Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Historically, the humanities have been central to education because they have rightly been seen as essential for creating competent democratic citizens. But recently, Nussbaum argues, thinking about the aims of education has gone disturbingly awry both in the United States and abroad. Anxiously focused on national economic growth, we increasingly treat education as though its primary goal were to teach students to be economically productive rather than to think critically and become knowledgeable and empathetic citizens. This shortsighted focus on profitable skills has eroded our ability to criticize authority, reduced our sympathy with the marginalized and different, and damaged our competence to deal with complex global problems. And the loss of these basic capacities jeopardizes the health of democracies and the hope of a decent world.

I rapporten Where does money come from? fra den britiske tænketank New Economics Foundation kritiseres den foretrukne fortælling fra bankerne om indlånet som begivenheden, der muliggør udlånene og pengeskabelsen. Det er typisk omvendt, påpeger tænketanken og andre med den. Som den tidligere bankøkonom, viceafdelingschef i Den Internationale Valutafond Michael Kumhof: »Det, der i virkeligheden sker, er præcis det modsatte. Og jeg har selv gjort det, jeg er bankmand, jeg ved, hvordan det fungerer, og du kan læse det på mange centralbankers hjemmesider – når bankerne siger til sig selv: ’Økonomien ser godt ud, vi er optimistiske, nu yder vi lån’, så behøver de ikke vente på, at nogen indsætter penge. For når de opretter et lån, skaber de et indestående. Bare sådan. Banker skaber penge ud af den blå luft.« Altså: Ydelse af et lån betyder alene, at der åbnes to kolonner i bankens computer: Én som siger, at kunden nu har X kr., og én som siger, at banken nu har en fordring hos denne kunde på X kr. Kundens nye virtuelle penge kan samtidig være grundlaget for et nyt udlån, noteret på næste kundes konto. Den første kunde har ret til at hæve alle sine penge, samtidig med at disse står opført på den anden kundes konto. Bankpenge kan – som udtrykt af den store amerikanske økonom John Kenneth Galbraith – være to steder på én gang. Mindst.

When I read articles that talk longingly about going to a “Steady State Economy,” I am perplexed. If governments were to take away fossil fuels, or even reduce their use significantly, it would likely cause a crash of the financial system, and this would likely lead to a crash of other systems, particularly international trade. It would seem to be virtually impossible to keep this crash from affecting food production systems, international food export systems, and even such basic systems as electricity (because workers need to be paid, and fuel needs to be purchased). It seems to me that without a lot of intervention and planning, we would soon fall back to a very low level, very quickly, perhaps much lower than the 1750 level.

A few things. First I’m pretty sure nothing should be 0% risk weighted. Second, yes, risk weightings are going to continue to be a big part of the real problem. Third Basel III fails to address the issue of the hegemony of the ratings agency cartel. On another note, I remain fairly convinced that there isn’t any way to completely remove the chance that banks blow up. Banks are completely unlike any other corporate structure – they are inherently levered and can therefore be wiped out by a nasty run on the bank, even if perfectly solvent. So what’s the answer? The minute we admit that TBTF exists, we have to charge for the privilege of being TBTF rather than try to regulate it out. Insurance premiums payable to a pre-funded disaster recovery fund, that are heavily geared to (true) leverage and spiral exponentially above 30x leverage sounds like a good start. Throw in additional premia based on the % of revenues from trading, the type of funding that props up the balance sheet and the liquidity of underlying assets, and Bob’s your uncle, we might have the beginnings of something that works.

Kampen om at definere den økonomiske sandhed er for længst vundet af udbudsøkonomerne. De lader sig ikke påvirke af spørgsmålstegn ved forestillingerne om, at omdrejningspunktet for økonomisk vækst i et land altid er et højt udbud af billige produktionsressourcer.

Det er i de seneste år blevet suppleret med en afpersonificeret økonomidiskurs, hvor der tales om: »markedets forventninger«, »nødvendig risikovillig kapital«, »et sundt investeringsklima« osv. Universitetsøkonomer og erhvervsledere har erobret sproget. Økonomiens sprog er objektiveret, så al regulering af marked, kapital og investeringer er et angreb på sandheden om økonomisk styring.

Men i sen-kapitalismen bruges penge ikke primært til handel med varer og tjenesteydelser men til handel med handel.

Af frygt for at miste alle deres penge, hvilket kunne have udløst en alvorlig bankkrise og kreditklemme, solgte pengeinstitutterne deres obligationer til spotpris på det sekundære marked.

Credit Default Swaps (CDS) får skylden for mange ting, og i forhold til Grækenland fremhæves CDS kontrakterne ofte som argument for at Grækenland ikke “må” gå konkurs (teknisk set). Implicit i dette argument må ligge en formodning om at det vil få uoverskuelige konsekvenser hvis CDS kontrakterne kommer til udbetaling.

No one seems to have pointed out that the original example given is actually wrong. (I've stumbled on this looking for something else, but had to comment.) The second balance sheet should still show $1000 as both the total assets and liabilities. The "deposit creation multiplier" idea referred to is the theoretical maximum aggregate balance sheet of the banking sector, if there is more than one bank and they all lend to each other and only each other. Its double counting, but that's allowed in the calculation of M4 money supply, but isn't allowed on any particular bank balance sheet (which is why the example is so wrong).

promisory notes

promisory notes

This is clearly a very safe form of banking, but as described so far, the bank would simply be acting like a safe deposit box. It would not be able to make any loans.

Expressed like this, a mechanism for banks to make loans becomes available. The mechanism is via the use of time deposits.

»Nu sætter jeg 100.000 kroner ind på din kassekredit«. Pointen er, at banken udlåner nogle penge, som de ikke har.

Det er en særdeles lukrativ forretning at stå for produktionen af penge.

Den finans- og gældskrise, der i løbet af de seneste 3-4 år har bredt sig til stadig flere områder af samfundet, er ikke en kortvarig forstyrrelse, det er selve kulminationen på en finansiel udbytning, der har fundet sted i de seneste tre til fire årtier.