Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest UK Debt Slave

Hungary Says Goodbye To The Imf And The International Central Banking System

Recommended Posts

Guest UK Debt Slave

This story broke about a month ago but I only just caught up with it

The Hungarian government has expelled the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB).

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=12418

http://forumnews.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/hungary-takes-the-lead-issuing-sovereign-debt-and-thus-interest-free-money/

It seems the mainstream media is keeping very quiet about a story that has very far reaching implications

Edited by UK Debt Slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More recent (Hungary in talks to nationalise 6-7 utility firms):

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/20/hungary-utilities-idUKL5N0HG0N520130920

In particular, he has sparked fury among banks by forcing them to share losses on foreign currency mortgages that many Hungarians suffered due to a weaker forint, and has made several previous moves aimed at cutting energy costs for consumers.

Looks like he's upsetting the bankers, probably won't get re-elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well they would have gone bankrupt without the IMF loan and ECB loan.

If they dont want to borrow money they dont actually have to, its not mandatory. but if you do borrow money it of course comes with strings attached, which they didnt like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to wikipedia the current govt is...

Ideology

National conservatism,

Conservatism,

Soft euroscepticism[1][2]

Political position Center-right[3][4][5][6][7] to Right-wing[8][9][10

An actual true right wing 'conservative' party that doesnt think banks should be permanently subsidized, their losses socialized onto the taxpayer ? Didnt know they still existed. Nice if it is good as it sounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

well they would have gone bankrupt without the IMF loan and ECB loan.

If they dont want to borrow money they dont actually have to, its not mandatory. but if you do borrow money it of course comes with strings attached, which they didnt like.

It's exceptional for any nation to issue its own debt free money.

That's the point.

Edited by UK Debt Slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's exceptional for any nation to issue its own debt free money.

That's the point.

to issue debt free money, only the central bank can issue it and so it has to have the ability to pick the winners and losers in society, which puts all power in the hands of the government. they have to control everything.

hungary is seizing pensions and is looking to nationalise its industries.

it looks like it is reverting to a socialist government controlled system. there are many pitfalls in giving all power to the government.

Edited by mfp123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

to issue debt free money, only the central bank can issue it and so it has to have the ability to pick the winners and losers in society, which puts all power in the hands of the government. they have to control everything.

hungary is seizing pensions and is looking to nationalise its industries.

it looks like it is reverting to a socialist government controlled system. there are many pitfalls in giving all power to the government.

A central bank issuing interest bearing IOUs is different is it?

The existing central banking system does all the things you have described and the existing monetary system transfers wealth away from the middle class and the poor to the rich and powerful.

I'm not sure how Hungary is proposing to regulate private banks or to control how they issue credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A central bank issuing interest bearing IOUs is different is it?

The existing central banking system does all the things you have described and the existing monetary system transfers wealth away from the middle class and the poor to the rich and powerful.

I'm not sure how Hungary is proposing to regulate private banks or to control how they issue credit.

well to a certain extent a debt based system sought to fix some of the problems of a debt free system (gold).

so to solve the problems of a debt based system by going back to a debt free system will most likely come up with the same problems as before.

effectively it is a system based on money printing.

im not sure we like the current money printing actions taken by our central banks right now, so to go to a system based purely on money printing im not sure is the best way to go.

Edited by mfp123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well they would have gone bankrupt without the IMF loan and ECB loan.

If they dont want to borrow money they dont actually have to, its not mandatory. but if you do borrow money it of course comes with strings attached, which they didnt like.

False.

In a debt based monetary system you have to borrow money into existence. Surely you know this......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to issue debt free money, only the central bank can issue it and so it has to have the ability to pick the winners and losers in society, which puts all power in the hands of the government. they have to control everything.

hungary is seizing pensions and is looking to nationalise its industries.

it looks like it is reverting to a socialist government controlled system. there are many pitfalls in giving all power to the government.

False.

The sovereign state simply replaces some part of taxation with the new debt free money issuance. As a result taxes also go down, as the benefit of new money creation goes to the people instead of already wealthy private individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False.

In a debt based monetary system you have to borrow money into existence. Surely you know this......

not from the imf you dont. its essentially hungary taking an external loan from the rest of the world. they can default if they want, if they cant pay their debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False.

The sovereign state simply replaces some part of taxation with the new debt free money issuance. As a result taxes also go down, as the benefit of new money creation goes to the people instead of already wealthy private individuals.

Its no different to current really, in how it is distributed. Government can and will be beholden to various corporate and union interests, and while inflation tends to hurt those without inflation proof assets, taxes can be apportioned to reduce or negate this (admittedly doing what needs to be done and putting a CGT on all housing is easier said than done)

From a moral point of view I prefer debt free money issuance as the total (inflation) cost is up front and borne totally by the generation who call for, or tolerate its issuance. People in 2050 shouldn't have to bear the burden of interest because of the stupidity of voters in the early 2000s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán says the government is forecasting 2 % cent growth in 2014 now the country has overcome major problems such as paying back its 2008 loan from the International Monetary Fund. Orbán, delivering his pre-agenda speech in Parliament on Monday, summed up the greatest achievements of the past months as contracting inflation, raising the wages of teachers and healthcare workers, and the decrease of unemployment. He emphasised that this progress could not have been reached without the great efforts of the Hungarian people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to wikipedia the current govt is...

