By Jericho - http://2bgr8stock.deviantart.com/art/Money-Cash-113445826, CC BY 3.0, Link
Wirtschaft

Wie die USA fünf Billionen Dollar schufen

3. November 2017

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