to-big-to fail banks after making a number of risky (sometimes fraudulent) loans to homeowners.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by caffeine on Friday July 10 2015, @09:46AM
It is my understanding that most economies operate on endogenous money supply rather than a fractional reserve system.
To me the big question is, if money can be created at zero cost as needed by the economy, why does it come with interest attached?
Why don't we just create what we need to do what is needed and ensure low unemployment, the money is destroyed whey the debts are repaid. No need for interest and no need for the banker class.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @10:23AM
I know that interest is a red flag for the left, but it is an important regulator in a market economy. You can't just "create what we need", because usually you don't know how much that is, and even if you did, you wouldn't know who would need it and who would just want it. That is also why people get uneasy when central banks lend at close to or even under 0% interest. Economies which nevertheless do "create what we need" sooner or later end up with hyper inflation (see Venezuela for a current example).
(Score: 1) by caffeine on Friday July 10 2015, @12:59PM
Most currencies are floated and the market defines the exchange rate. This makes it fairly easy to drive any country into hyperinflation by devaluing their currency and making their debts impossible to repay. Surely the Germans understand this after WWI reparations drove the Weimar Republic into hyperinflation.
In my opinion, employment rates are a good indication of how much money is needed to grow the economy.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Friday July 10 2015, @06:13PM
Yes. Modern Monetary Theory often say the aim should be 100% employment
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 10 2015, @02:46PM
You err. The government can indeed "create what we need" - the Fed does it all the time. I think that GP's question was, "Why are we paying interest on it?" THAT is the 64 trillion dollar question. We owe the banking cartel nothing - we can start printing our own money any time we take a mind to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @02:51PM
No you can't. Well, at least not for long. Because then you'll get trouble with the authorities.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @07:16PM
You didn't make it clear in your comment that, despite its deceptive name, The Fed (The Federal Reserve) in -not- part of the gov't.
It's a cartel of 12 private banks--with a really sweet deal:
When USA.gov collects taxes, it just hands that over to those private bankers--no payment required; no interest charged.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a giant windfall for the largest private bankers.
Ellen Brown has noted that an allegory of those times, disguised as a children's tale, is The Wizard of Oz. [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 10 2015, @02:43PM
"why does it come with interest attached?"
Because, our congress abdicated it's right and responsibility to print money, and ceded that right to a private banking institution, which is profit driven. When "Greenbacks" were still in circulation, government still had a controlling influence over the economy. As those government-issued notes were phased out, congress lost all ability to control the economy. Today, if congress wants to exercise some influence on the economy, they must first ask permission from our "Central Bank", or Federal Reserve.
The banking cartel owned our asses before any of us were ever born.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 10 2015, @04:17PM
To me the big question is, if money can be created at zero cost as needed by the economy, why does it come with interest attached?
Because it can't be created with zero cost. Inflation is the huge problem with arbitrary money creation.
Why don't we just create what we need to do what is needed and ensure low unemployment, the money is destroyed whey the debts are repaid. No need for interest and no need for the banker class.
The thing is, we don't need more money. We need things. Merely having more money doesn't feed you or mentally stimulate you. And really aside from the rent seeking, there's nothing wrong with the current currencies.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Friday July 10 2015, @06:11PM
Yes, but this is the point isn't it. It has nothing to do with debt denominated in one's own fiat currency. It has to do with inflation and deflation. Right now inflation is not the problem. We have low inflation. Fiat creation of money would not be a problem at first, but as inflation creeps up you lower the spigot, or raise taxes to maintain control of the rate of inflation.
but it doesn't have much to do with debt. Debt just means we have made a contract to create money out of nothing to pay for the interest. If those interest payments get too high as to inflate the currency, then we have a problem...But thus is just a sliver of the number called debt.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 11 2015, @12:10AM
Right now inflation is not the problem. We have low inflation.
But if you create a bunch of money, you make it a problem.
Debt just means we have made a contract to create money out of nothing to pay for the interest.
No. Debt is the borrowing of current wealth from another party and paid for from future income.