Down, down, the cash rate is coming down!

flattr this!

By David Lawson

Click here for excel data: Debt­watchCfESI

The recent stall in Com­mon­wealth Gov­ern­ment Secu­ri­ties on issue will con­tinue to put pres­sure on the Reserve Bank of Aus­tralia to reduce the cash rate. As noted by Glenn Stevens in this weeks Media Release on the June Mon­e­tary Pol­icy Decision:

‘Long-term inter­est rates faced by highly rated sov­er­eigns, includ­ing Aus­tralia, have fallen to excep­tion­ally low levels.’

10-year bond yields aver­aged a decline of 3 basis points per trad­ing day for the month of April. The spread on gov­ern­ment bond yields and the Tar­get rate con­tin­ues to widen.

gbys to target rate

It is crys­tal clear that the force behind the demand from investors is the desire for a safe haven when risky assets are so down­side volatile, but what about the CGSs sup­ply side of the mar­ket? The CGSs mar­ket was increas­ing at an aver­age rate of 3% per month since Sep­tem­ber 2008, but this growth engine has since stalled. In April Com­mon­wealth Secu­ri­ties on issue declined by 4%, in a period of height­ened uncer­tainty and volatil­ity in the global finan­cial mar­kets. This could be seen as the result of a legislature-imposed sup­ply con­straint, given the Aus­tralian Fed­eral government’s debt ceil­ing, as shown in State­ment 7 of the 2012 budget:

 CGS on issue sub­ject to the cur­rent leg­isla­tive limit is pro­jected to be below $250 bil­lion at the end of each finan­cial year across the for­ward estimates…

At a 3% monthly growth rate, CGSs on issue would have sur­passed the $250 bil­lion ceil­ing last month.

CGSs on issue

With the Aus­tralian Fed­eral Gov­ern­ment approach­ing their credit limit, CGSs are inher­ently feel­ing the pres­sure of scarcity, dri­ving up prices and push­ing yields down. This is giv­ing weight to some­what sub­jec­tive state­ments about fur­ther inter­est rate cuts this year in the press, whereby the RBA will need to con­tinue cut­ting the cash rate to fol­low the trend of gov­ern­ment bond yields.

This ceil­ing is encum­brance on for­eign buy­ers on have brought up large amounts of the CGSs, adding to our official-net for­eign debt levels.

Official - net foreign debt

Which has also played a pri­mary role in over­in­flat­ing of the Aus­tralian dollar.


Nat­u­rally, as inter­est rates fall fol­low­ing bond yields, the Aus­tralian dol­lar will come back to a more real­is­tic val­u­a­tion, and we will soon dis­cover that Aus­tralia is in fact not dif­fer­ent!

About David Lawson

-Worked as a real estate agent in 2009, have since left the industry because I now see that it is all fuelled by euphoric expections and debt -Started to become concerned about the global debt bubble after reading 'The Credit Crunch' by Graham Turner about a year ago and have since followed Steve Keens debtwatch blog -Competed a Bachelor of economics in 2004 specalising in iternational trade and finance -Lived in the USA for 5 years of my life, have witnessed first hand there frivolous spending patterns and watched our country become the same over the course of last 10 years
Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Down, down, the cash rate is coming down!

  1. Real inter­est rates in a sim­ple Good­win model are sim­ply the ratio r= (1-u)/u where u is the wage share of out­put, and (1-u) is the invest­ment share. Steve Keen incor­rectly refers to this type of econ­omy as a barter econ­omy, which is a mis­nomer. In fact, the Good­win model describes a cash econ­omy, ie., an econ­omy with­out endoge­nous credit. Adam Smith described such an econ­omy where the tex­tile indus­tries in Birm­ing­ham and Man­ches­ter flour­ished for 100 years with­out endoge­nous credit. Pro­duc­tion was financed through dis­count­ing of Real Bills.

    In a finan­cial­ized econ­omy, with endoge­nous credit, there is an addi­tional share of out­put d which goes to the ser­vic­ing of debt. Anal­o­gous to the real inter­est rate is the nom­i­nal inter­est rate which can be writ­ten i = (1-(u+d))/(u-d). The fig­ure below shows the func­tional rela­tion­ships between inter­est rate vs wage share for var­i­ous lev­els of debt d. The top curve is the real inter­est curve for d = 0 with the lower curves show­ing increas­ing lev­els of d = .05, .1 and .15

    Infla­tion is usu­ally defined in terms of the dif­fer­ence between nom­i­nal inter­est and real inter­est ie., p’/p = i-r . Col­lect­ing terms from the above two equa­tions, a con­cise for­mula for infla­tion can be writ­ten for infla­tion in terms of u and d which is

    p’/p = (d(1-2u))/(u(u-d))

    An inter­est­ing fea­ture of the above curves is that to increase the wage share it is nec­es­sary that nom­i­nal inter­est rates go negative.

