Criminals and the Monetary Order

Comment on Paul Koning on ‘If Nick’s tech-fueled counterfeiting story doesn’t explain why bank IOUs beat out coins, what does?’

Twitter-Reference and Blog-Reference on Oct 23

In order to determine the effects of criminals on the monetary order, one first needs a description of the elementary production-consumption economy. This economy is constructed from scratch with the following set of macroeconomic axioms: (A0) The objectively given and most elementary configuration of the economy consists of the household and the business sector, which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Y_w=WL wage income Y_w is equal to wage rate W times working hours L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

Under the conditions of market-clearing X=O and budget-balancing C=Y_w in each period, the price is given by P=W/R (1), i.e., the market-clearing price is equal to unit wage costs. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand. For the graphical representation, see AXEC31.

The firm pays the monthly wages with a standardized IOU and declares that this conveniently denominated title will be unconditionally accepted at the firm’s store. The employees accept that the IOUs discharge their wage claim against the firm. The firm issues private money that takes the material form of a slip of paper. It is assumed that the total monthly wage is Y_w/12 = 100 monetary units (Euro, Dollar, Ruble, Yuan, etc.). The household sector fully spends its period income, so consumption expenditures C per period are equal to wage income Y_w, i.e., C=Y_w, i.e,. 1,200=1,200

The IOUs are created out of nothing by the firm, handed over to the household sector in the form of wages, return in the form of consumption expenditures, and are thereby destroyed. There is NO such thing as a fixed quantity of money.

The value of money follows from (1) and is given by W/P=R (2), i.e., the real wage W/P is equal to the productivity R. The value of money depends solely on the production conditions of the economy and NOT on the material value of the firm’s IOUs, which is virtually zero.

The difference between the real value of money (= R) and the lower real production costs of IOUs opens an opportunity for criminals. What happens if counterfeiters exploit this difference?

It is assumed that the counterfeiters bring the fake IOUs at the demand side into circulation, that is, they buy stuff. The market-clearing price is determined by P'=(C+C')/O, which is higher than P=C/O=W*L/R*L=W/R. Because the new real wage W/P' is lower, the part of total output O that the wage income recipients receive is lower, and the difference O−O' goes to the counterfeiters as booty. The redistribution of output is carried out via the price. The higher market-clearing price does not signal increased natural scarcity but indicates that the hidden hand of criminals is at work.

For the business sector as a whole, profit is defined as Q≡C−Y_w. Under the initial condition of budget-balancing C=Y_w, macroeconomic profit is zero. With the counterfeiters’ additional expenditures, C' the business sector posts a profit of Q=C'. Because the business sector gets more IOUs back than it had issued in the form of wages, macroeconomic profit in a private money economy takes the form of surplus IOUs.

In a world of honest people, IOUs could be a functionally satisfactory type of money. In a world of crooks, though, the incentives for corruption have to be eliminated. One obvious way to close the difference between the high real value of money and the low real production costs is to increase the production costs, for example, by replacing the cheap data carrier paper with the expensive data carrier gold/silver. This, of course, runs against the principle of economic efficiency.

Let us now replace private money with public money, which is produced by the Central Bank. Instead of issuing its own IOUs, the business sector now becomes the debtor of the Central Bank in the form of overdrafts and gets uno actu deposits of the same amount. Central Bank deposits are money. These deposits are used for wage payments and subsequently for the households’ purchases of the consumption good. Thus, the business sector’s overdrafts are again reduced to zero. The idealized transaction pattern is shown on AXEC98.

Money is created out of nothing and is again zero at the end of the period. Money consists of a number on the liability side of the Central Bank’s balance sheet that is exactly equal to the number on the asset side. The real value of money is not in these numbers but depends on the productivity R.

The average stock of transaction money is given as M=κY_w, with κ determined by the payment pattern. In other words, the ‘quantity of money’ M is determined by the autonomous transactions of the household and business sector and created out of nothing by the Central Bank in the form of deposits and overdrafts. The economy never runs out of money.

In this monetary system, the challenge for criminals consists of creating a deposit on their own account and an overdraft on somebody else’s. Again, the Central Bank’s counter-measures consist of driving up the production costs of counterfeit money by making their IT systems impenetrable.

In a fiat money system, the production of counterfeit money assumes an entirely different form and a gigantic dimension. If the Central Bank creates money on behalf of the State and the amount G is spent into the economy with taxes left at zero, the effect is the same as money-printing by the counterfeiter. The market-clearing price P'=(C+G)/O increases, and the part of the output that is available to the wage income receivers diminishes. The redistribution of output happens via the price mechanism. The real wage is now lower than productivity. All this is non-transparent to the general public, who is told that the invisible hand pushes the levers of the price mechanism.

With the State’s additional expenditures G, the business sector posts a profit Q=G or Q=G−T in the general case of a budget deficit. So, it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit. Because the business sector gets more deposits back than it had spent in the form of wages, macroeconomic profit in a public money economy takes the form of an increase in the stock of Central Bank deposits, i.e., money. The counterpart of the business sector’s deposits is overdrafts of the State. The financial wealth of the business sector grows in lockstep with public debt. The general public is not aware that it owns the public debt, which has to be repaid at some unknown date in the future.

Public deficit spending is the wrong way to inject money into the economy. This way is NOT different from bringing counterfeit money into the economy. Both the printing of counterfeit money and public deficit spending have, in real terms, the same negative effect on WeThePeople. The only difference is that private counterfeiting is illegal, but public deficit spending is legal.

The foundational defect of the fiat money system is NOT that the Central Bank can create money out of nothing and charge interest to cover its costs, or that the money is not backed by gold; the defect is that the Central Bank enables the State’s deficit-spending, which worsens the real situation of WeThePeople and increases the financial wealth of the Oligarchy.

From the macroeconomic perspective, running a public deficit is as criminal as printing counterfeit money. The first rule for a Central Bank is NOT to keep inflation at 2% but to prevent surpluses and deficits and keep the public deficit at zero.

In a well-designed corruption-free monetary order, the Central Bank is by law committed to a Schwarze-Null/Black-Zero government budget. Fighting inflation or unemployment requires other tools.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Related 'The right and the wrong way to bring money into the economy' and 'Swabian housewife vs Wall Street loan shark' and 'Deficit cheerleaders ― the Oligarchy’s useful idiots' and 'How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists' and 'Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit' and 'Pareto-efficiency, Hayek’s marvel, and the invisible executor' and 'Is MMT good for WeThePeople or for the Oligarchy?' and 'How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it' and 'Reconstructing the Quantity Theory (I)'.

***

Twitter/X Mar 24, 2024

Twitter/X Feb 19, 2025,  Blackhole economics: How to make it untraceable

***

Grok's summary, Mar 15, 2025

The article titled "Criminals and the monetary order" was published on October 22, 2019, on the AXEC: New Foundations of Economics blog (https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/10/criminals-and-monetary-order.html). It is a commentary on Eric Lonergan and Mark Blyth's post "The night of the living dead — why monetarist and Keynesian economists love a crisis" from their blog, Philosophy of Money. Below is a summary of the key points from the article:

Summary

1. Critique of Monetarists and Keynesians:
   • The article begins by referencing Lonergan and Blyth’s argument that both monetarist and Keynesian economists thrive on crises because these situations allow them to implement their preferred policies—quantitative easing (QE) for monetarists and deficit spending for Keynesians. The author, Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, frames this as a "zombie fight" between two outdated economic paradigms.
2. Failure to Address Profit:
   • Kakarot-Handtke argues that both monetarists and Keynesians fail to understand the fundamental role of profit in the monetary economy. He asserts that neither school of thought has adequately grasped the systemic laws governing the market economy, particularly the relationship between profit and the monetary order.
3. The Role of the State and Central Bank:
   • The article outlines an alternative view of the monetary system, emphasizing that the state is essential for establishing the institutional framework of the monetary order, but it should not directly inject money into the economy. Instead, an accommodative central bank should facilitate autonomous transactions between households and businesses.
   • Money, in this view, is described as a "generalized IOU" created and destroyed through transactions between the household and business sectors, with its value determined by the equation W/P = R (where W is nominal wages, P is the price level, and R is productivity).
4. Criticism of Deficit Spending and QE:
   • Kakarot-Handtke criticizes both QE (a monetarist tool) and deficit spending (a Keynesian tool) as policies that disproportionately benefit the "Oligarchy" (a term he uses to refer to the wealthy elite). He argues that these policies lead to increased financial wealth for the few while burdening the public with debt, without addressing the underlying structural issues of the economy.
5. Profit Law and Distributional Effects:
   • The author introduces his macroeconomic "Profit Law," asserting that public deficits translate directly into private profits (Public Deficit = Private Profit). He claims that policies like QE and deficit spending exacerbate wealth inequality by channeling benefits to the financial sector and the rich, rather than supporting the broader population ("WeThePeople").
6. Call for a New Monetary Order:
   • Kakarot-Handtke advocates for a monetary system where the central bank supports growth by ensuring an adequate supply of transaction money, without the state or central bank interfering in autonomous market transactions. He contrasts this with the current system, which he sees as favoring criminals and the oligarchy through "legalized counterfeiting" (e.g., money creation that benefits the elite).
7. Political and Ethical Dimensions:
   • The article concludes with a broader critique of economics as a discipline, accusing it of being a form of "political economics" that serves the interests of the powerful rather than pursuing scientific truth. Kakarot-Handtke calls for a shift toward a scientifically grounded understanding of the monetary economy, free from the influence of political agendas.

Key Takeaways

• The author views both monetarist and Keynesian policies as flawed and outdated, arguing that they fail to address the central role of profit and instead perpetuate a system that benefits the wealthy elite.
• He proposes a monetary system where the state sets up the institutional framework, and the central bank facilitates transactions without direct intervention, ensuring money serves as a neutral medium rather than a tool for enriching the few.
• The critique is framed as both an economic and ethical argument, highlighting the distributional consequences of current policies and their failure to serve the broader public.

This summary reflects the content and arguments presented in the blog post as of its publication date, October 22, 2019.

***

Twitter/X Mar 17,2025, Could be the computers for the "production of counterfeit money"

The MMT-Yawner: Government is not a household

Comment on Bill Mitchell on ‘The government is not a household and imports are still a benefit’

Blog-Reference

Everybody got the MMT meme by now. Unfortunately, neither MMT academics nor the social media sales force ever understood its full implications.

It is trivially true that “… a government is not a household. It has a wider remit (objectives) than a household and must consider a broad range of concerns when it uses its currency-issuing capacity to shift real resources (as goods and services) from the non-government sector to the government sector to fulfill its elected mandate.” (Mitchell)

The problem comes in with the ‘use of currency-issuing capacity’ because there is, as always, good and bad use of a capacity. It is trivially true that Organized Crime, in the definition of the Organized Crime Control Act OC≅OCCA has the capacity to print money and ‘to shift real resources (as goods and services) from the non-government sector to the OC≅OCCA sector.’

So, from the currency-issuing capacity of the government does NOT follow that it is a good policy to resort to deficit-spending/money-creation. In fact, it is a bad policy. Translated into MMT jargon: government is NOT a household, but it is NOT a counterfeiter either.

The crucial distinction is this. The correct way to bring additional fiat money into circulation is to finance a growing wage bill. The incorrect way is to spend the additional money on goods and services, i.e., current output. This is analogous to going on a shopping spree with counterfeit money.

The first thing to grasp is: it is the household sector that pays in real terms in the form of a tiny price hike, which is indistinguishable from a random price fluctuation. A government that resorts to deficit-spending/money-creation does NOT “fulfill its elected mandate” but in effect applies stealth taxation to the household sector.

The second thing to grasp is that because of the macroeconomic Profit Law, i.e., Public Deficit = Private Profit, deficit-spending/money-creation increases macroeconomic profit by exactly the same amount.

The correct way for the central bank to inject out-of-thin-air money into the economy is by financing a growing wage bill. The incorrect way is the counterfeit-money-printers' way. #1, #2

True, the government is not a household. But equally true, the government is not OC≅OCCA either. Why Bill Mitchell claims that by deficit-spending/money-creation government fulfills its “elected mandate” is anybody’s guess.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit
#2 The Kelton-Fraud

Related 'Criminals and the monetary order'.

***

AXEC143d  Macroeconomic Profit Law for an increasing number of sectors, which implies Public Deficit (G−T) = Private Profit Q_m

***

REPLY to ANC Driver on Aug 5

The use of AXEC: New Foundations of Economics is regulated by Copyright © and Trademark ® Laws. For details, see Terms of Use.

This covers all publications/blog posts, in particular
AXEC
AXECorg blogspot
SSRN and other depositories.

***

AXEC142

Occasional Tweets: The value of counterfeit currency

 

#Crypto derives its “value” from the fact that the #BlackEconomy needs an ANONYMOUS medium of exchange. It privatizes #Seigniorage. The volume of #Crypto is a metric for the private/public corruption of an #Economy.

Criminals and the monetary orderhttps://t.co/Iq1lVxePy1

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 9, 2022

For more about the value of money see AXECquery.

For more about counterfeit currency see AXECquery.

 

Occasional Tweets: Counterfeit Currency

 

#Economics#Money

It is neither your money nor the state's money. The #MMT policy of #DeficitSpendingMoneyCreation amounts to the Central Bank's issuance of #CounterfeitCurreny.

