The election of the European Parliament will take place in less than three months (from 4 - 7 June 2009). These are the biggest trans-national elections in history as elected candidates will represent 500 million Europeans.
It is also an ideal opportunity to encourage election candidates to sign the pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments. No doubt the Simultaneous Policy organisations will be announcing the campaign and tools to help with this in due course.
In the meantime, it is possible to find the list of election candidates on party websites. I have started sending message like the following to candidates:
---
Congratulations on being the lead candidate on the party list for our regions European Election.
I am contacting you to ask your position on the Simultaneous Policy campaign. I am also sending you the pledge form for supporting the Simultaneous Policy campaign in case you have not signed this already.
As Gordon Brown and other leaders have been heard to say repeatedly in recent weeks and months: “Global problems require global solutions”.
The Simultaneous Policy or Simpol campaign brings people together around the world to discuss, develop and approve the policies they wish to see implemented. Anyone can take part in this process by signing up as a Simpol Adopter, which is free to do. This democratic and transparent process is ongoing. In the last annual vote conducted in October 2008, the top five issues identified by Adopters were: Climate change, The power of transnational corporations, Environment, International financial markets and other financial issues, Governance (global and national).
You can find further details in the policy section of http://www.simpol.org.uk/
Politicians are asked to sign a pledge agreeing in principle to implement these policies alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, other governments have made the same pledge. Until such time that implementation can be triggered, it is business as usual: doing as much as we can unilaterally, while trying to address these pressing issues through attempting to forge international deals and facing down powerful vested interests that play governments off against each other, threatening disinvestment if their agenda is not followed.
If you add your pledge to those already received from other politicians at both national and European level it will move us closer to being able to implement policies that have the backing of the people of the world. The Simultaneous Policy is to be coherent package that can break through the obstacle of destructive competition between nations to move the world into a new era of constructive cooperation. The pledge is provisional as the policies can only be finalised when there is sufficient global support as they need to address the situation faced at that time and all people of voting age will be given a chance to approve or reject the package.
The campaign is undeniably ambitious, but conventional policy making has failed to address global problems adequately and may be unable to do so. By signing and returning the attached pledge you are indicating you are prepared to give the Simultaneous Policy approach a try as a parallel strategy. The pledge can also be downloaded from:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/PDF/candidatesform0108.pdf
Adopters undertake to encourage their preferred party to support the campaign. Those without a party preference undertake to give a preference to any candidates at elections (within reason) who have signed the pledge. Hence the campaign makes addressing global problems an election issue and signing the pledge can provide an advantage to those candidates that have done so. In the run up to the election, Simpol’s website will indicate which candidates have signed the pledge.
Please let me know if you will sign the pledge and if so, any statement of support you would like to communicate to voters in our region. If you do not wish to sign the pledge, I would be interested to know why as I can see no disadvantage from signing. As global problems threaten to run out of control, it is surely worth a try.
Global problems do indeed require global solutions. It will be wonderful if those are introduced in the immediate future. But if that does not happen it will be wonderful to know that the Simultaneous Policy approach has your support as a parallel strategy.
March 8, 2009
March 7, 2009
The Amazon rainforest is wobbling on a climate change tipping point
On 28 February 2007 I heard Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute speak on his proposal for addressing climate change: Contraction and Convergence.
He spoke of climate change tripping points, citing in particular the risk that the Amazon rain forest could dry out to such an extent that it becomes a net producer of carbon dioxide. In other words, it would change from being a carbon sink to a carbon source. He said that an increase in forest fires (not at all common in a rain forest) had already been noticed.
Well there is a report yesterday that during a drought in 2005 the Amazon was a significant producer of carbon dioxide due to tree death. There is a report here:
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=351
---extract
The unusual and severe Amazon drought in 2005 led to the region emitting an extra five billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This exceeds the annual emissions of Europe and Japan combined, according to new research published today.
---extract ends
Previously I have written here about efforts to protect the Amazon from deforestation. The Brazilian government has set up an Amazon fund to this end. If the Simultaneous Policy (or other means of forming global policies) bring in polluter-pays taxes, some of these could go to such a fund. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/amazon-fund.html
But we should be very afraid because it was not deforestation as such that caused the Amazon to be a carbon source in 2005, it was climate change itself. As the climate changes, weather patterns become unstable, leading to droughts and flooding, unprecedented heat waves and cold snaps. The destruction of trees that took decades, if not centuries, to develop is not something that can easily be reversed. More carbon dioxide is released and there are less trees to absorb it. Weather becomes more extreme, and so on in a positive feedback cycle that could run away.
The 100 months campaign has suggested there is a very narrow and closing window for the necessary action: it has now closed to 93 months. Certainly this is a campaign strategy designed to galvanize action, nobody can be so precise. But this research suggests the tipping point on which the Amazon forest pivots is already starting to wobble.
NOTE: I recorded Aubrey Meyer and other speakers at the event in 2007 and subsequently played his talk at a virtual meeting in Second Life (international meetings without air travel), see:
http://luzoorbit.blogspot.com/2007/03/report-on-climat-change-event-on-11.html
You can hear the talk on the rolling programme of Second Life Simultaneous Policy Adopters' Group (SL-SPAG) radio at:
http://www.live365.com/stations/luzoorbit/
He spoke of climate change tripping points, citing in particular the risk that the Amazon rain forest could dry out to such an extent that it becomes a net producer of carbon dioxide. In other words, it would change from being a carbon sink to a carbon source. He said that an increase in forest fires (not at all common in a rain forest) had already been noticed.
Well there is a report yesterday that during a drought in 2005 the Amazon was a significant producer of carbon dioxide due to tree death. There is a report here:
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=351
---extract
The unusual and severe Amazon drought in 2005 led to the region emitting an extra five billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This exceeds the annual emissions of Europe and Japan combined, according to new research published today.
---extract ends
Previously I have written here about efforts to protect the Amazon from deforestation. The Brazilian government has set up an Amazon fund to this end. If the Simultaneous Policy (or other means of forming global policies) bring in polluter-pays taxes, some of these could go to such a fund. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/amazon-fund.html
But we should be very afraid because it was not deforestation as such that caused the Amazon to be a carbon source in 2005, it was climate change itself. As the climate changes, weather patterns become unstable, leading to droughts and flooding, unprecedented heat waves and cold snaps. The destruction of trees that took decades, if not centuries, to develop is not something that can easily be reversed. More carbon dioxide is released and there are less trees to absorb it. Weather becomes more extreme, and so on in a positive feedback cycle that could run away.
The 100 months campaign has suggested there is a very narrow and closing window for the necessary action: it has now closed to 93 months. Certainly this is a campaign strategy designed to galvanize action, nobody can be so precise. But this research suggests the tipping point on which the Amazon forest pivots is already starting to wobble.
NOTE: I recorded Aubrey Meyer and other speakers at the event in 2007 and subsequently played his talk at a virtual meeting in Second Life (international meetings without air travel), see:
http://luzoorbit.blogspot.com/2007/03/report-on-climat-change-event-on-11.html
You can hear the talk on the rolling programme of Second Life Simultaneous Policy Adopters' Group (SL-SPAG) radio at:
http://www.live365.com/stations/luzoorbit/
March 3, 2009
Gordon Brown calls on Obama to join a global crack down on tax havens
Once again Gordon Brown is calling for synchronised action by governments to address a global problem, this time on tax havens.
According to a report in The Guardian today, he is seeking support from the US and other G20 countries and suggesting that countries that do not cooperate should be sanctioned:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/03/gordon-brown-tax-havens
---
Gordon Brown has said he hopes the G20 summit in London will agree to name and shame those countries that refuse to end banking secrecy, warning that their behaviour endangers the stability of the world economy.
---
The suggestion is countries will be put on a blacklist: "Countries on the list are put at a disadvantage in terms of mutual cooperation and recognition of jurisdictions."
There could be a stronger enforcement regime. In my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority, I propose that governments that seek to gain competitive advantage by allowing their corporations to abuse human rights and the environment anywhere in the world could have punitive sanctions levied upon them. Such an approach has worked to enforce World Trade Organisation agreements. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=31.0
With the Simultaneous Policy process, proposals are developed transparently and democratically, unlike the way global policies are usually developed. Back room (or Green room) deals, economic blackmail and other forms of threats are used by the powerful to force through their agenda.
No proposals on tax havens have been put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy as yet. Whether those of Gordon Brown are the best on offer is debatable, and should be debated. Other proposals are being put forward by the Tax Justice network. See:
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=2
Anyone who has signed up as an Simultaneous Policy Adopter can put forward proposals. Simply go to the 'policy' section of:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/
Adopters call on politicians to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, have made the same pledge. Adopters call on their preferred party to sign the pledge, or if they do not have one, all parties to do so, giving a preference to any (within reason) that does so.
Gordon Brown is right to say that global problems need global solutions. But in a globalised world, democratic involvement in developing those global solutions is required. That is what the Simultaneous Policy aims to provide.
According to a report in The Guardian today, he is seeking support from the US and other G20 countries and suggesting that countries that do not cooperate should be sanctioned:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/03/gordon-brown-tax-havens
---
Gordon Brown has said he hopes the G20 summit in London will agree to name and shame those countries that refuse to end banking secrecy, warning that their behaviour endangers the stability of the world economy.
---
The suggestion is countries will be put on a blacklist: "Countries on the list are put at a disadvantage in terms of mutual cooperation and recognition of jurisdictions."
There could be a stronger enforcement regime. In my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority, I propose that governments that seek to gain competitive advantage by allowing their corporations to abuse human rights and the environment anywhere in the world could have punitive sanctions levied upon them. Such an approach has worked to enforce World Trade Organisation agreements. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=31.0
With the Simultaneous Policy process, proposals are developed transparently and democratically, unlike the way global policies are usually developed. Back room (or Green room) deals, economic blackmail and other forms of threats are used by the powerful to force through their agenda.
No proposals on tax havens have been put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy as yet. Whether those of Gordon Brown are the best on offer is debatable, and should be debated. Other proposals are being put forward by the Tax Justice network. See:
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=2
Anyone who has signed up as an Simultaneous Policy Adopter can put forward proposals. Simply go to the 'policy' section of:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/
Adopters call on politicians to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments when all, or sufficient, have made the same pledge. Adopters call on their preferred party to sign the pledge, or if they do not have one, all parties to do so, giving a preference to any (within reason) that does so.
Gordon Brown is right to say that global problems need global solutions. But in a globalised world, democratic involvement in developing those global solutions is required. That is what the Simultaneous Policy aims to provide.
February 22, 2009
Gordon Brown calls for global regulation, but what about democracy and transparency?
The logic of the Simultaneous Policy approach to addressing global problems - at least the Simultaneous part of it, if not the democracy and transparency - becomes ever more prominent during the current global financial crisis.
Gordon Brown, writing in today's Guardian, states:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/gordon-brown-comment-banks
"All markets and all jurisdictions that want to benefit from the global economy should play by the global rules. Institutions with global reach should be regulated in a global way, not by a patchwork of national regulators."
I agree, to a point. In my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority (which is conceived more to end human rights and environmental abuses than regulate financial markets), I suggest that the first port of call should be the national juridsticion, particularly of the home country of the firm. If home countries refuse to act, because they gain income and tax revenue from the business, and the country were the abuse takes place does not act, perhaps fearing disinvestment, then there should be recourse to an international institution. My suggestion is the World TNC Regulatory Authority, which can present a case to a revamped International Criminal Court for sanctions on the corporation and, perhaps, the home government that profited from turning a blind eye. For more on this proposal click on the tag link in the side panel.
Mr. Brown vision at present seems to be restricted to financial systems, where the logic for some form of global regulation arises from the cross-border nature of the business, rather than the simple power of the companies to play fast and loose with their human rights obligations and face down governments who try to hold them to account.
But Mr. Brown also makes a telling comment in his article. One which places too much faith in current systems of corporate governance. He states: "Banks must act in the long-term interests of their shareholders and therefore of the economy as a whole, not in the short-term interests of bankers."
This is really an non-sequeter. Benefits for shareholders may not be the same as benefits for the economy. For example, shareholders will benefit if a bank uses every tax dodge it can think of to maximise profits and lobbies, through fair means or foul, to stymie efforts for effective regulation.
More broadly, shareholders may benefit from corporations abusing human rights and the environment. I've had the shocking experience of sitting in a Nestle shareholder meeting when shareholders have booed and hissed anyone who has the affrontery to keep them from their free junk food samples by raising concerns about pushing of baby milk, exploitation of coffee and cocoa farmers, depletion of water reserves or trade union busting. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/04/glimpse-of-nestls-soul.html
Shareholders serving their own interests does not 'therefore' benefit the rest of us, as Mr. Brown suggests.
But he is right in suggesting global problems need global solutions. Those solutions should be the subject of democratic scrutiny. That is the aim of the Simultaneous Policy. Perhaps Mr. Brown should take a look.
Gordon Brown, writing in today's Guardian, states:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/gordon-brown-comment-banks
"All markets and all jurisdictions that want to benefit from the global economy should play by the global rules. Institutions with global reach should be regulated in a global way, not by a patchwork of national regulators."
I agree, to a point. In my proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority (which is conceived more to end human rights and environmental abuses than regulate financial markets), I suggest that the first port of call should be the national juridsticion, particularly of the home country of the firm. If home countries refuse to act, because they gain income and tax revenue from the business, and the country were the abuse takes place does not act, perhaps fearing disinvestment, then there should be recourse to an international institution. My suggestion is the World TNC Regulatory Authority, which can present a case to a revamped International Criminal Court for sanctions on the corporation and, perhaps, the home government that profited from turning a blind eye. For more on this proposal click on the tag link in the side panel.
Mr. Brown vision at present seems to be restricted to financial systems, where the logic for some form of global regulation arises from the cross-border nature of the business, rather than the simple power of the companies to play fast and loose with their human rights obligations and face down governments who try to hold them to account.
But Mr. Brown also makes a telling comment in his article. One which places too much faith in current systems of corporate governance. He states: "Banks must act in the long-term interests of their shareholders and therefore of the economy as a whole, not in the short-term interests of bankers."
This is really an non-sequeter. Benefits for shareholders may not be the same as benefits for the economy. For example, shareholders will benefit if a bank uses every tax dodge it can think of to maximise profits and lobbies, through fair means or foul, to stymie efforts for effective regulation.
More broadly, shareholders may benefit from corporations abusing human rights and the environment. I've had the shocking experience of sitting in a Nestle shareholder meeting when shareholders have booed and hissed anyone who has the affrontery to keep them from their free junk food samples by raising concerns about pushing of baby milk, exploitation of coffee and cocoa farmers, depletion of water reserves or trade union busting. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/04/glimpse-of-nestls-soul.html
Shareholders serving their own interests does not 'therefore' benefit the rest of us, as Mr. Brown suggests.
But he is right in suggesting global problems need global solutions. Those solutions should be the subject of democratic scrutiny. That is the aim of the Simultaneous Policy. Perhaps Mr. Brown should take a look.
February 10, 2009
World TNC Regulatory Authority article in Jus Semper newsletter (English and Spanish)
During the annual voting on policies for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy last year, I was fortunate to make contact with the Jus Semper Global Alliance for wage equality and was invited to submit an article for their newsletter on my policy proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority.
This appears in the new Jus Semper newsletter, Winter 2009, which is available at:
http://www.jussemper.org/Newsletters/ournewsletters.html
Many thanks to the editor, Álvaro de Regil Castilla, for arranging this and the translation of the article into Spanish.
I strongly believe that it is through discussing and sharing the real changes that the Simultaneous Policy can bring that we will reach more people and involve them in the campaign. The World TNC Regulatory Authority gained good support in the last voting round, being the second-best supported policy and to continue to do well, it will need ever greater support, so promoting policies is a two way street: promoting policies brings people to the Simpol campaign and helps to grow support for this approach; at the same time, individual Adopters can rally future voters for their proposals.
