----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Hugh Whinfrey <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, 5 October 2012, 11:46 Subject: Re: [gang8] writedown debts? Thanks Dirk. Keen's current business partner saw my original proposal for this methodology quite some time ago on another mailing list :-)) He later left it in a huff that I thought was a bit irrational. I'm starting to connect some dots now.... A couple other points I should make 1) I don't see where it is fully sufficient to confiscate the "weapons" of the 1 percent. The real issue is the disappearance of the middle class and that the middle class needs to be recapitalised - and if that can be done without the 1% standing in the way of the critical path of it, then the justification for pursuing it becomes one of ethics and practicality rather than absolute necessity. So what I had in mind was on the order of EUR 10,000 per year per taxpayer, or more, for a number of years. Young people in their 20s these days in both Euroland and the US are in an impossible situation without this kind of help, they are being marginalised before they even leave school.Which means that the 1% are otherwise going to have to fork out massive social transfer payments, and that's no way to run an economy. 2) One of the major problems we have encountered in the markets is shorting and naked shorting. It seems some jurisdictions allow the money received in a short sale to be spent and never, ever booked as profits if the short is never formally closed. So taxes are avoided, and operating capital is manufactured for nothing if the short is naked, particularly if the underlying is driven out of business. The issue is - what is the interrelationship of "debt forgiveness" with this practice. It *needs* clarification as it can look like simply a tax-avoidance and prosecution-avoidance endgame in relation to these practices. So the terms and conditions of what is going on with it need some work. Hugh ----- Original Message ----- >From: D.J.Bezemer >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 12:52 PM >Subject: Re: [gang8] writedown debts? > > >Hugh, good plan, on the same principle as Steve Keen has proposed (I think he >explained it in a BBC Hard Talk Interview - you'ff find it Googling). > >My reply plan to Gunnar had the disadvantage that it helps ONLY mortgaged >households, which is politically a no go (and rightly so). > >I wil try to put some Dutch numbers on this to illustrate. > >We will only be taken serious with serious, simple-design, workable plans. > >Even so, immediately cries of 'inflation! Weimar' will be the response. Knee >jerks. > >Dirk >On 04-10-12, Hugh Whinfrey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>Geoffrey writes: >> >>>So come on all. Let us have some constructive, well thought out, >>>viable plans for rebalancing society without wrecking the economy >>>in the process. Let us get on with the hard work. >> >>Here's a stab at it, I have proposed something similar elsewhere in the >>past: >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>I see several issues to a write-down. >> >>1. Fairness/equity. >>2. Simplicity/minimal administrative costs. >>3. Economic stimulus for business. >>4. Actual debt level reduction. >>5. Rectification of impractical and dysfunctional imbalances. >> >>Try this for a rough sketch for a solution: >> >>Agree to waive the structure of the present financial system for a >>pre-defined period of, say 10 years, and let the national treasuries 'print' >>money by crediting individual taxpayers (i.e. a rough proxy for 'the labour >>force') with a specific and rather large amount each year for this special >>period. Created out of thin air (we do know how to do that). >> >>Then take the existing taxation system, and drive it in reverse to dispense >>these credits to the individual taxpayers. The exact same tax-free sum for >>each taxpayer for each of these years. That is the crucial part. >> >>It must not be a token amount but rather an annual amount carefully >>calculated to actually fix a set of problems. >> >>So the mechanism to do these "helicopter drops" is already there. The income >>tax system can continue to operate as normal otherwise. This credit would be >>just another line item on the form and the (whopping) bottom line would then >>be refunded as usual. >> >>These annual amounts should be calculated so as to bring 'average' >>households with troubled mortgages and/or excessive debt down to a managable >>level. Households worse off than than this level will still fail and those >>better off will have a tidy surplus that will go into bank deposits that >>will provide the needed economic stimulus once lent out with all the >>attendant leverage involved. No individual can complain of unfair treatment >>and business can get back on its feet. The key there is that business >>entities have to earn their way out of any of their debt problems. With >>plenty of money around now for them to chase in 'the old-fashioned way', >>they will do so. Just let capitalism do its thing there and knock off the >>bailouts. Businesses that can't cut it in the 21st century need to die >>rather than be put on life support. So the garbage needs to be cleared >>away regardless. Bailing them out with subsidies doesn't achieve that and if we're doing some wholesale proverbial urban renewal then this is the time to do that. >> >>If this is done across the board in the EU, US and Japan simultaneously the >>relative currency effects within the block will not be particularly >>disruptive. Much dubious debt will actually be paid off because the debtors >>will have the cash to service and pay down the loans to more reasonable >>levels, i.e. even the businesses by wayof earnings. >> >>Yes, it will be somewhat inflationary, but the inflation will contribute to >>the solution too. Such a plan should at least allow us to avoid the >>hyperinflation endgame that probably is in the cards otherwise. And this is >>also why it should be spread over a pre-determined fixed period of years. >>The additional effect of this stimulus generating actual real economic >>activity should also work to contain the inflationary effects. >> >>I can note that this might mean some nasty things for bondholders. Although, >>I have severe doubts that rates will stay at zero forever, so that isn't in >>my opinion a sufficiently good objection to going forward with something >>like this, i.e. bondholders are ultimately going to take it on the chin >>anyway. >> >>Also, I would bet that politicians supporting and implementing this would >>find themselves on a fast inside track to re-election, which is a >>considerable point in its favour. A chicken in every pot works much better >>than confiscating the contents of a voter's pantry. >> >>About the only other thing I would add is that doing a major re-think of the >>educational system at the same time is probably appropriate too. The skills >>folks need for the future will be different. Self-sufficiency skills and >>business skills need to be taught beginning in the primary schools. At >>present we're just educating kids to live off of public assistance. Teach >>them how to fend for themselves and most will actually be able to do so. At >>the very least how to grow your own food, do basic accounting and some >>basic marketing/sales procedures. >> >>Hugh > __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (10) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group The gang8 list is devoted to Creditary Economics. To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
