News

May 2017 Positive Money New Zealand issued a press release seeking clarity from the Reserve Bank on how our money is created.  They still refer to intermediation by the banks, which is not how our banking system works.

5th November 2016 An article in The Guardian newspaper in England argued that abolishing debt-based currency holds the secret to getting our system off its addiction to growth.

5th September 2016 KPMG released a report, commissioned by the Prime Minister of Iceland, titled "Money Issuance" The report looked at money created by the Government.

28 March 2016 Bryan Gould has agreed to be the Patron for Positive Money New Zealand.

Bryan is a respected commentator on economic matters, an author, academic and Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

31 October 2015 A monetary reform group in Switzerland has enough signatures for a referendum on who creates their money supply.

14 October 2015 The Finance Commission of the Dutch parliament discussed monetary reform.

31 March 2015. The Telegraph in London reports on the Icelandic governments plan to have their central bank issue their money supply and calls it a radical plan.

22 November. The British parliament debated money creation last week, for the first time in 170 years. There was cross-party support for a proposal to set up a monetary commission

23 September. A new generation of young people, dubbed ''property orphans'' may be destined to be renters for life.

17 September. The Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the bank used by central banks, confirmed New Zealand houses are among the most "unaffordable" in the world compared to people's incomes.

6 September. Bruce Bisset of Hawkes Bay today reveals the true story behind the so called Rock Star economy.

25th April 2014 "Strip private banks of their power to create money”: says the Financial Times’ chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, who endorses Positive Money’s proposals for reform

15th March 2014 - In a historic move The Bank of England quarterly bulletin explains how money is created. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. The bank says that this differs from the story found in some economics textbooks.

16th August 2013. The retiring head of the Financial Markets Authority apologised for the mistakes made saying “You were let down”.

 

John Kenneth Galbraith“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.”

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006 ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975).

Benefits

The benefits of implementing this proposal for full-reserve banking are enormous. By returning the exclusive right to create money to an independent agency of the state, preventing it from creating money if inflation is rising, and using any newly created money to reduce taxes and fund better public services (rather than simply pumping much of it into an over-inflated housing market), we get the following benefits:

Economic stability

  • The currently-inevitable cycle of boom and bust would end, creating a stable economy and one of the best environments for business in the world. The current banking system creates economic instability - our modernised system would create stability.
  • There would be permanent and stable money supply. It could not grow too quickly and cause a boom (fuelled by debt) as it has in the past, and with no booms, there wouldn't be any recessions.
  • The economy would not be entirely dependent on the lending activities of the banking sector. A credit squeeze would not cause a severe recession or rise in government debt.
  • Retail spending would remain relatively stable from year to year, rather than skyrocketing in ‘good’ years and crashing through the floor in a recession.
  • The Reserve Bank would no longer need to manipulate interest rates as a way of countering the inherent instability of the current banking system. The current system of raising interest rates to ‘slow down’ the economy and lowering them to ‘stimulate’ it is much like sharing the wheel of a car with a madman who presses the accelerator whenever you hit the brakes, and who hits the brakes when you try to accelerate. Lowering interest rates to ‘boost lending’ (read: increase debt) throws thousands of pensioners into poverty. Raising them again when the economy is ‘overheating’ threatens to bankrupt the very people who started the recovery by borrowing when interest rates were low, all contributing to further economic instability.
  • The banking system can be changed from being pro-cyclical (constantly accelerating until we inevitably crash) to being counter-cyclical (regulating the ‘speed’ of the economy to keep it stable).
  • The payments system and money supply would be technically separate and insulated from the lending business, meaning that ‘component failure’ in the lending business would not affect the users of the payments system.

Government spending and taxes

  • The drastic cuts in public services could be avoided (although it's right that any wasteful spending should be reduced)
  • There would be an alternative to implementing further tax rises
  • If any new money is created and injected into the economy, it could be used to cover existing government expenditure and allow taxes to be reduced by a corresponding amount.
  • The majority of the national debt could be phased out over the next 20 years, saving huge amounts on interest payments, and freeing up money for public services such as schools, universities and health care.
  • By not incurring so much interest on borrowing to fund infrastructure projects, the government and therefore taxpayers would save up to 60% on the overall cost (i.e. capital plus interest) of infrastructure projects such as public transport and the building of hospitals and schools.

Government and tax payers exposure to banking crises

  • The modernised system would completely remove the exposure of the government, and thus taxpayers, to banking crises. The changes would allow the removal of the state guarantee on deposits, which is effectively a state guarantee on risk-taking by banks. The risks - and costs - of bad investment strategies would fall on those who endorsed the strategy.
  • Poorly managed institutions could be allowed to fail without threat to the wider economic system or the payments system. No bank under full-reserve banking would be 'too big to fail'.
  • There would be no need for future deposit insurance or even bailouts.

Debt

  • The modernised system would lower the overall debt burden upon the NZ public. Currently, 98% of money is created when loans are made. Consequently, almost all money is debt. This means that we - individuals, families and government - are paying interest to the banking sector on nearly every $1 in existence. This is the root cause of our current astronomical levels of debt. By injecting debt-free money into the economy, the reform would allow NZ citizens, corporations and the government to significantly reduce their overall debt burden - something which is impossible under the current system.
  • Interest rates would be set by the market rather than by the Monetary Policy Committee, reducing the impact of extreme interest rates on vulnerable groups.

 

 

 

 

MoST Content Management V3.0.6374