FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Democratizing Money

The Green New Deal has been in the air lately. In a recent piece on this website, Rob Urie writes that the Green New Deal is “the last, best hope for environmental and social resolution outside of rapid dissolution toward dystopian hell.”

Quite a claim. Let’s take a closer look.

The Green New Deal, first articulated by the Green Party but now supported by many progressive Democrats, calls for “real financial reform” to address the twin problems of climate change and economic insecurity.

Included are some of the standard proposals we regularly hear, such as restoring the Glass-Steagell Act (separating commercial and investment banking), breaking up the big banks, ending bank bailouts, reducing debt burdens, regulating derivatives, and taxing bank bonuses.

These are serious proposals, and would likely provide some relief, but they are partial measures subject to rollback and evasion–just the kind of incremental strategy that has failed for decades.

But the “real financial reform” the Green New Deal calls for goes a lot further. It promises genuine radical change with two new proposals: One is to “democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation,” and the other is to “support the formation of federal, state, and municipal public owned banks that function as non-profit utilities.”

First, some background. Most people don’t realize that the government does not issue money; the private banking system does, by issuing loans at interest. The last time the government issued money in any quantity was during the Civil War, when so-called greenbacks were printed by the Treasury department to pay for the war. Greenbacks were not debt, but direct currency printed to give government contractors money for the goods and services provided, which they then spent into the general economy, stimulating commerce.

Greenbacks were very successful; issued responsibly, only as needed, they made it possible to finance the war without onerous debt or inflation. After the war, however, private banks fought hard to eliminate greenbacks, and finally succeeded. They did not want their near-monopoly over the issuance of money undermined by public control of the monetary system. Today, well over a century later, how money is issued is again an in question.

Let’s be clear. Private banks create money by issuing loans to individuals and companies; their profit comes from charging interest and, if necessary, foreclosing on the assets of delinquent debtors. It’s essentially a private tax for a public service.
Why banks should charge interest for creating money to loan out is a mystery. It’s not that banks are lending out money they have on deposit. They have to keep a small reserve, it’s true, but something like 90 percent of loans are simply creation out of nothing. You want a mortgage from the bank and, once they approve you, they enter–magically!–the amount you need on your account. Then they charge you as much interest as they can for something that should be a public service offered on a non-profit basis.

Borrowing works for borrowers as long as they can make more profit on borrowed money than the interest that must be paid on it. Since the 1970s, however, and especially since the 2008 crisis, return on investment has lagged behind borrowing, with government, corporate, and individual debt levels now higher than ever and harder to sustain.

When the 2008 financial crisis hit, the federal government and the Federal Reserve bailed out private banks and some corporations (like GM) to the tune of trillions of dollars in taxpayer backed debt, mostly by purchasing their non-performing (worthless) assets. That got large investors off the hook, while leaving individuals and small businesses in the dust–crushed by debt and foreclosed mortgages.

The Green New Deal aims to neutralize the private banking system by which–good times or bad–the rich seem to get richer, while everybody else gets left behind. By issuing its own currency, the government would not longer have to borrow through private banks in order to spend what is necessary. It could directly purchase goods and services (infrastructure, health care, free education, transition to renewables) by issuing ‘greenbacks,’ whose value would be sustained by the public benefits they would bring.

It’s true that greenbacks were a fiat currency–issued by command of the government and backed only by faith in the government–like the assignatsof the French revolution, or the continentals of the American revolution, not to mention the marks of the Weimar republic. That these other fiat currencies notoriously collapsed in inflationary waves, wiping out any value, should give us pause.

The greenbacks, however, worked because issuance was kept proportionate to the goods and services received in turn. That was intentional; it was a deliberate ethical act, on somebody’s part, not the product of some invisible hand. The Green New Deal’s currency ideas, if implemented, are going to be no better than those in charge of managing them.

To make a fiat currency work we may need something like an Ethical New Deal to clarify the principles behind any Green New Deal. Who should issue money? Who should get it? Why? This is a discussion that’s just beginning.

The other leg of the Green New Deal’s financial reform–establishing non-profit, public banks–would provide credit to ordinary people at zero or nominal interest for vital, long-term personal investments: housing, education, or starting a small business. It’s not enough for the government to issue currency. Government contractors would be the main beneficiaries, but they are not representative of the society as a whole, and should not have privileged access to money.

