background preloader

Dividende universel monétaire

Facebook Twitter

Steve Keen, Quantitative easing for the public. A monetary approach towards a basic income in Greece. The solution is right here - but who dares to look at it? Introducing a monetary dividend, ie. printing money and giving it directly to citizens through a periodical income is not a new idea, neither denuded from any rational economic arguments. Quite the contrary, actually. But will people just seriously consider the idea and claim for it to be done? Sometimes I despair. How can the World be so blind and conservative towards radical ideas? Why can’t we just have a rational debate, look at the facts, identify the right problems and then consider the alternatives? Back in september 2009, yet Steve Keen predicted on his blog that the crisis would not be fixed with the approach of Obama’s government (emphasis mine): Where are we now, in 2012?

Well, not only the US have been following the same ideology of rescuing banks endlessly and inefficiently, but this flawed logic has been imitated in Europe, again, again and again. Ponziconomics Bubbles must burst This big ponzi scheme must be ended at some point. Artificial respiration Just give us the money. Economic stimulus: Give us the money. Monetary policy for the 21st century. Twentieth Century monetary policy can be understood very simply. One can imagine that, prior to the 1980s, the marginal unit of CPI was purchased from wages.

That made managing inflation difficult. In order to suppress the price level, central bankers had to reduce the supply of wages. But reductions in aggregate wages don’t translate to smooth, universal wage cuts. For institutional reasons, attempts to restrain aggregate wages generate unemployment. Prior to the 1980s, central bankers routinely had to choose between inflation or recession. Then came the “Great Moderation”. Regular readers know that I am not a fan of the Great Moderation. Still, if Great Moderation monetary policy sucked, pre-Moderation business cycles sucked as well. It’s no good when the marginal unit of CPI is purchased from wages. Here’s my proposal. Of course we will still need investors. There are details to consider. Mike Sandler: Citizen's Dividends: Basic Income from your Share of the Commons. Have you heard about The Commons? You own a piece of it; we all do. The Commons is something society shares as a public trust, and includes valuable assets such as the Internet, the broadcast spectrum, public lands, the ability to create money, the atmospheric carbon sink, and more.

In times of scarcity, access to the Commons can be very valuable. We can all share in that bounty, and this can form a source of actual income to Americans. Here are a few ideas for creating a source of income for all people from the Commons with citizen's dividends. One example is a Cap & Dividend system, where greenhouse gas emissions from upstream fossil fuel companies are limited, and the revenues generated by the sale of permits are returned to individuals as a dividend.

The reasoning is that we all share the sky, and so as the now-scarce resource becomes valuable, we should all be given our share. Another Commons we all share is the money system. Remember the Gold Standard? Me on Bernanke, fire up the helicopter engines - Samuel Brittan the Financial Times 07/09/12. Come on Bernanke, fire up the helicopter engines Samuel Brittan The Financial Times 07/09/12 Some practical men do not like the idea of a thought experiment.

Yet these exercises are an essential part of the growth of human knowledge. Indeed, Friday's address by Ben Bernanke at the meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming makes it appropriate for one such experiment: to ask what would happen if, in the main industrial countries, currency notes were to drop from helicopters as a deliberate act of policy? No one has explicitly argued for this as a deliberate act. John Maynard Keynes raised a similar possibility during the 1930s when he said that if there was no better way of getting out of a depression, pound notes should be buried in the ground, leaving it to the well-tried forces of self interest to dig them up again. Let us assume that, impatient with the endless stagnation of the world economy, countries fire up their helicopter engines. But back to the main analysis. If the Government is just going to print money, why can’t we have some?The Deep End.

In his column for Reuters, Anatole Kaletsky ventures into the wacky world of quantitative easing or QE. Faced with a never ending run of economic bad news, the authorities, he says, have two basic options: "They have essentially two options. They could do even more of what the Fed and the BoE have been doing since late 2008 – creating new money and spending it on government bonds, in the policy known as "Quantitative Easing. " Or they could admit the policies of the past three years were not working, at least not well enough.

And try something different. " Kaletsky concedes that QE isn’t all bad, but it’s not all good either: "The one economic benefit of QE has been to help governments finance the huge deficits caused by recession without having to raise taxes, slash public spending or face Greek-style bankruptcy. The failure of QE to stimulate the economy is not for lack of heft: If the bankers can’t make good use of so much money, then why not let the general public have a go instead? Should the Bank of England hand out free money to everyone? The UK economy is barely growing. To stimulate demand, should the Bank of England mail out a voucher worth fifty quid to every citizen of this fair land and tell them to go out and spend it on beer, fags and cheap Chinese electronics? It sounds like a mad idea, but is it any stranger than the Bank of England printing money to buy up goverment debt?

