Embrace Foundation Retreat Center
.Foundation (skype messaging)    -    011+1+212.675.4500 (New York)

Click to Email Us

Ethical Economics

Economics without Politics

( Scroll down for additional articles)
Like so many statistics about Africa's boom times, the figures about its companies seem at odds with  
the realities we see and hear.

- There will have to be a corporate information revolution

At first glance, our survey of the continent's Top 500 companies shows that Africa's corporate giants -  
their combined turnovers have tripled to around $740bn over the past decade - are racing ahead.

But it is equally important to look at the African continent's gross domestic product - estimated to be  
about $1.8trn in 2013 - and ask why that is well over double the turnover of Africa's top 500  

The conclusion is that Africa's companies are missing in action from some of the brightest spots on the  
economic horizon. Even Africa's biggest companies are growing more slowly on average than its  
national economies.

That is partly because Africa's biggest revenues, in oil and mineral exports mainly denominated in US  
dollars, accrue to multinational, not local companies.

Likewise with agricultural production, which is growing rapidly in many countries.

Its growth is either measured through rising dollar-earning exports of soft commodities such as coffee,  
cocoa and tea, through the declining role of state commodity boards or through estimates of the size of  
the informal economies in the countryside.

And going down the corporate rankings to those companies that did not make the Top
500, our research suggests that their turnover is shrinking: as much as 23% between 2011 and 2012.

Capital market research shows also that the rate of new companies listing on African stock exchanges  
has been falling sharply. That generally means less accountability and less access to investor funds.

Some regional factors, such as the political turmoil in North Africa, help explain the lack lustre  
performance of African companies.

Equally, local companies in some sectors such as information technology and telecommunications are  
booming by any standards.

Services too are growing, but the dependence on unprocessed exports is, if anything,

The performance of Africa's processing and manufacturing companies, which will create the jobs of the  
future, is lagging behind.

The average share of manufacturing in African economies remains at around 10%, where it has been  
for the past 40 years.

Changing this and championing Africa's companies will require policy innovation, political will and an  
information revolution.

The latest research from the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the World Bank on the factory  
floor dismisses the shibboleth that African companies cannot compete in terms of productivity or unit  
labour costs.

But both organisations urge governments to shed their suspicion of local governments, which may be  
rooted in fears of a political challenge from independently wealthy individuals.

Fixing electric power and transport would be a huge boost to local companies, and in
most cases that requires determined state action.

So, too, does the financial industry.

Now is the time for governments to stipulate that all commodity exporters should repatriate their export  
earnings through domestic banking systems. Angola introduced such rules in 2011.

Provided the national banking system is properly regulated, this will boost transparency and allow for a  
more accurate measure of real output and export earnings.

It will also boost the availability of foreign exchange to the local market and help the development of  
local money markets.

Finally, for Africa's companies to attract substantially more local and foreign investment, there will have  
to be a corporate information revolution.

Although the AfDB is making headway on improving macro and microeconomic data, there is still a lack  
of corporate data and independent analysis of companies' performances of the kind readily available in  
Asia and South America.

That will also allow policymakers to identify more easily the illicit outflows of finance - through tax  
evasion and deliberate mispricing of contracts - another factor that is limiting the financing prospects  
for local companies.

Serious action is needed now if Africa's companies are not to miss out on the growth.

Read the original article on Theafricareport.com: Africa's missing companies

Posted on Friday, 31 January 2014 12:50
Africa's missing companies
Patrick Smith
The "Banker To The Poor"
Explains How Social Businesses Can Create
Jobs For Everyone

Interview from the ROTARIAN Magazine

Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, known as the “banker for the poor”, began transforming  
lives while an economics professor at the University of Chittagong in Bangladesh. What began as  
personal microloans to poor women in nearby villages grew into Grameen Bank, which today has more  
than 2,500 branches throughout the country. Grameen Bank has helped launch or expand the  
businesses of more than 8 million borrowers - 97 percent of them women. Yunus, a keynote speaker at  
the 2012 RI Convention, recently spoke with Warren Kalbacker, a frequent contributor to The Rotarian.

The Rotarian: In 1976, you introduced the concept of microcredit, which involves providing loans of as  
little as a few cents to individuals. Many businesspeople might be puzzled as to how lending such small  
amounts could be effective.

Yunus: Microcredit started in one village in Bangladesh. I was teaching economics, and the country  
was going through famine. I was frustrated because the economic theories I taught in the classroom  
didn’t have any meaning in the lives of poor people. I thought I’d try to do something to help individuals  
in the village next to the university campus. I noticed loan sharking in the village - people lending  
money to the poor with terrible conditions attached. The sharks took control of peoples’ lives. I thought  
I could solve this problem by lending money myself. I visited those who were borrowing from the loan  
sharks, and I made a list of 42 names. The total money they owed was the equivalent of US$27. I put  
the money in their hands to pay off the loan sharks so they could be free. When I did that, everybody  
got excited. If such a small amount of money could make so many people so happy, I thought I should  
do more of it.

TR: Your concept of social business involves raising and investing capital, then managing the  
enterprise for a return. Yet you specify that there will be no profit-taking. Aren’t you offering something  
like two cheers for capitalism?