Money in fairness must somehow be made available to the general public as well, and zero-interest public lending would do the trick. Banks should be public utilities, it would seem, not profit-making enterprises. Imagine being able to borrow on decent collateral the resources you need to improve your life, without having to pay back a fortune in interest.

Sound too good to be true? Maybe, but without some similar rearrangement of our monetary system, financial advantage will continue to lay with the investor class, increasing the economic insecurity of everyone else. Too many people will continue to be denied access to capital except on the onerous terms offered by the current financial system, leaving them heavily indebted if not bankrupt, for the foreseeable future.

More articles by:

Adrian Kuzminski is a scholar, writer and citizen activist who has written a wide variety of books on economics, politics, and democracy. 

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

Weekend Edition
April 19, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
What Will It Take For Trump to Get His Due?
Roy Eidelson
Is the American Psychological Association Addicted to Militarism and War?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Time is Blind, Man is Stupid
Joshua Frank
Top 20 Mueller Report “Findings”
Rob Urie
Why Russiagate Will Never Go Away
Paul Street
Stephen Moore Gets Something Right: It’s Capitalism vs. Democracy
Russell Mokhiber
Why Boeing and Its Executives Should be Prosecuted for Manslaughter
T.J. Coles
The Battle for Latin America: How the U.S. Helped Destroy the “Pink Tide”
Ron Jacobs
Ho Chi Minh City: Nguyen Thai Binh Street
Dean Baker
Fun Fictions in Economics
David Rosen
Trump’s One-Dimensional Gender Identity
Kenn Orphan
Notre Dame: We Have Always Belonged to Her
Robert Hunziker
The Blue Ocean Event and Collapsing Ecosystems
Theodore C. Van Alst, Jr.
Paddy Wagon
Brett Wilkins
Jimmy Carter: US ‘Most Warlike Nation in History of the World’
John W. Whitehead
From Jesus Christ to Julian Assange: When Dissidents Become Enemies of the State
Nick Pemberton
To Never Forget or Never Remember
Stephen Cooper
My Unforgettable College Stabbings
Louis Proyect
A Leftist Rejoinder to the “Capitalist Miracle”
Louisa Willcox
Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic and the Need for a New Approach to Managing Wildlife
Brian Cloughley
Britain Shakes a Futile Fist and Germany Behaves Sensibly
Jessicah Pierre
A Revolutionary Idea to Close the Racial Wealth Divide
George Burchett
Revolutionary Journalism
Dan Bacher
U.S. Senate Confirms Oil Lobbyist David Bernhardt as Interior Secretary
Nicky Reid
The Strange Success of Russiagate
Chris Gilbert
Defending Venezuela: Two Approaches
Todd Larsen
The Planetary Cost of Amazon’s Convenience
Kelly Martin
How the White House is Spinning Earth Day
Nino Pagliccia
Cuba and Venezuela: Killing Two Birds With a Stone
Matthew Stevenson
Pacific Odyssey: Guadalcanal and Bloody Ridge, Solomon Islands
David Kattenburg
Trudeau’s Long Winter
Gary Olson
A Few Comments on the recent PBS Series: Reconstruction: America After the Civil War
Ellen Lindeen
What Does it Mean to Teach Peace?
Adewale Maye and Eileen Appelbaum
Paid Family and Medical Leave: a Bargain Even Low-Wage Workers Can Afford
Ramzy Baroud
War Versus Peace: Israel Has Decided and So Should We
Ann Garrison
Vets for Peace to Barbara Lee: Support Manning and Assange
Thomas Knapp
The Mueller Report Changed my Mind on Term Limits
Jill Richardson
Why is Going Green So Hard? Because the System Isn’t
Mallika Khanna
The Greenwashing of Earth Day
Arshad Khan
Do the Harmless Pangolins Have to Become Extinct?
Paul Armentano
Pushing Marijuana Legalization Across the Finish Line
B. R. Gowani
Surreal Realities: Pelosi, Maneka Gandhi, Pompeo, Trump
Paul Buhle
Using the Law to Build a Socialist Society
April 18, 2019
Gerald Sussman
Russiagate is Dead! Long Live Russiagate!
Lance Olsen
Perverse Housing Policy Perverts Forest Policy
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail