venerdì 28 febbraio 2025

USA-ITALIA: Un Patto Transatlantico per il Bilanciamento Quantitativo

 Un Patto Transatlantico per il Bilanciamento Quantitativo: Come USA e Italia Potrebbero Riallineare il Sistema Globale

di Redazione, 28 febbraio 2025


   Nel panorama economico globale, l’innovazione finanziaria è spesso la chiave per risolvere le crisi strutturali e garantire stabilità di lungo termine. 

    Tra le proposte più innovative degli ultimi anni spicca il Bilanciamento Quantitativo (QB), un approccio teorizzato nel paper "Solving the Conundrum of Banks' Cash Flow Statements: A Quantitative Balancing Approach" [1]. Questo modello promette di trasformare la trasparenza e la stabilità del sistema bancario, riallineando gli incentivi tra banche, Stato e depositanti. Ma cosa accadrebbe se due economie fondamentali come quelle degli Stati Uniti e dell’Italia decidessero di collaborare per implementare il QB, integrandolo con un patto di cooperazione sul commercio internazionale?

    Vediamo come questa sinergia potrebbe accelerare l’adozione del QB e rafforzare i legami economici transatlantici.


Il Bilanciamento Quantitativo: Una Breve Introduzione

    Il QB si basa su un principio rivoluzionario: le banche non solo creatori autonomi di moneta, ma custodi di depositi che rappresentano passività verso la Tesoreria dello Stato. In pratica, ogni volta che una banca concede un prestito, crea denaro sotto forma di deposito, ma questo deposito viene immediatamente registrato come una passività nei confronti del Tesoro nazionale, anziché come un debito tradizionale verso il cliente. Questo meccanismo rende esplicito il ruolo delle banche come intermediari monetari e introduce una chiara distinzione tra attività commerciali e politica monetaria [1].

   I vantaggi del QB sono molteplici:

• Trasparenza : Le voci contabili diventano più chiare, eliminando le ambiguità legate alla creazione di moneta.

• Stabilità : I depositi sono garantiti dallo Stato, riducendo il rischio di panico e corsa agli sportelli.

• Redistribuzione del signoraggio : I profitti derivanti dalla creazione di moneta tornano nelle casse pubbliche, finanziando servizi essenziali o riducendo il debito nazionale.

    Tuttavia, l’implementazione del QB richiede cambiamenti normativi significativi e una stretta collaborazione internazionale. Ed è qui che entra in gioco il potenziale di un patto tra Stati Uniti e Italia.


Un Patto Transatlantico per il QB: Perché USA e Italia?

    Gli Stati Uniti e l’Italia rappresentano due economie complementari, con caratteristiche che rendono questa partnership particolarmente interessante:

1. Diversità Economica e Strutturale

    L’economia statunitense è dominata da grandi multinazionali e settori ad alta innovazione, mentre l’Italia ha un tessuto produttivo composto prevalentemente da piccole e medie imprese. Questa diversità offre un terreno fertile per testare il QB in contesti differenti, dimostrando la sua flessibilità e applicabilità universale [2].

2. Esportazioni e Importazioni Reciproche

   Gli scambi commerciali tra USA e Italia ammontano a decine di miliardi di dollari all’anno, con settori chiave come la tecnologia, il manifatturiero e l’agroalimentare. Un accordo bilaterale per regolamentare il flusso di beni e servizi attraverso il QB potrebbe fungere da banco di prova per un sistema monetario più equo e trasparente [3].

3. Leadership Normativa

   Entrambi i paesi hanno un ruolo di primo piano nella definizione di standard globali. Gli Stati Uniti, con il loro peso nel sistema finanziario internazionale, e l’Italia, come membro fondatore dell’UE, possono influenzare l’adozione del QB a livello globale.


Come Funzionerebbe il Patto QB-USA-Italia?

L’accordo si articolerà su tre pilastri principali:

1. Armonizzazione Normativa

La prima fase prevede l’allineamento delle normative bancarie e contabili dei due paesi. Ad esempio:

• Modifiche al Codice Civile italiano (Art. 1834) per riflettere i principi del QB, come già proposto [1].

• Aggiornamenti alle normative statunitensi, come il Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 per l’Italia e il Dodd-Frank Act per gli USA, per includere la segregazione dei depositi e la registrazione delle passività verso il Tesoro [4].

