3/6.Chouard.Metz.oct2011-UE=DICTATURE DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS (SABORDAGE MONÉTAIRE)

There is a second point
which I didn't see in 2005.

So I didn't talk about it but
it would have been a complementary point

in my document
because it is absolutely major.

It's an absolute disaster.

I open this point a little bit only

because I'll come back to it.
I will develop this point

in the second part of the evening.

It's the abandonment of monetary creation,

which is a felony, a betrayal,

it's undefensible! I challenge you,
I challenge you,

really I'm interested by it.
I challenge you

to show me the benefits,

for the common good,
the benefit of having given up

to private banks
the entire monetary creation,

I challenge you to show me

that it is useful for us all.

What happen then,
I'll explain in two words

two words but I'll come back on it later

because I would like you
to understand the mecanism there.

Citizens, in order to resist

should understand completely
how money is created

and it is crazy how we make it today,

it is a ruinous folly and

the alternative which are suggested :
what do we have to set up?

Because there are a lot of things
for which we could do otherwise.

And it is worth developping
so I will resume simply,

in order to talk only of
european institutions.

Mainly,

Mainly, until the law of 73,

until 1973 in France,

when the State needed money

to finance public investments

an hospital, a motorway, rail roads,

public investments,

when the State needed money,

and he needed more
than the income from taxes,

his ressources, which he had to anticipate

the future by borrowing, he could

until 1973, borrow it to

the central bank, which is himself,

us, the State is us, not anyone else,

it is not an ennemy, it is what we,
collectivity,

do to protect us against adversity,

to organise a pacified society

the State is us! We should take it as...

a dangerous object

which we must control, we must monitor

and it's in the same time
a great potential

to organise pacified relations.

So, the State could borrow

to its Central Bank, which is itself,

and which created the money

and destroyed the money
later when paid back.

I'll explain it later,

and it could borrow without interest.

Before 1973, when I borrowed 100 billion

I paid back 100 billion!

well, inflation indexed but

in constant euro, and

there was no cost of interests.

What happened in 1973?

The State forbid himself,
therefore, our representants,

people which are meant to represent us,
which are meant to

defend our own interests,
which are meant to protect us against ...

These people have decided that the State

could not borrow to

its central bank without interest
and that it had to

borrow it to financial markets
from now on.

Financial markets? Really! Why?

I don't know, there is no debate.

We don't manage to access to the debate
of the National Assembly.

If you find it, I am interested,
I have never found it for now

the debates of the National Assembly,
the discussion which happened

to say what is your benefit,

what justifies

that we enforce, when the State
needs money

to build an hospital

instead of borrowing to the Central Bank

billion and pay back billion,

to borrow

to financial markets

and he should pay back 180 billion

or 200 billion depending
on the interest rate.

Why things should cost double?

What is the benefit for you and me?

To enforce the State to borrow,
not to

his Central bank without interest anymore

but to borrow to the financial markets

which means those who have money.

There are rich people !
The rich and then the bank! Mainly.

I am not...

I am not exagerating, it is....

They are those who borrow to the State.

Yes?

Part. : They don't have it!

E.C. : Sorry?

Part. : They don't have it!

Part. : They create it.

E.C : True, they don’t have it,
they create it

Part. : Yes, that is
what is important!

E.C : Yes it is but even if they had it…

yes, but...

Part. : It’s worst !!

E.C : Yes, it is worst, yes.

It’s true that it’s worst

because they don’t have it,

at least the bankers;

but the rich who loan it,

the rich who loan they do have it

but what is important, moreover…

You are right but

focus on the essential,
what I am telling you now,

please, what changes before 1973
and after 1973,

is that, when I need money, me, State,

I have to pay, it’s new, interests

Participant : To whom?

E.C: To those who I’ve borrowed from,
those who lend me

and it can be people from outside.

It can be economical agents

who are in foreign countries

who have money.

I don’t know, like Saudi princes,

wealthy people

but it may be people from home

but it doesn’t matter, it is people
who I have to pay interests to

what I want, we could develop

on our dependency from

foreign countries

because in fact France is

today, very indebted.

A big part of the debt is due
to the outside.

It’s not at all a fatality, as in Japan.

In Japan, they manage

to obtain this thrift from its nationals

which makes the problem of the debt
less acute

but I shouldn’t open all the parenthesis,

otherwise….

Something happened,

in my opinion,

purely outrageous in 1973, when those

who were meant to represent us

did, not consent, betrayed us!
It’s scuttling!

When they holed the hull of our budget

saying now when we will need money

we will have to pay interests!

But this is not even the worst

because what a law has done

another law can still undo and
a change in the majority

we could undo it.

But when it has passed
with the European institutions

This law of 1973 has appeared

In the moment of the Maastricht treaty,
article 104 of Maastricht treaty.

