Tags: finance*

158 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting /

  1. It’s a grassroots revolution led by people who want to take charge of their own financial future, people who know that lotteries and casinos are hopeless but didn’t had nowhere to go because they were too “small” for mainstream investment opportunities.
    https://decentralize.today/cryptocurr...are-not-the-real-problem-ccf4bf8da637
    Voting 0
  2.  For a small but committed group of economists, academics, and activists who adhere to a doctrine called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), though, #mintthecoin was the tip of the economic iceberg. The possibility of a $1 trillion coin represented more than mere monetary sophistry: It drove home their foundational point that fiat currency is a social construct, and that there are therefore no fiscal limits on how much a sovereign currency-issuing nation can spend.

     To a layperson, MMT can seem dizzyingly complex, but at its core is the belief that most of us have the economy backward. Conventional wisdom holds that the government taxes individuals and companies in order to fund its own spending. But the government—which is ultimately the source of all dollars, taxed or untaxed—pays or spends first and taxes later. When it funds programs, it literally spends money into existence, injecting cash into the economy. Taxes exist in order to control inflation by reducing the money supply, and to ensure that dollars, as the only currency accepted for tax payments, remain in demand.

    It follows that currency-issuing governments could (and, depending on how you lean politically, should) spend as much as they need to in order to guarantee full employment and other social goods. MMT’s adherents like to point out that the federal government never “runs out” of money to fund the military, but routinely invokes budget constraints to justify defunding social programs. Money, in other words, isn’t a scarce commodity like silver or gold. “To people who’ve worked in financial markets, who work at the Fed, this isn’t controversial at all,” says Galbraith, who, while not an adherent, can certainly be described as “MMT-friendly.”



    According to this small but increasingly vocal cohort of economists, including Bernie Sanders’s former chief economic adviser, once we change the way we think about money, we can provide for everyone: We don’t have to “find” the money to “pay” for universal health care by “cutting” the budget elsewhere. In fact, our government already works that way: Spending must precede taxation, or there would be no dollars in the economy to tax. It’s the political will to spend on certain things, not the money to afford it, that’s lacking.
    https://www.thenation.com/article/the...star-appeal-of-modern-monetary-theory
    Voting 0
  3. finance should, in an ideal world, be creating debt in order to finance growth of activity in the real economy. Instead, what has happened since the 1970s de-regulation of global finance, has been that finance has, over time, been increasingly financing…finance. That is, it has been financing itself. Indeed, in most of the western world, the growth of financial intermediation as a percentage of gross value added, has over the last two decades outpaced the growth of the real economy. That is until the bubble burst in 2007. Finding ways to redirect finance towards productive activity in the real economy is thus crucial.

    Third, in Italy, the effect of financialization has been made even worse by the presence of entrenched interests and “clientelismo” governing Italy’s economic system. Projects receiving loans are often not judged objectively, with criteria that are based on viable potential returns and the productive nature of an investment. Rather, they are often judged by clientilistic and nepotistic relations – as was made evident with the bank Monte Paschi di Siena (although this is really just the tip of the iceberg). Indeed, lets remember that the term “clientelismo” comes from the Latin clientes which means not modern day clients, but parasites feeding on presents (regalias) from the rich and powerful who, as described by the latin writer Giovenale, every day would visit their patronus for the morning salutatio. Italy’s sick banks are thus both a cause and a symptom of its never ending clientalist culture.

    Fourth, when growth is low—as it has been in Italy for the last two decades where both GDP and productivity have hardly grown at all—the above dynamic by which finance finances itself (or lends based on dodgy criteria in the real economy) becomes even worse. If finance has fewer good opportunities for investment in good companies and good projects in the real economy, then finding those opportunities in the speculative world of finance becomes even more appetizing. Indeed, research conducted in a large EC project on finance and innovation I coordinated some years ago showed that in many countries the problem is often not one of the supply of finance for firms, but the lack of good firms demanding finance. For example, most small medium enterprises that are innovative and productive, DO find the finance that they require. There are simply too few of those types of companies. Why? High growth innovative firms tend to prosper more in countries with dynamic innovation eco-systems, with strong links between science and industry, with high public investment in education and vocational training, high private spending on training programs for workers, strong R&D, and patient strategic long-term finance. When these are lacking growth will not follow – no matter how much emphasis a government puts on reducing red tape, or making labor markets less rigid (e.g. the Jobs Act). And when the real economy does not grow, finance becomes a betting casino.
    http://marianamazzucato.com/2016/08/1...ve-key-points-for-italys-banking-woes
    Tags: , , , , by M. Fioretti (2016-08-11)
    Voting 0
  4. Anyone with a genuine understanding of the political and economic machinations of the EU, knows that the institution operates as a bureaucratic/technocratic dictatorship, working against democratic justice, social justice and economic justice. It is a primary vehicle for the neoliberal project and modern finance capitalism.

