We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
latest news
best of news




A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List


IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

Creation of Money

by Christian Siedenbiedel, W Storz and A. Muelle Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM

To give a credit to a customer, a bank doesn't need to take the savings of another cutomer from its vaults. It creates the money out of nothing. In a countermove, the bank must deposit money with the central bank. There is a debate whether the creation of money can be left to the banks.


BY Christian Siedenbiedel

[Every normal bank can create money, not only the European Central Bank. Its credits are created out of nothing. Is this bad as Occupy claims? This article published on 2/5/2012 is translated from the German on the Internet, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftswissen/geldschoepfung-wie-kommt-geld-in-die-welt-11637825.html#Drucken.]

Banks cannot print bills or mint coins and yet create money.

Some things are so self-evident that we dont reflect about them. One of them is money. One takes the bils from the automatic machine, puts them in the billfold and uses them for payments. But where does the money come from? It is printed somewhere, one thinks.

The Occupy movement critical of banks offers the provocative thesis that banks create money in our economic system. Critics of capitalism do not like this. Profit-oriented private institutions that are in no way democratically controlled are creators of money. This is dangerous, Occupy says.


Occupy is right with its explanation but not with its assessment. Banks create a large part of our money, large comme3rcial banks like Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank just like small national banks and savings banks.

Banks cannot create bills or mint coins. Only the European Central Bank and the national central banks can do this in the euro-zone. All others are prohibited by the state and punished with a prison sentence not less than one year, according to paragraph 146 of the penal code.

However the banks creation of money is of another nature. Whoever wants to understand has to first accept a definition: money nowadays is not only bills and coins. What slumbers somewhere in accounts is genuine money. Money flows when numbers move from one account to another. One can buy things.

This electronic part of money is even the large part. In Europe there is a so-called solvent money supply (experts call it M1) of 4.8 trillion euro. That amount includes 58 billion euro cash in bills and coins. The inconceivably great remainder only exists in accounts, the night deposits. This money is mainly created by the banks.

How do banks do this? They create money by awarding credits. Most of our money doesnt arise through the processing of precious metals as in earlier centuries. In their time, Aristotle and Plato philosophized whether the value of money originates through the metal value of the coins (physis) or through the nominal value that the state sets by law (nomos). Today money arises through the diverse contracting of debts. What is paper money other than a kind of promissory note or IOU of the spending state that lives from the trust that is always honored or passed on?


The money created by banks, the so-called book money or giral money, is not very different. This kind of money originates when a bank gives a credit to a customer and credits the amount to his account. The customer (whether a private person, a business or the state) can use the amount as money The amount is not only like money; it is money.

To give a credit to a customer, a bank doesnt need to take the savings of another customer from its vaults; it creates the money out of nothing. In a countermove, the bank must deposit money with the central bank for the cr3edit the so-called minimum reserve. The minimum reserve is much smaller than the credit. For a long time, it amounted to two percent of the credit sum and then was lowered to one percent. A bank that wants to award 10,000 euro in credit needs 100 euro minimum reserve.


The bank doesnt have to raise this money through savings deposits. Rather it can receive credit on its side from the central bank. Then it has to deposit securities and pay interests.

If the secured money lands as a deposit with another bank, this other bank can also award a credit. The banking system as a whole creates many times the amount of money at the beginning. Economists call this multiple creation of money.

The central bank is the director. It has two powers with which it can control the process. First, there is the principle of the minimum reserve. Second, there is the interest required by banks for credits. If more is demanded, banks tend to hold back with lending.


The question how much money do banks create does not only depend on interests and minimum reserve. At the end the question is how much credit do they award. If the economy runs well, many firms want credit and banks gladly give them credit so they can have a good business. If on the other hand the uncertainty is great, the demand for credit declines and banks are more cautious.

The latter is the case at the moment. The central bank gives cheap credits but is reserved with its creation of money.

Thus banks actually decide over the growth of the money supply along with private persons and businesses to the extent that they lend or borrow money.


Is everything as bad as Occupy claims? It isnt bad as long as the central bank retains control. There is a debate in the discipline, not only with Occupy, whether the creation of money can be left to the banks after the experiences of the banking crisis. Professor Hans Christoph Binswanger who mentored Josef Ackermann, head of Deutsche Bank, is one of the protagonists.

Binswanger insists the minimum reserve should be raised to 100 percent. This would mean: banks must deposit a euro with the Central Bank for every euro they lend. The Central Bank would have complete control over the creation of money. The charm of the idea is that banks creating too much money causing bubbles and inflation could be avoided.

However the mainstream of economists considers this impractical. With a minimum reserve of 100 percent, the banking system as we know it today would cease to exist, says bank professor Hans-Peter Burghof. Volker Wieland, professor of money theory in Frankfurt, says: The growth of the money supply would be controlled through the normal interest policy. The European Central Bank has enough power to ensure stable money. It only needs the will to use that power.


