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.