    Extant political expressions of racist views are in no small part due to the economic hardship and falling living standards inflicted on Europeans by the neoliberal agenda and the resulting GFC. What to speak of the military adventurism that is a key facet of the EU’s role within the Western power structure, and its creation of a global refugee crisis following more than a decade of military intervention in the Middle East.


    The Left Should Celebrate Brexit: The UK Just Kicked Neoliberalism in the Nuts
    The effect of neoliberalism... in one chart.
    By Matt Ellis / rationalradical.me

    It is a sad and ironic indictment on the state of the global Left and the progressive agenda, that the very compelling reasons to support a Brexit have been lost amongst the rightful consternation with the racist views and actions of far Right political forces in the UK and Europe, and their conflation with the demagogue Donald Trump. Anyone with a genuine understanding of the political and economic machinations of the EU, knows that the institution operates as a bureaucratic/technocratic dictatorship, working against democratic justice, social justice and economic justice. It is a primary vehicle for the neoliberal project and modern finance capitalism.

    As such, it is more than partly responsible for inflicting on its people financialisation, debt deflation, economic crisis, austerity, “free” trade agreements, mass privatisation and the destruction of the social safety net, and the likely end state of neoliberalism: neo-feudalism, in which private debts, interest payments and rent-seekers swallow up developed economies, de-industrialising them through the ravages of globalisation, wealth extraction and debt-peonage. It must share responsibility for failing to protect the interests of the global 99%, or perhaps more accurately the 99.9%.

    The EU, which crucially is an economic and monetary union, not a political one, is an ideal with lofty and worthy aims insofar as it supports cultural, social and political integration, but it has completely failed in its claimed remit. Yet it has succeeded in enriching the global 0.1%, and in particular it almost exclusively serves the interests of the elite banker/rentier class, who now use economic shock and financial warfare to steal the land, resources and infrastructure of sovereign nations without the need for conventional ground-war.

    Ask yourself whether or not you support austerity economics, which even the IMF, a chief instigator and member of the EU / ECB / IMF ‘troika’ has recently admitted caused far more economic destruction in Greece than it anticipated. Yes, even the IMF has admitted that neoliberalism has failed. Were you in support of the Greek people’s sovereign decision to refuse the IMF’s bailout package? And were you in support of the troika’s decision to refuse the result of the referendum and inflict a new round of austerity and bailouts? And more importantly, do you support the EU neoliberal structure and policies that helped create the financial and economic crisis in the first place?

    It is not a compatible or coherent viewpoint to oppose the austerity economics embraced by the EU and its trampling over sovereign democratic process in pursuit of its agenda, and to disagree with the UK people’s decision to leave the EU. Indeed, the extreme racist actions and viewpoints of the emergent far right elements in the UK and Europe is a sad indictment on the EU itself. Not because of actual or perceived migration increases in European countries, but because it is a very old human observation that economic hardship and falling living standards are a most crucial fuel for the racist fire.

    The now infamous ‘heterodox’ economist Steve Keen, an Australian expat living in the UK who correctly predicted the GFC, is currently leading a global charge to throw out textbook neoclassical economics and neoliberal policies that brought us the crisis in the first place. His understanding of modern economic crisis is nothing short of revolutionary, and should be compulsory reading for all progressives. He had the following to say just before the Brexit vote:

    “I see the EU club as a force for European division and breakdown, despite its motto to the contrary. The EU, as I commented in my brief note for Kingston University, is a politically undemocratic and economically dysfunctional club whose rules and procedures have caused serious economic decline in Europe, and are feeding the racist and separatist forces that are driving Europe apart.”

    Extant political expressions of racist views are in no small part due to the economic hardship and falling living standards inflicted on Europeans by the neoliberal agenda and the resulting GFC. What to speak of the military adventurism that is a key facet of the EU’s role within the Western power structure, and its creation of a global refugee crisis following more than a decade of military intervention in the Middle East.

    There can be no mistaking the fact that the EU itself and its undemocratic policies and actions are largely to blame for the contemporary rise of racism on the continent. That is the depressing irony of majority leftwing opposition to the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. The unsavoury elements of the Brexit campaign are largely caused by the results of EU membership.

    It would be nice to think that the EU project was one that could be saved, but its sponsorship and patronage of the neoliberal system is not a flaw that needs fixing, but is indeed part of its design, a fact made clear throughout years of perpetual crisis. As the erudite true progressive and economic historian Michael Hudson points out, the EU in its current state is unreformable, and should therefore be abolished, however painful that may be in the short term. He frequently describes its self-destructive actions, in its embrace of austerity economics in service to financiers and rent-seekers, and its embrace of Russian/Chinese isolationism in service to US hegemony and neoconservative warmongering. There is thus an unfortunate predictability and inevitability to the unravelling of the Union.

    Its about time that the mainstream Left stood up to the forces of neoliberalism, and stood up for the working class and the global poor instead of inadvertently or consciously providing moral cover for the elites that push the neoliberal barrel and refuse to give even an inch in reforming its disastrous social, economic and democratic outcomes. But that first requires a proper understanding of its inner political workings, the economic sickness at its core, and its sponsoring institutions – such as the EU. It requires an understanding of how private debt and financialisation has destroyed the global economy, and that the EU is central to that failed model.

    In order to gain that understanding, we need to be paying very close attention to the work of revolutionary economists like Keen and Hudson.

    So despite the apparent validation of racist political views and actions, and rejection of the global liberal body-politic, I believe that the successful Brexit vote more truly represents a sovereign people’s right to refuse undemocratic economic and financial policies, which represent only the interests of unelected elites – the ‘robber barons’ who are currently destroying the developed world and the global economy as they attempt to roll back centuries of post-feudal industrialism and progress.

    We should therefore applaud the people of the United Kingdom for being the first people (since the failed Greek attempt) to stand up to the 0.1% and attempt to reclaim their economies and parliaments from the regressive rentier class. And because the UK actually has leverage in the EU, they are far more likely to succeed in challenging and shaking the core of the institution, and hopefully setting the world on a path to revolutionary overthrow of the twin contemporary scourges of neoliberalism and finance capitalism.

    As such, it is more than partly responsible for inflicting on its people financialisation, debt deflation, economic crisis, austerity, “free” trade agreements, mass privatisation and the destruction of the social safety net, and the likely end state of neoliberalism: neo-feudalism, in which private debts, interest payments and rent-seekers swallow up developed economies, de-industrialising them through the ravages of globalisation, wealth extraction and debt-peonage. It must share responsibility for failing to protect the interests of the global 99%, or perhaps more accurately the 99.9%.

    The EU, which crucially is an economic and monetary union, not a political one, is an ideal with lofty and worthy aims insofar as it supports cultural, social and political integration, but it has completely failed in its claimed remit.
    http://www.filmsforaction.org/article...just-kicked-neoliberalism-in-the-nuts
    Voting 0
  5. Imagine a bank that pays negative interest. Depositors are actually charged to keep their money in an account. Crazy as it sounds, several of Europe’s central banks have cut key interest rates below zero and kept them there for more than a year. Now Japan is trying it, too. For some, it’s a bid to reinvigorate an economy with other options exhausted. Others want to push foreigners to move their money somewhere else. Either way, it’s an unorthodox choice that has distorted financial markets and triggered warnings that the strategy could backfire. If negative interest rates work, however, they may mark the start of a new era for the world’s central banks.
    http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/negative-interest-rates
    Voting 0
  6. The yield curve shows how much it costs the federal government to borrow money for a given amount of time, revealing the relationship between long- and short-term interest rates.

    It is, inherently, a forecast for what the economy holds in the future — how much inflation there will be, for example, and how healthy growth will be over the years ahead — all embodied in the price of money today, tomorrow and many years from now.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/20...yield-curve-economic-growth.html?_r=0
    Voting 0
  7. let’s recap what’s happening in China. The Chinese government has been lying about its growth numbers for years. Every year, the Government sets a target for the GDP. And miraculously, at the end of every year, the Government reports that it managed to beat its GDP target with an impressive growth rate of 7 to 10 percent. Economic growth is too important for the Chinese Government to rely on statisticians.

    Traders in New York know that, the IMF knows that, the Fed knows that, everybody knows that. And that’s exactly why stock markets already freaked out after the three-day devaluation of the yuan a couple of weeks ago. We don’t know exactly how well China is doing. Every little sign that says that the Chinese economy isn’t doing as well as expected leads to big market movements.

    So is there any way to know China’s actual economic growth? You can look at steel production numbers for example. As China needs to import most of its iron to produce steel, it can’t lie on these numbers. Steel production has been down 1.3 percent since January. Electricity production is another good indicator. It was up 7.7 percent in 2013, meaning that the country was producing more goods. It’s been up only 1 percent since January 2015.