By Wolfgang Storz

[This article published on 2/9/2012 is translated from the German on the Internet, http://www.woz.ch/artikel/2012/nr06/sachbuch/21722.html.]

Can the deep chasm between poor and rich destroy a national economy? Is injustice a concrete economic problem and not only a moral and ethical problem?

Gustav Horn sees it this way. The renowned economist Horn starts from the assessment that the financial market crisis is not banished because its main cause is not removed: the increasing inequality. Politics only briefly debated and then forgot the lessons from the debacle, Horn writes. His crucial conclusion is that Germany has gone the way to a plutocratic system, a system governed by the rule of wealth.

The increasingly powerful and ever-larger financial industry that directs the money streams according to its norms and values contributed to this on account of political decisions a financial industry at whose top is a worldwide elite that with its values and norms moves outside present societies.

Gustav Horn explains in detail how todays conditions were slowly created from the 1970s and how German politics shifted its power to the financial markets. Her is intensely occupied with the question how the German agenda- and tax policy under SPD chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (1998-2005) essentially changed the labor market and the distribution of incomes and assets. The author reconstructs in detail the development of the financial- and economic crisis and concludes that a new macro-economic order must be built.

Many authors end their books with such or similar appeals. Gustav Horn is different and sketches alternatives on sixty pages. Some readers may find reading this book rich in facts with excursions in theory is hard. Horn argues very profoundly in a detailed way. When he writes understandably and summarizes his multi-layered findings, one must concentrate with a glass of wine.

Gustav Horn is one of the few profiled economists in Germany who represents a fundamentally critical position. He is director of the union-friendly Institute for Macro-Economic sand Economic Research. That an expert like Horn competently analyzes and interprets events and presents and substantiates theses is helpful for public debate.


By Albrecht Mueller

[This article published February 14, 2012 is translated from the German on the Internet, http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/wp-print.php?p=12218.]

This strategy was repeated last week as so often recently. This time it was practiced in the Ge3rman governments dealing with Greece. The strategy is also mentioned in a two-page essay by Barbara Supp in: Spiegel 6/2012 Merciless Samaritans. How Margaret Thatcher and her German students created market-conforming democracy.

Hopefully many Spiegel editors and others read or will read the text of their colleague

The impoverishment of the state is the strategic lever for all sorts of things: for privatization, cuts in wages, starving out public services and reducing public necessities. The impoverishment of the stat3e leads to constant complaints about the state and thus continues the abandonment of services in public responsibility.

This strategy is applied again in Greece: reforms, austerity, reducing state activity and dismissing employees on order of Berlin, Brussels and Washington (IMF).

For all who suspect conspiracy theories, here is a statement of an expert of the neoliberal movement quoted by Barbara Supp. It is embedded in her text:

In the nineties, an expert well-known in economic circles wrote the state must lose power. However resistance can be expected. The problem can be solved by lowering taxes. The dictate of empty treasuries is necessary. We need an offensive deficit so the state can be whittled down. Very bluntly we read: the state should become more powerless and poorer out of principle, not out of necessity. The one who wrote this was not a stranger from a foreign place. It was Herbert Giersch, a scholar who died in old age a year and a half ago who for decades was regarded as a dean of the German economy. He was a government advisor, a founding member of the fived economic wise men. Director of the Kiel Institute for World Economy, a textbook writer and instructor of several generations who can be found today in banks, associations and businesses. One of the leading neoliberal economists, he was like Thatcher a Hayek follower to whom every classical market liberal and every classical business-friendly policy refers.

The Spiegel author is wrong in a few things. However that does not diminish the value of her essay.

For example, Barbara Supp ignores that Ms. Thatcher did not begin the madness. The madness was practiced in Chile after 1973. Naomi Klein described this very well in her book The Shock Doctrine. In my book Propaganda (Meinungsmache), I developed her ideas. In that book, I also described how the principle of impoverishment was already introduced in the public debate and converted in policy by tax cuts among us in the seventies. Nevertheless Margaret Thatcher has the dubious distinction of massively advancing neoliberal ideas and practice.

The author also forgets the Lambsdorff paper of September 1982 and sets the introduction of neoliberal ideology too late.

The reference to the quotation by Giersch is valuable for all who argue about the destructive strategies of the neoliberals. In addition, there is an open enlightened analysis of the strategy behind the dictate of empty treasuries that is astonishing for Spiegel.


Video: John Kenneth Galbraith, 2008, 52 min

Hild, Thorsten, "The Rule of Supply-Side Economists," January 2012

Konicz, Tomasz, "The Crisis Explained," December 2011

Lansley, Stewart, "Managed v. Market Capitalism," January 2012

Mosler, Volkhart, "Capitalism Criticism 2.0," November 2008

Reuter, Norbert, "Stagnation as a Trend," 2009

Rogall, Holgfer, "The Invisible Hand Doesn't Help Any More," December 2011

Schulze, Ingo, "Capitalism Doesn't Need Democracy," January 2012


: http://www.kboo.fm
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy