LSE Events | Ann Pettifor | The Production of Money: how to break the power of bankers 

Possibly our evolutionary predisposition towards dominator hierarchies undercuts our ability to solve what ought to be relatively simple, i.e. compared to computer networks, cellular communications, neuroscience etc. People collectively are programmed to create hierarchies and money is the tool which amplifies this evolutionary habit. Rational people like Ann, show us what can be done reasonably yet our ancient ignorant hive mind acts to sustain a system of dominance that this money system insures.

ow man, finally a human being with a functioning brain in academia... it is rare... but she comes to the point: the monetary system...

Keynes wrote, "I believe that the future will learn more from Gesell’s than from Marx’s spirit." Silvio Gesell is IMO an important monetary theorist, you can see the seeds of modern monetary theory in his work.

As always, Ann's knowledge of history and monetary theory is splendid, her remedies and solutions fall under the weight of their own contradictions.

Q&A queen!

money money gotta have it .

Transcript available ?

What I would like to hear from economists is a serious debate about resurrecting the system of deposit banking that was created in the 17th century with the chartering of the Bank of Amsterdam. What would occur is we actually tried to establish a global money system based on currency redeemable in a specific tangible good (whether precious metals or something else)?

I remember similar talk and commentary in the 1970s when there was what seemed an irrepressible push for banks to be freed from constraints and to move hand in hand with technology into the quickly forming euromarkets. History has shown this doesn't ( and never will) work well, and leads to an uncontrollable tsunami of transactions without accountability in any jurisdiction. The largest commercial banks have been in heaven. Individuals have grown personal wealth beyond measure while societies around the planet have suffered under the weight of indifference, oppression and imposed guilt from the rich. The foxes have indeed been in charge of the hen house and continue to be. Now the problem has grown so large it threatens the living planet including ourselves. The commercial banks and other similar institutions must be drastically reigned in, restructured and regulated with intelligence and integrity, if we are to survive and learn to thrive in a world driven by intelligent, creative design and care for the planet, which includes and involves our common humanity with peoples everywhere.

5 latest Ann vedios

Rent seeking by private sector is always conducted in a robust and competitive manner. A slightly different story with public sector excessively subsidized to force at times awful amounts of red tape for the ''public good''. Not sure vying for profit this way helps aggregate growth in any economy. It is always the private entities that rely on free markets that credibly contribute the growth whilst seeking profit maximization. That is achieved by diligently following well trusted neo liberal economics.

up a RA

Fortunately for us, Bitcoin doesn't give a f..k for not fitting into Ann Petttifor's definition of money.

Debit/credit is magic. Credit money belongs to noone. So noone can claim interest . Interest/usury is the first problem. Instead of riskless predator loans, invest as partners in business - get profit from that, share the risk.

So most of the money supply is created by private banks but they "couldn't exist without QE, without out all the liquidity created by central banks." She even stuttered twice as she said that sentence

Well paid jobs in ivory tower for bamboozling world, leaving many homeless,. Thanks

She spent more time going into detail about where she was from than her actually theories. It's fine to present an alternative pov, but at least flesh it out. This came across as an English students final project for an econ 101 class.

AP is correct on many matters but neglects to mention the KEY factor that the State and the banks TOGETHER have created this system. Without the power of the state there is no 'rampant & rapacious' financial or other lobbying power as the classical economists were keen to point out, even though that is conveniently missed out in her speech. The STATE via laws & regulation has created this using central banks (hello, centralisation = power!) Her definition of money - claiming that money is only sound when backed by trusted public institutions is frankly horsesh1t. Her whole speech is about how the system has lost TRUST and then she claims those same institutions hold our trust! What? Money is subjective and comes about from the consensus of the people as to primarily what a good store of value is (and other qualities I won't list here) How does the central bank (BOE) DEMAND that taxes are paid to in order for it to maintain a stable money supply? Isn't the job of demanding taxes down to the state ?? 'The more taxes are collected, the harder the currency? What? She's really laying on the Horsesh1t here. Hard money only comes from not printing and debasing the stuff. As Central banks have a monopoly over currency and can print as ouch or as little as they wish regardless of the tax take THEY determine how hard or soft the currency is! What she's really saying is that the central banks in conjunction with the state, monopolise your money, print at will, tax you to fund the debt (your debt now) but they spend it how they wish (wars, welfare for the wealthy (govt contracts - HS2) and the poor). Strange how taxes were 6% in 1905 and now 50%+ these days....where's all the taxes going if not to the poorest in society?? Keynesian printing of money, debt financed govt spending that promotes consumption reduces economies to ruins the left to the state and the central bank. Fractional reserve banking compounds this. IMO she appears to ignore human nature for the anti capitalist rhetoric that is all too common in authoritarians. Bitcoin changes this system and could be a form of 'gold standard' but her refusal to acknowledge or discuss merely shows her lack of understanding o its hard money qualities OR her refusal to due to her authoritarian views on maintaining the state in her own mould? The solution she advocates is just a perpetuated version on state and banking control but from an authoritarian socialist perspective. Same, same but Corbyn Sorry I can't listen to the rest of it....