USA 5-Jahre-Rentenrendite Übersicht.
Post on Jul views. Category: Documents. 4 download. Report. Principal Post Global Ltd Term High Yield (acc) EUR he. I Cl (WKN: A1JD9H, ISIN: IE00B4L22Q21) - Das Anlageziel ist die Erwirtschaftung einer hohen Rendite bezogen auf die monatige US-Treasury-Rendite. Der Fonds strebt die Erreichung des Ziels in erster Linie durch Investitionen in ein diversifiziertes Portfolio aus kurzfristigen.
Since , OCSE has visited, assessed, and reported on 31 states' system development projects. Suggestions for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the systems' operations are discussed in reports following these reviews. For example, recommendations include having the states consider automating more functions, such as developing an automatic tickler file to remind caseworkers of required actions or an approaching time frame.
While suggestions for improved efficiency in automation are valuable, OCSE's reviews lack a comprehensive assessment of the states' systems development approach, including the overall design, project management, user involvement, and delays in major milestones and critical tasks.
While 3 of the 31 reviews did address systems development approaches and overall project management, OCSE officials noted that they only do this type of review for states that are experiencing delays and significant problems.
Since OCSE only does certification reviews upon state request and toward the end of systems development, much of the federal funding had already been spent. Even when OCSE identifies state systems problems and notifies the states, corrective actions do not always follow. In one state, OCSE performed two reviews and noted that the state had serious managerial problems.
There was no project manager for extended periods of time, and users did not support the project, despite the fact that a key early step in designing a proposed system is identifying and satisfying users' needs.
Again, according to OCSE systems analysts, the agency's main focus is to help states fix problems as they arise; agency officials believe that withholding funds is counterproductive to meeting deadlines. This system involves developmental costs for at least 23 county databases, plus additional costs to maintain separate systems. While OCSE questioned the state about the additional costs of personnel, the agency's certification process does not require that a state receive an approval before moving from one phase of development to the next.
By not visiting the project to review critical design documents, the agency was not able to effectively assess the distributed processing strategy and associated costs or to suggest an alternative approach. Further, according to state officials, the system will not meet the October deadline.
Systems managers from three states we visited indicated their desire that OCSE play a more active role. Systems that are being developed are very sophisticated, and the officials said that it was important for OCSE to assess the management and direction of the project early to avoid or minimize problems later. One state official said that OCSE should see itself as a stakeholder in the development of these systems and not just a reviewer to see if certain requirements were followed.
Another official noted that OCSE is scrupulously hands-off with all, especially with the private sector. When the state asked for assistance from OCSE on how to handle the contractor, they were told that "it was a state contract and it had to be resolved at that level. One state official said "there has been very little monitoring to date. The delays will come when we request certification and OCSE doesn't like what it sees.
I don't have any experience to see them in another role. OCSE has completed neither a comprehensive, nationwide analysis nor post-implementation reviews to determine whether state systems are sound financial investments. Such analyses are essential to assessing the ongoing progress of child support systems and evaluating the impact of automated systems on program goals and objectives--including any lessons learned.
Because OCSE has not conducted a nationwide assessment, it has not analyzed the hardware, software, database structures, and networks supporting state child support systems; as a result, state officials have had to discuss these issues through informal means. If OCSE had performed a nationwide analysis, it would have a sound basis for encouraging states to share innovative database designs, software, and other technologies for greater efficiencies and cost savings.
Further, analyses of systems costs, benefits, and schedules from a nationwide perspective would help identify where improvements are needed in a timely manner. Aggregate data on projects help identify recurring problems, successes, and other trends for decision-making purposes. This was designed to establish a more accurate way of tracking state systems projects.
SSAIS tracks the historical data on automated systems projects--including the child support program--on a state-by-state basis. Users may access the following data on any state project: During our comparison of OCSE's approval letters and the data in SSAIS, we found errors, such as duplicate entries and entries for systems projects no longer underway, and inconsistencies, such as entries for some states that included planning costs while entries for other states did not.
However, she acknowledged that our review led the division to assign a higher priority to correcting discrepancies in SSAIS and to establishing a consistent policy regarding entries for planning costs.
In addition to tracking systems development nationwide, post-implementation reviews are the basic means of ensuring that systems meet program objectives and identify techniques for improving work processes, data integrity, and project management--thereby avoiding costly systems mistakes.
To date, OCSE has not completed post-implementation reviews on any of the 12 certified or conditionally certified child support systems. OCSE's information systems director called post-implementation reviews important. However, she said that until recently, resource constraints limited OCSE's ability to complete such reviews. Instead, OCSE focused its resources on assessing the states' progress in meeting system certification requirements.
Under welfare reform, 1 percent of the federal share of child support payments collected annually will be provided for state child support programs and systems oversight. As such, it will be even more important that state automated systems operate correctly and efficiently in helping eligible child support recipients collect funds due them. The law also places specific new requirements on states relating to the functioning of their systems. Recognizing the importance of these developments, OCSE plans to change its approach and issue functional requirements incrementally, and has taken steps to work with the states; however, the impact of welfare reform and associated costs is not yet known.
Another demand on systems development will be monitoring and ensuring that new statewide child support enforcement systems, as well as existing systems that interface with the new systems, will process date-sensitive information correctly in the year and beyond. The law contains work requirements, a performance bonus that rewards states for moving welfare recipients into jobs, and comprehensive child support enforcement measures.
It also provides support for families moving from welfare to work--including increased funding for child care and guaranteed medical coverage.
Provisions are also included to improve automation in order to increase paternity establishment, obtain more information on work and residence locations of noncustodial parents, and process child support orders and collections.
Both the states and ACF will be required to address these provisions by developing new databases or enhancing existing automated child support systems before October 1, Welfare reform further underscores the need for streamlined business processes and automated systems for the child support program.
Since welfare reform establishes time limits and eligibility restrictions on individuals in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, states are being faced with the need to increase child support collections. According to experts, this likely will force some states to manage child support cases differently and require modifications to existing laws governing child support operations.
This may include developing new databases and electronic links to other public and private organizations, including financial institutions; credit bureaus; the Internal Revenue Service; and state agencies--including judicial, corrections, licensing, business ownership, motor vehicle, labor, vital statistics, and Medicaid.
For example, the requirement to develop a registry of paternities will likely result in the development of a new database that interfaces with departments or bureaus responsible for tracking statewide births. However, tracking these data electronically may be a challenge since some states have not automated the departments or bureaus responsible for birth certificates.
The Federal Parent Locator Service is an electronic system that cross-matches data to help locate noncustodial parents across state lines through links with other state systems and existing national databases, such as those of the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, and Department of Labor. Both the new-hire registry and the federal case registry will also need to be designed to receive and compare state data on child support cases and noncustodial parents.
The states, in turn, will be required to develop similar databases that electronically interface with these national systems. The federal new-hire and case registry systems must be completed by October 1, , and October 1, , respectively. Many states will have to adapt their existing systems and change laws governing child support operations to implement many of these systems requirements. For example, three states we visited indicated that existing laws governing the child support program and new-hire reporting requirements for employers would have to be amended or rescinded before mandated systems requirements could be implemented.
Other states will have to make welfare reform system changes while finishing work on child support systems mandated by the act. The cap applies only to this enhanced funding, not to regular funds, which continue to be reimbursed at a rate of 66 percent.
As of March 31, , OCSE had not developed functional requirements for implementing welfare reform or fully analyzed the impact of these provisions on existing state child support systems. Guidance for developing the new-hire registries had not been completed, even though these registries are due to be in operation by October 1, However, OCSE does plan to apply lessons learned from technology projects mandated as part of the Family Support Act and release technical guidance for systems changes required by welfare reform incrementally.
The early release of technical guidance should help states decide on systems requirements as soon as possible, minimizing project delays.
With the increased funding being made available through welfare reform, OCSE plans to conduct more on-site reviews of child support systems projects to help identify and prevent costly systems development problems during earlier stages of the projects.
The agency has also supported ACF user groups and established electronic information bulletin boards to identify and share information on systems issues. Further, OCSE is participating in welfare reform work groups with the states to discuss policy and systems-related issues.
In January , the agency also created a federal, state, and local government initiative to work with the eight largest states--representing almost 50 percent of the child support cases. This initiative focuses on improving program performance, which may include automated systems issues.
In addition, the agency recently queried the states to identify technical support needs and planned to issue, in May , a national plan to better address OCSE technical assistance to the states' systems activities. Despite these early attempts to work with the states, according to OCSE's information systems director, the agency does not know the impact the welfare reform will have on the states' child support systems. She noted that until the requirements are defined, the extent of systemschanges and their costs are not known.
Ensuring that all state child support enforcement systems adequately address the processing of information that is date-dependent is critical. Correcting noncompliant year software may be expensive.
Among these systems are those that must interface directly and provide information to the newly-developed child support enforcement systems. Many older state systems that will still be in operation in were programmed using 2 digits to represent the year--such as "97" for However, in such a format is indistinguishable from OCSE has stated that it has informed the states that both the new child support systems and their applications software under development, as well as the existing systems that must still interface with the new statewide systems and their applications software, must be year compliant.
But this progress has been expensive. The amount remaining to be spent to bring all states into full legal compliance is unknown.
At the time of our review, most states did not yet have fully functional child support enforcement systems. Aside from new requirements resulting from welfare legislation, only 12 states had federally certified child support enforcement systems; as many as 14 states--responsible for about 44 percent of the national caseload--may well miss the October 1, , deadline for completing their automated systems.
The causes are widespread. States have underestimated the magnitude, complexity, and costs of their projects and operations, and they could have received better guidance and assistance from the federal government, specifically OCSE.
The lack of progress in the development of state child support systems also can be partly attributed to the agency's limited leadership and oversight and some states' inadequate systems approaches. OCSE's release of final functional requirements for the state systems was late, which encouraged some states to automate many tasks without adequate requirements management or control. Though ready, some states hesitated to make their systems' requirements final; it must be remembered that deadlines loomed, with or without final requirements.
Another factor was OCSE's mandated transfer policy, which waspremature and poorly implemented. This alone caused long-term problems, increased costs, and delays. Against this backdrop, which included the failure to fully implement recommendations we made some 5 years ago, OCSE allowed state systems with serious problems to proceed, thus escalating spending with no assurance that effective, efficient systems would result--and many indicators to the contrary.
Specifically, OCSE did not establish levels of oversight and technical review commensurate with the size and complexity of this nationwide undertaking. It did not require states to follow a structured systems development approach; nor did OCSE assess progress at critical decision points, thereby missing opportunities to intervene and successfully redirect systems development.
OCSE relied on required annual planning documents, which were optimistic projections and for many states did not relate to the critical phases of system development. Certifications were narrowly focused and conducted only at a state's request, when the state was ready. While OCSE has supported state-to-state interaction with users' groups, the agency itself cannot develop a truly nationwide perspective without an understanding of the trends that typify development of individual state systems.
Lacking this knowledge, OCSE cannot disseminate valuable information to states in earlier stages of development. During the last 5 years, when much of the money has been spent and when it was most critical for OCSE to take a leadership role and evaluate states' efforts, agency and HHS regional officials noted that their oversight was hindered by limited technical expertise and resources. Critical areas of systems expertise--systems development, systems engineering, and program management--are essential to assess how effectively systems are being implemented.
Because of the magnitude of the caseload, the funds being provided, and the importance of the program's mission, it is essential that both federal and state officials take responsibility for developing effective and efficient automated child support systems.
While evaluating states' efforts is one major component of OCSE's role, it is important that the agency considers itself a stakeholder in these efforts.
The problem appears to stem from OCSE's view of its role--one of merely monitoring requirements and approving funds rather than being held accountable for effective systems development approaches. With the enactment of welfare reform, OCSE's role becomes much more important: Effective, strong federal leadership will be necessary if we are determined to support those who rely on these automated systems.
To maximize the federal government's return on costly technology investments, we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services direct and ensure that the Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Children and Families take the following actions.
We recommend each major systems phase be reviewed and, at critical points--analysis, design, coding, testing, conversion, and acceptance--that OCSE, according to preestablished criteria, formally report to the state whether it considers the state ready to proceed to the next milestone or phase.
OCSE should revise the guidance for the APDs and APDUs to ensure that these documents provide the information needed to assess different phases of development and are consistent from year to year.
This information should include clearly defined requirements; schedules reflecting the amount of data converted, code written, modules produced, and the results of testing; and other measures to quantify progress. OCSE should require states to implement needed corrective actions for federally funded systems when problems and major discrepancies in cost and benefits are first identified. If a state experiences delays and problems and is not following generally accepted systems development practices, OCSE should suspend funding until the state redirects its approach.
Develop the technical skills needed to allow OCSE to become more actively involved with the states at critical points in their development processes, and enhance the skills of existing systems reviewers through additional training. This expertise should include program management, software development, and systems engineering.
Information should be shared with other states to help reduce costs and improve effectiveness of the child support program nationally--especially any practices or systems that could benefit states attempting to develop or implement welfare reform systems requirements. This assessment should also include an estimate of additional regular rate funding for automated systems that states may need to comply with the requirements of welfare reform.
HHS officials' primary concern with the report was the degree of federal stewardship appropriate in the effective development of automated state child support enforcement systems. The Department notes that we have a different perception of the appropriate federal role in state automated systems development than is authorized.
The Department indicated that reviewing state systems at critical phases would increase the administrative burden on the states, and result in OCSE's "micromanagement" of state projects. Further, officials reiterated their belief that withholding funds was counterproductive to developing automated systems.
Finally, HHS expressed concern about our presentation of the level of state automation and systems costs. The Department did, however, generally agree with our recommendations regarding assessing OCSE's technical resources, conducting post-implementation and nationwide systems reviews, and defining--in a timely manner--welfare reform requirements.
We have reviewed HHS' comments, and found no reason to change our conclusions and recommendations. The agency believes its role is to assist states in meeting mandated deadlines, rather than more actively monitoring and overseeing state systems development activities with an eye towards helpful intervention.
We disagree with HHS' approach. Instead of placing the responsibility solely with the states, OCSE is also accountable for effective state systems development. According to statutory requirements, the agency should review, assess, and inspect systems throughout development. Given the significance of state child support enforcement systems to the operation of the program and the magnitude of expenditures, it is critical that these systems be developed correctly and efficiently from the beginning.
A philosophy of providing funds, despite serious systems problems and costly mistakes, misses the opportunity to reduce the risk of systems failure and save taxpayer dollars. OCSE does not evaluate or assess states' systems development projects using a disciplined, structured approach. The agency's reviews are narrowly focused and, as a result, not effective or timely inassessing the states' systems approaches and progress.
A summary of the Department's comments and our evaluation is provided below. HHS' comments are reprinted in appendix IV of this report. HHS' statutory responsibilities, as set forth in the Social Security Act, delineate a leadership role in developing child support enforcement systems. Section a of this act provides that a "designee of the Secretary" Office of Child Support Enforcement shall,. In HHS' response to our report, it noted elsewhere that the agency "has the authority, which it frequently exercises, to require states to send an as-needed APD at critical milestones in its life cycle methodology.
As such, it is critical that OCSE's current approach to monitoring and overseeing state systems be improved to ensure that the federal government's investment in systems is spent wisely.
Our recommendations reflect systems development practices that are widely used in both the private and public sectors. Monitoring at critical points in the development process allows earlier intervention and greater opportunity to correct problems before they become more costly. We disagree that this approach constitutes micromanagement; we believe that to do less constitutes lax management.
These activities also need not create an administrative burden. OCSE does not have to impose additional reporting requirements on the states; it must simply streamline its existing reporting process to ensure the inclusion of key pieces of information at critical phases.
It isimperative that HHS take advantage of its legislatively authorized oversight and monitoring role. In the absence of such action, HHS is likely to continue to provide little added value to states; instead, it will remain merely a bureaucratic hurdle for states to climb to fund critically important systems. HHS asserts that OCSE should provide technical assistance to the states, rather than suspend federal funding--especially given the statutory deadline.
Federal regulations provide for the suspension of federal funding when states' systems under development cease to substantially comply with requirements and other provisions of the APD. Allowing a state to go forward before correcting inadequacies in approach contributes to rising systems' costs. In this report and in our report, we pointed out that OCSE continues to fund systems with serious problems--problems that threaten their very success.
OCSE has periodically suspended state funding for automation projects. As we reported, however, almost 60 percent of these disruptions were due to insufficient information on the required APD, or for states' exceeding their authorized funding levels--not for more substantive issues on the soundness of the development approach itself.
Even when funding was held up for major systems-related problems, efforts to correct these problems did not appear to be made in a timely fashion. Further, in cases in which an HHS regional official suggested that OCSE hold up funding for a project, the agency did not stop funding until the project "crashed.
We believe this approach is not sufficient oversight. While we described the agency's review process--APD and certification reviews, we believe that the APD process should ensure that systems development activities at critical decision points are evaluated. OCSE does not consistently monitor state systems development at critical milestone points, such as the completion of design or requirements development.
We noted that OCSE's certification reviews are usually conducted toward the end of the development process, and as such are often too late to help identify problems and redirect the approach. A structured approach to reviewing systems development--irrespective of the particular methodology used--would also allow for systems variability, including the differences in project size, scope, and complexity.
The key to a structured approach is the identification of critical milestones that are the basis for systems reviews. States value this process; one state official noted that its project would be unmanageable without it. Other state officials told us that OCSE should play a more active role, and that they considered it important that the agency assess the management and direction of the project early to avoid or minimize later problems.
The agency has plans in fiscal year to conduct both technical assistance visits and post-implementation reviews to further identify lessons learned and assess innovative technical solutions.
However, it is critical that OCSE continue to maintain and use accurate information from the SSAIS and develop a sound nationwide basis for encouraging states to share innovative database designs, software, and other technologies for greater efficiencies and costs savings, and for identifying recurring problems.
With a systematic and comparison-based assessment, OCSE could recognize trends and identify best practices that could be shared. Identifying and taking action on such issues would be a significant benefit of increased oversight. The monetary magnitude of accommodating welfare reform systems requirements further underscores the importance of effective federal oversight, including comprehensive assessments of systems implications and timely issuance of systems requirements.
We acknowledge that state systems that are not yet certified may have some automation. In fact, we noted that state officials indicated that partially automated systems have improved their capability to locate noncustodial parents, increased paternity establishment and collections, and provided greater staff efficiency. We also noted, however, that OCSE officials said that as many as 14 states may not meet the deadline for certification, leaving about 44 percent of the national caseload without the full benefits of automation.
As envisioned by the Congress in implementing this legislation, some states have attained benefits; however, child support enforcement systems costs continue to increase, and the extent of final costs is not yet known. We acknowledge that systems' costs include developing new systems and maintaining and enhancing systems that were certified prior to OCSE, however, does not track these costs separately.
Some states did not design new systems; rather, they built upon existing ones. In these cases, the costs attributable to the act would be less than those of states that developed entirely newsystems. However, states that updated their existing systems may now, as the October 1, , deadline draws near, need to significantly redesign their systems to fully meet child support certification requirements and support welfare reform legislation. HHS indicated that the costs of automation should be carefully placed in perspective and also compared automation costs to the agency's administrative costs.
We recognize and cite examples where OCSE's weak oversight contributed to the rising costs that could have been avoided if more of a proactive leadership role was demonstrated by the agency. These systems will play a critical role in effectively administering the child support and welfare programs in the future. As such, it is incumbent upon the Department and OCSE to ensure that the dollars invested in these systems are spent wisely, and provide an effective return on investment.
GAO did not independently verify this information. Adapted from Roger F. A Practitioner's Approach New York: McGraw-Hill, See figure in printed edition. See figure in printed edition. Motley, Assistant Director Leonard J. Das könnte bedeuten, dass der Iran weltweit kaum noch Abnehmer für sein Öl findet, wodurch das globale Angebot schrumpfen und der Preis steigen würde.
Der zweite Faktor sei die Verschlimmerung der aktuellen Krise in Venezuela, durch die sich die Ölproduktion noch weiter verringert habe. Die Ölförderung in diesem Land ist seit mehr als einem Jahr rückläufig, da Venezuela in einen immer tieferen Sumpf von Korruption, maroder Infrastruktur, massiver Inflation und nicht mehr zu bedienenden Schuldenbergen gerutscht ist. Angesichts der Wiederwahl von Präsident Nicolas Madura am Mai ist eine weitere Verschlechterung der Situation in Venezuela wahrscheinlich.
Was heisst das für die Aktienmärkte? Um derartige Fragen zu beantworten, schaue man sich am besten an, was in ähnlichen Situationen in der Vergangenheit passiert sei, erklärt Hooper. In manchen Phasen war die Korrelation positiv, in anderen negativ — und in den letzten drei Jahrzehnten war praktisch keine Korrelation festzustellen.
Daraus schliesse ich, dass es keine sehr ausgeprägte, allgemeingültige Beziehung gibt", führt sie aus. Investoren sollten nicht davon ausgehen, dass ein höherer Ölpreis notwendigerweise schlecht für die Aktienmärkte ist.
Die Entwicklung im Jahr verdeutlicht das sehr gut. Zu erklären sei das dadurch, dass die Aktienkurse durch viele unterschiedliche Faktoren bestimmt werden — darunter die Geldpolitik, die sehr grossen Einfluss haben kann, erläutert Hooper. Dagegen zeigt der Ölpreis eine sehr viel deutlichere Beziehung zu bestimmten Marktsegmenten und Branchen — vor allem zum Energie- und Transportsektor. Ausserdem werden Aktien aus ölimportierenden Ländern tendenziell stärker durch einen höheren Ölpreis belastet, während Aktien aus ölexportierenden Nationen von höheren Ölnotierungen eher profitieren.
Hooper ist sich sicher, dass gleichzeitig ein sehr hoher Ölpreis eine erhebliche Belastung für Haushalte mit geringem und mittlerem Einkommen darstellen und damit auch Folgen für Teile des zyklischen Konsumsektors haben dürfte. When it became known to members of Congress, which sat behind closed doors, that the bill would pass Madison, attempted to have the law pay speculators less than the original holders, but was voted down.
Arguing that it was only a state bank, Hamilton suggested it come forward if it wanted to alter itself for the national purpose. Curiously, the Bank took no steps toward this obvious increase in profit and power. Hamiltons Federalists quickly put through legislation to charter the First Bank of The United States, as a privately owned central bank on the Bank of England model.
The Bank would be issuing paper notes not really backed by metal, but pretending to be redeemable in coinage, on the one condition that not a lot of people asked for redemption! They really did not have the coinage. The bank would do what they had blocked the government from doing!
Thus the real question in practice was whether it would be private banks or the government that would create paper money. Will the immense power and profit of issuing currency go to the benefit of the whole nation, or to the private bankers? Thats always been the real monetary question in this country. They knew that all that was needed to give their paper notes value, was for the government to accept them in payment for taxes.
That, and not issuing too excessive a quantity of them. Under those conditions, the paper notes they printed out of thin air, would be a claim on any wealth existing in the society. And we see why the Bank of North America was not put forward for this purpose: Just where did the money for first Bank of the U.
The rest of the payment was accepted in the form of bonds the very government bonds that Hamilton had turned from pennies on the dollar to full value. So you see where the money for the bank actually came from from the American people! Even if the bank had faithfully stuck to gold and silver, the nations monetary power would still have been alienated to the east - to the European holders of those commodities. Same people wed just fought the revolution against!
Thanks to Jeffersons efforts, the bank was liquidated in Three quarters of it was found to be owned by Europeans English and Dutch. So again the bankers gold requirement turned out to be a masquerade. This private central bank immediately embarked on a wild monetary expansion. This tremendous expansion caused a wild speculative boom. Then in August , the bank turned abruptly and began an insane contraction, causing the panic of A massive wave of bankruptcies swept the nation.
The subsequent history of this bank and its fight to the death with President Jackson reads like a financial soap opera. The story of various state chartered banks is similar.
Treasury spent them into circulation. Initially they were all large denomination, paid interest; were redeemable in gold and required formalities to transfer. By they became bearer certificates with no redemption date, paid no interest and were in 7 smaller denominations.
Thus they were nearly a true money form. The fact is that the US government has always acted responsibly in creating money. Not so the private banks!
Counterfeiters couldnt duplicate the Greenbacks. Every Greenback was eventually exchangeable one for one with gold coin. But Greenbacks were not promises to pay money later they were the money. Since they were not borrowed, they did not give rise to interest payments and did not add to any national debt. Treasury printed them and spent them into circulation. Economists usually harp on the Greenbacks dropping to 36 cents in gold, and they leave it at that.
While that happened, its highly misleading. Heres the whole picture: But that unnecessary Resumption Act couldnt pass til for implementation in That couldnt have caused the Greenbacks to start rising in July Greenbacks performed well despite being spent on destruction as this horrific scene from Gettysburg shows.
They were also being abused by the bankers. WHAT IF instead of being spent on destruction, they went into building infrastructure, and canals and roads? Spending such money on infrastructure need not be inflationary. We dont have to beg or borrow money from the wealthy and, create an astronomical national debt. We dont have to tax the middle class into oblivion, or cancel necessary programs.
We can carefully use the nations sovereign money power far more than we presently have been allowed to realize. Many of you already know this. At the time of the greenbacks there were also those who fully understood. The Government may be able to borrow from the banks, but the Government cannot borrow coinage of the banksbut only their promises to pay money. We must rely mainly upon a paper circulation; and that the paper, whoever issues it, must be irredeemable.
All paper currencies have been and ever will be irredeemable. It is a pleasant fiction to call them redeemableI would not expose that fiction only that the great emergency which is upon us seems to me to render it more than usually proper that the nation should begin to speak the truth to itself; to have done with shams, and to deal with realities.
To have done with shams and deal with realities sometimes that requires a crisis, to activate us. The Greenbacks continued to constitute about a third of our money supply. Generally the private money power dominated. But in periods when the government exercised control an excellent record was established superior to that of private control. The bankers continued their pretense that gold was the basis of the system, and even the Federal Reserve in , appeared to be a gold-based system.
But immediately upon inception, we were pushed into warfare. Within 20 years Americas farms, cities, exchanges and money system were all wrecked, ending in the great depression. It was again left to our government to rescue the nation.
Today gold is not much discussed and bank credits are openly substituted for money. The definitional problem continues they are now confusing credit with money. Economists are now calling money high powered money and they are calling credit Lower powered money. They should be examining the unfair privilege this system places in the bankers hands and They should be examining the results. The deteriorating infrastructure situation see Engineers report in ch.
The De-funding of government at the local, state and federal levels, arises now out of the disease of attacking government as the enemy. This attack on government starts with Adam Smith. His purpose in smearing the English government was to keep the monetary power in the hands of the privately owned Bank of England. We are studying and working on some detailed proposals.
Much more is required to assure water supplies. Smith glorified the Bank and obscured its private ownership calling it as a great engine of state.
The law enjoins that no private individual shall possess or hoard gold or silver bullion, but have money only fit for domestic use. The birds of prey coming to feed on these corpses darkened the Sun.
However, she acknowledged that our review led the division to assign a higher priority to correcting discrepancies in SSAIS and to establishing a consistent policy regarding entries for planning costs. The subsequent history of this bank and its fight to the death with President Jackson reads like a financial soap opera.