8/22/2012 6:24 PM ET|
No debt, no cuts, no new taxes?
For all the nation's economic woes, the debate seems stuck on tax hikes for the rich or cutting off seniors and the poor. We need radical ideas; here's one worth considering.
Mitt Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate has refocused the nation's attention on the big, structural issues plaguing the union. The national debt is now larger than the economy's total output in a year; each American's share is nearly $51,000. Inflation that has averaged 4.4% since 1970 and reduced a dollar's buying power to just 17 cents over that time. An embarrassingly convoluted and inefficient tax code rewards cheats, accountants and lawyers while hurting everyone else.
These problems trouble many of us. But the differing solutions proposed by Romney and President Barack Obama amount to a false choice of pick-your-poison: tax hikes for the wealthy or benefit cuts for the vulnerable. And the timeline for Ryan's plan balances the budget three decades from now -- so it's hardly the tough medicine we need.
What if there was another way, a way that would not only solve these problems but also address the redress owed to us by Wall Street for its shenanigans -- by reclaiming a great power, the power to create money, that protected the United States during its most trying times.
There may be such a way. It's called the Chicago Plan. And it first came up during a crisis not unlike what we have right now. It's a big plan for big problems. Yes, it's something that may not seem possible given our polarized politics. But it may also be exactly what we need. Here's why.
The plan was conceived by a group of economists back in the early 1930s. Conditions then were similar to those we face today: a stagnant recovery, banks withholding credit, too much debt, consumer price volatility and the rise of political extremism as a consequence of economic turmoil.
Although it generated much excitement within the academic community and became a more formal proposal by 1939 (.pdf file), its main tenet was never adopted:
That the government, not private banks, should control the creation of money, as it did during the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. As a result, new money would no longer require an offsetting creation of debt, as it does now. And banks should hold 100% of customer deposits in its vaults, not the 10% that is required now while the rest is lent out.
If you're like most people, the inner workings of the financial system are about as intuitive as hooking up a home stereo. But stick with me here. I'll use a simple example to illustrate all this.
Currently, the Federal Reserve (which is owned by banks but partly controlled by the government) buys $100 in currency from the U.S. Mint for the cost of printing it, thereby "creating" the money by turning it into legal tender. (It can also just electronically create money by crediting bank accounts.) That $100 gets deposited at, say, Bankof America (BAC). The bank keeps only $10 in its vault and lends out the other $90, creating an asset for itself with someone else's money.
Suddenly, the money supply has just jumped by $190: The $100 deposit and the $90 loan, which in turn gets deposited at another bank so the process can start again. The $90 deposit fuels an $81 loan. The $81 deposit fuels a $73 loan. And on and on. Soon, just a few iterations in, the money supply has swelled from the original $100 to $344. In essence, the banks have the power to print money.
The power shifts
The Chicago Plan would change all this by separating money from credit.
Bank of America would have to hold the entire $100 deposit in its vaults, acting (as banks originally did) as a safe house for wealth. Customer deposits would sit alongside it.
Loans would be funded separately -- via retained profits, equity from investors or loans of currency from the government.
The government authority that issues currency -- which could be a restructured Fed -- would directly control the money supply by changing the price and size of those loans of currency to banks versus the indirect control the Fed has now. If it wanted the money supply to grow by $344, it would lend $344 to the banks, which banks would then loan out to make a profit.
The advantages of this are easy to see. Over the past few years, the Fed has been pumping cheap money into the financial system in an effort to expand the money supply and support our recovery. But banks have often hoarded the cash -- to the tune of nearly $1.5 trillion. If that money came with an explicit cost, banks wouldn't have the choice of sitting on it. Either they would lend it to consumers or businesses, or they would loan it to other institutions that could. The Fed could more easily force that money into the economy by taking over the banks' control of the money-creation process, while banks and other institutions would focus on getting credit to those that need it.
Economists with clout
Keep in mind, this plan isn't the ramblings of anti-establishment anarchists. That's why it's so compelling.
The original Chicago Plan was backed by members of the "Chicago school" of economists at the University of Chicago, including Frank Knight (who tutored Nobel laureates Milton Friedman, George Stigler and James Buchanan) as well as Irving Fisher, whose work on interest-rate theory and the debt-deflation dynamics of depressions remains influential today.
Renewed interest in the plan was catalyzed by a recent working paper (.pdf file) by two researchers at the International Monetary Fund, Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof. The duo, realizing the similarities of the problems faced by the Chicago Plan authors to our current predicament, applied its solutions to an advanced "dynamic stochastic general equilibrium" model of the U.S. economy.
In plain English, DSGE models try to simulate the saving and borrowing activities of various sectors of the economy, from governments and households to manufacturers and unions. It may not be a perfect simulation, but it's as close as we can get.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
I gotta admit Tony, the multiplier effect sounded like a rather questionable practice to me the first
time I heard it in a money and banking class.
Maybe just raise the reserve requirement to 33%, for instance.
I bet the bankers fight tooth and nail against it getting raised by 1%.
I am not an economist, so I really do not know what the best way to go should be. All I know is that the middle class is suffering and I'm sick and tired of our elected officials doing nothing about it.
I was stunned by yesterday's article about the middle class by the Associated Press' Hope Yen that appeared on msn money. It you didn't read it YOU SHOULD ( search for hope yen middle class ).
The only thing I know is that our elected officials need to get off their high horses and help out the middle class. Come this November, I personally am going to do an unheard of thing for me, vote against all incumbent politicians and get all new blood in every branch of government, this is my only true option to see real change happen.
"Money is power...." (Russell Conwell)
"All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
"No one can earn a million dollars honestly." William Jennings Bryan [That was when a million was worth something. Now it should be more like $10 Million, but the message is still the same--and applies to all the CEO's and Wall Streeters at the top]
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine."
George Bernard Shaw
And, really last,
"Well, whiles I am a beggar, I will rail,
And say there is no sin, but to be rich;
And being rich, my virtue then shall be,
To say there is no vice, but beggary."
All hail Mitt Robme.
That somehow if they cut welfare, medicare, and unemployment insurance, that all of the little people will find a pot of gold under their bed when they wake up, and they'll never get sick, disabled or old, and everyone will have great paying jobs.
Very informative article Anthony. I can understand why you say the Gov't and not banks should print the money. Wall Street and the Bankers are so ponzified into their wealth, they would be frightened to death to relinquish their control.
Yep, he will have to cut taxes for millionaires because some offshore tax havens are disappearing.
Yep, he will have to "give back" to Sheldon and the Koch's for their overly generous donations to his campaign; sorry America.
Yep, he will have to cut medicare and entitlements, and he will say, sorry, you should have been born wealthy like me. See, you make poor decisions.
That they can reduce the deficit by increasing defense spending and reducing taxes for the wealthy.
Those poor people must have all the money - we'll tax them.
An article that stimulates the mind and questions what is, what could be, and what should be — love it, Good job Mr. Mirhaydari.
It’s a valid question: Is there a better way to reward our knowledge, resources and productivity? Personally I believe that this is the core issue: our knowledge and capabilities are outstripping our antiquated financial systems whose core tenets are a thousand years old and from a different knowledge and capabilities era.
It’s Knowledge, Resources and Capabilities vs. an effective Reward and Resources Management System. On that front our current reward/resource system is severely and arbitrarily limiting our potential and that is a terrible outcome. Here are just a couple of examples:
We limit the number of doctors we produce because the AMA is worried about doctors’ earnings potential, not because we lack the demand for doctors, or the brilliant minds who want to become a doctor.
Our space program is being challenge like never before and instead of funding it like never before we are limiting the very core of what has made us “The Superpower”, —brilliant scientist.
Did you see what the Curiosity team just pulled off, amazing. I promise you the nation that gains control of the resources on the Red Planet will dictate what happens on this planet. The space race and all of the “capabilities” it spawns: propulsion technology, material advances, computer sciences, biology advances, terraforming technologies, etc. are what builds a Nation.
The privatization of space comes with the added weight of “How do we make money right now”, rather than what knowledge, capabilities and resources can we achieve with patience and a focused effort, which we can then value through the private sector.
It is knowledge and its expression through tangible products, services and concepts (think the Constitution of the United States) that has made our lives rewarding, rather than its expression in the form of money and the arcane system used to manage and reward money.
Currently we have over monetized, over leveraged, and over insured the outcome of our efforts and ideas, time to evolve.
Not opposed to that. Vanquish the paid political posters on these Comments portals so we can get down to business. How INTELLIGENT it would be for one of these article writers to actually present a Solutions portal and manage it for a day? My guess... regardless of party, there are enough ideas to take to DC and present to ALL of Congress on behalf of ALL of the People of the United States. The best idea I can offer that straddles the economic political divide... don't pay Washington another penny until they begin legitimate cooperation without lobby present. We are worse off right now than ever in our history. Time for paid politicians to grow up; degrees to take a back seat to commonsense and experience; wealth to sit down and shut up and do the right thing without regard to race creed color sex religion national origin or class.
"The new Liberal Norm?"
I honestly don't know any liberals. I know tons of folks in the middle tired of career politicians and terror sects under the GOP umbrella. Recover our jobs or leave the nation. NOW.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The major averages ended the midweek session with slim gains after showing some intraday volatility in reaction to the release of the latest policy directive from the Federal Open Market Committee. The S&P 500 added 0.1%, while the relative strength among small caps sent the Russell 2000 higher by 0.3%.
Equities spent the first half of the session near their flat lines as participants stuck to the sidelines ahead of the FOMC statement, which conveyed no changes to the ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'