What Are Packets In Local Area Connection?

Currency Complementary and Minimum Income Dignity

The principle of MSY.

Let us first recall the principle of minimum income of Dignity, or RMD

We proposed [see also http://www.blemaire.org/PDF] the establishment of a Revenue Minimum of Dignity - which could also be called income of community - which would give each adult in our national community the equivalent of ¼ of the national GDP, which is approximately 625 euros monthly, net of taxes or other deductions.

The objective of this allowance is double and universal means that any community is made up of individuals, men or women, talent and with different skills, but all share the same status, that of belonging to a community, what can be translated by the principle of non- exclusion.

Hence the first objective: to demonstrate explicitly that any member of this community must be recognized as such, and therefore have a 'right' to such recognition. This right, in a market economy is essentially in which the work is becoming more specialized and where individuals are increasingly interdependent, can not be achieved through income 'money'. We return to this point in connection with our proposal for a "currency RMD.

The second objective, relatively independent of the first, is to improve in this time of crisis, the purchasing power of all, and especially the weakest and poorest, trying, again, to direct this revival of consumption towards products 'ethical', 'bio' friendly environment, social conditions of production. This approach is thus more generally to the so-called 'sustainable development' and humanist.

It is here that the introduction of a currency ad hoc 'money MSY "is, itself, serve a dual purpose:
a) funding, partial or total, MSY,
b) and re-orientation of the appli 'solvent' , and thus the production of this economy to sustainable development.

How to finance the Minimum Income Dignity.
Without returning to the figures already mentioned, - see previous entries - remember that the additional net resources is around 15 billion euros monthly. This figure is obtained starting from 31 billion monthly gross, which was removed about 16 billion benefits would no longer pertinent, as explained elsewhere.

Considering that the recovery consumption can make us move from a forecast (OECD) to decrease by 3% to growth of 1% (a change in GDP of 72 billion to 6 billion monthly), we would be reduced to 9 billion monthly.

But more importantly - in addition to its need for support, certainly significant but not insurmountable (as of about 6 to 10% of GDP, as previously announced plan to Sarkozy, much more 'classic' - and who really does not address the underlying problem, see a previous post - raises the question of the method used to disseminate this RMD, and how to direct its use.

A complementary currency to finance the RMD . Pure

those who want to deepen the topic of complementary currencies, I can only advise the books of J. White and B. Lietaer on the subject, or a number of discussions held on the blog Paul Jorion.
I confine myself here to say that the money 'RMD' (you can give it any name, of course) will be a complementary currency to our European Euro. A Euro RMD 'will have the same value as a Euro' classic ', but will have two very specific properties.

First, the quantity emitted will be known in advance. If you finance all of the MSY (or n and gross) with that currency "Euro RMD", will be issued (the "It" being the State or local authorities, already responsible for RMI - is a point for discussion) 31 billion (or 15 billion) euros per month RMD. If we decide that it is more convenient to carry a fortnight, or week, we will adjust the quantities accordingly.

How to distribute this money RMD.
The simplest seems to be distributed to each adult card RMD (which may resemble a vital card, see a map be amended Vitale, opportunities techniques are many), RMD card that would be auctioned every month or every fortnight or every week - following the solution - the amount of 'currency RMD' expected.

For children, it is going through adult 'guardians' of these children, using a method similar: once again it is to be discussed.

What is the lifetime of this currency? Again, we can debate. We can not put any restriction on the lifespan of money distributed, or we may decide that this money has a limited lifespan, for example a few months. But this is not the most important.

From the ethical use and 'societal' currency 'RMD'.

In fact, the second property of this money is to be 'special' in the following sense.
The basic idea of a specific currency (otherwise we could have distributed a map 'RMD Vitale, denominated in euros directly' classics' - the frown of the ECB and Brussels almost) is to allow orienting expenditure towards what the community deems desirable.

Hence the following additional idea. Ask distributors, wholesalers, importers, producers, traders indicate in addition to conventional bar codes, the 'source' products (geographical origin or 'social' or 'ethical' or 'ecological' or ...) by a label 'RMD compatible' .
currency holders and MSY have a bonus - which can be very important - if not the only ones to be able to buy these products 'RMD'.

few examples to illustrate this point.
Suppose that any product, a toy example, comes from a country with social conditions deemed contrary to human dignity, but at a price advertised very low. This product obviously would not the label 'RMD'. A toy, utility comparable, but labeled LDR - and probably offered more money - can be purchased at the price m ^ me, or at a neighbor "currency RMD '. For other consumer goods, but imported, and therefore no local competition possible, such as coffee, can again lablliser 'RMD' products whose production conditions are deemed acceptable for human dignity.
Two other examples oriented investment 'or' durable '. To finance the purchase of an automobile 'ecological', there would be no premium for currency purchases normal (euro), but, for example, Save 30% if the vehicle was paid only "currency RMD. Same idea works for saving energy, instead of involving tax credits are always difficult to manage. (These are just examples, of course).

Money RMD is a real currency.
For those who think that money would not be an RMD real money, if it did not receive the endorsement of the ECB or'autres international authorities, recall the fundamental definition of any currency.
A currency is a " payment method owned by X and recognized as such by the community to which X belongs "

can furthermore define the 5 key points to ensure the proper functioning of such a currency RMD:
a) Who makes (Local authorities, was commissioned by the state)
b) How is issues (monthly, 9 or 15 billion euros, or rather of "Euro-RMD", in parity with the euro for ease of calculation)
c) How is issued (via a card-type 'VITAL' or 'Moneo' read by any terminal and any bank fund super market, and any merchant's card reader)
d) To what, for whom: to support the RMD for each community member
e) Who controls: the community on the issue and the 'bailout' of each map at the beginning of each month. Always

to show the impact of RMD and RMD for a currency economy 'humanist', respectful of the man and his environment, then include a remark of Philip Derudder " [such a change may also allow ] the simultaneous opening of sites with both a social activity for ecological change.
[So ...] Open a wide range of societal activities (with paid training to enable the priority use of all persons currently excluded or marginalized) leading to restore "full employment", paid work in complementary currency legal tender ... "

Pending suggestions, comments, criticisms, BL

Wall Colour For Red Floor

Naked Truth

The Blues have Sassenage:

Naked Truth , David Lodge

Directed P hilippe Bazatole

Brilliant and funny as in the Usual, David Lodge
signs here his second play.

Author: David Lodge was born in London in 1935. Member of the Royal Society of Literature, he taught English literature at the University of Birmingham. From 1987 he devoted himself entirely to writing. Several of his novels portray derisively the academic and literary, and contemporary British society.

History: Adrian, fifties, wrote in his youth a book acclaimed by critics and readers. Since he retired to the countryside with his wife, Eleanor, in a remote corner of Sussex. Both have made their higher education with Sam, multi-award winning screenwriter. But this Sunday morning, an article appeared on her virulent Fanny Tarrant, a young journalist ruthless.

Over the words, we learn the wounds of these characters evolving in camera

but in the elegance of a jubilant British humor.

Onstage: Rafael Laboissière (Adrien Ludlow), Katia Juilliard (Eleonore Ludlow), Nicolas Diamantenios (Samuel Sharp) and Dounia Benzakour (Fanny Tarrant).

the Press ...

Dauphine Libere - April 15, 2009

Grenoble & Me - April 30, 2009

Representations:

¤ At Emmaus , Sassenage (ZI Moironds, RD 1532, Noyarey direction):

- Saturdays 18 and 25 April and 2 May 2009, at 20:30

- Sundays 19 and April 26 and May 3, 2009 at 18h

Information / Reservations ( essential ):

¤ Tel. : 06 77 78 15 24

¤ Mail: les-bleus-de-sassenage@laposte.net

Tickets from Emmaus (Sassenage):

¤ Fee: 5 Euros

Horse Feeders Standing

Little explanatory model of currency fluctuations

This little explanatory model of currency fluctuations, speculation out ' can be seen as a complement, an annex to the previous post on the ups and downs monetary system and the false solutions taken during the G20 summit on April 2, 2009

Most books on the currency does not really care about the issue of output growth, nor the production itself. Their authors are content most often either stay at a very comprehensive, stating the quantity theory of money, or to show how changing the balance of the lending bank and the borrower's balance sheet corresponds to emissions or removals currency-money. Although almost

'comptablophobe, I've never doubted that the outcome should be balanced by the very nature of double entry bookkeeping, and the fact that assets and liabilities are equal does not really surprise me . Certainly it's very interesting that over the claims, brought to the assets of the bank, there is the deposit view corresponding to the liabilities of the bank, but the problem I want to raise is not there. It is at once more 'simple' and more fundamental.

The idea behind my question, and thus to the development of the model which follows, is the need for additional money if output growth . I'll try to show that if the money does not grow at the same rate as production, it is that there are 'leaks', or that there are interesting changes in behavior analysis.

Borrowers borrow by 'necessity' (this may be to speculate, but even outside that, I will first assume that this loan is related to the 'real' economy, production, consumption, savings, investment) In case of output growth, we can already suspects that this is because there is growth: otherwise, additional production would lead to lower prices.

Moreover, as we will look at changes over time, both in production, trade, and money supply, it may seem logical to introduce time - we'll assume here discrete ( not continuous).

I said, moreover, two additional assumptions, to avoid running the visitor on the wrong track, focusing the question, I recall the problem wrong track to solve the problem of the potential increase in demands for money (and therefore the offer, because bankers are supposed to serve potential borrowers).

1) The population is stable (as many deaths than births, if you prefer)
2) We do not pay interest on borrowings (I know it's not true, but that the will perhaps one day ;-))

In fact, in most of the many discussions I had recently with various personalities and experts from the money issue, we basically traded on the desirable type of currency, even on the question of creation ex nihilo or not, the bank money. But I must admit that in doing so, we probably lost sight of another crucial issue - and no doubt a priority - one of the reasons for this currency issue.

In fact, the few models that speak to both currency and growth are essentially static, or 'tangent' to static models. Let

therefore in our model, very simple and almost qualitative, arithmetic rudimentary.

3) economic agents are 10 in number (to facilitate calculations in decimal system)
4) These agents do trade (they sell, buy, consume) at the end of the production period .

Assume for the moment, that this period is 1 month, they each produce the equivalent of 1,000 units of account (to please the advocates of labor value, I assume they work the same same number of hours in the month).

The last day is devoted to the sale of their respective production, purchase of goods that are used for consumption (the so-called consumption can be made that day - not very credible - or throughout the next month, no matter here, assuming that goods are only consumer goods, taken from nature without investment, not to complicate : we could complicate it. The economist Solow, future Nobel Prize, it has tried with its generations of equipment).

Monthly GDP by accounting unit, is 10000. I will assume that an accountant philanthropist (another name for a banker) will issue 10,000 units of account, will lend for the day, one pack of 1000 by economic agents.
money creation (during day) is equal to 10000, the monetary destruction at the end of the day, is 10,000 (the amount being philanthropic, it demands nothing). So more money for the rest of the time. The currency has existed the market time .

Now suppose there is a change in consumption patterns and exchange: the conditions of production remain the same, but now trade - market - held twice a month .
GDP is now bi-monthly from 5000, the monetary needs (two days per month) will be 5000 (instead of 10000), even if they disappear at the end of each these 2 market days. The currency is still the market time.

For those who like real models, one might assume that each trader arrives in the morning with the currency-money (corresponding to the evaluation of its production) around the neck (it may even be a kind necklace ClubMed it has been tied the morning by our accountant, nice organizer if there ever was). It will make this book a nice necklace of the same value (but with beads from the 9 other producers) at the end of the day's market. The collars will be destroyed (if they are to serve only once), or keep in the trunk of the accounting if we are to avoid the mess.

course, everyone must see now where I'm coming.
Suppose, then, finally, that the exchanges take place 10 times per month (every 3 days: still to facilitate the calculation).

GDP, three-days' will be 1000, the money needed to trade itself will be 1000, it will be 'created' every 3 days at the beginning of each market day, and will be destroyed at the end of each day (yes, yes, I assumed that there was no Scrooge, that any issued currency was used, and then returned to the fold, or trunk, of our Accounting philanthropist).

What is the moral of this fable? Oh, it is simple. it means that at equal technological conditions, assumed constant, a change in trading conditions (the number of market days in the month) change currency needs. This necessarily influence either on the velocity of money, or the quantity of money itself

What is the moral of this fable?

Oh, it is simple. It means that at equal technological conditions, assumed constant, a modification of terms of trade (The number of market days in the month) changes the currency needs.
This necessarily influence either on the velocity of money, or the quantity of money itself (and I have not even brought the issue of hoarding for that). It was obvious? ... Maybe, but overlooked my four basic questions of any monetary reform, which are written as follows:
1) Who issues,
2) How much is emitted
3) Why is emits
4) Who has control, my little fable
impact for the least points 2 and 3.

further complication: in addition to monetary needs - Met here by our accountant philanthropist - one could imagine that part of trade is 'out of money', by simple agreement among participants (some experts call it the 'Credit Mutuel' - you can also call it the 'credit provider' an entrepreneurial point of view: this is Switzerland, with experience WIR apparently).

If we assume that half of trade is 'outside accounting philanthropist' monetary needs will be halved.

Again, I stress probably heavily (this is probably by simplicity, or as a new initiate into the mysteries beginner currency), we see here that new practices between firms also have an influence on monetary needs .

Again, this affects the issues 2) and 3) How and Why. Do not even mention the difficulty of adjustment and control.

The moral of morality? I do not really know, except that I think monetary emission control remains a very delicate , at least in a world where the conditions of consumption, production and exchange can change very quickly, depending in particular the state of public opinion and trust that the community can have in the system in which it operates. And I did not even mention here the problems of export-import of toxic assets, technical progress, etc..

What can be said that certain trends should be addressed, like the ever-increasing weight, I even spoke to this effect spoliation of the financial sphere with respect to the real economy, income, unearned '(and from speculation) towards the' earned income '.

Take, for insisting on this point a new model, simply, a growth model homothetic.

In this context, each sector, every industry, every company are growing at the same speed without technical progress, money supply would grow at the same speed, whether issued by private banks or the central bank. (Yes, I know, I guess here for the moment that the velocity of money is a constant, relatively credible alternative hypothesis, in that context, but again, this is not the problem).

Money, Money simple veil?
Only if that happened here that the currency would be a simple veil money, no real importance on an economy that would only be monetized. We could almost without it, except in accounting.

But of course this is not what we see as growth is not homothetic. There is generally
:
a) the deformation of the weights of the sectors
b) the distortion of relative prices
c) deformation reported in b) is partly due to the different evolution of technical progress in different sectors.

It should be noted that:
d) assuming that there is no absolute technical regression in these areas (it could happen in the agricultural sector, due to poor harvests, but the weight of this sector is so weak that it really does not explain the extent of) the difference in technical progress can explain the change in relative prices, but not increase the money supply greater than the sum rate ( real) growth rate over inflation. My only explanation

truly 'innovative' are therefore based in what will be also be obvious to some, namely that new 'rents' were created (or annuities, or unearned income) because:
e) earnings (or pseudo-earnings) stock, indices, until the crisis of 2008, having believed in 25 years 2 times that the real economy (where a shift in the real money to the financial sphere
f) earnings, or an imbalance in the housing, again the real estate prices have thought, as if there had regression technique (in fact rents have reappeared)
g) imbalances, volatile and non-permanent, in the energy sector (oil and gas), although in constant euros, in the last 20 years I am not sure the relative price of oil has greatly evolved.

All this to say non-productive sectors, or not directly related to production, are 'sucked' much monetary emissions .

Whether you call that currency-money play money, Mélanchon as it appears, or for real money, it is a major cause - I think - the current imbalance.

This is not the fact that financial transactions have become 1,000 times larger than the transactions related to the 'real' economy that I criticize here (even if a Tobin tax have slowed this phenomenon, it is not what's important, in my opinion), but the fact that currency is not a 'monetary veil' , as speculated by Ricardo, Marx, and perhaps Milton Friedman, but it's a real comforter that has hidden the 'little people' - which I am - this real hold-up of the financial sector on the real economy.

solutions, if any, are therefore surely not remonetised the 'toxic assets' - ie validating the theft and the thieves - as seems to be the G20, increasing the weight of DSK our national real puppet more or less willing, to whom it is probably a royal gift, or presidential, 2012 (or so he thinks).

The only solution would be:
1) to declare worthless toxic assets: zero
2) of (re?) put the money to service the real economy in 'effectively nationalizing the currency'.

Custom Playhouse Oklahoma

Behind the upheavals of the purse money, a disaster waiting to happen.

Not the measures announced by the G20 change nothing. Money is not neutral, neither economically nor ideologically. It is because money is not 'neutral', that is not a simple 'veil', that should not let private interests hedge and the task of issuing the currency , so potentially disruptive.

Four questions arise because anyone who wants both understand and possibly reform the current monetary system:
1) Who makes (or 'created') that currency-money?
2) How (how much) does it make?
3) Why (and who) makes is this money?
4) Who controls (and controls) this issue?

I'm not going back to the first question, as everyone knows, more or less, that the monetary system involves both the central bank (for paper money - banknotes - actual) and financial institutions , both banks (second row) itself, or intermediate Financial.

Banks issue mainly of bank money (beyond their own reserves fiat money) - as part of some lax prudential -.

Other institutions are acting as mere financial intermediaries, lending to some economic savings - more or less long term - performed by other agents.

(For further reading of such issuers of currency, we can see various sites, including that of ' counterfeiters ', or association 'Societal ' remains the basic reference book M. Allais, "Tax on Capital", pp. 176 to 209)

I'm going to ask me here on reasons for changes in currency , limiting myself here to what is called monetary aggregate M1, which includes notes (and coins) in circulation and demand deposits (definition Banque de France, 1999).

This issue therefore contains items 2 (How) and 3 (Why) I then show that the point 4, the control and regulation, is not really addressed by the G20, having failed to appeal clearly - not ideological - questions 'How' and 'Why'. Why

of currency fluctuations?

