Wie die USA fünf Bil­lionen Dollar schufen

Heute Morgen habe ich die Idee von Par­al­lel­wäh­rungen dis­ku­tiert. Dabei geht es um staat­liche Schuld­pa­piere, die neben dem Euro als Zah­lungs­mittel (wenn auch nur für bestimmte Zwecke wie Steu­er­zah­lungen) dienen und damit die Kauf­kraft in einer Volks­wirt­schaft deutlich steigern. Keine neue Idee.

Da fiel mir ein Beitrag vom letzten Jahr ein, der anlässlich der Aus­sagen des dama­ligen Prä­si­dent­schafts­kan­di­daten Donald Trump, die Staats­schulden seien kein Problem, da er „einfach das Geld drucken könne“, an die Finanz­po­litik aus der Zeit des ame­ri­ka­ni­schen Bür­ger­krieges erin­nerte. Damals haben die Nord­staaten in heu­tigem Geld rund fünf Bil­lionen US-Dollar neues Geld geschaffen. Das wären doch Per­spek­tiven für Italien (und alle anderen):

  • „‚Reckless‘, ‚alarming‘, ‚dis­as­trous‘, ‚swa­sh­buckling‘, ‚playing with fire‘, ‚crazy talk‘, ‚lost in a forest of non­sense‘: these are a few of the labels applied by media com­men­tators to Donald Trump’s latest pro­posal for dealing with the federal debt. On Monday, May 9th, the pre­sumptive Repu­blican pre­si­dential can­didate said on CNN, ‚You print the money.‘“ – bto: Ich denke, es ist klar, dass jeder Staat mit Wäh­rungs­au­to­nomie (also nicht die Euro­länder) mit der Noten­presse „bezahlen“ kann.
  • Da ist es fast unnötig, dass der Autor noch Alan Greenspan zitiert: „The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero pro­ba­bility of default.“ – bto: absolut richtig. Wobei es, präzise gesagt, nur eine andere Form von Pleite ist!
  • Paying the government’s debts by just issuing the money is as Ame­rican as apple pie – if you go back far enough. Ben­jamin Franklin attri­buted the remar­kable growth of the Ame­rican colonies to this inno­vative funding solution. Abraham Lincoln revived the colonial system of government-issued money when he endorsed the printing of $450 million in US Notes or ‚green­backs‘ during the Civil War.“
  • An dieser Stelle hat der Beitrag einen Link zu einem wei­teren Aufsatz, der das kon­kre­ti­siert: „Early into the Ame­rican Civil War Pre­sident Lincoln rea­lized that the costs asso­ciated with it would be unsus­tainable if funds were to be bor­rowed from banks or the general public through the issuance of federal government bonds.  In looking for alter­na­tives legal under the Con­sti­tution, the government first enacted the Act for a National Loan of July 17, 1861.  In Section 1 of that Act, in addition to interest bearing bonds and Tre­asury notes, it also aut­ho­rized the creation $50 million of non-interest bearing Tre­asury notes, but which were rede­emable in specie. (…) There were a number of addi­tional acts incre­asing the issuance to about $450 million and several to withdraw them as private banks increased money in cir­cu­lation.  It is inte­resting to note that this repre­sented about 40 % of the monetary aggre­gates at the time, which would make it equi­valent to the Tre­asury creating about $5 trillion today.
  • „This type of cur­rency called US Notes (USN) came to be col­lo­quially known as ‚Green­backs‘.  As debt represents the acqui­sition of current purchasing power in exchange for future lia­bi­lities, USNs are seen as ‚notes of credit‘ as they do not create any future lia­bility.  They are quite distinct from Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in that FRNs are created through the issuance of debt (per­sonal, cor­porate, or govern­mental), and create more of the same as the under­lying debt demands interest pay­ments.  USNs on the other hand are issued directly by the Tre­asury (through the Federal Reserve) and alt­hough they are legally listed as debt (there is no formal equity accounting with the government) they are not rede­emable by any­thing other than them­selves and accrue no interest pay­ments.“ – bto: Das erinnert mich sehr stark an die Vollgeld-Idee. Geld wird vom Staat direkt geschaffen und in den Umlauf gebracht. Dürfte auch dem „Aktivgeld“ von Thomas Mayer sehr ähneln.