Yunus: People think if you take out the profit incentive, businesses cannot survive. That’s absolutely  
wrong. There are many other incentives. In a social business, I make other people happy. By making  
other people happy, I become happy. That incentive is something economists don’t understand. I am  
introducing that. I’m not walking out on capitalism; I insist that capitalism is misinterpreted. It’s based on  
a single type of business: profit-making. It’s imbalanced. If you add the social business leg to the  
capitalist system, then it becomes stable. When a business is run only to maximize profit, people are  
too busy to examine or solve social problems, so they let governments take care of those problems.  
But we citizens are capable of solving problems ourselves. That’s what the social business can do.

TR: Grameen has teamed up with France-based food giant Danone to manufacture yogurt in  
Bangladesh. How does this venture differ from a traditional profit-making enterprise?

Yunus: This social business is a non-loss, non-dividend company designed to solve a social problem.  
If Grameen Danone Foods makes a profit, the profit stays with the company. Its purpose is to solve the  
problem of malnutrition among the children of Bangladesh. It makes a special type of yogurt that is  
inexpensive to produce and affordable to the poorest families. If a child eats it, he or she gradually  
becomes a healthy child. The company is now in its fourth year, and it’s doing very well. The nutritional  
impact is clear, and the company is approaching the break-even point.

TR: You’re a tireless advocate for personal initiative across all cultures. What motivates you?

Yunus: Economists assume that entrepreneurs who can take the risks and lead the way are limited in  
number - that these are the few people in the world with exceptional qualities, who are capable of  
being entrepreneurs, and the rest of the human beings are supposed to work under them. This is  
unacceptable. I insist that all human beings are entrepreneurs. No exceptions. No one lacks  
entrepreneurial capability. But institutions have framed policies that don’t give us the opportunity to  
discover our entrepreneurial ability. They’re being propagated through our education system, which is  
built on the premise that you work hard and get well paid, or you go to a good school and get a good  
job - as if a job is the ultimate goal of a human life. I say that is wrong.

TR: What will you focus on when you address this year’s RI Convention?

Yunus: I’ll be talking about the education system. All young people should be taught that they have  
choices. They can be a job seeker or a job giver. As they grow up, they can decide which they want to  
be. Institutions must be built so that whichever path young people take, they will be supported so they  
can pursue their goal in life. Right now, this choice is missing in the education system.  
TR: Many graduates of top US. colleges and universities are having a tough time in the job market.  
Can you offer this talent pool some career advice?

YUNUS: I would say, "Why try to be a job seeker? Why don't you become a job giver?" Create a social  
business to provide opportunities. If you work ill the social business you have started, you've actually  
created your own job. Whatever salary you may expect in an open market, you can get the same salary  
in your own company. so you're not sacrificing anything. All you are saying is, ''I'm not taking any profit  
out of the company."

TR: You have advised Lisa Simpson, the older daughter on the long running animated TV show The  
Simpsons, on how to direct S50 toward a socially responsible investment. How did that get into the  

YUNUS: I suggested Lisa give the money out in micro credit. Yeardley Smith, the voice of Lisa  
Simpson, is a close friend. She knows about social business. We keep inviting her to come to a Global  
Social Business Summit. We just had one in Vienna. Maybe there will be another Simpsons episode on  
social business. Lisa could start a problem-solving business.

TR: Many affluent people donate substantial sums of money to alleviate poverty. Do you seek to  
reorient philanthropy?

YUNUS: I am not against philanthropy. It's very important and should continue. Bur I am proposing that  
there are occasions when you can convert philanthropy into a social business, and it works much  
better. It's not rocket science. You can use your philanthropy money to start a company and create five  
jobs for people who are unemployed. Start a fruit stand. Start a restaurant. You have employed people,  
and they have good jobs. The intention is to provide the five jobs. not to make money from the  
restaurant. As long as the restaurant covers its own costs, that's fine. And if it's making a profit, the  
profit stays with the company so that it can create a sixth job or a seventh job.

TR: You are skeptical of aspects of the social safety nets in Western countries, noting that they can  
impede entrepreneurship. How would you approach Western poverty?

YUNUS: You can take people off welfare by creating a social business. You have then done a  
tremendous thing. You've saved the government from continuously having to feed them, and you have  
saved them from that rotten feeling that they are useless people who can do nothing for themselves.  
You have saved five people economically, psychologically and socially. You have given them dignity.
TR: You've predicted that people will someday learn about poverty only by viewing museum exhibits.  
Are you really that optimistic?

YUNUS: Yes. I am convinced that it's possible with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.  
The No.1 goal is to reduce poverty and hunger. We need to attack this in every way. We need  
education, health care, and micro credit. We need good governance. We need to protect the planer.  
We need everything. If you say, "This one thing will solve the problem of poverty," I don't agree.

TR: "Do it with joy" is one of the seven written principles of the Yunus concept for a social business.  
How do you manage that?

YUNUS: You must enjoy what you are doing. Joy comes from within you. And once you see that it's  
happening, you are able to make other people happy. That touches you. It's wonderful.

TR: Grameen faltered a bit with its textile venture, Grameen Check. Were its products too expensive  
for the mass market? Do you think the checked cloth might have a future with fashion designers?

YUNUS: We are trying. It is not expensive to produce. We tried to build an international demand and  
didn't do a very good job. But in the process, it's become well liked in Bangladesh. All the young people  
here want to wear Grameen Check because they feel this gives recognition and dignity to the weavers  
in Bangladesh who weave this cloth by hand. It comes in thousands and thousands of colors and  
designs. I am wearing Grameen Check right now.


Titanic Banks Hit LIBOR Iceberg:
Will Lawsuits Sink the Ship?

Posted on July 20, 2012 by Ellen Brown

At one time, calling the large multinational banks a “cartel” branded you as a conspiracy theorist.  
Today the banking giants are being called that and worse, not just in the major media but in court  
documents intended to prove the allegations as facts. Charges include racketeering (organized crime  
under the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO), antitrust violations, wire  
fraud, bid-rigging, and price-fixing. Damning charges have already been proven, and major damages  
and penalties assessed. Conspiracy theory has become established fact.

In an article in the July 3rd Guardian titled “Private Banks Have Failed - We Need a Public Solution”,  
Seumas Milne writes of the LIBOR rate-rigging scandal admitted to by Barclays Bank:

It’s already clear that the rate rigging, which depends on collusion, goes far beyond Barclays, and  
indeed the City of London. This is one of multiple scams that have become endemic in a disastrously  
deregulated system with inbuilt incentives for cartels to manipulate the core price of finance.

. . . It could of course have happened only in a private-dominated financial sector, and makes a  
nonsense of the bankrupt free-market ideology that still holds sway in public life.

. . . A crucial part of the explanation is the unmuzzled political and economic power of the City. . . .  
Finance has usurped democracy.

Bid-rigging and Rate-rigging

Bid-rigging was the subject of U.S. v. Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm, a ten-year suit in which the U.S.  
Department of Justice obtained a judgment on May 11 against three GE Capital employees. Billions of  
dollars were skimmed from cities all across america by colluding to rig the public bids on municipal  
bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion. Other banks involved in the bidding scheme included Bank of  
America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and UBS. These banks have already paid a total of $673  
million in restitution after agreeing to cooperate in the government’s case.

Hot on the heels of the Carollo decision came the LIBOR scandal, involving collusion to rig the inter-
bank interest rate that affects $500 trillion worth of contracts, financial instruments, mortgages and  
loans. Barclays Bank admitted to regulators in June that it tried to manipulate LIBOR before and during  
the financial crisis in 2008. It said that other banks were doing the same. Barclays paid $450 million to  
settle the charges.

The U. S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission said in a press release that Barclays Bank  
“pervasively” reported fictitious rates rather than actual rates; that it asked other big banks to assist,  
and helped them to assist; and that Barclays did so “to benefit the Bank’s derivatives trading positions”  
and “to protect Barclays’ reputation from negative market and media perceptions concerning Barclays’  
financial condition.”

After resigning, top executives at Barclays promptly implicated both the Bank of England and the  
Federal Reserve. The upshot is that the biggest banks and their protector central banks engaged in  
conspiracies to manipulate the most important market interest rates globally, along with the exchange  
rates propping up the U.S. dollar.

CFTC did not charge Barclays with a crime or require restitution to victims. But Barclays’ activities with  
the other banks appear to be criminal racketeering under federal RICO statutes, which authorize  
victims to recover treble damages; and class action RICO suits by victims are expected.

The blow to the banking defendants could be crippling. RICO laws, which carry treble damages, have  
taken down the Gambino crime family, the Genovese crime family, Hell’s Angels, and the Latin Kings.

The Payoff: Not in Interest But on Interest Rate Swaps

Bank defenders say no one was hurt. Banks make their money from interest on loans, and the rigged  
rates were actually LOWER than the real rates, REDUCING bank profits.

That may be true for smaller local banks, which do make most of their money from local lending; but  
these local banks were not among the 16 mega-banks setting LIBOR rates. Only three of the rate-
setting banks were U.S.banks-JPMorgan, Citibank and Bank of America-and they slashed their local  
lending after the 2008 crisis. In the following three years, the four largest U.S. banks-BOA, Citi, JPM  
and Wells Fargo--cut back on small business lending by a full 53 percent. The two largest-BOA and  
Citi-cut back on local lending by 94 percent and 64 percent, respectively.

Their profits now come largely from derivatives. Today, 96% of derivatives are held by just four banks-
JPM, Citi, BOA and Goldman Sachs-and the LIBOR scam significantly boosted their profits on these  
bets. Interest-rate swaps compose fully 82 percent of the derivatives trade. The Bank for International  
Settlements reports a notional amount outstanding as of June 2009 of $342 trillion. JPM-the king of the  
derivatives game-revealed in February 2012 that it had cleared $1.4 billion in revenue trading interest-
rate swaps in 2011, making them one of the bank’s biggest sources of profit.

The losers have been local governments, hospitals, universities and other nonprofits. For more than a  
decade, banks and insurance companies convinced them that interest-rate swaps would lower interest  
rates on bonds sold for public projects such as roads, bridges and schools.

The swaps are complicated and come in various forms; but in the most common form, counterparty A  
(a city, hospital, etc.) pays a fixed interest rate to counterparty B (the bank), while receiving a floating  
rate indexed to LIBOR or another reference rate. The swaps were entered into to insure against a rise  
in interest rates; but instead, interest rates fell to historically low levels.

Defenders say “a deal is a deal;” the victims are just suffering from buyer’s remorse. But while that  
might be a good defense if interest rates had risen or fallen naturally in response to demand, this was a  
deliberate, manipulated move by the Fed acting to save the banks from their own folly; and the rate-
setting banks colluded in that move. The victims bet against the house, and the house rigged the  

Lawsuits Brewing

State and local officials across the country are now meeting to determine their damages from interest  
rate swaps, which are held by about three-fourths of America’s major cities. Damages from LIBOR rate-
rigging are being investigated by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, New York Attorney  
General Eric Schneiderman, officers at CalPERS (California’s public pension fund, the nation’s  
largest), and hundreds of hospitals.

One victim that is fighting back is the city of Oakland, California. On July 3, the Oakland City Council  
unanimously passed a motion to negotiate a termination without fees or penalties of its interest rate  
swap with Goldman Sachs. If Goldman refuses, Oakland will boycott doing future business with the  
investment bank. Jane Brunner, who introduced the motion, says ending the agreement could save  
Oakland $4 million a year, up to a total of $15.57 million-money that could be used for additional city  
services and school programs. Thousands of cities and other public agencies hold similar toxic interest  
rate swaps, so following Oakland’s lead could save taxpayers billions of dollars.

What about suing Goldman directly for damages? One problem is that Goldman was not one of the 16  
banks setting LIBOR rates. But victims could have a claim for unjust enrichment and restitution, even  
without proving specific intent:

Unjust enrichment is a legal term denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is  
unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of  
liability for wrongdoing. . . . [It is a] general equitable principle that a person should not profit at  
another’s expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property,  
services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained.

Goldman was clearly unjustly enriched by the collusion of its banking colleagues and the Fed, and  
restitution is equitable and proper.

RICO Claims on Behalf of Local Banks

Not just local governments but local banks are seeking to recover damages for the LIBOR scam. In  
May 2012, the Community Bank & Trust of Sheboygan, Wisconsin, filed a RICO lawsuit involving  
mega-bank manipulation of interest rates, naming Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and  
others. The suit was filed as a class action to encourage other local, independent banks to join in. On  
July 12, the suit was consolidated with three other LIBOR class action suits charging violation of the  
anti-trust laws.

The Sheboygan bank claims that the LIBOR rigging cost the bank $64,000 in interest income on $8  
million in floating-rate loans in 2008. Multiplied by 7,000 U.S. community banks over 4 years, the  
damages could be nearly $2 billion just for the community banks. Trebling that under RICO would be  
$6 billion.

RICO Suits Against Banking Partners of MERS

Then there are the MERS lawsuits. In the State of Louisiana, 30 judges representing 30 parishes are  
suing 17 colluding banks under RICO, stating that the Mortgage Electronic Registration System  
(MERS) is a scheme set up to illegally defraud the government of transfer fees, and that mortgages  
transferred through MERS are illegal. A number of courts have held that separating the promissory  
note from the mortgage-which the MERS scheme does-breaks the chain of title and voids the transfer.

Several states have already sued MERS and their bank partners, claiming millions of dollars in unpaid  
recording fees and other damages. These claims have been supported by numerous studies, including  
one asserting that MERS has irreparably damaged title records nationwide and is at the core of the  
housing crisis. What distinguishes Louisiana’s lawsuit is that it is being brought under RICO, alleging  
wire and mail fraud and a scheme to defraud the parishes of their recording fees.

Readying the Lifeboats: The Public Bank Solution

Trebling the damages in all these suits could sink the bank of Titanic. As Seumas Milne notes in The  

Tougher regulation or even a full separation of retail from investment banking will not be enough to  
shift the City into productive investment, or even prevent the kind of corrupt collusion that has now  
been exposed between Barclays and other banks. . . .

Only if the largest banks are broken up, the part-nationalised outfits turned into genuine public  
investment banks, and new socially owned and regional banks encouraged can finance be made to  
work for society, rather than the other way round. Private sector banking has spectacularly failed - and  
we need a democratic public solution.

If the last quarter century of U.S. banking history proves anything, it is that our private banking system  
turns malignant and feeds off the public when it is deregulated. It also shows that a parasitic private  
banking system will NOT be tamed by regulation, as the banks’ control over the money power always  
allows them to circumvent the rules. We the People must transparently own and run the nation’s  
central and regional banks for the good of the nation, or the system will be abused and run for private  
power and profit as it so clearly is today, bringing our nation to crisis again and again while enriching  
the few.


Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org. In Web of  
Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the  
people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are http://WebofDebt.com and  

Embrace Foundation is a non-profit,  
educational foundation set up to  
create better understanding  
between people of different  
religions, cultures, traditions and  
world philosophies.

Embrace Foundation works to bring  
leaders and scholars of world-wide  
religions, cultures and philosophies  
together by sponsoring forums,  
seminars, lectures and developing  
an international exchange program.  
Embrace Foundation is particularly  
concerned with reaching the world  
public through the media.
Embrace Foundation is an all  
volunteer organization. All  
donations go directly to programs.

Embrace Foundation does not and  
has never given permission to any  
outside organization to solicit or  
receive contributions on our behalf.

All donations should be made to  
Embrace Foundation only via  
Paypal or by mail. All donations are  
tax deductible. A receipt will be  
emailed to you. Please click on the  
Pay Pal link below to Donate.
Travel As An Interfaith Act
Embrace encourages all who can  
do so, to learn about other  
traditions and cultures by traveling  
as “Grassroots Diplomats.” We  
hope that people every where  
become life long students of our  
world-wide humanity.

“ In every man there is something  
wherein I may learn of him, and in  
that I am his pupil.”
Embrace Humanity

Great Visions - TV
Guests are: Swami Satchidananda &
the Rt. Reverend Dean Parks Morton
Embrace Archives
Limited Editions Gallery
Umrah - Jordan
Embrace Sacred Places
Monastery of Bahira - Syria
Embrace Foundation Universal
Monk Reading - Ethiopia
Thank you for making a donation.
Embrace Foundation Archives.Org
Virginia (Embrace), Dr.Anwar Barkat (World Council of Churches, UN) & Imam I.H. Kauser
Embrace Foundation Archives. Org
Embrace Archives
Great Visions TV
Embrace Foundation Archives. Org
Anne-Stuart & Ajata (Hosts), with Rabbi Gelberman & Dr.Jayaraman
Anne-Stuart & Ajata (Hosts), with Rabbi Carlebach & Imam Kauser
Embrace Foundation Archives. Org
NEW! See: TRAVELING  IN CYPRUS in CELEBRATE HUMANITY - FINALLY ! - See: CURRENT The Embrace Founders Travels in Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, Lebanon & Cyprus  -   IMPORTANT ! See: article of TRAVELING IN TURKEY in CELEBRATE HUMANITY
Embrace Foundation International
A Revolutionary Pope Calls for Rethinking the Outdated Criteria That  
Rule the World
Ellen Brown, Author, Web of Debt, Public Bank Solution; President, Public Banking Institute
Posted: 07/08/2015 3:58 pm EDT Updated: 07/08/2015 3:59 pm EDT

Pope Francis' revolutionary encyclical addresses not just climate change but the banking crisis.  
Interestingly, the solution to that crisis may have been modeled in the Middle Ages by Franciscan  
monks following the Saint from whom the Pope took his name.

Pope Francis has been called "the revolutionary Pope" Before he became Pope Francis, he was a  
Jesuit Cardinal in Argentina named Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the son of a rail worker. Moments after his  
election, he made history by taking on the name Francis, after Saint Francis of Assisi, the leader of a  
rival order known to have shunned wealth to live in poverty.

Pope Francis' June 2015 encyclical is called "Praised Be," a title based on an ancient song attributed  
to St. Francis. Most papal encyclicals are addressed only to Roman Catholics, but this one is  
addressed to the world. And while its main focus is considered to be climate change, its 184 pages  
cover much more than that. Among other sweeping reforms, it calls for a radical overhaul of the  
banking system. It states in Section IV:

"Today, in view of the common good, there is urgent need for politics and economics to enter into a  
frank dialogue in the service of life, especially human life. Saving banks at any cost, making the public  
pay the price, forgoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms  
the absolute power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new  
crises after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery. The financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an  
opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of regulating  
speculative financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include  
rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world.

. . . A strategy for real change calls for rethinking processes in their entirety, for it is not enough to  
include a few superficial ecological considerations while failing to question the logic which underlies  
present-day culture."

"Rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world" is a call to revolution, one that is  
necessary if the planet and its people are to survive and thrive. Beyond a change in our thinking, we  
need a strategy for eliminating the financial parasite that is keeping us trapped in a prison of scarcity  
and debt.

Interestingly, the model for that strategy may have been created by the Order of the Saint from whom  
the Pope took his name. Medieval Franciscan monks, defying their conservative rival orders, evolved  
an alternative public banking model to serve the poor at a time when they were being exploited with  
exorbitant interest rates.

The Franciscan Alternative: Banking for the People

In the Middle Ages, the financial parasite draining the people of their assets and livelihoods was  
understood to be "usury" - charging rent for the use of money. Lending money at interest was  
forbidden to Christians, as a breach of the prohibition on usury proclaimed by Jesus in Luke 6:33. But  
there was a serious shortage of the precious metal coins that were the official medium of exchange,  
creating a need to expand the money supply with loans on credit.

An exception was therefore made to the proscription against usury for the Jews, whose Scriptures  
forbade usury only to "brothers" (meaning other Jews). This gave them a virtual monopoly on lending,  
however, allowing them to charge excessively high rates because there were no competitors. Interest  
sometimes went as high as 60 percent.

These rates were particularly devastating to the poor. To remedy the situation, Franciscan monks,  
defying the prohibitions of the Dominicans and Augustinians, formed charitable pawnshops called  
montes pietatus (pious or non-speculative collections of funds). These shops lent at low or no interest  
on the security of valuables left with the institution.

The first true mons pietatis made loans that were interest-free. Unfortunately, it went broke in the  
process. Expenses were to come out of the original capital investment; but that left no money to run  
the bank, and it eventually had to close.

Franciscan monks then established montes pietatis in Italy that lent at low rates of interest. They did  
not seek to make a profit on their loans. But they faced bitter opposition, not only from their banking  
competitors but from other theologians. It was not until 1515 that the montes were officially declared to  
be meritorious.

After that, they spread rapidly in Italy and other European countries. They soon evolved into banks,  
which were public in nature and served public and charitable purposes. This public bank tradition  
became the modern European tradition of public, cooperative and savings banks. It is particularly  
strong today in the municipal banks of Germany called Sparkassen.

The public banking concept at the heart of the Sparkassen was explored in the 18th century by the  
Irish philosopher Bishop George Berkeley, in a treatise called The Plan of a National Bank. Berkeley  
visited America and his work was studied by Benjamin Franklin, who popularized the public banking  
model in colonial Pennsylvania. In the US today, the model is exemplified in the state-owned Bank of  
North Dakota.

From "Usury" to "Financialization"

What was condemned as usury in the Middle Ages today goes by the more benign term  
"financialization" - turning public commodities and services into "asset classes" from which wealth can  
be siphoned by rich private investors. Far from being condemned, it is lauded as the way to fund  
development in an age in which money is scarce and governments and people everywhere are in debt.

Land and natural resources, once considered part of the commons, have long been privatized and  
financialized. More recently, this trend has been extended to pensions, health, education and housing.  
Today financialization has entered a third stage, in which it is invading infrastructure, water, and nature  
herself. Capital is no longer content merely to own. The goal today is to extract private profit at every  
stage of production and from every necessity of life.

The dire effects can be seen particularly in the financialization of food. The international food regime  
has developed over the centuries from colonial trading systems to state-directed development to  
transnational corporate control. Today the trading of food commodities by hedgers, arbitrageurs and  
index speculators has disconnected markets from the real-world demand for food. The result has been  
sudden shortages, price spikes and food riots. Financialization has turned farming from a small scale,  
autonomous and ecologically-sustainable craft to a corporate assembly process that relies on patented  
technologies and equipment increasingly financed through debt.

We have bought into this financialization scheme based on a faulty economic model, in which we have  
allowed money to be created privately by banks and lent to governments and people at interest. The  
vast majority of the circulating money supply is now created by private banks in this way, as the Bank  
of England recently acknowledged.

Meanwhile, we live on a planet that holds the promise of abundance for all. Mechanization and  
computerization have streamlined production to the point that, if the work week and corporate profits  
were divided equitably, we could be living lives of ease, with our basic needs fulfilled and plenty of  
leisure to pursue the interests we find rewarding. We could, like St. Francis, be living like the lilies of  
the field. The workers and materials are available to build the infrastructure we need, provide the  
education our children need, provide the care the sick and elderly need. Inventions are waiting in the  
wings that could clean up our toxic environment, save the oceans, recycle waste, and convert sun,  
wind and perhaps even zero-point energy into usable energy sources.

The holdup is in finding the funding for these inventions. Our politicians tell us "we don't have the  
money." Yet China and some other Asian countries are powering ahead with this sort of sustainable  
development. Where have they found the money?

The answer is that they simply issue it. What private banks do in Western countries, publicly-owned  
and -controlled banks do in many Asian countries. Their governments have taken control of the  
engines of credit - the banks - and operated them for the benefit of the public and their own  

What blocks Western economies from pursuing that course is a dubious economic theory called  
"monetarism." It is based on the premise that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary  
phenomenon," and that the chief cause of inflation is money "created out of thin air" by governments. In  
the 1970s, the Basel Committee discouraged governments from issuing money themselves or  
borrowing from their own central banks which issued it. Instead they were to borrow from "the market,"  
which generally meant borrowing from private banks. Overlooked was the fact, recently acknowledged  
by the Bank of England, that the money borrowed from banks is also created out of thin air. The  
difference is that bank-created money originates as a debt and comes with a hefty private interest  
charge attached.

We can break free from this exploitative system by returning the power to create money to  
governments and the people they represent. The strategy for real change called for by Pope Francis  
can be furthered with government-issued money of the sort originated by the American colonists,  
augmented by a network of publicly-owned banks of the sort established by the Order of St. Francis in  
the Middle Ages.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best  
selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models  
historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com.

Link to Article - http://ellenbrown.com/2015/07/03/a-revolutionary-pope-calls-for-rethinking-the-outdated-criteria-that-
Also on others...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/a-revolutionary-pope-call_1_b_7728626.html

Switzerland To Vote On Ending Fractional Reserve Banking

By Tyler Durden
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com) - Created 12/24/2015 - 15:43

One year ago (and just two months before the shocking announcement the Swiss Franc's peg to the  
Euro would end, dramatically revaluing the currency, and leading to massive FX losses around the  
globe and for the Swiss National Bank) the Swiss held a referendum whether to demand that their  
central bank should convert 20% of its reserves into gold, up from 7% currently. After the early polls  
showed the Yes vote taking a surprising lead, the Diebold machines kicked in and the result was a  
sweeping victory for the No vote, without a single canton voting for sound money.

Ironically, this unexpected nonchallance about the Swiss central bank's balance sheet by one of  
Europe's more responsible nations took place just before the same bank announced CHF30 billions in  
losses on its long EUR positions following the revaluation of the CHF. It also took place when not just  
Germany, but the Netherlands and Austria announced they would repatriate a major portion of their  
gold in a move which, all spin aside, signals rising concerns about the existing monetary system.

We wonder if the Swiss have changed their mind about just how prudent it is to have their central bank  
operate as one of the world's largest - and worst - after its CHF 30 billion loss in Q1 FX traders, and  
hedge funds with $94 billion in stock holdings, since then.

We may soon have the answer, because in what is shaping up to be another historic referendum on  
the treatment of money, earlier today the Swiss Federal Government confirmed that it had received  
enough signatures and would hold a referendum as part of the so-called "Vollgeld", or Full Money  
Initiative, also known as the Campaign for Monetary Reform, which seeks to ban commercial banks  
from creating money, and which calls for the central bank to be given sole power to create the money  
in the financial system.

In other words, an initiative to ban fractional reserve banking, and revert to a 100% reserve.

As Finanzen.ch reports, after 111,763 signatures urging a referendum were submitted, of which  
110,955 valid, the Federal Chancellery announced on Thursday that the popular vote would take  
place. Under Switzerland's direct democracy, a referendum can be held if a motion gains 100,000  
signatures within 18 months of launching.

"Banks wont be able to create money for themselves any more, they only be able to lend money that  
they have from savers or other banks," said the campaign group.

Ever since the SNB was established in 1891, it has had exclusive power to mint coins and issue Swiss  
banknotes. However, as with every other fractional reserve banking system, over 90% of the money in  
circulation in Switzerland, as in every other country, now exists in the form "electronic" cash created by  
private banks, rather than the central bank.

It is this threat of uncontrolled money creation and the risks to systemic stability that the Vollgeld  
campaign is seeking to stem.

"Due to the emergence of electronic payment transactions, banks have regained the opportunity to  
create their own money," said the Swiss Sovereign Money campaign. "The decision taken by the  
people in 1891 has fallen into oblivion."

So with the referendum now docketed, will this vote too be mysteriously "lost" in the final minutes of  
voting? According to the Telegraph, unlike the gold vote - which was seen as a precursor to re-
introducing the Gold Standard in Switzerland - economists have been more supportive of the idea of  
"sovereign money" as a way to stabilize the economy and prevent excess credit growth.

A date for the Swiss referendum has not been set.

If the vote passes, and if Swiss banks are barred from creating deposits (by way of loans), it would  
shake to the core the entire modern financial system, which these days is exclusively reliant on  
runaway fractionalization of sound money, as more and more layers are added to the top of the Exter's  
Pyramid, as the only possible "growth" left in a world that has never seen so much debt, is to find new  
and creative ways to borrow from the future, with banks getting all the benefits and stuffing taxpayers  
when the inevitable collapse happens.

Below is a pdf provided by the Vollgeld Initiative, responding to popular criticisms against its "100%  
reserve" crusade.


A Crisis Worse than ISIS? Bail-Ins Begin

Posted on December 29, 2015 by Ellen Brown

While the mainstream media focus on ISIS extremists, a threat that has gone virtually unreported is that  
your life savings could be wiped out in a massive derivatives collapse. Bank bail-ins have begun in  
Europe, and the infrastructure is in place in the US. Poverty also kills.
At the end of November, an Italian pensioner hanged himself after his entire €100,000 savings were  
confiscated in a bank “rescue” scheme. He left a suicide note blaming the bank, where he had been a  
customer for 50 years and had invested in bank-issued bonds. But he might better have blamed the  
EU and the G20’s Financial Stability Board, which have imposed an “Orderly Resolution” regime that  
keeps insolvent banks afloat by confiscating the savings of investors and depositors. Some 130,000  
shareholders and junior bond holders suffered losses in the “rescue.”

The pensioner’s bank was one of four small regional banks that had been put under special  
administration over the past two years. The €3.6 billion ($3.83 billion) rescue plan launched by the  
Italian government uses a newly-formed National Resolution Fund, which is fed by the country’s  
healthy banks. But before the fund can be tapped, losses must be imposed on investors; and in  
January, EU rules will require that they also be imposed on depositors. According to a December 10th  
article on BBC.com: The rescue was a “bail-in” - meaning bondholders suffered losses - unlike the  
hugely unpopular bank bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis, which cost ordinary EU taxpayers tens  
of billions of euros.

Correspondents say [Italian Prime Minister] Renzi acted quickly because in January, the EU is  
tightening the rules on bank rescues - they will force losses on depositors holding more than €100,000,  
as well as bank shareholders and bondholders.

. . . [L]etting the four banks fail under those new EU rules next year would have meant “sacrificing the  
money of one million savers and the jobs of nearly 6,000 people”. That is what is predicted for 2016:  
massive sacrifice of savings and jobs to prop up a “systemically risky” global banking scheme.

Bail-in Under Dodd-Frank

That is all happening in the EU. Is there reason for concern in the US?

According to former hedge fund manager Shah Gilani, writing for Money Morning, there is. In a  
November 30th article titled “Why I’m Closing My Bank Accounts While I Still Can,” he writes: [It is]  
entirely possible in the next banking crisis that depositors in giant too-big-to-fail failing banks could  
have their money confiscated and turned into equity shares. . . .

If your too-big-to-fail (TBTF) bank is failing because they can’t pay off derivative bets they made, and  
the government refuses to bail them out, under a mandate titled “Adequacy of Loss-Absorbing  
Capacity of Global Systemically Important Banks in Resolution,” approved on Nov. 16, 2014, by the  
G20’s Financial Stability Board, they can take your deposited money and turn it into shares of equity  
capital to try and keep your TBTF bank from failing.

Once your money is deposited in the bank, it legally becomes the property of the bank. Gilani explains:  
Your deposited cash is an unsecured debt obligation of your bank. It owes you that money back. If you  
bank with one of the country’s biggest banks, who collectively have trillions of dollars of derivatives  
they hold “off balance sheet” (meaning those debts aren’t recorded on banks’ GAAP balance sheets),  
those debt bets have a superior legal standing to your deposits and get paid back before you get any  
of your cash.

. . . Big banks got that language inserted into the 2010 Dodd-Frank law meant to rein in dangerous  
bank behavior.

The banks inserted the language and the legislators signed it, without necessarily understanding it or  
even reading it. At over 2,300 pages and still growing, the Dodd Frank Act is currently the longest and  
most complicated bill ever passed by the US legislature.

Propping Up the Derivatives Scheme

Dodd-Frank states in its preamble that it will “protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts.” But it  
does this under Title II by imposing the losses of insolvent financial companies on their common and  
preferred stockholders, debtholders, and other unsecured creditors. That includes depositors, the  
largest class of unsecured creditor of any bank.