This question, often touched upon, but rarely depth can be written as: Why

the money in circulation does need to be increased (or decreased) from one period to another?

still says otherwise, why the economic system taken as a whole did he need more (or less) money-money than before?

These questions are obviously beyond the monetary aggregate chosen for reasoning. I got here M1, traditionally considered as corresponding to all means of payment (cash and cashless), we could have in a system where there would only currency in circulation, asking the same questions.

For the hurried reader, I shall now give some answers, before justifying this position a little further.

The increase was used primarily Monetary financial sector.

The increase in the money found in Europe - and France - the last dozen years (before and after the changeover to the euro), and one could make the same reasoning to the world - even if the numbers are more difficult to comment is related to the following phenomenon.

Regardless of any problems associated with inflation, most of this increase in monetary (average inflation deducted from 7 to 9% to an average growth of 2.5%) is due to funding needs financial assets, in other words stock speculation.

Specifically, instead of the money supposed to be a simple 'monetary veil' to serve the economy as a whole, plays the role of 'normal', this increase has mainly benefited financial sector to the detriment of the sphere of the real economy. The 'rentier' and 'speculators' have enriched themselves at the expense of producers (entrepreneurs and 'workers').

Two figures speak for themselves to prove this 'theft' of the 'real' economy for the benefit of so-called 'capitalist', the ECU men portrayed by Karl Marx in the book 1 of Capital.

a) Monetary aggregate M1 (all means of payment 'on demand') is passed in France in 10 years, from 1997 to 2006, 26% to 44% of GDP . If M1 had a simple veil monetary of this aggregate would maintain the same proportions relative to domestic production. Unless, of course, assuming that the velocity of circulation of money has declined in the same proportions, which, until early 2008 at least, has not been found.

b) The evolution of stock prices (supposedly summarized by the evolution of the CAC 40) had thought about the last 15 years twice as fast as GDP , with dramatic changes it is true, after the collapse of the dot.com bubble and the terrorist attacks of September 11 and other crises yet. But if you look at the level reached May 2, 2007, 6000 points, this observation remains true in trend.

It is therefore not surprising
c) the CAC 40 currently operates between 2600 and 3000 points, representing a correction 'normal' if one considers at least the market value of companies should reflect their economic value, as represented by the evolution of GDP and profits 'normal' made on this occasion - profits 'normal' supposed to finance future investments. Without growth, no profit is 'normal', there should be none.

d) than those who had enriched themselves unduly, to their advantage by capturing the essential of the money sent (or 'created') by the banking system - in return for their assets 'financial' (doubtful based in part on assets 'Toxic') - to claim the body and screams an extension for their own monetary profit, this extension can not move, of course, by the banks.

Two solutions are therefore reward the thieves, or help producers:

Facing the heist committed 15 years - more likely - by speculators whose share of national wealth (income not earned yet ) is not far from doubling, one can decide validate this holdup.
is apparently what the G20 has decided.

remember about 'robbery' speculators that switching to increase their monetary income alone has led to a near stagnation of the purchasing power of 'workers' in recent years, and over- debt throughout the economy (over-indebtedness on the part of the 'capitalist' who has emerged as after the onset of the subprime crisis, and the workers, playing the gamble that this debt on future income, they will probably not due to the current depression).

Another solution, the only socially correct, would of course consider that the losses (virtual) must remain capitalists losses, and to declare that the bad loans granted by banks are worthless.

As a complementary measure, apart from the 'nationalization of money' (not banks), ie the takeover by the state directly from the issuing currency (this is obviously not ' printing money, which caused - at least for the most part - this increase monetary encouraging speculators, through a financial system where everyone, young or old, believed to be unduly rich) it is essential to transform all deposits in cash, while prohibiting now banks to grant loans not fully covered by the new fiat currency.

would not change the current money supply, M1, but that now prohibits commercial banks - again become mere financial intermediaries - to issue interest ('ex nihilo' some would say) of the new currency, regardless of actual needs of the real economy. And whether to create new money, this money must go directly to businesses and households, In no case speculators and banks (apart from the previous restriction by: banks can and should act as financial intermediaries, lending to economic savings already achieved by other agents).

But, again, I do not, alas, that the G20 takes such decisions. He probably prefers playing to the gallery by cutting tax havens. It's probably a good thing, but very marginal compared to what to do. The money must go to the real economy, not to the financial economy, not by taxing a little more speculators that the underlying problem will be addressed.

Appendix: a short explanatory model of currency fluctuations, speculation out '
(see attached ticket, the ticket currently being already very long).