    And yet, growth is key to China’s current situation. When China became a socialist market economy, the population and the Government sealed a tacit agreement. As long as the standard of living would improve, people wouldn’t interfere with the Government. And it has worked incredibly well so far thanks to low salaries, a huge domestic market and some very smart moves to attract foreign companies.

    But China’s real growth rate is way below 7 percent. Unemployment combined with an aging population is going to become a serious issue as there is no safety net. We are not there yet, but if the standard of living decreases in China, it could mark the beginning of an important transition period.
    http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/24/what...es-the-chinese-fallout-mean-for-apple
    Voting 0
  8. In Europe the fintech scene isn’t set to create a wave of financial technology giants hell bent on world domination. Too many are built to exit, rather than to compete.

    The startup scene in Europe is in the midst of an identity crisis as it wrestles with U.S. influence.

    When it comes to funding, Europe is awash with money from U.S. VC firms. According to CB Insights, more than 50 percent of the money raised by London-based startups last year was from U.S. VC groups looking to cash in on the city’s fledgling digital groups. And when European VCs get in on the act it seems they only have one thing on their mind – find the best European startups and sell their business to a U.S technology company ASAP.

    In 2014, 332 European tech companies were acquired. Of these acquisitions, 122 were from U.S.-based firms. The next closest is Germany with 40, followed by the U.K. at 33. So, when European companies successfully exit, it is predominantly because of interest from across the pond.

    The problem is that everyone thinks that only great companies come from Palo Alto, and that you can’t make it without help from the Valley. The average European fintech entrepreneur is likely to get funding from the U.S., work with U.S. companies for distribution (Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google) and then exit to a U.S. firm.

    Unlike U.S. startups, European players haven’t bought into Silicon Valley’s most striking mantra – “Fail fast, fail often.” Failure still carries a stigma in Europe. So rather than risk failure, it’s much safer to work with the U.S. ‘machine’ and exit for tidy profit than stand up against the might of Palo Alto.
    http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/12/when...ill-european-fintech-startups-grow-up
    Voting 0
  9. Professor Hudson stressed that if the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were to state that the Kremlin's $3 billion loan is not official, "this would rewrite international law and mean that loans from Sovereign Wealth funds of any nation (OPEC, Norway, China, etc.) have no international protection."

    Furthermore, such a move would have shattered the world's debt markets "along New Cold War lines," "with financial warfare replacing military warfare," the economist underscored, adding that the world is not ready for this.

    Ukrainian servicemen deploy a weapon at the beach of the Azov Sea in Shyrokyne, eastern Ukraine
    © AP Photo/ Evgeniy Maloletka
    Donbass on Brink of Major War, Conflict May Escalate Any Time - DPR
    On the other hand, Professor Hudson denounced the decision of Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada to seize Russia's assets in Ukraine as a "radical step" that it is "beyond civil law."

    "If Ukraine did this while still receiving IMF, US and Canadian lending, its creditors could be held as responsible," he remarked.

    Meanwhile, it seems that the Western financial aid to Ukraine still goes into a "black hole," due to the country's high corruption and lack of transparency. It is highly doubtful though that Washington or Brussels will simply print money and lend it to President Petro Poroshenko endlessly.

    "The 'West' is not in the charity business. Its firms do not want to lose money, and the EU Constitution bans the European Central Bank and European taxpayers from financing foreign governments," the economist emphasized.

    In his interview to The Saker, Professor Hudson underscored that the US interventionism and deep involvement in domestic affairs of other countries will eventually do a disservice to Washington.

    "US foreign policy is simply "Do what we say, privatize and sell to US buyers, and permit them to avoid paying taxes by transfer pricing and financialization gimmicks, or we will destroy you like we did Libya, Iraq, Syria et al," the professor pointed out, stressing that such an approach will prompt foreign countries to unify into a resistance and to create a viable alternative to American financial hegemony.
    http://sputniknews.com/business/20150...ntent=t8G&utm_campaign=URL_shortening
    Tags: , , , , , , by M. Fioretti (2015-06-15)
    Voting 0
  10. Blockchains are simply databases updated to work on the network. And those databases are ones with different properties than the databases made to run on tape. They're decentralised, you can't edit anything, you can't delete anything, the history is stored perfectly, if you want to make an update you just republish a new version of it, and to ensure the thing has appropriate accountability you use digital signatures.
    https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001564.html
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 16 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: tagged with "finance"

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle