Elles le fabriquent elles-mêmes avec l'autorisation de la banque centrale. Par exemple.... vous achetez un immeuble qui vaut ... €500 000. Et bien, la banque va fabriquer 500 000 euros, à partir de rien. Vous direz elle ne fabrique pas €500 000 de billets. Si - elle fabrique €500 000 de billets, qu'elle peut vous donner. Sauf que c'est une écriture, parce que vous n'allez pas chercher, pour payer votre immeuble, £500 000 en billets - vous le payez par chèque. Mais c'est la même chose. Si vous vouliez le payer en billets, elle vous donnerez £500 mille en billets qu'elle irait demander à la Banque Centrale, parce qu'elle dit - voilà, j'ai une créance sur Monsieur, qui vaut 500 mille euros, qu'est ce que vous donnez en échange? Et la banque centrale dit - je vous donne 500 mille euros en billets. Sauf que, comme ces billets ne sont jamais demandés, ça circule sous forme d'écriture. Mais il faut bien comprendre ça. Quand on a compris ça, on a tout compris à la monnaie. C'est que la banque fabrique à partir de rien de l'argent. C'est le métier du banquier. La banque crée ex nihilo de l'argent. Ca c'est quelque chose qui est très difficile à comprendre".
Simon Thorpe
Bernard Maris, l'un des économistes les plus connus en France, chroniquer sur France Inter, et membre du conseil général de la Banque de France, a tout dévoilé dans un documentaire récent sur "La Dette" produit par Nicolas Ubelmann et Sophie Mitriani. Lorsque l'on lui pose la question "D'où vient l'argent que prêtent les banques?", sa réponse est stupéfiante:
Elles le fabriquent elles-mêmes avec l'autorisation de la banque centrale. Par exemple.... vous achetez un immeuble qui vaut ... €500 000. Et bien, la banque va fabriquer 500 000 euros, à partir de rien. Vous direz elle ne fabrique pas €500 000 de billets. Si - elle fabrique €500 000 de billets, qu'elle peut vous donner. Sauf que c'est une écriture, parce que vous n'allez pas chercher, pour payer votre immeuble, £500 000 en billets - vous le payez par chèque. Mais c'est la même chose. Si vous vouliez le payer en billets, elle vous donnerez £500 mille en billets qu'elle irait demander à la Banque Centrale, parce qu'elle dit - voilà, j'ai une créance sur Monsieur, qui vaut 500 mille euros, qu'est ce que vous donnez en échange? Et la banque centrale dit - je vous donne 500 mille euros en billets. Sauf que, comme ces billets ne sont jamais demandés, ça circule sous forme d'écriture. Mais il faut bien comprendre ça. Quand on a compris ça, on a tout compris à la monnaie. C'est que la banque fabrique à partir de rien de l'argent. C'est le métier du banquier. La banque crée ex nihilo de l'argent. Ca c'est quelque chose qui est très difficile à comprendre".
Elles le fabriquent elles-mêmes avec l'autorisation de la banque centrale. Par exemple.... vous achetez un immeuble qui vaut ... €500 000. Et bien, la banque va fabriquer 500 000 euros, à partir de rien. Vous direz elle ne fabrique pas €500 000 de billets. Si - elle fabrique €500 000 de billets, qu'elle peut vous donner. Sauf que c'est une écriture, parce que vous n'allez pas chercher, pour payer votre immeuble, £500 000 en billets - vous le payez par chèque. Mais c'est la même chose. Si vous vouliez le payer en billets, elle vous donnerez £500 mille en billets qu'elle irait demander à la Banque Centrale, parce qu'elle dit - voilà, j'ai une créance sur Monsieur, qui vaut 500 mille euros, qu'est ce que vous donnez en échange? Et la banque centrale dit - je vous donne 500 mille euros en billets. Sauf que, comme ces billets ne sont jamais demandés, ça circule sous forme d'écriture. Mais il faut bien comprendre ça. Quand on a compris ça, on a tout compris à la monnaie. C'est que la banque fabrique à partir de rien de l'argent. C'est le métier du banquier. La banque crée ex nihilo de l'argent. Ca c'est quelque chose qui est très difficile à comprendre".
updated 12 years ago
Elles le fabriquent elles-mêmes avec l'autorisation de la banque centrale. Par exemple.... vous achetez un immeuble qui vaut ... €500 000. Et bien, la banque va fabriquer 500 000 euros, à partir de rien. Vous direz elle ne fabrique pas €500 000 de billets. Si - elle fabrique €500 000 de billets, qu'elle peut vous donner. Sauf que c'est une écriture, parce que vous n'allez pas chercher, pour payer votre immeuble, £500 000 en billets - vous le payez par chèque. Mais c'est la même chose. Si vous vouliez le payer en billets, elle vous donnerez £500 mille en billets qu'elle irait demander à la Banque Centrale, parce qu'elle dit - voilà, j'ai une créance sur Monsieur, qui vaut 500 mille euros, qu'est ce que vous donnez en échange? Et la banque centrale dit - je vous donne 500 mille euros en billets. Sauf que, comme ces billets ne sont jamais demandés, ça circule sous forme d'écriture. Mais il faut bien comprendre ça. Quand on a compris ça, on a tout compris à la monnaie. C'est que la banque fabrique à partir de rien de l'argent. C'est le métier du banquier. La banque crée ex nihilo de l'argent. Ca c'est quelque chose qui est très difficile à comprendre".
The complete set of slides can be downloaded here https://flagship.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/jss/HBPm?eMAt=263&sMi=7148_zyLWgwmRg&downloadTalk=9648
I was pleased to demonstrate my Terabrain simulation software running with 68 billion neurons and trillions of connections on my Mac in real time. The simulation was running in the background on my Mac throughout the talk, even though the Mac was not even plugged in! The bottom line is that this sort of extremely sparse spiking neural network with unary synaptic connections is remarkably power-efficient. Indeed, this approach could be the secret of the brain's remarkable 20 W power budget.
Quite why no one is taking this simple idea seriously is incomprehensible to me.
I put a more extended argument on my blog that you can find here simonthorpesideas.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-aftermath-of-trumps-re-election.html
This is the abstract that I originally sent for the talk.
"The latest generation of deep learning-trained AI systems can rival humans on many challenging tasks, including image categorisation, speech processing and text prediction. But it can be argued that such systems are not truly “intelligent” because of the way they learn, requiring millions of cycles of brute force learning with labelled data. I will argue that such systems lack one feature of biological learning that may be critical for true intelligence. Humans are incredibly good at spotting repeating patterns. For example, when presented with a stream of novel images at up to 120 frames a second, an image repeated between 2 and 5 times can subsequently be picked out of a set of four images - where the other 3 have all been seen just once. Similarly, impressive performance levels have been seen with auditory snippets presented at rates of 20 per second - again, a few repeats are enough to make the sound easy to pick out. This suggests that this ability to detect repeating patterns could be a general feature of the brain. Parallel modelling work has shown that a modified Spike-Time Dependent Plasticity Rule using binary synapses can allow neurons to learn to detect repeating patterns, again with only a few repeats. We suggest that this sort of unsupervised learning could be a key to biological intelligence and could provide a radical alternative to the supervised deep learning techniques that currently dominate the field."
However, the talk also includes quite a lot of material about spike-based processing and how the use of spikes might explain why the human brain is so much more power efficient than the hardware currently used for deep neural networks. Indeed, the overview of the talk provides the following summary.
Comparing the Brain with Artificial systems
- High level vision has effectively been solved
- Large Language Models (e.g. GPT-4) are getting closer to AGI
Two major problems
-The Energetic Cost
- Simulating the entire human brain would require 20 MW
- The brain only uses 20 W
- Learning is very slow
-Humans can detect repeating patterns very efficiently - in 2-5 repetitions
Spike-based computing is a solution to both challenges
- Simulating billions of neurons on a MacBook Air
- Learning rules that use binary connections and weight swapping
- Potential application - a system that can learn text-based language
There are three parts.
In Part 1, I discuss why humans will not be able to compete with AI, why many paid jobs are going to disappear, and why this could be a disaster unless we act quickly. I argue this position on the basis of my own work into biological vision, which demonstrates that our biological hardware is simply too slow and limited to compete with advancing computer technology.
In Part 2, I propose that introducing a Universal Basic Income is probably the best way to cope with the technological unemployment resulting from advances in AI, robotics and automation. I discuss 4 different ways of financing a UBI : (1) Central Bank Money Creation, (2) A radical reform of the tax and benefit system with an Unconditional Basic Income coupled with a flat rate income tax, (3) a 0.1% financial transactions tax, and (4) an annual 1% tax on all assets. The first two could be used at the national or regional level, whereas the last two could be used to provide a $100 a month Basic Income for everyone on the planet.
In Part 3, I describe another very radical proposal, the introduction of IOU-based transaction system (IOUNet) that could allow the economy to function without the need for conventional money.
In the end, I am personally convinced that there is a way forward that would allow all humans to live rewarding lives, and live in peace with technology. However, I believe that this will only be possible if we make the right decisions now.
I very much hope that the ideas presented here could help stimulate a wide-ranging discussion on this vital and pressing issue.
Essentially, I argue that $10 chips with Neural Computing algorithms will be replacing humans in many paid jobs. The resulting transformation in society will lead to a catastrophy if we continue with the current system.
However, solutions already exist. I claim that we need a Universal Basic Income, and suggest three perfectly valid ways to implement such a system. These are (a) using negative income tax, (b) using Central Bank Money Creation, and (c) imposing a tiny Financial Transaction Tax on all electronic transactions.
1) Au lieu d'injecter €60 milliards par mois dans les marchés financiers, la BCE doit donner la même somme aux 330 millions citoyens de la zone Euro - environ €182 par personne. Pour éviter de l'inflation, la BCE pourrait imposer une taxe sur les transactions en Euro partout dans le monde.
2) Les autorités (nationale, régionale ou locale) pourraient introduire une monnaie parallèle - le N-Euro. On pourrait payer une partie des salaires, des retraites et des aides avec, et sa valeur serait garantie par le fait de pouvoir payer des taxes avec à parité avec l'euro classique.
3) Introduire un système de crédit citoyen où les transactions peuvent être fait avec des "IOU" (des reconnaissances de dette). Un tel système permet de faire fonctionner l'économie sans avoir besoin de faire appel à l'argent dette des banques commerciales
"Banks create additional broad money whenever they make a loan. Now while this is nothing new, it is sometimes overlooked as the main way in which money is created. And it runs contrary to the view sometimes put forward that banks can only lend out deposits that they already have. In fact loans create deposits - not the other way round. "
In the talk I argue that there is a way out of the the current Eurozone Crisis. It requires 3 key steps that would allow governments to get out of debt and avoid the 3% of GDP that is currently lost in interest payments to the financial sector.
1) The the European Central Bank should be forced to take over all public sector debt
2) The ECB should impose a tax on all electronic transactions denominated in Euros, irrespective of where they occur.
3) The ECB should then redestribute revenues from the tax according to each country's population size within the Eurozone and use the money to pay off each country's debt.
I back the proposals with data on the scale of Euro-denominated transactions in areas such as Foreign Exchange and Interest Rate Swaps. Although much of this activity occurs outside the Eurozone, 19.5% of foreign exchange involves Euros, and 40% of Interest Rate Swaps currently involve Euros.
During the debate after the talk, François Morin agreed with the numbers I used, but was not very optimistic about the chances of such reforms getting through. I would agree that there will be massive resistance from the financial sector who currently receive hundreds of billions of euros every year in unjustifiable interest payments.
However, the stakes are very high. If political parties at next year's European Elections were to take the three key ideas on board, I believe that it is possible to fix the system before it is too late.
En gros, je propose que l'on pourrait s'en sortir de la crise de la dette publique si on adoptait les mesures suivants.
1) Obliger la Banque Centrale Européenne à reprendre les dettes des états
2) Instaurer une taxe sur toutes les transactions en Euros pour éponger ces dettes
3) Redistribuer les revenus de la taxe en fonction de la population de chaque pays
J'ai eu le plaisir de partager le plateau avec l'économiste François Morin. François a confirmé les chiffres avancés dans ma présentation, mais considère que la probabilité de pouvoir faire passer mes propostions est faible, vu la resistance et le pouvoir du monde de la finance.
Il a peut être raison de dire que ca ne va pas être facile. Mais, je suis persuadé qu'il vaut la peine d'essayer!
My basic position can be summarized as follows:
Can paranormal phenomena be studied scientifically? YES!
Is it important to study such phenomena? YES!
Is there convincing evidence? YES!! (for some phenomena)
Does it make sense? YES - It can help explain the evolution of consciousness
Are there possible explanations? Yes, possibly (Quantum Physics, entanglement....)
In my case, I tended to ignore work on paranormal phenomena. However, since reading the work of Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake, I feel that it is no longer possible to pretend that such phenomena are illusory. And if they are real, the implications for our understanding of the universe that we live in will be revolutionized.
Note added Sunday 27th January
In the talk, I mentioned what I thought was an unpublished metareview of the anticipatory physiological effects. But I have since discovered that the paper was actually published in october 2012.
You can find it here
http://www.frontiersin.org/perception_science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract
Mossbridge, J., Tressoldi, P. E., & Utts, J. (2012). Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: A Meta-Analysis . Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 390.
Such a system would have the enormous advantage that the governments could create N-Euros without having to borrow from the commercial banking system, which currently has a virtual monopoly on creating the Euro money supply. This would save hundreds of billions a year in totally unnecessary interest payments.
I argue that, if the 17 eurozone governments acted together, then could ban money creation by private banks, and require all new money to be created debt-free via the ECB. I propose that the money created this way could be distributed between the 17 countries pro-rata as a function of the size of each countries population.
A key advantage would be that the Eurozone economy would no longer have the inbuilt inflation required in currency areas where the creation of the money supply requires interest to be paid. This would make Euros very attractive relative to other currencies which are forced to continuously devalue. As a result, the ECB could create large quantities of Euros without risking inflation - thus providing a massive boost to the Eurozone economies.
I suggest that once a major currency block like the Eurozone has switched to debt-free money creation, it is highly probable that other currencies zones would be compelled to follow - thus ridding the world of the millstone of debt-based money creation
I got some excellent feedback on the original version, especially from Bill Still. Bill said that while he supported what I was proposing, he sent me a list of 15 suggestions for removing some imprecisions and factual errors. I'd like to thank Bill for his input and hope that this new version meets with his approval!
The key proposals include two ideas that have already been proposed by a number of authors including Bill Still himself, Ellen Brown, James Robertson and the Positive Money group (not to mention Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison and JRR Tolkein, to name but a few!). All have argued that money creation by commercial banks should be banned, and that all money creation should be done debt free by elected governments, via the Treasury in the USA, or via central banks in most other countries. This would immediately save countless billions of taxpayers money that have been paid to banks as unjustifiable interest charges. The amounts are mind-blowing. US taxpayers have paid $8.5 trillion in interest charges since 1988, and taxpayers in the 27 European Union countries have paid €5.6 trillion since 1995. This is more than half of all government debt, and it totally unnecessary.
One new idea is the proposal that money creation by governments should be restricted to actions that receive massive support from citizens. I suggest that the threshold could be as high as 90%. Decisions could potentially be made using a referendum, or in the future by some form of electronic voting system.
The one real criticism of systems in which governments are allowed to create money debt-free iis that there is a potentially a risk of inflation. My second main proposition proposes a solution that avoids this problem. The idea would be to introduce a continuously variable Financial Transaction Tax that be used to automatically remove excess money from the system. At the first sign of inflation, the FTT rate would be automatically increased to mop up the surplus. And if there was deflation, the rate would be decreased. The optimal level for the money supply could be determined by an independent authority. Note that this independent authority would have no say in whether or not money is created by the government. Its only role would be to vary the FTT rate to keep the money supply level at the optimal level.
In such a system, there would be no need to match government expenditure with tax revenue. Indeed, government spending could be increased to cover the costs of any project that receives overwhelming public support. This would allow the money supply to expand naturally with the economy, and would allow wastage to be eliminated. It would allow a return to full employment, because as long as there are jobs to be done in the economy, it would be worth creating the government money to pay the people to do those jobs. Indeed, as long as there was still unemployment and spare capacity in the economy, there may not be much need for taxation at all.
Note that the scheme would avoid the possibility that people could "live off the state" on benefits. Unless someone was incapable of work, or had already reached retirement age, it is almost certain that they would be able to do something useful to do. It is likely that 90% of the population would prefer to see people paid to do something useful for society (paid for with freshly created government money) than providing them with money for doing nothing.
These are radical ideas that could really change the sort of society in which we live.
Je donne l'exemple de la Grèce où le gouvernement doit €350 millions. Pour pouvoir créer cette somme, il suffit d'avoir une banque avec un minimum de €30.4 milliards en dépôts, car la réglementation "Bâle III" accepte qu'une banque ne puisse avoir que 8% en dépôt. L'argent crée pourrait être être prêter au gouvernement Grecque pour une période de 1000 ans au taux de 0.0%. Cette argent pourrait être fournis par les contribuables Grecs qui, de toute manières ont payer 15 milliards en intérêts en 2011. En 2 ans, le montant investi pourrait être remboursé.
Le même mécanisme peut être utilisé à tous les niveaux, du niveau national, régional et municipal. Il peut également être utilisé pour sauver les entreprises et les universités de la piège de la dette, ainsi que les individus surendettés.
Alors que la création de monnaie par les banques commerciales est de la pure folie (toute la création de l'argent devrait être dans les mains de banques centrales et dans l'intérêt des citoyens), en attendant son abolition nous pouvons utiliser ce mécanisme pour réparer les dégats provoqués par des décennies de prêts totalement irresponsables.
The same mechanism can be used at all levels, from the national level, to regional and city council levels. It can also be used to save companies and universities from the debt trap, as well as helping individuals who are locked into debt.
While money creation by commercial banks is pure folly (all money creation should be in the hands of publicly banks in the interest of citizens), in the meantime we can use the banks' own insane mechanism to clear up the mess left by decades of totally irresponsible lending.
(Cette version remplace une version précédente du 29 avril (vue par 29 personnes), qui avait de nombreuses fautes dans mon français!).
This part discusses who would lose out as a result of such a change, as well as discussing the question of whether it should be considered as left wing or right wing.
This part looks at the advantages and potential difficulties of such a proposal
Part one looks at what would be the characteristics of an optimal tax system, and looks at the history of the Financial Tax option.