2. Cooperazione Commerciale Basata sul QB

Il secondo pilastro riguarda l’integrazione del QB negli scambi commerciali. Ogni transazione internazionale verrebbe registrata in modo trasparente, con il signoraggio calcolato e redistribuito in base al valore aggiunto creato nei rispettivi paesi. Ad esempio:

• Un’azienda italiana che esporta macchinari negli USA vedrebbe i pagamenti registrati come depositi garantiti dal Tesoro italiano.

• Viceversa, un’azienda americana che importa software in Italia seguirebbe lo stesso principio, garantendo reciprocità e trasparenza.

3. Monitoraggio e Valutazione

Infine, un organismo congiunto USA-Italia monitorerebbe l’implementazione del QB, valutando l’impatto sulle banche, sui mercati e sulla fiducia dei consumatori. Questo organismo potrebbe fungere da modello per future collaborazioni internazionali.


I Vantaggi Economici e Politici

L’adozione congiunta del QB offrirebbe numerosi benefici:

1. Riduzione del Rischio Sistemico

    La segregazione dei depositi e la garanzia statale ridurrebbero il rischio di crisi bancarie, proteggendo sia i consumatori che le imprese [1] 

2. Rafforzamento del Commercio Bilaterale

    Un sistema monetario più trasparente aumenterebbe la fiducia negli scambi commerciali, stimolando investimenti e crescita economica [3].

3. Redistribuzione Equa del Signoraggio

    I governi potrebbero utilizzare i proventi del signoraggio per finanziare infrastrutture, istruzione e sanità, migliorando il benessere sociale [1].

4. Leadership Globale

    Un accordo USA-Italia sul QB potrebbe ispirare altri paesi a seguire l’esempio, promuovendo un nuovo paradigma finanziario globale.


    L’implementazione del Bilanciamento Quantitativo rappresenta un’opportunità unica per riformare il sistema bancario e monetario globale. Un patto di cooperazione tra Stati Uniti e Italia potrebbe non solo facilitare l’adozione del QB, ma anche rafforzare i legami economici e politici tra i due paesi. In un mondo sempre più interconnesso, la trasparenza e la collaborazione sono le chiavi per un futuro finanziario più stabile e sostenibile. Il QB potrebbe essere il primo passo verso un’economia globale più equa e resiliente.


Note:

[1] Saba, M. (2025). Solving the Conundrum of Banks' Cash Flow Statements: A Quantitative Balancing Approach.

[2] Graziani, A. (2003). The Monetary Theory of Production.

[3] Eurostat Trade Data (2024).

[4] Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 e Dodd-Frank Act.

giovedì 27 febbraio 2025

Nigeria: Adapting and Adopting Quantitative Balancing (QB)


[Back to Main Quantitative Balancing page]

 Adapting Quantitative Balancing (QB) to Nigeria involves tailoring the framework to the country’s unique economic, legal, and institutional context while maintaining its core principles: state-backed money creation, reflux mechanisms, depositor security, and debt offset. Nigeria, unlike Italy, operates outside the eurozone with its own currency (the naira, NGN), central bank (Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN), and a distinct legal and financial landscape marked by challenges like corruption, weak enforcement, and infrastructure deficits. Below, I’ll outline how QB could be adapted to Nigeria and identify the specific legal modifications needed to make it feasible, drawing on Nigeria’s existing framework and addressing its realities as of February 27, 2025.


Adapting QB to Nigeria: Conceptual Framework


Core Adaptation

    • Stablecoin Pilot: "NairaCoin": Instead of a euro-pegged "Sovrano," Nigeria could launch a naira-pegged stablecoin, "NairaCoin," issued by a private entity (e.g., NairaCo) under CBN oversight. It would be backed solely by acceptance for tax payments by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), leveraging blockchain for transparency.

    • Scale: Start with a pilot of 100 billion NGN ($62 million USD at current rates, assuming 1 USD = 1,600 NGN, reflecting 2025 forex trends). This is modest (0.02% of Nigeria’s $477 billion GDP in 2024) but impactful for testing.

    • Debt Offset: The Treasury offsets Nigeria’s public debt (~NGN 121 trillion, or $75 billion, per 2024 estimates) by 100 billion NGN, recording NairaCo’s seigniorage debt as an asset.

    • Reflux: NairaCo pays 10 billion NGN tranches annually over 10 years as NairaCoin is redeemed (e.g., for taxes), balancing the system.


Nigerian Context

    • Economic Drivers: Nigeria’s debt-to-GDP ratio (~40% in 2024) is lower than Italy’s (150%), but servicing costs are high (over 90% of revenue goes to debt interest). QB could ease this burden and fund priorities like power or education.