  2. enorlin says:

    inter­est­ing” to me implies… unre­al­is­tic 😉
    In this case I think the assump­tion that d can be treated as a con­stant, and inde­pen­dent of u, makes the model behave a lit­tle weird in the extremes

  3. cliffy says:

    Real inter­est rates in a sim­ple Good­win model are sim­ply the ratio r= (1-u)/u where u is the wage share of out­put, and (1-u) is the invest­ment share.”

    The demand for money does not equate to the sup­ply of every­thing which is not labour, which is what the rela­tion­ship appears to be attempt­ing to say.

    To be true there would need to be no equity.

    Retained earn­ings is a money supply.

    The rela­tion­ship of real assets to lia­bil­i­ties would need to be 1 to 1 which is rarely the case.

    etc etc

  4. Glenn Stehle says:

    David Law­son said:

    Nat­u­rally, as inter­est rates fall fol­low­ing bond yields, the Aus­tralian dol­lar will come back to a more real­is­tic val­u­a­tion, and we will soon dis­cover that Aus­tralia is in fact not different!

    I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Some­times things take on a life of their own, and a nation’s cen­tral bankers lose con­trol, espe­cially if they embrace the quasi-religious faith in only one pol­icy tool being avail­able in the policy-maker’s toolbox–the manip­u­la­tion of mon­e­tary policy–and refuse to use other pol­icy options avail­able to them.

    An excel­lent exam­ple is what is cur­rently going on in Switzerland:

    Why Switzer­land is the new China“

    Another exam­ple can be found in the United States in the naugh­ties. In 2003, Greenspan (I assume in an effort to cool an over­heated econ­omy) started rais­ing the Fed­eral Funds Rate. This, how­ever, had no notice­able effect on 10-year T-bill rates. The Fed­eral Funs Rate in 2003 aver­aged 1.13%, in 2004 1.35%, in 2005 3.22%, in 2006 4.97%, and in 2007 5.02%. The 10-year T-bill rate was unfazed: 4.01% in 2003, 4.27% in 2004, 4.29% in 2005, 4.8% in 2006, and 4.63% in 2007.

    As a result, China man­aged to dig itself a 2 tril­lion $US hole, $1.1 tril­lion in U.S. T-bills and another $800 or $900 bil­lion in asset-backed secu­ri­ties it acquired via the shad­dow bank­ing system.

  5. Steve Hummel says:

    OT, but always rel­e­vant, the topic of the fol­low­ing post I made on Mish Shedlock’s forum under­cuts a lot of thinking:

    Excel­lent post Mish. The most cogent thing you wrote was “there is a major dif­fer­ence between a bank giv­ing money to play­ers to spend and loans that must be paid back.”

    And this (GIVING money to play­ers) of course is exactly what must occur if we are to end this cri­sis and go on main­tain­ing a mod­ern econ­omy.
    We must have a mod­ern debt jubilee as I have posted on here for sev­eral years, and as Steve Keen has also come to rec­og­nize as the sane and wise way for­ward. There’s too much at risk not to demand that our finan­cial author­i­ties do exactly that. Away with the author­i­tar­ian finan­cial and moral ful­mi­na­tions on all sides, away with the apa­thetic and overly ortho­dox prog­nos­ti­ca­tions of doom, actions are required. The Chi­nese or Japan­ese char­ac­ter for cri­sis is syn­ony­mous I believe with oppor­tu­nity. The lat­ter expresses the cor­rect atti­tude required at this moment in time.

    Give the both debtors AND savers $50,000 and require them to uti­lize 75% of it to pay down their debts. If the savers have no debt they get to use the $50,000 in what­ever way they choose. (except they can only use 5% of the $50,000 to spec­u­late with). In 6 months rinse and repeat until the major, MAJOR amount of the debt over­hang is elim­i­nated. Then, when the reset but­ton has been pushed enough times to revive the “ani­mal spir­its” of indi­vid­u­als and busi­nesses, and so that we do not just start the folly all over again by allow­ing the same author­i­ties and insti­tu­tions to stum­ble around in the dark, we must insti­tute a citizen’s div­i­dend and a com­pen­sated retail dis­count. And here is why:

    As you Mish have accu­rately noted there are all man­ner of reserves slosh­ing around in Bank vaults, and accord­ing to the quan­tity the­ory of money and the veloc­ity of its “cir­cu­la­tion” there should be more than enough money out there to han­dle our prob­lems. The prob­lem of course is: 1) Nobody wants to bor­row, and those that do the Banks don’t want to see for obvi­ous rea­sons and 2) money does NOT cir­cu­late in the econ­omy what it actu­ally does is flow in a cost account­ing cycle from the Banks to pro­duc­ers to work­ers to retail busi­nesses back to the Banks. In a mod­ern cap­i­tal inten­sive econ­omy this cost account­ing cycle insures that there will always be less total pur­chas­ing power than there are prices. AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEYRECIRCULATESIT MUST RE-ENTER THE ABOVE COST ACCOUNTING CYCLE BEFORE IT CAN LIQUIDATE ANOTHER PRICE. COST ACCOUNTING RULES!!!!!!!!!!!! IT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IN THE LEGITIMATE ECONOMY!!!!!!

    It took a non-economist C. H. Dou­glas 90 + years ago to rec­og­nize this fact and being free from the ortho­dox­ies of eco­nom­ics and mon­e­tary sys­tems was then able to think lat­er­ally about it and rec­om­mend rea­son­able solu­tions. Solu­tions which of course were con­trary to the inter­ests of the Banks and finan­cial author­i­ties (as well as the power inten­tions and self inter­ests of labor lead­ers) .….and the rest is his­tory as it is said. In other words the pow­er­ful get to talk and those who oppose their power get to walk, walk that is into the noise machine and buzz saw of the powerful’s abil­ity to con­sciously or uncon­sciously manip­u­late cir­cum­stance while also choos­ing the ortho­dox­ies which insure their con­tin­ued power and control.

    With­out dogma and in the name of valid human psy­chol­ogy I say: “But God hath cho­sen the fool­ish things of the world to con­found the wise; and God hath cho­sen the weak things of the world to con­found the things which are mighty;” ( I Cor. 1:27)

    The A + B the­o­rem is a real­ity. And all of the eru­dite math­e­mat­ics and all of the unex­am­ined ortho­doxy in the cos­mos can­not change that fact. The ONLY way to over­come these nec­es­sary account­ing real­i­ties and keep the econ­omy in bal­ance is to issue inter­est free credit DIRECTLY TO INDIVIDUALS. In other words directly dis­trib­ute a div­i­dend to indi­vid­u­als, and then also uti­lize a retail dis­count to con­sumers (and a cor­re­spond­ing inter­est free rebate of that dis­count back to retail­ers) to pre­vent any cost push or demand pull inflation.

    Work will still exist and be nec­es­sary. Pro­duc­tive invest­ment will go on and its par­a­digm need not be changed. But cost account­ing will always be with us.…and an eco­nomic sense of grace is its only pol­icy solution.

  6. economicminor says:

    Glen, First off, I would think most savers have ade­quate cap­i­tal to spec­u­late with­out touch­ing the $50k. Sec­ond, it would be unfair to try and keep savers from spec­u­la­tion unless you stopped the big insti­tu­tions from doing the same. Third, for most overly indebted peo­ple, $50k is inadequate.

    Oth­er­wise I agree with what you, Mish and Steve Keen say. After much thought, I hon­estly see no other solu­tion or means of ame­lio­rat­ing the sit­u­a­tion the US has found itself in.

    In say­ing that, I still do not believe that the dys­func­tional Con­gress and a Pres­i­dent with lit­tle recog­ni­tion of the under­ly­ing prob­lems can or will ever chose to do what makes sense. There would also be many uncon­trolled and unin­tended con­se­quences to this course of action. It would sig­nif­i­cantly reduce income to the Big Bad Bailout Banks plus throw a chaotic wrench into the pen­sion funds through­out the coun­try. It still wouldn’t fix the out of con­trol Medicare imbal­ance nor the incred­i­ble num­bers we have in prison nor the dys­func­tional polit­i­cal sys­tem. It may give the coun­try a slight breath­ing room but with­out fix­ing the under­ly­ing imbal­ances, it would be only a short reprieve, IMHO.

  7. Steve Hummel says:


    I’m not sure whether you are address­ing my ost of Glenn Stehle’s.

    Let me make myself a lit­tle more clear on what I rec­om­mended in my post.

    I rec­om­mend the gov­ern­ment dis­trib­ute $50k every 6 months to each fam­ily (and per­haps $25k for sin­gle adult fam­i­lies). Do this 2 to say 6 times at 6 month inter­vals until most of the debt of indi­vid­u­als is elim­i­nated or their pur­chas­ing power is replaced and returned enough for them to have dis­cre­tionary money to spend.

    Spec­u­la­tion needs to be reg­u­lated gen­er­ally speak­ing. I’m just think­ing that the free money we dis­trib­ute should be used in the best way and not used as some infla­tion­ary way that is an eco­nomic vice.