  • Wiki­pedia dazu: „Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes have been legal tender since the gold recall of 1933. Both have been used in cir­cu­lation as money in the same way. However, the issuing aut­hority for them came from dif­ferent sta­tutes.[21] United States Notes were created as fiat cur­rency, in that the government has never cate­go­ri­cally gua­ranteed to redeem them for pre­cious metal – even though at times, such as after the specie resumption of 1879, federal offi­cials were aut­ho­rized to do so if requested. The dif­fe­rence between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note repre­sented a ‚bill of credit‘ and was replaced by the Tre­asury directly into cir­cu­lation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seig­ni­orage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending parent to the Tre­asury and the public.“
  • Zunächst hatte Trump davon gesprochen, Staats­an­leihen mit Abschlag zurück­zu­kaufen. Kri­tiker meinten dann, dies mache weitere Schulden erfor­derlich, worauf hin Trump erklärte, den Rückkauf mit neu geschaf­fenem Geld finan­zieren zu wollen. „CNN was not alone in calling the notion of printing our way out of debt reck­lessly infla­tionary. But would it be? The Federal Reserve has already bought $4.5 trillion in assets, $2.7 trillion of which were federal secu­rities, simply by “printing the money.“ – bto: Richtig ist, im Zustand der Über­schuldung ist es schwer, so viel Über­nach­frage zu gene­rieren, dass Inflation ent­steht. Diese ent­steht nur in den Märkten für Vermögenswerte.
  • „One sug­gestion gaining traction is ‚heli­c­opter money‘ – just issue money and drop it directly into the economy in some way. In QE as done today, the newly issued money makes it no further than the balance sheets of banks. It does not get into the pro­ducing economy or the pockets of con­sumers, where it would need to go in order to create the demand necessary to sti­mulate pro­duc­tivity. Heli­c­opter money would create that demand.“ – bto: so es aus­ge­geben wird, wie wir wissen. Vor allem die direkte Finan­zierung der Staaten für Infra­struk­tur­pro­jekte etc. würde wirken, wie hier oft diskutiert.
  • Die Autorin zitiert in diesem Zusam­menhang noch den Eco­nomist: „Advo­cates of heli­c­opter money do not really intend to throw money out of air­craft. Broadly speaking, they argue for fiscal stimulus—in the form of government spending, tax cuts or direct pay­ments to citizens—financed with newly printed money rather than through bor­rowing or taxation. Quan­ti­tative easing (QE) qua­lifies, so long as the central bank buying the government bonds pro­mises to hold them to maturity, with interest pay­ments and prin­cipal remitted back to the government like most central-bank profits.“ – bto: Wir sind schon lange auf genau diesem Weg.
  • „An even cleaner solution would be to simply void out the debt held by the Fed.“ – bto: genau das, was Adair Turner und andere schon lange fordern. Die Noten­banken sollen die Schulden einfach annul­lieren.
  • „The com­bi­nation of fiat money and Glo­ba­lization creates a unique moment in history where the govern­ments of the deve­loped eco­nomies can print money on an aggressive scale without causing inflation. They should take advantage of this once-in-history oppor­tunity.“ – bto: Ja, das hat was.
  • Und jetzt kommen wir zur Geld­sys­tem­frage: „The right of government to issue its own money was one of the prin­ciples for which the Ame­rican Revo­lution was fought. Ame­ricans are incre­asingly waking up to the fact that the vast majority of the money supply is no longer issued by the government but is created by private banks when they make loans; and that with that power goes enormous power over the economy itself.“ – bto: Damit sind wir im Kern der Vollgeld-The­matik: statt den Banken das Recht zu geben, Geld zu erzeugen, für das wir alle Zinsen zahlen, Geld durch den Staat direkt produzieren.
  • So sieht es die Autorin: „The issue that should be debated is one that domi­nated poli­tical dis­cussion in the 19thcentury but that few can­di­dates are even aware of today: should creation and control of the money supply be public or private? Donald Trump’s wil­lingness to trans­gress the con­ser­vative taboo against public money creation is a welcome step in opening that debate.“ – bto: eine Debatte, die wir auch in Europa und nicht nur in der Schweiz führen sollten.

globalresearch.ca:Print the Money: Trump’s Reckless Pro­posal Echoes Franklin and Lincoln”, vom 15. Mai 2016

Dr. Daniel Stelter / www.think-beyondtheobvious.com