In this case, those interested in promoting the World TNC Regulatory Authority have a valuable resource to use in their campaigning, which is being added to my blog. Of course, Jus Semper also benefits through having their wage equality proposals promoted to a wider audience at the same time. Perhaps a member of that campaign will put them forward for inclusion in Simpol in time for the next voting round and encourage Jus Semper supporters to sign up as Adopters to vote for them.
The problems the world faces seem ever more pressing, so the more we can focus on solutions and the role Simpol can play in making them reality, the faster we will make progress.
After reading the article, feel free to leave comments on the World TNC Regulatory Authority in Simpol’s discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=30.0
This appears in the new Jus Semper newsletter, Winter 2009, which is available at:
http://www.jussemper.org/Newsletters/ournewsletters.html
Many thanks to the editor, Álvaro de Regil Castilla, for arranging this and the translation of the article into Spanish.
I strongly believe that it is through discussing and sharing the real changes that the Simultaneous Policy can bring that we will reach more people and involve them in the campaign. The World TNC Regulatory Authority gained good support in the last voting round, being the second-best supported policy and to continue to do well, it will need ever greater support, so promoting policies is a two way street: promoting policies brings people to the Simpol campaign and helps to grow support for this approach; at the same time, individual Adopters can rally future voters for their proposals.
In this case, those interested in promoting the World TNC Regulatory Authority have a valuable resource to use in their campaigning, which is being added to my blog. Of course, Jus Semper also benefits through having their wage equality proposals promoted to a wider audience at the same time. Perhaps a member of that campaign will put them forward for inclusion in Simpol in time for the next voting round and encourage Jus Semper supporters to sign up as Adopters to vote for them.
The problems the world faces seem ever more pressing, so the more we can focus on solutions and the role Simpol can play in making them reality, the faster we will make progress.
After reading the article, feel free to leave comments on the World TNC Regulatory Authority in Simpol’s discussion forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=30.0
January 19, 2009
President Obama urged to use carbon tax, not carbon trading, to address climate change
As the era of President Obama dawns, the top climate change scientist in the US has warned he has to take decisive action in his first term.
As I have suggested here before, the 'carbon trading' approach pushed by Europe is having little effect. For example, it is far cheaper to pay the Congo not to cut down trees than to invest in carbon capture development for power stations. The net result being that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/clean-coal.html
Here's what caught my eye in the Guardian report of the comments from Jim Hansen, described as "Nasa scientist and leading climate expert":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
---
Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels.
---
The advantage of a carbon tax is that it enables policy makers to set a price for producing greenhouse gases that will make reducing emissions economically viable. With market-derived prices for licences for the right to pollute, it is proving to be more economic to buy the licences rather than reduce emissions. Though it seems to me it would be better to levy this on carbon emitters, rather than the producers of fossil fuels. That will drive efficiencies in use of fossil fuels as well as switching to other sources of energy. It may, however, be harder and more controversial to measure.
Another advantage of a tax on fossil fuels or the greenhouse gases they produce is tax income can be used directly for investing in sustainable energy, carbon capture and ameliorating the effects of climate change.
A third advantage is that carbon taxes, to a greater or lesser degree, could be used to offset other taxes. For example, green goods could be zero rated for sales tax, providing an added incentive for consumers to select them - and, incidentally, helping the economy out of recession as society is restructured to be low carbon.
These are the type of practical, national policy steps that could be taken within the framework of global commitments to contract total emissions, while converging the right each person on the planet has to produce greenhouse cases to be equitable. This 'contraction and convergence' approach is the best-supported proposal for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy's annual voting yet again. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=14.0
As I have suggested here before, the 'carbon trading' approach pushed by Europe is having little effect. For example, it is far cheaper to pay the Congo not to cut down trees than to invest in carbon capture development for power stations. The net result being that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/08/clean-coal.html
Here's what caught my eye in the Guardian report of the comments from Jim Hansen, described as "Nasa scientist and leading climate expert":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
---
Only the US now had the political muscle to lead the world and halt the rise, Hansen said. Having refused to recognise that global warming posed any risk at all over the past eight years, the US now had to take a lead as the world's greatest carbon emitter and the planet's largest economy. Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels.