    I couldn’t care less whether thew TBTF Banks’ power is dimin­ished. That is pre­cisely what needs to hap­pen in fact. So far as pen­sions are con­cerned this is one more very large rea­son to insti­tute a life long citizen’s div­i­dend which would elim­i­nate the need for debt instru­ments for pen­sions. Let equity funds of indi­vid­ual savers’ sav­ings fill that roll if need be. And indi­vid­u­als could place their sav­ings in CD’s or IRA’s.

    The cri­sis is the 800 lb. gorilla of cur­rent prob­lems. A simul­ta­ne­ous bailout and a citizen’s div­i­dend and retail dis­count make the econ­omy and money sys­tem hit on all cylin­ders and trans­form a non-functioning profit mak­ing sys­tem into one that not only works well, but places power in the hands of indi­vid­u­als with their suf­fi­cient pur­chas­ing power money-votes. If the [res­i­dent etc. have no clue its up to us to wake him and the finan­cial author­i­ties up. I have no delu­sions about the dif­fi­cul­ties of not only open­ing their minds to these real­i­ties, but then also mak­ing it clear that they must indeed exe­cute the leg­is­la­tion that makes it a real­ity. Nev­er­the­less, the mass social move­ment which could make that a real­ity must be cre­ated and the bat­tle won. Even though we have but bro­ken straws we must rebuild the world. To do noth­ing is not an option.

  8. economicminor says:

    Steve H,

    You are right in that I was address­ing you.

    The time frame of pay­outs sounds good. I also believe the TBTF or BBBB need curb­ing and this is a good way. Also the rein­state­ment of Glass-Steagal needs to be imple­mented. We need a total seper­a­tion between invest­ment bank­ing and sav­ings banks.

    As for spec­u­la­tion, once the TBTF are removed from the pic­ture, there is lit­tle dif­fer­ence between spec­u­lat­ing and invest­ing, espe­cially if/when losers actu­ally lose. Things get out of bal­ance when there are no lim­its and no real risks, which is where we are today.

    I do dis­agree that the cri­sis is the 800# gorilla. The rea­sons and the meth­ods the pub­lic came to this cri­sis is the 800# gorilla. Unfunded promises and unfunded pro­grams plus ram­pant under reported infla­tion were at the base of the pyra­mid ponzi shceme. It wasn’t the banksters act­ing alone. They needed oppor­tu­nity and that as pro­vided by the imple­men­ta­tion of dys­func­tional ide­ol­ogy. Orwell called it Dou­ble­Think. The gov­ern­ment wanted to have pop­u­lar pro­grams which no one wanted to fund and the pub­lic wanted ben­e­fits and wars with­out a cost to them.

    In the last years, the pub­lic had lit­tle choice but to bor­row. The option of play­ing or los­ing gave most lit­tle choice. Add in a lit­tle human nature of greed and hubris and a cri­sis was wait­ing to emerge. Sta­bal­iz­ing the finan­cial end is less than half a fix but bet­ter than no fix IMO.

  9. Steve Hummel says:


    The cri­sis is the CURRENT 800 lb. prob­lem. The under­ly­ing prob­lem is that the eco­nomic and mon­e­tary sys­tems can­not be even rel­a­tively sta­ble with­out adopt­ing a cost free way to pre­vent the inevitable and under­stand­able con­ven­tions of cost account­ing from enforc­ing the build up of debt and hence peri­odic reces­sions and depres­sions. But I’m not inter­ested in con­vinc­ing any­one of that being so at this moment. All of the other things you men­tioned, and what Steve Keen rec­og­nizes with the asset infla­tion would be resolv­able after a citizen’s div­i­dend and com­pen­sated retail dis­count were insti­tuted. We need to make the econ­omy and mon­e­tary sys­tems work with those mech­a­nisms as func­tion­ing real­i­ties. Com­puter soft­ware can make the credit flow in the needed ways and in the cor­rect ratios to resolve the cri­sis. The div­i­dend is to be spent on con­sump­tion, to pay off debt or to be saved. Sav­ing is a cost of con­sump­tion and so in the for­mula of total cost of con­sump­tion over total cost of pro­duc­tion it would lower the retail dis­count to con­sumers. The Dis­trib­u­tive mech­a­nisms of Social Credit are an evo­lu­tion of fiat/credit based mon­e­tary and profit mak­ing sys­tems. They empower peo­ple as indi­vid­u­als and they dis­em­power elit­ist, dom­i­nat­ing and cor­rupt enti­ties. That is exactly what we need.