Ideology

National conservatism,

Conservatism,

Soft euroscepticism[1][2]

Political position Center-right[3][4][5][6][7] to Right-wing[8][9][10

An actual true right wing 'conservative' party that doesnt think banks should be permanently subsidized, their losses socialized onto the taxpayer ? Didnt know they still existed. Nice if it is good as it sounds.

Soft euroscepticism? How sad? Sounds like a country run by Cameroons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the benefit of new money creation goes to the people instead of already wealthy private individuals.

Er, not quite.

You're assuming that the wealthy hold their assets in cash or near cash assets denominated in that particular currency. More likely they'll hold most of their assets in land, business investments or foreign currency assets.

The real losers are those with some savings or with fixed incomes (i.e. pensioners).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, not quite.

You're assuming that the wealthy hold their assets in cash or near cash assets denominated in that particular currency. More likely they'll hold most of their assets in land, business investments or foreign currency assets.

The real losers are those with some savings or with fixed incomes (i.e. pensioners).

The pensioners don't lose anything as the money created will be the same (or should be the same) in quantity. Moreover since pensioners are net recipients of tax monies if anything they should gain not lose from such a system.

As for the wealthy what do you think they use to buy assets? They use leverage. They also are typically placed in society very close to the apex of the money creation process. That gives them first mover advantage when any new money enters the economy via the financial system. We can see this playing out right now in extremely obvious fashion with QE.

Note - how QE money is entering the system is very very different than would be if the gov spent it directly into existence in place of tax monies. A bottom up approach as opposed to the top down QE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pensioners don't lose anything as the money created will be the same (or should be the same) in quantity. Moreover since pensioners are net recipients of tax monies if anything they should gain not lose from such a system.

As for the wealthy what do you think they use to buy assets? They use leverage. They also are typically placed in society very close to the apex of the money creation process. That gives them first mover advantage when any new money enters the economy via the financial system. We can see this playing out right now in extremely obvious fashion with QE.

Note - how QE money is entering the system is very very different than would be if the gov spent it directly into existence in place of tax monies. A bottom up approach as opposed to the top down QE.

Yes, I either think there should be a firm commitment to stable prices, or else (given the benefits system is so endemic now) money injected by way of a citizens dividend and removal of many other benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pensioners don't lose anything as the money created will be the same (or should be the same) in quantity. Moreover since pensioners are net recipients of tax monies if anything they should gain not lose from such a system.

Wrong.

Their income is fixed, the benefits of the new money go to other people, the costs of the reduced value of money fall on them. Usually the beneficiaries are politically influential groups who are able to use their power to increase their income from the state.

As for the wealthy what do you think they use to buy assets? They use leverage.

So the value of their assets goes up and the value of their debts go down, sounds like they benefit from the debt monetarisation to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the issue ultimately is about giving a government full access to a printing press.

they will print to spend, this is a given, and at which point the government yields too much power. we are uncomfortable with the current level of money printing. more printing wont solve the issue.

the country ends up over relying on the government to do everything at best. at worst, the government controls everything.

a system that works like this rarely has a happy ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to issue debt free money, only the central bank can issue it and so it has to have the ability to pick the winners and losers in society, which puts all power in the hands of the government. they have to control everything.

Well at the moment the banks have this power- at least we can vote out the government- when did you last get to vote a banker out of his job?

The argument that private banks are somehow expert in the art of capital allocation is hilarious given the fact that faced with the largest infusion of capital in history they chose to use it to blow a massive housing bubble that took down the global economy.

How could the state do a worse job than that?

People who historically compare capitalism with communism overlook the fact that the capitalism in question was a tightly state regulated affair- not the deregulated crony casino we have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at the moment the banks have this power- at least we can vote out the government- when did you last get to vote a banker out of his job?

The argument that private banks are somehow expert in the art of capital allocation is hilarious given the fact that faced with the largest infusion of capital in history they chose to use it to blow a massive housing bubble that took down the global economy.

How could the state do a worse job than that?

People who historically compare capitalism with communism overlook the fact that the capitalism in question was a tightly state regulated affair- not the deregulated crony casino we have today.

You don't need to - you just stop banking with them and they don't get your money... unless the state bails them out, that is.

Allowing a few to use force to dictate who gets resources is doomed to fail. The calculations required are simply too large and complex to centrally plan, even if said few manage to resist corruption (unlikely - see bailouts for details).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the issue ultimately is about giving a government full access to a printing press.

they will print to spend, this is a given, and at which point the government yields too much power. we are uncomfortable with the current level of money printing. more printing wont solve the issue.

the country ends up over relying on the government to do everything at best. at worst, the government controls everything.

a system that works like this rarely has a happy ending.

While the state can take what it likes with impunity, this will always be a problem.

Sure, there is always the risk that thugs will take stuff, but let's not pretend that some thieves are good and others are bad. They're all thieves and should all be resisted.

If people want to have control over their destiny, they need to be able to choose who they associate/trade with.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.