    • Currency Control: The CBN tightly manages the naira, unlike the ECB’s euro oversight, giving Nigeria more monetary autonomy to experiment.

    • Challenges: Corruption (37% GDP loss risk by 2030), weak judicial enforcement, and forex volatility (naira lost 70% value since 2023) complicate implementation but also make QB’s transparency appealing.


Legal Modifications Needed

1. Authorization for Private Money Issuance

    • Current Law: The CBN Act 2007 (Section 2) grants the CBN sole authority to issue legal tender (naira notes and coins). Private entities cannot issue currency without CBN approval, and digital currencies face restrictions (2021 CBN circular banned crypto transactions by banks).

    • Modification Needed: Amend the CBN Act to:

        ◦ Create a provision (e.g., Section 2A) allowing the CBN to license private entities like NairaCo to issue state-backed stablecoins as "supplementary legal tender" for specific purposes (e.g., tax payments, pilot projects).

        ◦ Define NairaCoin as a digital extension of the naira, not a rival currency, under CBN supervision.

    • Rationale: This preserves CBN’s monopoly while enabling QB’s private-public partnership, avoiding the ECB-style supranational conflict Italy faces.


2. Tax Acceptance Framework

    • Current Law: The Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007 governs tax collection, with no provision for accepting non-naira instruments beyond cash or bank transfers.

    • Modification Needed: Amend Section 8 (Powers of the Service) to:

        ◦ Authorize FIRS to accept NairaCoin for all federal taxes (e.g., VAT, corporate income tax) at 1:1 parity with the naira.

        ◦ Mandate FIRS to collaborate with the CBN and NairaCo for blockchain-based tax tracking and redemption.

    • Rationale: Tax acceptance is QB’s value anchor in Nigeria (like Italy). Legalizing it ensures demand without eurozone treaty constraints, leveraging Nigeria’s fiscal autonomy.


3. Blockchain Regulation and Transparency

    • Current Law: Nigeria lacks a comprehensive blockchain law. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) classified crypto as securities in 2020, but enforcement is patchy, and the 2021 CBN ban limits digital adoption.

    • Modification Needed: Enact a "Digital Currency and Blockchain Act" to:

        ◦ Legalize blockchain-based stablecoins like NairaCoin under CBN and SEC joint oversight.

        ◦ Mandate public blockchain use for NairaCoin, with real-time Treasury and FIRS access to transaction data.

        ◦ Criminalize tampering with blockchain records, with penalties mirroring the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act (up to 14 years imprisonment).

    • Rationale: Nigeria’s corruption (e.g., $16 billion lost in power sector fraud) demands QB’s transparency. Blockchain counters weak enforcement, unlike Italy’s more robust judicial context.


4. Debt Offset and Seigniorage Accounting

    • Current Law: The Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007 and Public Procurement Act 2007 govern debt and fiscal management, with no mechanism for offsetting debt via private seigniorage credits.

    • Modification Needed: Amend the Fiscal Responsibility Act to:

        ◦ Add Section 41A: "The Treasury may offset public debt by recognizing seigniorage credits from CBN-licensed stablecoin issuers, provided tranches repay the offset over a defined period."

        ◦ Require annual audits by the Auditor-General to verify NairaCo’s 10 billion NGN tranche payments.

    • Rationale: Nigeria’s debt servicing crisis (NGN 6 trillion in interest, 2024) justifies QB’s offset. Legal codification ensures fiscal legitimacy, avoiding Italy’s bond market skepticism.


5. Depositor Segregation and Banking Adjustments

    • Current Law: The Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020 allows banks to use deposits for lending under fractional reserves, with the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) insuring up to NGN 500,000 per depositor.

    • Modification Needed: Amend BOFIA to:

        ◦ Introduce optional "QB accounts" where deposits are segregated and not lent out, eliminating NDIC coverage for these funds.

        ◦ Exempt QB-participating banks (if scaled beyond NairaCo) from certain capital requirements (e.g., reduce Cash Reserve Ratio from 32.5% to 20% for QB funds).

    • Rationale: Segregation enhances trust in a corruption-prone system, but Nigeria’s banking reliance on deposits (unlike Italy’s stablecoin focus) requires flexibility—optional adoption avoids disruption.


6. Anti-Corruption Safeguards

    • Current Law: The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act 2004 criminalize bribery (up to 7 years imprisonment), but enforcement is weak.

    • Modification Needed: Amend the EFCC Act to:

        ◦ Create a "QB Oversight Unit" within the EFCC to monitor NairaCo, CBN, and FIRS for fraud or tranche evasion, with blockchain data as evidence.

        ◦ Impose higher penalties (e.g., 10-15 years imprisonment) for QB-related corruption, given its public trust role.

    • Rationale: Nigeria’s corruption risk (37% GDP loss by 2030) exceeds Italy’s; legal teeth and blockchain ensure QB’s integrity.

7. Forex and Monetary Stability

    • Current Law: The Foreign Exchange (Monitoring and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 and CBN forex policies restrict currency alternatives to protect the naira.

    • Modification Needed: Amend the Forex Act to:

        ◦ Exempt NairaCoin from forex restrictions, classifying it as a naira-equivalent digital asset under CBN control.

        ◦ Allow NairaCo to hold forex reserves (e.g., $10 million) to stabilize NairaCoin if naira volatility spikes (70% depreciation since 2023).

    • Rationale: Nigeria’s forex scarcity (unlike Italy’s euro stability) threatens QB’s peg; legal flexibility protects pilot viability.


Adapted QB in Action: NairaCoin Pilot

    • Step 1: NairaCo issues 100B NGN NairaCoin. Balance sheet: Assets = 100B NGN (NairaCoin); Liabilities = 100B NGN (seigniorage debt to Treasury).

    • Step 2: Treasury offsets NGN 121T debt to NGN 120.9T, records 100B NGN asset.

    • Step 3: FIRS accepts NairaCoin for taxes; businesses use it for payments, tracked on blockchain.

    • Step 4: Over 10 years, NairaCo pays 10B NGN/year as NairaCoin is redeemed, clearing the debt.


Benefits for Nigeria

    • Debt Relief: 100B NGN offset (0.08% of debt) tests QB; scaling to M2 (NGN 60T) could cut debt by 50%.

    • Liquidity: 100B NGN boosts SMEs or power projects in a cash-strapped economy.

    • Transparency: Blockchain curbs tax evasion (~NGN 7T gap) and corruption.

    • Innovation: Positions Nigeria as an African fintech leader, unlike Italy’s eurozone constraints.


Legal Feasibility

Nigeria’s unitary system and CBN autonomy allow faster legal changes than Italy’s EU-bound framework. The National Assembly can amend laws via simple majority (Constitution Section 9), and CBN’s regulatory powers (CBN Act Section 8) support rapid pilot approval. Corruption and enforcement gaps are the biggest hurdles, but blockchain and EFCC oversight mitigate these.

martedì 25 febbraio 2025

Il debito totale dell'Italia: quant'è ?

"Nessuno può essere obbligato a fare cose impossibili". 


 Per comprendere il debito totale dell'Italia, dobbiamo considerare sia le passività del settore pubblico che quelle del settore privato. Ecco una ripartizione basata sui dati disponibili:


Debito pubblico:

A novembre 2024, il debito pubblico nazionale dell'Italia era di circa 3.005,2 miliardi di euro (o circa 3.169,6 miliardi di dollari USA).

Il rapporto debito pubblico/PIL è stimato intorno al 139,8% nel 2023 e si prevede che aumenterà leggermente nei prossimi anni.


Debito totale (incluso il settore privato):

Il debito totale dell'Italia, che include le passività di tutti i settori (famiglie, società non finanziarie, istituzioni finanziarie e governo), era di circa il 565,5% del PIL a settembre 2024, circa 12.138 miliardi di euro.

Questa cifra comprende una gamma più ampia di passività oltre al debito pubblico, tra cui il debito delle famiglie, il debito delle imprese e le passività del settore finanziario.

In sintesi, mentre il debito pubblico ammonta a circa 3.000 miliardi di euro, il debito totale, compresi i settori privati, è significativamente più elevato se misurato in percentuale del PIL. Il debito totale oggi è sei volte la quantità di moneta circolante e quindi reperibile.

Calcolando che la moneta cash più la moneta bancaria (liquidità M2) dell'Italia è di 2.000 miliardi di euro, la magistratura dovrebbe espropriare altri 10.000 miliardi di euro equivalenti in immobili, aziende e quant'altro, per permettere a tutti di saldare ognuno il suo debito relativo. 

La massa del denaro totale non è adeguata alla massa dei debiti totali - 1 a 6 - e questo crea una enorme tensione sociale, ovviamente, che il governo deve tenere a bada distraendo il popolo in qualsiasi modo... Il popolo potrebbe realizzare che il debito è odioso per la mancanza stessa del denaro che oggi si crea dal nulla con un tasto del computer, spesso lo zero, e che tanti suicidi per fallimento avrebbero potuto essere evitati se si fosse applicata una semplice massima giuridica: ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. "Nessuno può essere obbligato a fare cose impossibili". E i governanti, invece, dovrebbero essere obbligati a fare almeno quelle possibili!

Il popolo sarà davvero sovrano solo quando qualcuno gli spiegherà davvero come stanno le cose...

sabato 22 febbraio 2025

Bank Money as Legal Tender: Proposal for the Bank for International Settlements

Key Points
  • The Quantitative Balancing (QB) model proposes legalizing bank money as legal tender, addressing its current legal limbo where it's accepted but not officially recognized.
  • This could enhance financial stability, reduce regulatory burdens, and support economic growth by formalizing state backing.
Background
Bank money, created through loans, is widely used but not legal tender, meaning it's not officially guaranteed by the state for debt payments. The QB model suggests making it legal tender, backed by the state through seigniorage credits, to resolve this ambiguity.
Benefits
Legalizing bank money under QB could:
  • Stabilize the System: The reflux mechanism (banks pay tranches to the treasury upon loan repayment) helps manage money supply, reducing credit bubbles.
  • Simplify Regulation: Lower capital requirements as the state backs the money, easing compliance for banks.
  • Boost Economy: Facilitates lending with state support, potentially offsetting national debt (e.g., $21 trillion of M2 against $34 trillion U.S. debt).
Surprising Detail: State Debt Offset
It's surprising that the QB model could slash national debt by recognizing existing money (M2) as state credits, potentially reducing U.S. debt by over $21 trillion, a massive fiscal relief.


Comprehensive Analysis of Quantitative Balancing Proposal for the Bank for International Settlements
This analysis explores the Quantitative Balancing (QB) model, proposed for consideration by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), with a focus on legalizing bank money as legal tender. The model addresses the current legal limbo of bank money—widely accepted but not officially recognized as legal tender—and aims to enhance global financial stability and efficiency. Below, we detail the model's mechanics, benefits, potential risks, and its alignment with BIS objectives, supported by relevant data and examples.
Introduction to the Quantitative Balancing Model
The QB model reimagines the interaction between private banks and the state in money creation, aiming to formalize and stabilize the process. Key components include:
  • State-Backed Money Creation: When banks issue loans, they create new money, and the state treasury records a corresponding seigniorage credit, acknowledging the public's stake in this money. This aligns with the state's role in monetary policy and provides a formal backing.
  • Reflux Mechanism: Upon loan repayment, the money is extinguished from circulation, and banks pay a seigniorage tranche to the treasury. This balances the money supply, preventing unchecked growth and ensuring a closed accounting loop.
  • Depositor Segregation: Depositor funds are kept separate and not used for lending, eliminating the need for deposit insurance like FDIC. This enhances depositor security and reduces systemic risk.
  • Legal Tender Status: The core proposal is to recognize bank-created money as legal tender, providing it with the full backing of the state. Currently, bank money exists in a legal gray area—it is not legal tender (only central bank notes and coins are) but is widely accepted for transactions, creating uncertainty and potential risks.
This formalization resolves the legal limbo, aligning bank money with the state's recognition through seigniorage credits, and enhancing trust and stability in the financial system.
Current Challenges in the Monetary System
The existing monetary system relies heavily on private banks to create money through lending, a process that can lead to disequilibrium and instability. Economist Richard Werner has highlighted how this can result in credit bubbles, financial crises, and misallocation of resources, as seen in historical events like the 2008 financial crisis.
Moreover, bank money, while practically accepted, is not legal tender, creating a legal ambiguity. For instance, in the United States, Federal Reserve notes are legal tender, but bank deposits, which constitute the majority of M2 (approximately $21 trillion as of late 2024), are not. This gray area can lead to uncertainty, especially during bank failures, where depositors might face risks despite FDIC insurance (up to $250,000 per account).
Detailed Mechanics of Quantitative Balancing
The QB model introduces a structured partnership:
  1. Money Creation Process: When a bank issues a $100,000 loan, it credits the borrower's account, creating new money. Simultaneously, the treasury records a $100,000 seigniorage credit, formalizing the state's claim.
  2. Reflux and Tranche Payment: When the loan is repaid, the $100,000 is extinguished, and the bank pays a seigniorage tranche to the treasury, ensuring the money supply does not permanently expand without corresponding contraction.
  3. Depositor Safety: By segregating depositor funds, these are kept safe and not used for lending, mitigating risks seen in past bank runs (e.g., Silicon Valley Bank in 2023). This eliminates the need for deposit insurance, reducing taxpayer burdens.
  4. Legal Tender Proposal: Making bank-created money legal tender means it must be accepted for debt payments, backed by the state. This formalizes the current practice where bank money is accepted, aligning it with central bank money and enhancing its legal standing.
Benefits for the Global Financial System
The QB model offers several advantages, particularly relevant to the BIS's focus on stability and efficiency:
  • Enhanced Financial Stability: The reflux mechanism helps manage the money supply, reducing the risk of credit-driven bubbles. By tying money creation to state oversight, it mitigates the instability seen in past crises, aligning with BIS's Basel Accords goals.
  • Efficient Regulation: Recognizing bank money as legal tender could reduce the need for complex capital requirements. Currently, banks must hold Common Equity Tier 1 (CET-1) capital (e.g., 4.5% of risk-weighted assets under Basel III). With state backing, this could drop, simplifying compliance and freeing capital for lending, as seen in the model's proposal for lower Basel CET-1 requirements.
  • Fiscal Advantages: The state can offset national debt using seigniorage credits. For example, in the U.S., with M2 at $21 trillion, posting this as credits against the $34 trillion national debt could reduce net debt to $13 trillion, easing interest payments (estimated at $1.1 trillion in 2024). Additionally, seigniorage tranches (e.g., $1 trillion yearly if 5% of M2 refluxes) provide a steady revenue stream for fiscal sustainability.
  • Support for Economic Growth: The model facilitates lending with state backing, potentially directing credit towards productive sectors. This could boost GDP, especially with initiatives like universal basic income (UBI) funded by credits, estimated at $3.75 trillion yearly for 250 million adults at $15,000 each, lifting many above the poverty line ($14,580 for one person in 2024).
Addressing Potential Risks
While the model offers significant benefits, potential risks must be acknowledged and mitigated:
  • Moral Hazard: Banks might take excessive risks knowing their money is state-backed. However, the seigniorage tranche mechanism disciplines them, as they must pay back the principal upon loan repayment, reducing incentive for reckless lending.
  • Inflation Risk: Spending seigniorage credits (e.g., $4.25 trillion yearly for UBI and reparations) could spike inflation, potentially 5-10% if velocity increases. This can be managed by phasing UBI, targeting productive investments, and ensuring supply chains can handle demand surges, as seen in 2022 shortages.
  • Fiscal Risk: If banks fail to pay tranches, the state might bear costs. The model assumes banks are solvent, with loans repaid funding tranches, but safeguards like stress tests or capital buffers could be integrated, aligning with BIS standards.
Specific Request to the BIS
Given these benefits, I urge the BIS to consider the QB model and, specifically, support the legal tender status for bank money. The BIS, through its role in setting international financial standards (e.g., Basel frameworks), can influence central banks and regulators to adopt or recommend this approach. Endorsement could include:
  • Incorporating QB principles into future Basel revisions, particularly around capital adequacy and money creation.
  • Issuing reports or guidelines on the legal status of bank money, highlighting the stability gains from state backing.
  • Facilitating dialogue with member central banks to explore pilot implementations, especially in nations with high debt burdens.
Comparative Analysis: Current vs. QB System
To illustrate, consider the following table comparing the current system with QB:
Aspect
Current System
QB Model
Legal Status of Bank Money
Not legal tender, accepted in practice
Legal tender, state-backed
Money Creation Control
Private banks, minimal state oversight
State records credits, manages reflux
Depositor Risk
Potential loss in bank failure (FDIC up to $250,000)
Segregated, no risk, no FDIC needed
National Debt Impact
High, e.g., U.S. $34T
Reduced, e.g., net $13T with $21T credits
Regulatory Burden
High capital requirements (Basel III)
Lower, with state backstop
This table underscores the transformative potential of QB, particularly in legalizing bank money and enhancing stability.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The QB model presents a transformative approach to money creation and management, redefining the state-private bank relationship. By legalizing bank money, it resolves legal ambiguity, enhances resilience, and aligns with BIS goals of global financial stability. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this proposal further, provide additional data (e.g., country-specific M2 and debt figures), and engage in dialogue to refine its implementation. Please contact me at [Your Email] or [Your Phone] to continue this conversation.
Key Citations
  • Bank for International Settlements Official Website
  • Richard Werner's Quantity Theory of Credit