The reason for our political impotence can be found in the fog and mystery surrounding the creation of money and the operation of the monetary system. Thanks to the economics profession’s neglect of money, debt and banking, there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion about money and the financial system. Arguments rage about whether money is just ‘created out of thin air’ – or whether gold or bitcoin are real money. Whether bankers and/or governments can just ‘print’ money ad infinitum. Or whether there are limits to the printing of money. The ignorance and confusion is probably no accident. It helps protect the private finance sector from scrutiny: ‘all the better to fleece you with’ to quote the wolf in the fairy tale. Sensible people (including the Bank of England) agree that money, as Joseph Schumpeter explained, is nothing more than a promise to pay, as in, ‘I promise to pay the bearer’. As such, money is a social construct, based on trust or promises to pay and upheld by the law. When someone applies for a loan from a bank, the money is not in the bank. Instead, licensed commercial banks ‘create’ money every time a borrower promises to pay. They make the loan by entering numbers into a computer, and (digitally) depositing funds into a borrower’s account. The borrower promises to pay back the money created by the banker. As guarantee the borrower offers collateral, signs a contract, and agrees to pay interest on the loan. For that trust to be upheld, the institutions that create money (licensed commercial banks) are supported and regulated by a publicly backed central bank issuing the currency. Regulation ensures that trust between banker and borrower is enforced. Private bankers can only create new money and operate effectively as part of the monetary system, which includes a central bank. While commercial bankers can digitally create new money at the bidding of a borrower, they cannot print currency or mint coins. Only the central bank can do that. The central bank’s great power is to issue the currency – sterling or the dollar or the rupee –in which new money is created. And to help determine the value of the currency. That power can be exercised by central banks only because of the collateral backing the currency they create. That collateral is made up of citizens’ tax revenues. The more taxpayers that back the currency, the sounder the tax-collection system, the greater the value of the currency. This process is illuminated if we compare the collateral that backs up the US Federal Reserve with that of Malawi. The central bank of Malawi, like the Federal Reserve, issues a currency. But Malawi has far fewer taxpayers than the US. Thanks largely to colonialism and to IMF policies, Malawi also lacks important public institutions: an independent central bank; a sound tax-collection system; a system for enforcing contracts or promises to pay (criminal justice); and a well-regulated accounting system for assessing assets and liabilities. Consequently, Malawi’s currency – the kwacha – has little value compared to the dollar. Even worse, due to the absence or weakness of public institutions, Malawi is reliant on other people’s money – obtained via other monetary systems. Access to foreign monetary systems mostly takes the form of loans in dollars, sterling or yen – that are heavily conditional. While some of the money may benefit the Malawian people, the cost of repayment to foreign financial institutions invariably takes its toll on the nation’s financial resources, its human and ecological assets. It is the lack of monetary autonomy provided by sound public institutions, including a tax-collection system, that renders citizens in countries like Malawi relatively powerless, and vulnerable to predatory foreign lenders. It is the lack of monetary autonomy provided by sound public institutions, including a tax-collection system, that renders citizens in countries like Malawi relatively powerless, and vulnerable to predatory foreign lenders. It also explains how and why poor countries remain dependent and subordinate to rich countries. Regrettably the IMF and World Bank actively discourage low-income countries from investing in the vital public institutions essential to a sound monetary system – one that would restore their financial and economic autonomy. Citizens in countries with sound monetary institutions and a tax-collection system enjoy considerable potential power and agency over the globalised financial system.

Taxpayers – not banks – underpin the financial system

Understanding how taxes prop up the value of a nation’s currency for private financiers is a first step in understanding citizens’ potential power. The world’s mobile financial speculators and rentiers prefer to deal in currencies underpinned by stable public institutions, financed and backed by millions of taxpayers. While of course there is trading in many emerging market currencies, speculators prefer to hold sterling, dollars, euros and yen. These currencies are backed by strong economies. But their value is ultimately derived from citizens – willing, honest, law-abiding taxpayers – who provide the revenues that underpin the currency. Taxpayers do not just pay direct and indirect taxes every day, month or year. Because new taxpayers are born every day, citizens will pay taxes for decades into the future. If our publicly financed state institutions remain stable, tomorrow’s new-borns will go on paying taxes into the future. To understand the duration of taxpayer power, it helps to look back at the history of the British financial system. Back in 1748 the British government issued perpetual bonds, which were debts with no maturity date for repayment, but which paid interest to lenders at 3 per cent each year. The government had no difficulty selling these bonds (known as ‘consols’) to the public. Public confidence – that the British government would fulfil its obligations to pay interest on the loans in perpetuity – was high. That confidence was justified, as interest was paid on the bonds each year until finally they were redeemed in 2015. No other asset has that kind of long-term, safe backing. Ambitious and manipulative Becky Sharp in Thackeray’s classic nineteenth-century UK satirical novel Vanity Fair wished that she could 'exchange my position in society and all my relations for a snug sum in the Three Per Cent Consols…for so it was [wrote Thackeray] that Becky felt the Vanity of human affairs, and it was in those securities that she would have liked to cast anchor.' Becky’s envy derived from the security granted to those with funds enough to invest in the British government’s debt – known then, and for several centuries, as Three Per Cent Consols (shorthand for Consolidated debt). On an inheritance of £10,000 wealthy young women of the nineteenth century could live on the tidy sum of £300 a year; £25,000 would generate a comfortable £750 a year.

Public debt is an asset that earns income – just as a buy-to-let property earns rent for its owner. But while a buy-to-let investor has to sweat to maintain, advertise and rent out the asset, debt earns income effortlessly for the wealthy and for financiers. It does so by paying interest added at a certain percentage per year. Unlike an investor’s property, debt is light as air, intangible, invisible. The only evidence of its existence is found in database entries, numbers on a balance sheet or in words on a ‘bearer bond’. The differences do not end there. A building or property is subject to the laws of physics. It can age, crumble, or be razed to the ground. Football clubs are great assets – because fans are committed long-term, and willingly and regularly pay ‘rents’ to the owner of the asset, for the privilege of watching their team, or by buying a club T-shirt. But clubs can lose value by falling down league tables. Works of art – say a Rembrandt painting – are assets with greater longevity, but are also likely to deteriorate, and in any case, are subject to the whims of fashion. Not so the government bonds of countries like Britain. While sovereign debts can be defaulted on, safe government debts do not rot with age, as Professor Frederick Soddy (1877–1956) once explained. That is because debts are not subject to the laws of thermodynamics, but to the laws of mathematics. As such, debt effortlessly earns income for investors, at mathematical rates. And if the debt is the safe public debt of nations like Britain, the US or Japan, it can do so for a long, fixed period of time. The British government has since 1694 honoured its debt obligations without fail. In a world of globalised capital flows in which capital sloshes from one part of the world to another, the price of UK government bonds may rise and fall, but their safety and longevity is never in question. That is because the system is managed by public authority, not left to ‘the invisible hand’ – but mainly because most British citizens regularly and faithfully pay taxes.

It's the collateral stupid