Title II is aimed at “ensuring that payout to claimants is at least as much as the claimants would have  
received under bankruptcy liquidation.” But here’s the catch: under both the Dodd Frank Act and the  
2005 Bankruptcy Act, derivative claims have super-priority over all other claims, secured and  
unsecured, insured and uninsured.

The over-the-counter (OTC) derivative market (the largest market for derivatives) is made up of banks  
and other highly sophisticated players such as hedge funds. OTC derivatives are the bets of these  
financial players against each other. Derivative claims are considered “secured” because collateral is  
posted by the parties.

For some inexplicable reason, the hard-earned money you deposit in the bank is not considered  
“security” or “collateral.” It is just a loan to the bank, and you must stand in line along with the other  
creditors in hopes of getting it back. State and local governments must also stand in line, although their  
deposits are considered “secured,” since they remain junior to the derivative claims with “super-

Turning Bankruptcy on Its Head

Under the old liquidation rules, an insolvent bank was actually “liquidated” - its assets were sold off to  
repay depositors and creditors. Under an “orderly resolution,” the accounts of depositors and creditors  
are emptied to keep the insolvent bank in business. The point of an “orderly resolution” is not to make  
depositors and creditors whole but to prevent another system-wide “disorderly resolution” of the sort  
that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. The concern is that pulling a few of the  
dominoes from the fragile edifice that is our derivatives-laden global banking system will collapse the  
entire scheme. The sufferings of depositors and investors are just the sacrifices to be borne to  
maintain this highly lucrative edifice.

In a May 2013 article in Forbes titled “The Cyprus Bank ‘Bail-In’ Is Another Crony Bankster Scam,”  
Nathan Lewis explained the scheme like this:

At first glance, the “bail-in” resembles the normal capitalist process of liabilities restructuring that  
should occur when a bank becomes insolvent. . . .

The difference with the “bail-in” is that the order of creditor seniority is changed. In the end, it amounts  
to the cronies (other banks and government) and non-cronies. The cronies get 100% or more; the non-  
cronies, including non-interest-bearing depositors who should be super-senior, get a kick in the guts  
instead. . . .

In principle, depositors are the most senior creditors in a bank. However, that was changed in the 2005  
bankruptcy law, which made derivatives liabilities most senior. Considering the extreme levels of  
derivatives liabilities that many large banks have, and the opportunity to stuff any bank with derivatives  
liabilities in the last moment, other creditors could easily find there is nothing left for them at all.

As of September 2014, US derivatives had a notional value of nearly $280 trillion. A study involving the  
cost to taxpayers of the Dodd-Frank rollback slipped by Citibank into the “cromnibus” spending bill last  
December found that the rule reversal allowed banks to keep $10 trillion in swaps trades on their  
books. This is money that taxpayers could be on the hook for in another bailout; and since Dodd-Frank  
replaces bailouts with bail-ins, it is money that creditors and depositors could now be on the hook for.  
Citibank is particularly vulnerable to swaps on the price of oil. Brent crude dropped from a high of $114  
per barrel in June 2014 to a low of $36 in December 2015.

What about FDIC insurance? It covers deposits up to $250,000, but the FDIC fund had only $67.6  
billion in it as of June 30, 2015, insuring about $6.35 trillion in deposits. The FDIC has a credit line with  
the Treasury, but even that only goes to $500 billion; and who would pay that massive loan back? The  
FDIC fund, too, must stand in line behind the bottomless black hole of derivatives liabilities. As Yves  
Smith observed in a March 2013 post: In the US, depositors have actually been put in a worse position  
than Cyprus deposit-holders, at least if they are at the big banks that play in the derivatives casino.  
The regulators have turned a blind eye as banks use their depositors to fund derivatives exposures. . .  
. The deposits are now subject to being wiped out by a major derivatives loss.

Even in the worst of the Great Depression bank bankruptcies, noted Nathan Lewis, creditors  
eventually recovered nearly all of their money. He concluded: When super-senior depositors have  
huge losses of 50% or more, after a “bail-in” restructuring, you know that a crime was committed.

Exiting While We Can

How can you avoid this criminal theft and keep your money safe? It may be too late to pull your savings  
out of the bank and stuff them under a mattress, as Shah Gilani found when he tried to withdraw a few  
thousand dollars from his bank. Large withdrawals are now criminally suspect.

You can move your money into one of the credit unions with their own deposit insurance protection;  
but credit unions and their insurance plans are also under attack. So writes Frances Coppola in a  
December 18th article titled “Co-operative Banking Under Attack in Europe,” discussing an insolvent  
Spanish credit union that was the subject of a bail-in in July 2015. When the member-investors were  
subsequently made whole by the credit union’s private insurance group, there were complaints that the  
rescue “undermined the principle of creditor bail-in” - this although the insurance fund was privately  
financed. Critics argued that “this still looks like a circuitous way to do what was initially planned, i.e. to  
avoid placing losses on private creditors.”

In short, the goal of the bail-in scheme is to place losses on private creditors. Alternatives that allow  
them to escape could soon be blocked.

We need to lean on our legislators to change the rules before it is too late. The Dodd Frank Act and  
the Bankruptcy Reform Act both need a radical overhaul, and the Glass-Steagall Act (which put a fire  
wall between risky investments and bank deposits) needs to be reinstated.

Meanwhile, local legislators would do well to set up some publicly-owned banks on the model of the  
state-owned Bank of North Dakota - banks that do not gamble in derivatives and are safe places to  
store our public and private funds.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-
selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models  
historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. Listen to “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on