  10. economicminor says:

    Steve H,

    I am no expert on Social Credit (C H Dou­glas). It sounds to me like a utopian ideal that leaves out the basic prob­lem of what I call human nature. I do not believe that laws can pre­vent greed or hubris. Maybe drugs could work? Mankind has sur­vived and pros­pered IMO due to our sur­vival instincts which includes very aggres­sive behav­ior. Gov­ern­ment does have a respon­si­bil­ity in mod­er­at­ing and direct­ing that behav­ior but so far that has only worked inter­mitenly. So far there has been no social order that has come close to what Dou­glas ide­al­ized as far as I know. So the­o­riz­ing about some­thing I do not believe pos­si­ble > hasn’t taken up much of my time. Out­side my early years read­ing sci­ence fiction.

    As for defin­ing whether our *cri­sis* is the out­come or con­se­quences of our com­bined actions or the under­ly­ing issues is really just a mat­ter of where you are view­ing the cri­sis from. The com­bi­na­tion of actions caused the unde­sired results. You seem to see the results as the cri­sis. Solv­ing for your def­i­n­i­tion of cri­sis does noth­ing more than kick the can down the road and divert the con­se­quence from one group to another. TBTF or pen­sion­ers would find that the repay­ment value is not ade­quate to fund the lia­bil­i­ties on their books. In many cases, these pen­sions or lia­bil­i­ties are guar­an­tee by the tax­pay­ers… thus the fix isn’t really a fix and the solu­tion isn’t a save for the system.

    Thus, just a game of musi­cal chairs. And the fix depends on whether you have a guar­an­teed seat or not. In the Keen sce­nario, savers would be rewarded and extreme bor­row­ers not. I am a saver so I would like this. The TBTF and pen­sion and bond funds would not like it.

    At this point, they have con­trol and we don’t so other than the­o­riz­ing, our best bet is to try and fig­ure out how to nail our chairs to the deck.

  11. Steve Hummel says:

    Social Credit is not utopian because rather than forc­ing every­one into some par­tic­u­lar vision of how they should act it actu­ally frees indi­vid­u­als eco­nom­i­cally and mon­e­tar­ily from manip­u­la­tion and dom­i­na­tion by the same cur­rent tyran­ni­cal sys­tems. Thus they have the time and the choice to cre­ate THEIR OWN SENSE OF FREEDOM AND IDEAL LIFESTYLE. That is an essen­tial dif­fer­ence between totalitarian/utopian sys­tems of what­ever stripe which would force every­one into their unfree sys­tem. Eco­nomic and mon­e­tary free­dom is an irre­sistible choice because you would either be wise to accept it or fool­ish not to. Choice is total­i­tar­ian. Free­dom of choice to make one’s own utopian con­cep­tion is itself NOT utopian.

    Free­dom and free­dom of choice (self deter­min­ism) are the deep­est and most basic of lib­er­at­ing expe­ri­ences. That is what a Social Credit soci­ety would enable. Solv­ing that cur­rent lack of such would allow all prob­lems above it to resolve them­selves, or be more eas­ily resolved by Man.

  12. Steve Hummel says:

    Above should read “choice is NOT totalitarian.”

  13. Glenn Stehle says:


    You seem to rec­og­nize that eco­nom­ics is insep­a­ra­ble from pol­i­tics, which puts you light years ahead of the econ­o­mists, who labor under the fic­tion that some­how eco­nom­ics can exist apart from politics.

    I thus find it sur­pris­ing when you then turn around and state: “It would sig­nif­i­cantly reduce income to the Big Bad Bailout Banks plus throw a chaotic wrench into the pen­sion funds through­out the coun­try.” This state­ment implies that the pen­sion funds (read work­ers) are equal part­ners with the Big Bad Bailout Banks in pre­serv­ing the sanc­tity of capital.

    Noth­ing, of course, could be far­ther from the truth. Labor has been polit­i­cally evicer­ated over the past 40 years, and the effects upon the eco­nomic well­be­ing of work­ers could not be more evi­dent. If those with polit­i­cal power were to want to reduce the income of the Big Bad Bailout Banks and pro­tect work­ers’ pen­sions, they could eas­ily pass the nec­es­sary laws to make that an eco­nomic reality.

    One has to look no fur­ther than the way cap­i­tal is cre­ated to see the role polit­i­cal power plays in the cap­i­tal cre­at­ing process. For the work­ers, cap­i­tal is cre­ated from the sweat of their brow, the prod­uct of work and match­ing con­tri­bu­tions over a period of many decades. For the finan­cial cap­i­tal­ists, cap­i­tal is cre­ated instan­ta­neously and effort­lessly with the entry of a few dig­its oa com­puter screen.