It is the same, it’s almost
the same words:

The States cannot borrow
from the Central Banks;

The Central Banks cannot loan
to the States.

It means the same thing!

Do you understand that,
for a normal citizen,

Maybe you already worked on
this topic and you know,

but for a normal citizen,

it’s incomprehensible!

When you read the article 104,
when you read that

The Central Bank cannot loan to the States

Well, the States….

Can a citizen understand that

If there is no public debate?
Can a citizen

understand the importance of this thing?

I don’t think. I think this is…

I think, I am careful no to be…

Not to exaggerate, I don’t want to
exaggerate, I don’t need to ...

Because it is serious enough!

To… for you to be shocked!

I don’t need myself to be shocked

I mean, you see, in what I say, it’s…

It’s shocking objectively.

They’ve set in the article 104

They’ve escalated the prohibition
for the states to borrow

To the Central Bank

At a constitutional and
international level

With rules, maybe should I talk about

The last point, the last of list of ten

Is the topic of impossible revisions.

The constitutional revisions at
the level of the European Union

Are outrageous; it needs 3 unanimity :

Unanimity of the conventions
which make the text

Unanimity of the governments…,
unanimity of the governments

Who discuss the topic

Unanimity of parliaments or
people following the States

A triple unanimity, being 27, to….

Change one coma to the text.

In 27, it is going to be complicated,

it is going to be hard.

We will not change
those institutions there.

They are not made to be changed.

It’s enough to have one
who stands in the way,

so it is not happening,

We need to keep this is mind,
on each one of the topics,

aach one of the problems :

The institutionalized unemployment,
the abandonment of monetary creation,

the dependency of judges, ministers
who can

write the laws, laws without parliament,

the…., all these points

We need to keep in mind that,
you cannot change them.

You cannot say : yes but it is
an intermediary status

it Is going to get better, it’s only
a step

no… it is not true, it is not ok,
it is not going to change

it isn’t true, I do not believe it!

Well, maybe I am wrong

Part. : This is going to stay?

E.C : Yes it is going to stay.

And this is why I am at a stage where

I am thinking : we need to go away
because it’s a trap

Which is perfectly locked

I can see all the issues well closed

And I see the economic mechanisms

Perfectly antisocial : mass unemployment,

Banks, banks

Which pigs out lending to States

With States which are oblige
to borrow them

For me, we must get out from that but….

Participant : how can we get out?

E.C. : well, there is an article,

Article 50 exists to get out

A State which wants to get out can get out

But, even, it only needs a political will

Because, even without the article 50,
the treaties,

Every treaties in the world
have been reported

Betrayed and abandoned so…

Part. : some questions here

E.C : yes?

Participant : The French State
which cannot finance itself

Through the Central Bank

Still managed to accumulate
1 billion 400 million of debt

E.C : 1 500, 1 500 billion

Participant : 1 500 billion

So a State which couldn’t

Which had no banker

Still put this on his shoulder.

E.C : But of course, this is
the other half of the pincer

So….

Participant : see?

Second thing, during

The recent period, the interest rates are

At historically low level

It is not the interest rates
which loaded the debt heavy

E.C. : Oh but how? Wait

Then, I will answer you.

I…

Yes? Well…

Participant : Theoretically,

I follow your logic but in practice?

With what happened recently,
since ten years

it’s not that at all.

E.C. : Yes it is ! You’ll see

because you don’t have…

I understand your objection.

It is normal, it is because

you’ve seen only one part of the pincer.

I think that what happened

from the eighties,

a little bit before, is that

the Austrian school which wants…

It is an economical school,

a family of thoughts in economy,

which are highly wary of the State

which are very liberal

which are very careful about it.

You must… I read these people,

it is not at all… I do not deny

all what these people say.

We must distrust the powers

I distrust all powers

included the State of course.

Anyway, these people

pushed so far

in fear of the State power

that they want to… enslave

literally, enslave the State

to a superior power

which would not be the electors,

which would be… unsurpassable

that…, for the State to stay rigorous

and this power that …,

the Austrian economists think about

is the market, we must get the State
to submit to the market

and so… and I think that is

what happens since 1980

our politic representatives

apply since 1980, since the eighties.

The recipes, the recipes, the ideology,

the, the… the economical organization

which grips the politic for this purpose

but for the moment, we only talked
about the…

One clip of the pincer which is :

if the State needs money,

it will be able to borrow it only,

with interests, to the financial markets

but when there is only
one clip to the pincer

it doesn’t clamp! You are right
to highlight it

and what I was going to say just after,

you are right to highlight that

it took on the debt to close the clamp

it took the State spending
more than it earns

for it to need money.

Imagine that every year since 1973,

imagine, you will see,
it’s concrete, it’s easy

imagine that, since 1973,

every deputy from the right
and from the left,

systematically, every year,

voted balanced budget, in balance!

Imagine that not once

they spent more than

the taxes which came in

if there was an idea to spend more on

and we lacked the money,
we did not do it

or we increased a little the taxes.

We kept the budgets in balance.

Imagine that they did it since
the eighties

You would have had this rule of the law 73

and the article 104
but it wouldn’t have done anything

because the State doesn’t need money

it has the taxes,
it spend the taxes.

There is no need to borrow,

neither to its Central Bank,
neither to the Financial Market.

It doesn’t borrow,
the trap wouldn’t close.

There wouldn’t even be a trap,

it is only one part of the trap,

an important part but which
wouldn’t…, they go together:

the 2 clips of the pincer go together.

And the abandonment of
the monetary creation,

which means the prohibition to borrow

to the States,

I, State, cannot create the money

I need, it is not enough
to create my debt.

It means that if I have a debt
it will be clamping

but it is not enough
to create my debt

and then what happened,

and you are right to highlight it,

what happens is not what I said there

which means from the eighties,

from 73, from 73!!

The budget of 1974 started
to be unbalanced

and they have all been unbalanced since!

and not unbalanced of whatever

unbalanced of the debt service

It is maybe, it can be a coincidence

but a funny coincidence here…

I mean, since 73,

the primary budget of the Assembly…,

in France, which means, without debt

without the service of the debt,

the service of the debt is
the reimbursement of the interests,

the primary budget is balanced,

approximatively, it is balanced

and the imbalance of our budgets since 73

is equivalent to the service of the debt

which keeps increasing,
which means we do not reimburse.

We do not reimburse with the taxes

the debt interests. We borrow again

in order to pay the interests,
we borrow again,

and again to pay the interests of the debt

and we do pay the interests!

And there are people
which have interests in that

which receive those interests

those who receive the interests,
they take the most of it.

We haven’t taken

on the taxes what was needed
to reimburse this debt

but when we borrow, we borrow,

and the imbalance of
our budgets correspond

exactly to the service of the debt.

Well, to be exact, it is an order
of magnitude

since 73

and that is what happened

which means since 73

there is the second clip of the pincer

the unbalanced budgets,
budgets unbalanced

a debt which keeps increasing and
lead to

me needing borrowing,

I need to borrow and I cannot create

the money I need,

I need to borrow again

and now we are a stage…. Look

but look at the facts!!!

We reached a state

of dependence to the financial market

which means the rich,
but not to the rich….

we are all rich comparing

to very poor people whom we…
I don’t talk to you about the rich…

I talk about a very very small part

of the population who is super rich

and mainly the banks in fact.

Look at the state of slavery of our States

comparing to…. Well if you don’t
see it today…

It was more difficult to show it in 2006,
in 2007

In 2011, you can see it no?

Participant : two, three… you make me jump

since the beginning

E.C. : that is really good, I mean,

it is normal….

Part. : if we come back on

what happened in 73,

the purpose itself was not the perversion,

the purpose was that the States

wouldn’t go too far

wouldn’t make too much deficit.

Second thing, what was meant to be

was that the States borrow

in order to make investments

like the companies.

E.C. : Yes.

Part. : When a company runs into debt
to invest,

the investment pays back

and this is what pays back the loan

and its interests.

E.C. : Yes

Participant : If we don’t make
clever investments

there is no pay back.

E.C. : Yes.

Participant : The problem here

is the budget management, more than

the financing without interest rate,
this is the…

E.C.: But if this was the purpose,
it is the announced purpose.

You are right, it is what said
Giscard d’Estaing,

when André-Jacques asked him,

Giscard d’Estaing answered

saying : that was the purpose but…

I highlight that

from 73, it the exact opposite

which happened, which means that

we were told, we give up the private
monetary creation

so that there is no imbalance anymore

and from that year start
appearing imbalances.

Come on, who are we making fun of?

Participant : I agree so we need
to look for the first cause

as you said at the beginning.

The first cause, is a bad budget
management,

well, second point on the rich, it is …

E.C. : the super rich

Participant the super rich

but if you look how

the opponents of financial markets,

the possession by households is very low.

E.C.: Yes very low.

Part.: it is very low

E.C.: of course

Part. : So, who are the rich?

It is all the French people
who have life insurances

who have money in open-end investment fund

and those who have a bank account as well

as the banking rules requires you

to detain a State bond, a sovereign bond

E.C.: Yes…, but

Part.: it is a requirement

E.C.: Yes

Participant: so, it is all
the economical actors

which are concerned

E.C. : yes but it is not me who invents it

It’s Plihon, a specialist of French bank

who highlights that
the bulk of public debt

the bulk of public debt

has been borrowed to the banks.