---
The advantage of a carbon tax is that it enables policy makers to set a price for producing greenhouse gases that will make reducing emissions economically viable. With market-derived prices for licences for the right to pollute, it is proving to be more economic to buy the licences rather than reduce emissions. Though it seems to me it would be better to levy this on carbon emitters, rather than the producers of fossil fuels. That will drive efficiencies in use of fossil fuels as well as switching to other sources of energy. It may, however, be harder and more controversial to measure.
Another advantage of a tax on fossil fuels or the greenhouse gases they produce is tax income can be used directly for investing in sustainable energy, carbon capture and ameliorating the effects of climate change.
A third advantage is that carbon taxes, to a greater or lesser degree, could be used to offset other taxes. For example, green goods could be zero rated for sales tax, providing an added incentive for consumers to select them - and, incidentally, helping the economy out of recession as society is restructured to be low carbon.
These are the type of practical, national policy steps that could be taken within the framework of global commitments to contract total emissions, while converging the right each person on the planet has to produce greenhouse cases to be equitable. This 'contraction and convergence' approach is the best-supported proposal for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy's annual voting yet again. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=14.0
January 9, 2009
Quantitative easing, monetary reform and green credit
In the current financial crisis it has been proposed that the Bank of England print money to lubricate the economy. This is referred to as 'quantitative easing'. This proposal has received a lot of criticism, dubbed in the press as 'helicopter money' with pictures of bankers throwing money for people to spend to avoid recession. The allegation is such action would devalue the pound, with Zimbabwe's currency collapse and hyperinflation cited as a cautionary tale.
But, as I have raised here, monetary reformers propose something very much like this. They point out that new money, required as the economy expands, is currently created by commercial banks at a profit as interest-bearing loans. They propose that central banks take over the role and provide the money to governments to spend into circulation through investment in capital projects or by funding tax cuts.
Monetary reform proposals didn't do well enough in the last annual vote to stay in the process - I think due to the apparent contradiction between the claim that commercial banks create money out of nothing and credit drying up. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7.0
I've been looking for those who know more about this subject than I do to explain more about quantitative easing and how it links with monetary reform proposals. So I was very pleased to receive the following email from Barbara Panvel and links from Sabine McNeill of the Green Credit campaign, which I am off to explore.
I hope that the monetary reform proposals come back stronger and clearer. Anyone interested in working up a proposal can do so in the 'work in progress' of Simpol's online forum. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=32.0
---Email from Barbara
Will the opportunity offered by the current dialogue about ‘quantitative easing’ - a term first noticed by me a couple of months ago - be taken by people working on the Green New Deal?
The definition of quantitative easing given by those with a vested interest in opposing such measures is ‘printing money’ and warnings are given citing the example of Zimbabwe.
Philip Stephens, associate editor of the Financial Times, does not agree, describing printing money as ‘the new prudence’ now that the Washington consensus has been fractured.
However, printing and distributing banknotes – once suggested by Milton Friedman and the Fed's chairman, Ben Bernanke - is not on the agenda of most monetary reformers.
MP Austin Mitchell has for years consistently and constructively proposed to spend fiat money, issued electronically, into circulation in a focussed way, meeting unfulfilled public needs such as improving transport, education and health provision – and the range of measures advocated in the Green New Deal.
In November 07, his EDM 265 called for a policy of using publicly-created money to finance carbon neutral measures and conversions which could be adopted to create additional economic growth and recommended the Treasury to use its powers to create non-interest bearing money to fund activities to combat climate change.
The real issue is not one of bank-notes versus virtual money but of the uses to additional ‘liquidity’ could be put: as Andrew Lydon once pointed out, money issued in this way could be used for good or ill.