    One can also look at the way cap­i­tal is destroyed. The cap­i­tal of the finance cap­i­tal­ists is sacro­sanct, and thus guar­an­teed by the gov­ern­ment. That of the work­ers not so much so.

    PBS did an out­stand­ing doc­u­men­tary that explores the ease with which the cap­i­tal of work­ers is destroyed by bank­ruptcy courts.

    It then explains how those same courts pre­serve the cap­i­tal of the fiance capitalists.

    There really is no sub­sti­tute for hav­ing the judi­ciary, the leg­is­la­ture or the exec­u­tive in your cor­ner when it comes to mat­ters of economics.

  14. economicminor says:


    Pen­sion funds are run by the same peo­ple who run the banks and insur­ance com­pa­nies of the world. All edu­cated with the same dou­ble­think eco­nomic the­o­ries. This allowed the banksters to dump/hide/sell tril­lions of *secured debt* to them (with very unre­al­is­tic returns). Cash to pay down debts will implode most pen­sion funds because the imputed returns were a fraud, thus leav­ing many mil­lions of retirees with­out income or with much reduced income.

    You have to look at both who’s run­ning what and what the con­se­quences would be rather than just the ide­o­log­i­cal dif­fer­ences between them. Most peo­ple in the US are not happy about the bank­ing fraud and bailouts yet have really noth­ing they can do about any of it. No dif­fer­ence with the work­ers and the pen­sion funds. All have the same worth­less reg­u­la­tory over­sight as the banks..

    And yes the PTB could pro­tect the spe­cial inter­ests of the pen­sion­ers over the inter­ests of those who have been left out of the eco­nomic pie but that is going down the same road we are on. Either we have free mar­kets that are well reg­u­lated or we have crony cap­i­tal­ism or one of its brothers.

    I know many pen­sion­ers who live bet­ter than when they worked. Much more dis­pos­able income. The math just doesn’t work out. Many had as much or more dis­pos­able income while the worked than almost all non union pen­sion work­ers to start with, never saved, never had to and then ended up with far supe­rior retire­ments than the major­ity of the work­ers in the coun­try. Their incomes are based on unre­al­is­tic (fraud­u­lent) account­ing using the unre­al­is­tic returns of scammy secu­ri­ties. And you think their spe­cial sta­tus needs to be protected?

    How will this mess ever get fixed if there are still spe­cial inter­ests that are pro­tected while the major­ity are asked for sacrifice?

    As for the cre­ation of this fic­ti­tious money to be passed around. It needs to be just printed or cre­ated out of thin air and NOT lent into exis­tance oth­er­wise it just becomes another trans­fer from future income to present con­sump­tion. We already have to much of that.

    Steve and Glenn, thanks for the dis­cus­sion. Doug Stohlman
    if you want to con­tinue, I will be on trav­el­ing all day it will be tonight PST or tomor­row for any reply.

    Steve, even if Social Credit is a good idea doesn’t mean it is pos­si­ble in a world of humans. Might work in a smaller com­mu­nity but I sure can’t see it work­ing on a planet of how many billion?

  15. Steve Hummel says:


    Happy to have the back and forth too.

    Pen­sion­ers, whether they be CEOs or union lead­ers, who have exor­bi­tant pay outs would/will have to con­sole them­selves that they are get­ting a REASONABLE pen­sion plus their citizen’s div­i­dend. That is con­sid­er­ing BOTH their con­tri­bu­tions AND the com­mon Good. It’s the same prin­ci­ple behind declar­ing the quadrillion + dol­lars of deriv­a­tive bets null and void and unwind­ing such so that there is basi­cally no gain. San­ity and fair­ness must rule over insan­ity and privilege.

    And again a cra­dle to grave citizen’s div­i­dend will elim­i­nate the larger need for pensions…and the asso­ci­ated taxes for social secu­rity as well as those for wel­fare in its var­i­ous forms.

    Social Credit doesn’t nec­es­sar­ily require a change in admin­is­tra­tion, but rather a change in pol­icy. There is an iron law in both indi­vid­ual and sys­temic psy­chol­ogy. What­ever is one’s actual intent (and pol­icy is only the legal form that inten­tion takes) .…is what will tend to be. Cur­rently the pri­mary inten­tions of the com­pet­ing eco­nomic the­o­ries of cap­i­tal­ism and social­ism are:

    Cap­i­tal­ism: Profit and the will to power of the sys­tem and its busi­ness and finan­cial entities.

    Social­ism: Work and the will to power of the polit­i­cal elite which would admin­is­ter it as well as their cronies.

