...
Professor Evans said what he and his colleagues found "was astounding".

The countries can reduce their total debt by 64% through cross cancellation of interlinked debt, taking total debt from 40.47% of GDP to 14.58%
Six countries – Ireland, Italy, Spain, Britain, France and Germany – can write off more than 50% of their outstanding debt
Ireland can reduce its debt from almost 130% of GDP to under 20% of GDP
France can virtually eliminate its debt – reducing it to just 0.06% of GDP


Among the 'debtor' nations a Debt Jubilee means Ireland reduces its debt load to from 130% of GDP to under 20%! That would virtually wipe out the crippling cuts being forced upon the Irish. While even among the 'Creditor' nations France benefits by nearly eliminating its debt. So the French people too would benefit. Which does beg the question - who is benefiting by enforcing all the debts? I'll give you one guess.

Of course there can always be a devil lurking in the detail ready to spoil a happy ending, so I called Professor Evans and asked him about his methods and their limitations.

First thing he pointed out is that by 'All Foreign Debt" he included foreign debts held by Private banks. But as he also said, considering that in many countries the Tax Payer owns large chunks of the Private banks in question and so the line between truly sovereign and private bank debt is already blurred and sadly we 'own' both.

Professor Evans said the main limitation they had was not being able to determine the duration or rates of the different bonds for different countries. So he was cancelling debts which although of the same capital amount would have been worth different amounts because of different interest rates and durations. Understandably this makes him wary of making too much of his results. However he did agree that on such large gross amounts, such interest rates and duration differences could be considered marginal. In the grand scheme of the massive debt reductions achieved the differences of rate and duration could be justifiably seen as a small cost to bear for the over all gain.

So there are grounds for criticizing his findings. BUT the criticisms are not so large that they derail the force of the findings. The simple fact of the matter is that the PEOPLE of all our nations would be immensely better off. They would not be facing crippling austerity cuts, nor be being forced into selling their National heritage and wealth at Fire Sale prices to the very banks who are the cause of the debt crisis, and who will profit from the fire sales.

Which brings us back to the reason there has been no discussion at all of a Debt Jubilee. Keeping the debts is going to profit the banks and their bond holders. Not only that, but making sure there is no discussion of mutual debt cancellation, and thereby keeping sovereign debt levels as high as possible, gives those on the political Right, the perfect crowbar they have wished for but never had, for forcing through a political agenda of privatizing and destroying the social fabric of welfare. An agenda for which they never quite got a mandate through the ballot box.

That is why the debts are being maintained and why there has been no discussion of any alternative. Our politicians are 'protecting' the debts and those whose will profit from their payment over and above the welfare of the people they are supposed to serve.

The bankers don't want any discussion of mutual debt cross cancellation because it would force a necessary deleveraging. The bankers do not want deleveraging because leverage is the secret of how the bankers make their profits and without it they wouldn't look nearly so smart. The reason debt cancellation would force deleveraging is because much of the debt which would be cancelled is currently being held on bank books as an 'asset' serving to underpin yet more loans and debt. So start cancelling debt and the bankers pyramid of leveraged debt begins to crumble. The fact that it has to crumble if we are to recover without being crippled with trying to pay unpayable debts never gets a mention in banker-world.

A second reason bankers don't like cancelling debt is that what would quickly get revealed is which banks are the walking dead kept alive by transfusions from us. At the moment they are all hiding each others debts.

Think about it - they all want the debts they owe each other to be paid in full - but since they can't afford to pay them, they have got our politicians to make US pay all the debts they owe to each other, for them.

I don't think our government's have any interest in protecting us. They may say they do, and may make noises about 'necessary measures' but they seem mind-blind to any alternatives to what the bankers whisper in their ears. So here are a few ideas the bankers won't like AT ALL.


As a start let us say that we will only consider paying debts which we can see. What I mean by that is the debts we are expected to pay must be transparently clear to us. They must be in an auditable form not held in mystery SIV's in off-shore in tax havens. They must be held on balance sheet, not off it and on shore where we can inspect and audit them.

These are perfectly reasonable and entirely enforceable requests. We, the public simply want to be sure that what we are being asked to pay, is in a place and form such that we can verify for ourselves that the debts are legal, above board and ours to pay.

If the bond holders have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Any bond holder who refused and any debt which was kept off-shore and un-auditable would not be payed. It would be not even be considered for counting against other debt it would simply be zeroed. Simple, fair, clear, transparent and legal.

First thing this would do is destroy tax evasion and avoidance. Every nation would get a colossal windfall of tax THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID IN THE FIRST PLACE. That would help the austerity a bit.

Second there has been so much fraud, so much of it now clearly known and documented, that only a cretin would pay 'debts' on faith. Show me the paper or go away.

It is a fact that the vast bulk of the global stock pile of wealth and particularly debt backed 'wealth' is held off-shore in tax havens and Banking secrecy jurisdictions. Why? Why should we pay debts to people who won't pay their taxes?

Iniciado por melchor rodriguez

La idea más antigua del mundo y uno de los sistemas más utilizados en el capitalismo clásico entre acreedor y deudor: intercambio de deudas.

En muchas empresas en España por falta de liquidez se utiliza esta vía -a veces al límite de la legalidad*-.

El problema: ¿Por qué no se usa?. Relaciones de poder. El acreedor teme perder poder de negociación.

En 2008 el Consejo Europeo debía optar por una solución europea sobre la crisis financiera. Gran parte de los países más sobreendeudados está conformada por deuda interna de la Unión Monetaria. Por lo tanto es fácil el canje de deuda pública entre los estados. A cambio la U.E. debía obtener más potestades para que no se repita en el futuro el mismo escenario. Cuando llegue el default, el intercambio de deudas será una de las herramientas usadas como el canje de deuda por acciones (los bancos españoles lo han hecho sin miedo salvo temas del ladrillo donde ha habido pocos) o propiedades.

Como siempre he dicho. La causa de la posible ruptura de la Unión no va ser económica (con los eurobonos y monetización de deuda de BCE -el euro tiene margen para ser devaluado- se taparán los boquetes de los países rescatados o que van serlos) sino de estrategia política. No hay un proyecto integrador europeo democrático real por el cual todas las partes aceptan asumir el coste.

* Otra vía ante el cerrojo del crédito de los bancos, es utilizar empresas solventes como avalistas (otorga un perfil solvente) o intermediarios. Es decir, empresa A no puede emitir pagarés (el banco adelanta el dinero) a empresa B ya que el banco no se fía de A. La empresa B pacta con empresa A. Para eso, se utiliza una empresa C -que está de acuerdo- que tiene un perfil solvente para emitir un pagaré. La empresa B finalmente espera al vencimiento del pagaré de la empresa A. Cobra y con eso le da el dinero a la empresa C, que abona su pagaré o giro bancario (una fecha más tardía) al banco.

P.D. Por cierto el PP -en una de las poquísimas ideas brillantes que han tenido- propusieron que las empresas que esperan cobrar de la administración, se intercambiaba la deuda con ella mediante los futuros impuestos que podía cobrar. Fue rechazado en el Congreso. El problema español es de sobreendeudamiento pero la consecuencia es falta de liquidez. Por lo tanto, era una medida muy positiva la del PP. Aunque debía hacerlo hace 2 años cuando empezó todo ya que mucha empresa aunque acabase cerrando no iba dejar tantas deudas en el sistema -bombas de relojería con retardo-.

La deuda pública te puede hacer perder la soberanía nacional, al menos eso es lo que se está viendo en la práctica. Se está sugiriendo que Grecia ceda ciertos aspectos de su política nacional a países de la UE en aspectos que no parece dispuesta a abordar, como las privatizaciones y la recolección de impuestos. A cambio la UE aportaría más dinero.

Esto se ha mencionado anteriormente para países subdesarrollados en los que las políticas de ajuste impuestas por los organismos internacionales (por ejemplo el FMI) se consideraban demasiado duras y difíciles de cumplir, pero era la forma de conseguir ayuda.

Pero desde hace tiempo se está mencionado esto para países ricos, cómo por ejemplo los mismos Estados Unidos. John Reed se preguntó hace tiempo si la soberanía nacional se estaba viendo afectada por la fuerte deuda nacional de Estados Unidos. Si quieren tener sanidad o invadir otro país no pueden, primero tienen que pedir prestado a China para ello.

La diferencia entre Grecia y Estados Unidos es que Estados Unidos conserva su política monetaria y siempre podría librarse de esa deuda vía inflación, cosa que no se puede hacer Grecia. O que no podemos hacer en España, dónde la deuda pública nos ha puesto en el punto de mira mundial. Quizás habría que irse preparando y evitar o amortiguar el golpe, por eso de que cuando las barbas de tu vecino veas pelar…

En El Blog Salmón | La deuda pública de Estados Unidos desde 1790 hasta hoy, ¿que hay de nuevo, viejo? y Países con menos deuda crecen más rápido

Iniciado por NosTrasladamus

Efectivamente....

Anthony J. Evans is Associate Professor of Economics at ESCP Europe Business School. His research interests are in corporate entrepreneurship, monetary theory, and transitional markets. He has published in a range of academic and trade journals and is the co-author of The Neoliberal Revolution in Eastern Europe (Edward Elgar, 2009). He has conducted policy research for the Conservative Party and European Investment Fund, as well as managing consultancy projects for several corporate sponsors. He teaches Executive MBA classes across Europe and has written a number of teaching cases. His work has been covered by most broadsheet newspapers and he has appeared on Newsnight and the BBC World Service. In April 2011 he joined the IEA’s Shadow Monetary Policy Committee.

Anthony received his MA and PhD in Economics from George Mason University, USA, and a BA (Hons) from the University of Liverpool, UK

Iniciado por Tuttle

Viendo esto queda claro quien lo ha montado todo, los franchutes de los ******** el cofidís y la madre que los parió.

Iniciado por Tuttle

Viendo esto queda claro quien lo ha montado todo, los franchutes de los ******** el cofidís y la madre que los parió.