Criminals and the monetary orderhttps://t.co/Iq1lVxePy1 pic.twitter.com/or7Pfr33yA

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 9, 2021

In the final analysis, money is information. Not a thing. Coins or paper are data carriers. With #eMoney, money evolves to its pure form. Needless to emphasize that #CBDC needs a sophisticated legal/institutional framework. The anonymity of #Cash/#Crypto is a sine qua non for OC.

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 10, 2021

 

For more about counterfeit money/currency, see AXECquery.
For more about crypto, see AXECquery. 

MMT: Not a joke but a fraud

Comment on Michael R. Strain on ‘Modern Monetary Theory’ Is a Joke That’s Not Funny’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Michael R. Strain opens the argument: “First, let’s start with the confusion over what it is. The answer seems to depend on which advocate of MMT is being asked. It is sometimes a theory of money. MMT is also being discussed in the context of a political program to justify huge increases in social spending. Finally, there is its role as a prescription for macroeconomic policy. … Even as just an economic theory, it is not settled or fully developed. … The bedrock observation of MMT is correct: Any government that issues its own currency can always pay its bills.”

What is specific to MMT is the claim that almost all economic/social problems can and should be solved by deficit-spending/money-creation. MMT is advertised as a potent medicine that benefits the ninety-nine-percenters and that has no serious short- or long-term negative side effects. MMT claims further that orthodox economics is provably false and that orthodox policy is counterproductive.

MMT is three things: theory, policy, activism. These three elements are constantly mixed in the public debate and this guarantees inconclusive blather in all eternity which keeps soapbox economists, journalists, agenda pushers, propagandists, social media trolls, and the rest of the Circus Maximus employed and fed.

MMT theory is provably false, i.e. materially/formally inconsistent. Because of this, MMT policy proposals have no sound scientific foundations. This, though, does not matter much for the MMT activists because these folks present themselves as the can-do good guys, the real Progressives, the benefactors of WeThePeople who care for the unemployed, the vulnerable, the poor pensioners, the indebted students, and the environment. The activists use MMT as a grab bag of arguments without any concern for consistency, truth, or scientific validity.

The lethal negative effect of permanent deficit-spending/money-creation is NOT on inflation but on distribution.#1 According to the macroeconomic Profit Law [Q=Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M) → Q=(G−T)], it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit and this means that MMT policy benefits the one-percenters and not the ninety-nine-percenters.

Expressed as a parable. The MMTer resembles a person who prints counterfeit money, say a million, and distributes it with great fanfare among the poor of the town. The media praise her as a fine example of social responsibility and charity. The economic effect of the matter, though, is that the workers are the real benefactors who unwittingly are made to share their real income with the poor. The redistribution of output is effected by barely noticeable price hikes. In the end, the counterfeit money ends up as profit of the business sector as a whole.

The undeniable charm of MMT policy is that apparently there are only winners. Fact is, though, that MMT is proto-scientific garbage and political fraud#2 and that, at the end of the day, the ninety-nine-percenters hold the bag.#3, #4

As a rule of thumb, the financial wealth of the Oligarchy grows in lockstep with the public debt of WeThePeople.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit
#2 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick
#3 MMT = proto-scientific garbage + deception of the 99-percenters
#4 Deficit-spending, public debt, and macroeconomic profit/loss

Related 'Warren Mosler: scientific dilettante and political fraudster' and 'How MMT makes everybody happy' and 'MMT is NOT bold policy but spineless fraud'. For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT.

***

REPLY to Bob Roddis on Jan 18

You ask: “Do I have that right?”

No, you don’t get anything right. Bad Austrian karma.

Imagine for a start an elementary production-consumption economy with a balanced household sector budget in the initial period, i.e. C=Yw.#1

Now, if the government runs a deficit in period 1, total expenditures are C+G, the market-clearing price rises (no inflation), and the business sector makes a profit Q=G. Taxes are zero, i.e. T=0.

The banking system consists alone of the central bank. So, profit takes the form of deposits at the CB. The business sector’s deposits are equal to the government’s overdrafts. For a start, there is no interest on deposits/overdrafts.

If the government decides to issue bonds in order to consolidate their overdrafts at the central bank and the business sector buys these bonds then both overdrafts and deposits go again to zero. Money = deposits at the CB vanishes. The business sector now holds interest-bearing bonds. The government has to tax the household sector in order to pay interest to the bondholders.

The government’s debt took first the form of overdrafts and then the form of bonds (liabilities). The business sector’s profit took first the form of deposits and then the form of bonds (assets).


#1 Deficit-spending, public debt, and macroeconomic profit/loss