In a recent speech to the Council of Mortgage lenders - Charlie Bean, Deputy Governor for Monetary Policy, Bank of England - seriously discussed the voucher distribution idea: "Several commentators have suggested that the effectiveness of quantitative easing could be enhanced by spending the newly created money on something other than government debt. For instance, one idea that has been floated involves sending households a voucher, which could then be spent in the shops and redeemed for cash by the retailer. This may sound like a good idea, as it seems to get the money quickly into action in stimulating demand. Mr. Why bailout money goes to banks, not us. As President Obama promised Monday to halt the $165 million in bonuses to disgraced financial wizards at insurer AIG and announced a new $15 billion government lending program for small businesses, ordinary people were asking a simple question: Why not give the money to them to buy a new car or pay off a mortgage or just deposit in a bank?

Not so fast, experts say. Although it sounds like a great idea, writing checks to people would not prevent more bank failures and much worse economic fallout. On its face, the idea seems reasonable. Taxpayers are spending $700 billion to rescue banks and nearly $800 billion on the stimulus package. That comes to $1.5 trillion, which doesn't even count the trillions in emergency lending undertaken by the Federal Reserve. If Washington had simply taken the $1.5 trillion and cut a check for each of 140 million U.S. workers, each would get $10,714.29. Strings attached 'Pyramid of credit' European banks "Market discipline just didn't work," Clark said. The Basic Income and the Helicopter Drop :: Peter Frase. I haven’t been a regular reader of Steve Randy Waldman, which I now realize was a big mistake.

I just discovered a post of his from last year that relates to one of my political preoccupations: the idea that everyone should receive a “Basic Income” to which they are entitled as citizens and which is not in any way conditional on whether or how much they work. In the process of figuring out his argument, I also realized that the debate we’ve been having between “fiscal” and “monetary” solutions to the employment crisis is kind of a distraction from the real issues.

The Basic Income is, obviously, a fairly radical demand, and one that may seem implausible in the context of American culture and its Protestant work ethic. However, there are reasons to think that you could build a diverse political coalition around it. One reason is that the Basic Income is embraced not only by left-wing socialists, but by some right-wing libertarians. Basic Income As A Helicopter Drop. By Matthew Yglesias on September 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm "Basic Income As A Helicopter Drop" There’s no particular reason why monetary policy has to be conducted through interactions between the central bank and a banking system. Or, rather, the reason it’s done this way is historical. Under an older set of institutional arrangements, a central bank was actually a bank and it’s importance derived from its interaction with other banks. I’m not sure the politics of trying to do things that way would really work out well in the end, but it’s a potential idea for your humanitarian utopia of tomorrow.

That said, I think this focus on the mechanics can get misleading. How about quantitative easing for the people? | Anatole Kaletsky. Through an almost astrological coincidence of timing, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the U.S. Federal Reserve Board all held their policy meetings this week immediately after Wednesday’s publication of the weakest manufacturing numbers for Europe and America since the summer of 2009. With the euro-zone and Britain clearly back in deep recession and the U.S. apparently on the brink, the central bankers all decided to do nothing, at least for the moment.

They all restated their unbreakable resolution to do “whatever it takes” – to prevent a breakup of the euro, in the case of the ECB, or, for the Fed and the BoE, to achieve the more limited goal of economic recovery. But what exactly is there left for the central bankers to do? They have essentially two options. They could do even more of what the Fed and the BoE have been doing since late 2008 – creating new money and spending it on government bonds, in the policy known as “Quantitative Easing.” The busted British economy needs more than just Olympic spirit | Simon Jenkins.

The prime minister says "Team GB's work is done", and that "now it's GB's turn". What does he mean? David Cameron identified the Olympic contribution to the nation's psyche as, variously, ingenuity, joy, friendship, tolerance, eccentricity, welcome and inspiration. He wins a gold for abstract nouns, but there is truth in them. The London Olympics delivered its undeniable panache by throwing a large amount of money at a small number of people who were set a simple goal.

They delivered. But can such delivery be generalised across the political economy? Every commentator declares this to be obligatory, yet none says how. At first sight, the idea of building a stronger economy on physical fitness is dangerous nonsense. Nobody says what this is supposed to mean. Yet we assume Cameron and Blair are not cynics, and can at some point attach meaning to their abstractions. The nearest to a hint of a transferable Olympicism came not from Cameron but from Blair. Nevermind plan B, here’s plan H – a helicopter drop of made-up moneyThe Deep End. Suddenly, quantitative easing for the people seems possible | Anatole Kaletsky.