The principal actor, ahead of any others

who borrows to the States, are the banks.

You are right, you are right,

there is not only the banks and
in the public debt

every people who pretends

we should repudiate the debt.

This…. This…, it is madness considering…

You are right, considering

all the actors who borrowed to the States

and who have put all
their savings, their pension,

but of course,
this is not what I’m saying

I say that, among the actors
who borrow the States

there are considerable actors which are

becoming bigger and bigger,
bigger and bigger

more an more dominant comparing to

the political power. I mean…

Can’t you see the power of Goldman Sachs

comparing to the American government?

Can’t you see the power of
the European banks

comparing to the European government?

The fact that….

We are told every day that
we don’t have the money

that we cannot create the money

and that in order to save
the banks we find

a lot of money, and at this point

it is not inflation anymore,
we manage to find some

and unrequited please!

Unrequited! Which means…

Participant : It is completely wrong!!

E.C.: But why is this wrong then?

Participant : What is the amount the State

has lent to the French banks today?

E.C.: Well, he lent, and he recovered,

he recovered a little more, he recovered

more money than what he has lent.

The State loaned to the French banks

and recovered more because
the,re was a high interest rate

something like 7%.

He recovered more but
that is not the cost of the crisis sir

the cost of the crisis is…,
it is a devastated economy

devastated! And that is good…

And the States are causing
their own ruin on this

the States are causing
their own ruin because

the revenues comes in less because

the assistance increases and the banks

they don’t want to hear about it.

However they are directly responsible.

The real cost of the crises is not

you are right, in France,

we have covered
the banks of less public gold

than the American banks did,

but the cost of the crisis is not limited,

not at all, to the direct assistance
of the banks.

Part. : I agree with you

I don’t say there is no crises

and there is not only
horrible social conditions

I don’t say that. I only say that…

It is fear mongering to say the banks.

When you talk about the billions

which have been borrowed
and which have been

paid back with very high interest rates

a lot higher in fact than
the ones paid by the States

Thank goodness!

Part. 2 : how did they paid back?

How was this paid back?

We have lend money so that they could

get some companies out
from a difficult situation

and this is not what the bank did.

It didn’t help any small company,

it just closed the press

that is why there is reimbursement.

It didn’t do anything.

E.C. : banks don’t lend to
the Economy anymore

Since, since many years

The banks don’t borrow to the Economy,

The small companies don’t manage
to find money

We have a real problem.

You see

governments talking about it
among themselves

Participant : You talk nonsense, sorry

Participant 3 : Sorry, can I

ask a question?

What is the Economy for?

Isn’t it usually used to serve people?

Isn’t it for serving the country?

Participant : Yes

Participant 3 : so why is it necessary
to make debts

Participant 4 : why is there interests?

Why they don’t pay just like this

Participant 3 : why….

E.C. : Please, take
one question at a time

Participant 3 : I mean, it is nonsense

because the actual Economy is nonsense.

We talk about number, we talk about things

but it is not building banks,
nor houses, it is useless…

E.C. : you have the feeling that the banks

Are not influent in politics
and that they are…

Don't you feel the pressure of the banks

For their interest against
the general interest

Don’t you feel it, neither in Europe,
neither in the world?

Participant : I don’t doubt about France

E.C. : In France, don’t you feel
that the banks…

Participant : In the United States,
you have

Business banks which have

E.C.: Yes? And not in France?

In France too, all our banks

Became business banks too

Participant : it is universal banks

E.C. : Yes so they mix everything,
absolutely

So they are as well business banks

Participant 5 : only on the banks…

Not on the banks debate

There are two debates
I think that the cause

The monetary creation from the banks

But moreover what
I was saying and what is done

Now by the banks and all banks

Is to go on the financial markets

Because today when we see
a financial crack

Behind there is someone
who is going to win

We can see the…. The…

And the French banks as well

They are present almost everywhere

And we can see the interest of France
regarding Greece

The Greece is that the exposition
of the French banks

In Greece is actually really big

It is anyway a big part of the Greek debt

And that is what count,
it is also this I think,

There are two things,

The French banks don’t finance
small companies

But, in the back, they finance

when we see the bonds funds,
it's what was saying Mister,

three quarter of the people are
in fund where...

Today in this room,
there must be 80% of people

Without realizing,

It is what you said earlier,

Today finance the monetary system

As it is today with the open-end
investment fund

we can see France is
the 2nd or 3rd country

in the world in terms of mutual funds

Which means we finance and
when we see the interest rates

As well as the Greek rate is almost 10%,

Approximatively 10%, the Greeks,

The Italians it’s 7 to 8%, I speak about

bond funds

And it is really this separation
which… which

must be done and which we don't do
anymore because we became universal bank

E.C. : yes absolutely, it was the end
of the Glass Steagall Act

Sir, are you aware of the project

Which is, it’s… it’s an imminent project
from the ESM

The project, the funds, a sort of
incredible jackpot

Participant: The European fund
for Stability?

E.C. : Yes, well it’s more than that,
it is the ESM. The ESM is the…

Participant : Yes, it is the one from 2013

It is not the EFSF, no no

Participant : The Mechanism of

European of stability which
should take the lead

E.C.: European Stability mechanism, ….

Participant : European of
financial stability

E.C. : which is the next step, here…

And, do you know the conditions?

Did you read the treaty?

It is a project of treaty

This project of treaty has…,
it had been written in English

It has been translated
in all the languages

So it has been translated in French
and it is not available

In French, neither on
the European Union website,

Neither in any website,
which means that it is

citizens which are translating it,

it has just been translated

It can be read in English, it is not very
complicated English

It can be read and…. Well, I have no
documents on this

So…, but I will have some soon
because it is… it is…

Here is the very bottom of the revolt

I mean, on the detail of this treaty,

the organization conditions

of the lending to the banks…

of hundred of billions without condition

with no condition whatsoever sir,

with people who take decisions.

It is not elected people

without control of the representative
with….

protected by the judiciary immunity

A judiciary immunity to life
of everything they have done

and will do for all their life.

A judiciary immunity of everything
they’re doing!

I don’t know anyone who read this project

without being shocked, saying but

what is happening there?

Do you know it?

Can you help me understand,

tell me what it is about?

The idea is to allow the banks to claim

dumpers of money to the States
and so to us

because we need to pay for the State

dumpers of money, upon request

without needing to justify it

and without any regulation organism

than the banks themselves.

Can you oppose something to me?

Or precise the topic, but you know I…

Well…, what I see there…,
is the logic consequence

they are becoming more and more greedy

I… I… I am surprised by your surprise

but it interests me, I… I…

Participant : Please,

you know a lot of things because…

E.C. : And why has it not been published
in French?

Participant : finally the content
of the project

is being negotiated right now,

it is today, it is tomorrow

and during next week.

In fact one of the problems is

which missions can we give to

the European fund of financial stability.

This is the main question.

Can it allow for financing Greece

and if it finances Greece,

can it finance the primary bonds?

Can it finance the secondary bonds?

What the Central Bank made with… well…

It uses some texts, it uses its status
because,

in fact normally, it couldn't have

bought secondary bonds on the market.

E.C.: of course, they would never
have been able to

Participant : so… it is one of
the answers:

when the circumstances
talk very loud,

this is what De Gaulle used to say,

procedures contain a considerable
flexibility.

He was not only a military,
he knew about politics

This is what happened,
it avoided a disaster,

E.C.: avoided a disaster for the banks!

It is like two different sets of balance,
which means

When it is for the people we don’t manage

But when it is for the people…

Part. : if the banks disappear

you will see what happens

I hope it doesn’t happen.

E.C.: no but you imagine that the banks

Could we take control over the banks

on the occasion of their rescue.

We save them but ok, now it is us

who will take the power

is this shocking to you?

That the control of the banks
become public

Participant : I know that the banks

are directed by people who have orders

Participant 2 : Sorry but I found it
very sensible

what you are doing is a presentation

and you suggest a common approach

E.C.: Yes that’s it

Participant 2 : of the European
constitution and institutions.

However it is very very easy

like this in two shakes of
a lamb tail to say

here, what you say is bullshit.

Under the pretext that we do not agree,

it is very easy to sweep
the argumentation.

In October 2008, when
explode the big crises

of the sub primes in
the United States and that

at this times, there is Dexia
which starts to have problems

BNP Paribas, the Credit Agricole

for the French banks
which have difficulties.

They immediately ask to the States

saying lend us some money, we need money

right there in October 2008,
it is very easy afterwards

to rewrite history and to say,
very quickly,

from 2009, from the first semester 2009

to say we will pay back immediately

as soon as we get back
our speculation game

we will reimburse very very fast
so that.

The State stays far from our business but

even if a sovereign State

would have lend a very very small

amount of money in the end,

on October 2008, if at this point

the States would not have been there

banks would have been bankrupt.

There would be no BNP Paribas,

there would be no Credit Agricole

dexia, which means ????? 6 billions,

it has been given, so we organized
the liquidation,

it has been given to
the two last public banks which remain

the crisis of Deposits and Consignments
and the Banque Postale,

so, the old Post which are

the last two public banks remaining.

And now, these banks will get

the shitty loan with variable rates

which have been accepted by the

french collectivity at the time.

So it is exaggerated to say…

And all the arguments which you bring

are absolutely right, are
absolutely correct.

The fact that during
the “Trente Glorieuses”

there was an inflation but it wasn’t
a problem because there was

E.C.: an indexation

Participant 2 : because there was
an indexation…

It is politics! Lately
on the radio station

France Inter, there was a show
of Daniel Mermet

with a coverage on Francfort,

the capital of the capital
where we can see

that under the pretexts of
economical choices

we make political decisions.

So we need to stop toning down
an historical argumentation

talking about , letting one talking
about the speculation bank

and today we arrive at a point where

not only the banks don’t lend
money anymore

and do not invest in the real economies

but they are acting like predators.

So I invite you sir, really,
I have a lot of books

I am fascinated about Economy
since a while

and everything that Mr Chouard says

now is verifiable and correct.

Now we can…

As it concerns every domain of life

it concerns politic, it concerns history

the economical and political choices

which have been made

after the second world war.

It is very easy to say like this,

Yes yes what you say is bullshit

To put on a frightened look
and to go away.

No, really, everything
Mr Chouard said is correct.

E.C. : On the banks help, I would like
to highlight too that

you remember you thought earlier one about

the help which happened in 2008
in the emergency

and that the banks reimbursed quickly

but remember that since the European bank

today, still today buy lots

of junk bonds which are worth

absolutely nothing and buy it full price

which means that we buy, the Central Bank,

our central bank, we are, today

creating a very big quantity of money,
creating euros

to create euros

for the banks not to get bankrupt because

they have taken too many risks,
they have taken too many risks!!!

The system, which we will talk about,
of monetary creation

and of the organization…, and the link
there is between

this monetary creation, too easy
for private banks,

With the crises…, I realize
I have forgotten

to bring the book of Juglar

Juglar, who is one of the favorite

economists of Maurice,

had shown the straight correlation,
statistical,

that there is between an unbridled
monetary creation

by private banks, an unbridled
monetary creation

which leads the actors to take
too many risks

because we take more risks when we play

with money that isn’t ours

that we know we will reimburse
doing cavalries.

We take too much risk

and as the trees don’t grow to the sky

it ends up by falling, every time

and Juglar has shown the straight link,

fascinating, really interesting

confirmed by other economists
like Galbraith

between monetary creation
from unbridled private banks

and which, I guess, do not correspond
to the common interest.

This permission the private banks
had been given by our states

a long time ago, since 1592, since…

300 years, more than 300 years ago

the private banks, which were

the biggest merchants at this time

lending to princes which needed

money to go to war.

The money the princes didn’t yet
know how to create

bankers understood how to create money

but the princes didn’t get it

and so the princes depended
on these bankers

and were borrowing them
the money and consent

the monetary creation to private banks

but…, so we can understand
what historically,

allowed for the private banks to get

this essential power of monetary creation

but, gradually, it has given them a power

ahich is, I think, dangerous
for real people

I think they become too strong

stronger even than the States

and I think that it is dangerous for us

I… It seems to me that I…

You talk about the competence for…

You talked about
the necessary competence

of those who direct the banks

I do agree with you

but I don’t have the feeling that

those who hold the banks and who are

really controlling today the private banks

I don’t think…, I don’t have the feeling
that they have proved

greatly their competences

and so, we could make a try, saving them

giving them thousands of billions

buying junk bonds full price from them

it is… it is a lot of money!

Part. : yes but today, these are bonds

these are State bonds

E.C.: but not only! Not only !

All the subprimes, all of that, not only,

and there are the State bonds
which become junks

because the banks speculate against those

and because we force the States
to pay an interest

the Greece if it didn’t need…

Greece doesn’t need

to pay these 20% of
fantastic interest rates.

It needs to pay,
only because it is forced

to go through financial markets
to pay its debt

but this is not a fatality!

It’s the result of a politic!

A pincer which is held
to strangulate the States.

What is the benefit of
strangulating a State?

I don’t understand.

I understand the interests
the banks have

in the State being strangulate
but us, citizen,

I don’t understand…

Presenter : 3 questions in
the room for…

Participant 4 : I would like
to ask a question:

What if we didn’t pay the debt?
If we didn’t reimburse it?

What would happen?

E.C.: it is something very serious

we shouldn't do this that way...

Participant 4 : They created it!

Them! We are not forced to pay,

when I end up with an overdraft

I do not ask others to pay for it!

E.C.: Absolutely, absolutely, no but…

There is an alternative solution

between paying completely the debt

and repudiate it completely

Participant 4 : we're not the ECB

E.C.: Wait. There are a lot of people
who lend to the States

who are people like you and me

they have put aside their pension,
their savings

who are people totally…,
it’s normal people

they totally deserve respect.

If you repudiate completely the debt

you would steal from this people
and it would be…

One excess does not justify another,

one injustice does not justify another.

We need to find something
which would allow for

fhose who are respectable to be respected

and then, the rascal
who played casino and who,

played casino for decades

and who pigged out to the higher level.

Those we can imagine
to repudiate their debts

without it being a disaster it seems to me

I think we can… There can be
a different treatment

of the reimbursement of the debt
and on another side

the reclaiming of monetary creation.

claiming back
the monetary creation

knowing perfectly that
we mustn’t create too much money

I know it very well,
I have worked a lot on it

I know we shouldn’t create too much money

but getting
the monetary creation back

so giving ourselves a new
margin of action,

it is approximatively 5% of
the domestic gross income

of the national income so of the GDP

these are the numbers from Maurice,
it’s an order of magnitude

Taking the monetary creation back

would avoid for us the useless expense
of about 5%

so this money there would be
available again

it would again be the right of seigniorage

of monetary creation and it would allow

for a progressive reimbursement
of the debt which would be pretty quick

In 10 or 15 years. Yes but
it is political!

It is only politic, we just need
to take back…

Participant : It depends
on the negotiations.

Did you thought about the fines?

E.C.: well no, I haven’t heard it

in the negotiations at all.

The negotiations today are made
between the banks.

The negotiations are made between banks.

The Basel accords are signed by bankers

only by bankers sir

Part.: The Basel accord are changed

the EFSF in bank so that they can

E.C.: Yes but who negotiates that?

Banks, there are only banks

and governments in fact

Part. : please, I would like

to get back to the cause of causes,
the interest

of monetary creation, we were
talking about the monetary creation

at the beginning for the State, for itself

but there is also the monetary creation
of the bank

which created the money to lend it
to companies

and to individuals but the State should

take it back on its accounts.

Why the State wouldn’t create money

to lend itself

to the companies and to the individuals?

If the State created money to lend it

to the companies and
to the individuals with interest

there would be no need to pay taxes.

We get back to fondamentals.

E.C.: Yes It is what…

Part. 5 : the bank lend the money
that has been given to it

you give your savings to the bank,

it serves an interest to you,
the bank take its commission

and gets stronger interests,
and here the benefit

Actually the bank creates
the money it lends

it doesn’t exist, we do agree?

E.C. : yes yes absolutely

Part. : if the State created
the money and said:

Here, done, the banks do not create
money anymore

the State creates the money,
and the State lend the money

equivalent to the banks,

we wouldn't have taxes to pay!

E.C.: it the 100% money

Part.: that’s it ?

E.C.: yes yes absolutely

Part. : then the problem is
to come back

to the cause of causes, what is the money?

Do we agree?

E.C. : yes yes it is…

Part. : Basically there is
a problem

a very deep problem!

E.C. : The fractional-reserve banking

with the possibility for private banks
to create money

which they lend on the occasion of
a credit is questionable

really questionable and expensive
to the collectivity

Part.: the religions are
against that

E.C.: they are against…
we find everything in the books

the religious texts we can find it
and its opposite.

We find both.

Participant : another question here

E.C.: there are parts in the Bible
who defend

the lending with interests
so there are both

Participant : I don’t have a question
but only a comment

I think it would be pleasant

if you could keep going
with your presentation

if you could get out of the ping-pong
with this or this participant

in the room because, playing ping-pong

it becomes quicker and quicker
and a lot more emotional

and also, more and more technical
and I am not a specialist

I think some us may start not
understanding a lot.

E.C.: Yes ok.

Participant : just one last question

Participant : I would like…
before getting in the deep

I would like anyway to answer
to the previous intervention

I hope we are not in an idea
of specialists debate

because apparently,
from what I understood,

you are here to defend the sortage

so this is the opposite to specialization.

Putting interactivity in the debate

I think it is quite important otherwise

we are getting in a scholar context
and I will get bored.

also because it is long, because
apparently, we have started on many steps.

Listening someone talking for two hours
in a very scholar way,

I must admit that I get annoyed and
I don't find it interesting

I find it more interesting when it reacts

this being said, now, on the main topic

Part. 2: it is your opinion sir,
not everyone's!

Participant : Of course and I answer
to an opinion you have expressed

as I allowed it to the person who spoke

I listened in a very democratic way

so I take the liberty to express mine
also in a very democratic way

Part. 2: Yes, of course

Participant : Thank you. On the substance,
there is something

we haven’t talked about

and that I’m interested in,
it is first of all to create the money.

The State, even the State before 73
couldn’t come in like that

and start the banknotes press! We create
money depending on the wealth we produce

I suppose that there must be a mechanism,
I would like someone to explain it to me.

In a second time, I would like
to go towards

we don’t discuss of the most important

which is the production of wealth

who have the tool which produce wealth

and how is it allocated.
We speak about the banks

the banks lend so that
we dispose of a working tool and

using this working tool we reimburse
the banks.

It is approximatively that or
I missed a piece of the scheme

and I would like to know why
we don’t talk about this?

Which is I believe fundamental
and which asks

the question of the democratic problem

because that’s where there is a problem.

If the financiers throw off
the goods of the collectivity

and the ministers and those in power
let them do

It means that they have an interest
in common

and these interests in common are
opposite to those of the workers

to those who produce the wealth
they are benefitting of

and they are taking from us

and this duality, until it has not
been cleared

I think that all your suggestions…

In your little check-list which
I read with much attention,

will be inefficient.

E.C.: They will not happen.

Participant : They will not happen
so in your scheme

that you are presenting
since the beginning.

It doesn’t seem appropriate in the system
in which we live actually

the one of the market economy, liberal
or social-democratic.

It is different orientations
which it can take

but we stay in the logic of
the market economy

and as long as we won’t break
this market economy logic

I think we will not manage to go
towards a Democracy

as those who have the power, give
to themselves the tools to repress…

We must look, it is really terrible
what happens

when we go in Tunisia,
what happened during the revolution

I talked with a friend
this week and it’s moving…

When we see in Greece, in Spain,
all that happens!

The repression of the social movement
in France too, it exists

when we see how we repress
the friends of Continental

who lost their job in a pure speculative
logic of this company

as this company made benefits

and it was a company which…
Well Continental Clairoix was specialized

and the site was not unprofitable itself

So we have… we are touching a topic

Well, I would like us to debate a little
on this topic, thanks.

E.C.: so on my side, I… I have an opinion
on the question but I…

I prefer not to take a decision and
I find.. It is not very interesting

I think there is no interest to know
why I am for or against a market economy

oOr the… I think it is to the people
to decide, the people should decide

which regime he prefers after debating it
in a non demagogic way

avoiding the demagogic traps as
there will probably be some…

Some brilliant speakers we will try
to falsify the opinion by abusing people

So at the moment… Well in my opinion
the choice of society consists in

deciding how we… how are allocated
the rights on the production means.

This choice of society here is part
of political decisions

which should be taken by the people,
the people itself

and… I don’t need to take part on
this question here

to give you an answer which
I think is stronger

because it will solve not only
this problem but also a lot of others,

a lot of other social injustices but
I cannot open this brackets for too long

because usually I keep
the best for the end

I kept this part there as the…

I believe the most interesting part
which I discovered

which means, what is a real Democracy?

How does it works, how is it instituted
and how is it protected?

How do we do concretely to manage?

What can we do today to manage it?

Well, if you want, we can start
by this and we will talk about money later

I am not… If you prefer we can talk
about it in that order, I am ok with it

but it is in the logical order as
it is after having well studied

our various powerlessness and
the way this powerlessness

has been instituted, it is after
having well studied it that we could

understand the benefits of
a real Democracy

because you’ll see that
a real Democracy should allow for us.

It should allow for us to fix,
it’s surprising, to fix…

Maybe not all but a very large number
of problems we’re facing

So, coming back to where I was

I was talking about the European Union
and in ten points.

The abandonment of the monetary creation
to private banks

so with article 104 of Maastricht

has been obtained I think by deceit,
which means deception

which means… I remember I have voted
yes to the Maastricht treaty

and I didn’t know the article 104,
there was no debate on the article 104.

There was no public debate at all and
in the same way that…

In the institutions of Maastricht there
was the independency of the central bank,

and also its anti-inflation mission ,
therefore creating unemployment

and there was no debate at all on that,
they told us about the Euro.

We have talked a lot about the Euro, and
the Euro looked, it was well defended

It looked doable and it’s on that, and I,
I remember having voted yes on that

and when I study the Maastricht treaty,
the institutions after that

I feel like I’ve been conducted
to vote yes for a… hiding from me

The dangerous mechanisms,
the very problematic mechanisms

of what became next the part one
of the TCE.

Most of the resistance from left
and from right, most of the resistance

to the European institutions
worked on the part 3

and the economical politics
were conducted on part 3.

And I, I was fighting mostly on part 1

which are the programmed politic
powerlessness which allows for

confusion between powers and
political powerlessness of the citizens

and the confusion of the powers
in considerable proportions

which means our representatives
don’t have the power and

those who have the power in
the European institutions are not elected.

It seems to me that… and this is
what was programmed in part 1.

It seems to me that it deserved a debate
and the fact that it didn’t happen

leads me to think that
European institutions are illegitimate.

So in the points I would like to talk
about because I know

you will not hear about it if
I don’t talk to you about it.

There is what I call the laws
without parliament.