    Now, if you made the pri­mary pur­pose and inten­tion of the eco­nomic and mon­e­tary systems.…the most effi­cient meet­ing of con­sumers with goods and services.…you could include UNDER that pri­mary pur­pose both profit AND work. And if you sim­ply leg­is­lated a citizen’s div­i­dend (which is really just the per­fect pol­icy expres­sion of both grace and indi­vid­ual free­dom) you’d actu­ally put indi­vid­u­als in con­trol of eco­nomic policy.…which resolves the cur­rent two com­pet­ing the­o­ries’ prob­lems with the will to power of their sys­tem by replac­ing it with the will to free­dom for the individual.

    Every­thing begins and ends with phi­los­o­phy i.e. the ideas, val­ues and expe­ri­ences a phi­los­o­phy intends and so tends to enable. So much more impor­tant that we base and intend our sys­tems on the best pos­si­ble ideas, val­ues and experiences.

    The present sys­tems are based on mis­trust, tend to cre­ate hope­less­ness, a lack of affin­ity for one’s fel­low and so make for a men­tal­ity obsessed with exchange i.e. “only this for that”. “There are no free lunches” as so many lib­er­tar­i­ans tend to intone.

    Human nature is really a rather mal­leable thing, and we should guard against think­ing it is some spe­cific entity, par­tic­u­larly an entity which is largely molded by cul­ture. We can say Man is flawed. That is fine. But to say he is nec­es­sar­ily only com­pet­i­tive, aggres­sive, lazy, irre­spon­si­ble etc. etc. is a stretch that smacks of being cul­tur­ally hide­bound. The fol­low­ing quote from C. H. Dou­glas sums up my thoughts on sys­tems and their best and cor­rect inten­tions very well:

    Sys­tems were made for men, and not men for sys­tems, and the inter­est of man which is self-development, is above all sys­tems, whether the­o­log­i­cal, polit­i­cal or economic.”

  16. Glenn Stehle says:

    @Economicminor at 2:49 am

    Your entire lament seems to boil down to the fact that gov­ern­ments, and espe­cially the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, have proven to be supe­rior coun­ter­par­ties to any­thing the pri­vate sec­tor has to offer.

    The pen­sions of pri­vate sec­tor work­ers weren’t always this vul­ner­a­ble to the vagaries of the pri­vate sec­tor. Jacob S. Hacker calls it “The Great Risk Shift.”

    As Hacker explains in his book by that same name, in the U.S. the Pen­sion Ben­e­fit Guar­anty Cor­po­ra­tion guar­an­tees tra­di­tional defined-benefit pen­sions. For com­pa­nies that offer tra­di­tional defined-benefit pen­sion plans, like United Air­lines, nine out of ten employ­ees get the ben­e­fits they were promised. The excep­tions are highly paid work­ers and those who did not reach the age of sixty-five before ben­e­fits are paid.

    Most US work­ers’ pen­sions, how­ever, are now exposed to infi­nitely more risk. The rea­son? Defined-contribution plans, like 401(k)s, are com­pletely unin­sured, and

    As recently as twenty-five years ago, more than 80 per­cent of large and medium-sized firms offered a defined-beneift plan; today less than a third do, and the share con­tin­ues to fall.

    It was Rea­gan, backed by Wall Street and right-wing think tanks like the Her­itage Foun­da­tion and the Cato Insti­tute, who ush­ered in this rev­o­lu­tion­ary change. And for right-wing con­ser­v­a­tives, defined-contribution plans are like the gift that keeps on giving:

    1) They are not insured by the Fed­eral Gov­ernemnt
    2) They are dirt cheap. In the late 1970s, employ­ers devoted more than 4 per­cent of work­ers pay­rolls to pen­sions. By the late 1980s, they were con­tribut­ing around 2.5%.
    3) They are a boon for mutual funds and invest­ment banks, who, Hacker observes, “embraced 401(k)s as the Sec­ond Com­ing.“
    4) And finally,

    Asked why con­ser­v­a­tives should sup­port 401(k)s, a Her­itage Foun­da­tion econ­o­mist said sim­ply, “When cit­i­zens have a vested inter­est in the econ­omy and own more prop­erty (or invest­ment assets), the more…politically con­ser­v­a­tive your soci­ety will be.”

    All this rev­o­lu­tion­ary change has of course proved to be dis­as­trous for Amer­i­can work­ers. Unions knew this, but were unable to hold back the tide. As Hacker goes on to explain:

    Orga­nized labor had always been a cru­cial force press­ing for defined-benefit pen­sions. But as unions grew less com­mon, employ­ers had less rea­son to care what they thought. Thus went another motive for tra­di­tional pen­sion funds.