To date, Alistair Darling has not ruled out quantitative easing, so I hope that readers will press for the funds released to be used in the interests of the ‘real’ economy and the environment - and not to give further subsidies to the arms trade or to build incinerators and nuclear power stations.
---email ends
---Links provided by Sabine McNeill
Money Supply or Public Credit Petition
http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/stop-the-cash-crumble-to-equalize-the-credit-crunch.html
Parliamentary Scrutiny via the Treasury Select Committee.
Money as Debt also known as Credit
http://moneyasdebt.wordpress.com/
Green Credit for Green Purposes
http://greencredit.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/green-credit.pdf
our submission to the Committee’s Inquiry into the Stern Report
Green Credit campaign
http://greencredit.org.uk/
In the Spirit of the Forum for Stable Currencies
http://www.forumnews.wordpress.com/
Forum for Stable Currencies
http://www.forumforstablecurrencies.org.uk/
Expanding Dr. Yunus' Sphere of Influence
http://yunusphere.net/
But, as I have raised here, monetary reformers propose something very much like this. They point out that new money, required as the economy expands, is currently created by commercial banks at a profit as interest-bearing loans. They propose that central banks take over the role and provide the money to governments to spend into circulation through investment in capital projects or by funding tax cuts.
Monetary reform proposals didn't do well enough in the last annual vote to stay in the process - I think due to the apparent contradiction between the claim that commercial banks create money out of nothing and credit drying up. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7.0
I've been looking for those who know more about this subject than I do to explain more about quantitative easing and how it links with monetary reform proposals. So I was very pleased to receive the following email from Barbara Panvel and links from Sabine McNeill of the Green Credit campaign, which I am off to explore.
I hope that the monetary reform proposals come back stronger and clearer. Anyone interested in working up a proposal can do so in the 'work in progress' of Simpol's online forum. See:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/index.php?board=32.0
---Email from Barbara
Will the opportunity offered by the current dialogue about ‘quantitative easing’ - a term first noticed by me a couple of months ago - be taken by people working on the Green New Deal?
The definition of quantitative easing given by those with a vested interest in opposing such measures is ‘printing money’ and warnings are given citing the example of Zimbabwe.
Philip Stephens, associate editor of the Financial Times, does not agree, describing printing money as ‘the new prudence’ now that the Washington consensus has been fractured.
However, printing and distributing banknotes – once suggested by Milton Friedman and the Fed's chairman, Ben Bernanke - is not on the agenda of most monetary reformers.
MP Austin Mitchell has for years consistently and constructively proposed to spend fiat money, issued electronically, into circulation in a focussed way, meeting unfulfilled public needs such as improving transport, education and health provision – and the range of measures advocated in the Green New Deal.
In November 07, his EDM 265 called for a policy of using publicly-created money to finance carbon neutral measures and conversions which could be adopted to create additional economic growth and recommended the Treasury to use its powers to create non-interest bearing money to fund activities to combat climate change.
The real issue is not one of bank-notes versus virtual money but of the uses to additional ‘liquidity’ could be put: as Andrew Lydon once pointed out, money issued in this way could be used for good or ill.
To date, Alistair Darling has not ruled out quantitative easing, so I hope that readers will press for the funds released to be used in the interests of the ‘real’ economy and the environment - and not to give further subsidies to the arms trade or to build incinerators and nuclear power stations.
---email ends
---Links provided by Sabine McNeill
Money Supply or Public Credit Petition
http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/stop-the-cash-crumble-to-equalize-the-credit-crunch.html
Parliamentary Scrutiny via the Treasury Select Committee.
Money as Debt also known as Credit
http://moneyasdebt.wordpress.com/
Green Credit for Green Purposes
http://greencredit.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/green-credit.pdf
our submission to the Committee’s Inquiry into the Stern Report
Green Credit campaign
http://greencredit.org.uk/
In the Spirit of the Forum for Stable Currencies
http://www.forumnews.wordpress.com/
Forum for Stable Currencies
http://www.forumforstablecurrencies.org.uk/
Expanding Dr. Yunus' Sphere of Influence
http://yunusphere.net/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