Last week I discussed in this column the idea that the vast amounts of money created by central banks and distributed for free to banks and bond funds – equivalent to $6,000 per man, woman and child in America and £6,500 in Britain – should instead be given directly to citizens, who could spend or save it as they pleased. I return to this theme so soon because radical ideas about monetary policy suddenly seem to be gaining traction.

Some of the world’s most powerful central bankers – Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank last Thursday, Eric Rosengren of the Boston Fed on Monday and Mervyn King of the Bank of England this Wednesday – are starting to admit that the present approach to creating money, known as quantitative easing, is failing to generate economic growth. Previously taboo ideas can suddenly be mentioned. Rosengren, for example, suggested that the Fed should expand the money supply without any limit as long it sees unnecessary unemployment. Rethinking taxes and welfare in a cryptocurrency world. The relative early success of Bitcoin in the world of hackers, means that cryptocurrencies will be coming in a decade or so.

It’s urgent to rethink taxes and welfare, thinks Swedish Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge in this excerpt: “From a political perspective, this development means that taxation and welfare systems must be rethought and rewired considerably and immediately. Cryptocurrency brings new challenges to the table. The government can’t see the wealth of an individual, nor their inflow or outflow of funds, not with any amount of applied force. I know a lot of individuals in government will react with normalcy bias to this statement and say “but we have to!”. It doesn’t matter if you have to. This means that neither taxes nor social support systems can be based on income or wealth. We’ll arrive at this point within a decade. So taxation first, then. This leaves us with a couple of other things we can tax. Oh, and we can tax consumption. But there are also drawbacks, of course.

OpenUDC. Equal Money System | Equal Money For All From Birth To Death. Une solution hétérodoxe face à la crise : le dividende universel. J’écris cet article suite à une passionnante discussion avec un ami à propos de dividende universel (que j’abordais brièvement dans mon précédent article). Une fois n’est pas coutume, compte tenu de l’intensité de nos échanges, l’idée m’a pris d’en écrire un article. Que voici… Qu’est-ce que le dividende universel ? Le dividende universel est l’idée selon laquelle, plutôt que de créer de la monnaie qui ne transite que par le système bancaire, on distribuerait cette création monétaire à tous les citoyens sous la forme d’un revenu universel et inconditionnel (que l’on appelle parfois revenu de vie ou revenu de base). Le dividende universel comme solution à la crise ?

Cette idée pourrait être particulièrement pertinente dans le contexte actuel de crise financière marquée par l’octroi exagéré de crédits. . « Il n’y a aucun moyen de soutenir durablement un « boom » économique résultant d’une expansion du crédit. On est justement en plein dans cette problématique avec la crise de la Grèce. Le dividende universel est la solution, qu'on le veuille ou non. Aussi utopique puisse-elle être, la théorie du dividende universel sera, dans un avenir pas si lointain, la seule solution pour faire face aux mutations profondes de la société : l’émergence des monnaies virtuelles, l’explosion des gains de productivité, et l’accroissement de la complexité de la société. Et ça, même les opposants au revenu minimum garanti le comprendront un jour… Sur ce blog, j’ai défendu à de multiples reprise le dividende universel, via des arguments très différents, allant de la défense d’une certaine décroissance, à l’insoluble problème des gains de productivité, en passant par la description d’un nouveau pacte social, l’étude des expériences menées à ce jour, la dénonciation de l’hypocrisie des talibans de la « valeur travail » et bien sûr par l’approche monétaire, et l’échec flagrant des politiques monétaires actuelles.

Bref, j’ai battu en brèche de nombreuses objections, critiques, ou interrogations. Qui achètera les produits fabriqués par les robots ? Augmenter la masse monétaire, oui mais pour qui ? Le dividende universel monétaire, une théorie fantaisiste ? Pour une politique monétaire du XXième siècle. Les 4 arguments du Dividende Universel. Quel montant pour le revenu de base ? The Basic Income is Dead. Les 4 arguments du DU (pour commentaires) [Billet invité] - Le code de la création monétaire doit être ouv. La monnaie et le totalitarisme du monde marchand | Inso 13 37. Réinventer le système monétaire par le dividende universel. L’injustice monétaire « ®om's blog.

Accueil - Théorie Relative de la Monnaie. Création Monétaire, le contrôle total de l'économie - une vidéo. Revenu Universel - Stéphane Laborde : Le problème de la densité (topologie) monétaire. Dividende Universel Système Monétaire 3.0. Comprendre la Relativité. Le Dividende Universel : Un outil social sim.

Crédit Social