    What we saw dur­ing the GFC was that at the same time pen­sion funds got mur­dered, the finan­cial cap­i­tal­ists got thown a life line. And this hap­pened whether explicit Fed­eral gov­ern­ment guar­an­tees existed or not. Besides the $700 bil­lion in TARP funds, there was another $7.77 tril­lion that the Fed secretly loaned banks around the world against their toxic waste at almost 0% inter­est rates, $1.2 tril­lion to US banks (this was at the high­est day on Decem­ber 5, 2008). All this was done to keep the banks “sol­vent” and “liq­uid” and to pro­vide them with a way to “earn” their way back to bal­ance sheet sanity.

    This begs the ques­tion as to whether a bank­ing sys­tem depen­dent for its sur­vival upon secret loans from a demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ment is in a defen­si­ble position.

  17. Steve Hummel says:

    A cra­dle to grave div­i­dend based on the value of the tech­no­log­i­cal progress of the nation, the value of which is com­mu­nally owned but cur­rently totally usurped by the Bank­ing and mon­e­tary sys­tems is the answer to pen­sions, retire­ment and even the unem­ploy­ment “prob­lem” itself.

    Cap­i­tal­ists are going to have to con­front the absur­dity of its inter­nal logic some­time. What?, are we going to wait until only 5% of us are merely but­ton push­ers earn­ing an income and have the nations pro­duc­tion shut up behind gates guarded by gun tot­ing security?

    Like­wise socialist/labor thinkers are going to have to think the same way about work. namely that it is going to become less and less nec­es­sary. For­get about “mak­ing work”. Thats just another enforced usage of everyone’s time and effort in the end. Let peo­ple have the demand they want and need, get extra for their jobs if and while they have one.…and oth­er­wise let us freely choose what to do with our time.

  18. Steve Hummel says:

    If I may, to expound upon the value of tech­no­log­i­cal progress itself, and its poten­tial uses.

    The Bank­ing sys­tem is severely restricted in its abil­ity to lend in an area/nation where there has been no tech­no­log­i­cal progress, no cul­tural her­itage of pro­duc­tive capac­ity built up over time. Cur­rently, in nations that ARE devel­oped the Bank­ing sys­tem usurps ALL of this valu­able fac­tor of production/ability to LEND into and so derive profit from, even though it is a com­mu­nally cre­ated poten­tial and resource. A citizen’s div­i­dend redresses this imbal­ance and has the advan­tage of insur­ing ade­quate demand in the hands of indi­vid­u­als in per­pe­tu­ity so that busi­nesses of all kinds includ­ing Bank­ing are made more sta­bly prof­itable. It should also in fact make for over­all lower inter­est rates due to increased cred­itabil­ity of both indi­vid­u­als and businesses.

    If private/consumer debt is the biggest cur­rent prob­lem then a citizen’s div­i­dend is its most ratio­nal and equi­table solution.

    Tech­no­log­i­cal progress is cumu­la­tive and except for the effects of war imper­ish­able. There is no need to “rein­vent the wheel” in every finan­cial cycle and so this asset can be mon­e­tized and dis­trib­uted con­tin­u­ally. The mon­e­tary sys­tem being cred­i­tary in nature, the credit dis­trib­uted as the div­i­dend and directed mostly toward con­sump­tion or retire­ment of debt would can­cel each other out. Most sav­ings by the vast major­ity of indi­vid­u­als would be uti­lized to purchase/pay off loans much more quickly for big ticket items such as cars, appli­ances etc. and so nei­ther excess sav­ings nor pri­vate indebt­ed­ness would tend to accumulate.

    It is way past time that econ­o­mists and the pub­lic at large woke up to the real­ity of the value of tech­no­log­i­cal progress and the cur­rent unbal­anced dis­tri­b­u­tion of such.

  19. I sup­pose it would have helped if I’d started with the right equa­tions. In the Good­win model, u is the wage share of out­put, ie. the pool of hon­estly earned money. 1-u is the profit share, or the demand for invest­ment. So, (1-u)/u = r is the real inter­est rate ie. the price of bor­rowed money.

    With endoge­nous credit, in addi­tion to the wage share there is the debt ser­vice share d, which is, of course, paid by the wage earner. So, the nom­i­nal inter­est rate is i = (1-u)/(u-d). The curves below show i as a func­tion of u for var­i­ous lev­els of d =(0, .05, .1, and .15) with d = 0 being the real inter­est rate (bot­tom curve)

  20. The infla­tion rate is sim­ply i — r . The curves for d =(.05, .1, and .15) are shown below.

    Thus, with 2 inde­pen­dent vari­ables, u and d, one can cal­cu­late the depen­dent vari­ables r and i and explain the whole cocka­mamie GFC on the back of an enve­lope to an unin­ter­ested per­son who couldn’t care less about it.

Leave a Reply