giovedì 6 novembre 2025

American Monetary Institute: Annual Monetary Reform Conference 2025 - Speeches

AMI Conference 2025: Avarice, Power, and the Future of Money

Opening of the Conference with Introductions by Steven Walsh and Dennis Kucinich
Oct 14, 2025
This opening session of the American Monetary Institute (AMI) 21st Annual Conference traces the origins and legacy of AMI, founded in 1996 by Stephen Zarlenga to study the history and science of money. The speaker highlights the Institute’s foundational works—The Lost Science of Money and Kaoru Yamaguchi’s Public Money—and their contributions to understanding how monetary power shifted from public to private hands. Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich joins to reflect on his transformative encounter with Zarlenga, which inspired the drafting of the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED) Act—legislation designed to reclaim the public’s authority over money creation. Kucinich shares how AMI’s research, coupled with the modeling of Yamaguchi and IMF economist Michael Kumhof, validated the potential for a debt-free public money system that serves people over profit. With gratitude to Zarlenga’s vision and Elizabeth Kucinich’s continued advocacy, this video celebrates AMI’s enduring ...
Kaoru Yamaguchi: The Birth of Public Money and Paradigm Shift in Economics as a Science
Sep 29, 2025
Kaoru Yamaguchi: The Birth of Public Money and Paradigm Shift in Economics as a Science. At the 2025 American Monetary Institute Conference, Professor Kaoru Yamaguchi presents his life’s work: a bold call for a paradigm shift from debt-based money to public money—an economic model grounded in sustainability, fairness, and transparency. Yamaguchi traces the evolution of his groundbreaking “Accounting System Dynamics” framework and its application to monetary reform through macroeconomic simulation. He explains how public money, unlike debt money, can eliminate national debt, prevent inflation, and promote full employment without recurring crises. Drawing from his collaborations with AMI founder Stephen Zarlenga and the Chicago Plan legacy, he critiques mainstream Keynesian and neoclassical theories as fundamentally flawed, arguing they ignore the structural failures that produce inequality and financial instability. The presentation also delves into Yamaguchi’s personal and academic journey, his dismissal for challenging economic orthodoxy, and his continued advocacy for ...
David Korten, Why Monetary Reform is Essential to a Viable Human Future
Oct 3, 2025
David Korten argues a viable future requires monetary transformation—democratize the Fed, issue debt-free sovereign money, protect pensions, and end Wall Street’s debt trap—so we can fund guaranteed living-wage jobs and an ecological civilization. He outlines a four-part agenda, cites New Deal precedents and greenbacks, critiques speculative finance and UBI, and urges localization, co-ops, and clear public education to reclaim money for people and planet.
Gretchen Morgenson These are the Plunderers How Private Equity Runs—and Wrecks—America
Oct 6, 2025
Private equity is reshaping America—and not for the better. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Gretchen Morgenson exposes how a handful of powerful financiers—“the plunderers”—have quietly gutted industries, destroyed jobs, and deepened inequality while enriching themselves through debt-fueled buyouts. In this riveting talk hosted by the American Monetary Institute, Morgenson breaks down how private equity preys on health care, education, housing, and even retirement funds, leaving behind what she calls a “circle of pain”: workers fired, patients neglected, pensioners robbed, and communities hollowed out. Drawing from her book These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs and Wrecks America, she reveals how PE firms operate in secrecy, exploit tax loopholes, and lobby to protect their wealth while the public shoulders the cost. Morgenson’s reporting highlights real victims—teachers in Missouri, patients in nursing homes, families like the Watsons—and calls for accountability, transparency, and legislative reform like the Stop ...
Robert Hockett: The Socialization of Investment
Oct 14, 2025
Cornell Law Professor Robert Hockett outlines his vision for democratizing capital and restructuring finance to serve public, not private, interests. Drawing from his new book Making Capital Democratic, Hockett explains why decentralized production requires more centralized, publicly accountable finance. He identifies two key dynamics—the endogeneity of money and recursive collective action problems—that make unregulated markets unstable and speculative. Hockett argues that to sustain real production, finance must be “socialized” through practical, minimal reforms rather than revolutionary upheaval. He presents a five-part plan, including creating a National Reconstruction and Continuous Development Council, upgrading the Federal Financing Bank to invest in productive sectors, restoring the Fed’s pre-1935 development role, digitizing Treasury accounts to create a universal public payment platform (“digital greenbacks”), and sharing national growth dividends with all citizens. Hockett’s framework shows how modest policy shifts could redirect credit toward long-term prosperity, justice, and sustainability—reviving the public ...
Morgan Ricks Monetary System Design Some First Principles
Oct 7, 2025
In this thought-provoking lecture, Professor Morgan Ricks, a leading expert in financial regulation and author of The Money Problem, challenges the way we think about money, banking, and public finance. Drawing from his work at the U.S. Treasury and Vanderbilt University, Ricks argues that banking law is monetary system design—a central element of democratic governance rather than a technical afterthought. He explores the fundamental questions: What is money? Who should issue it? How should it serve the public? Starting from “first principles,” Ricks illustrates how our current system—dominated by private bank money creation—creates instability, inequality, and financial fragility. He proposes a return to a public-utility model of banking, inspired by New Deal frameworks, where banks operate as franchises of the state, ensuring universal access, accountability, and stability. The discussion expands to shadow banking, stablecoins, and the moral economy of money, offering a blueprint for rebuilding a ...
Bruce Woll Who is David Ciepley and Why He Matters
Oct 7, 2025
In this powerful lecture, Dr. Bruce Wall explores the groundbreaking work of scholar David Ciepley, unpacking his challenge to neoliberal ideology and corporate domination. Wall explains how Ciepley’s writings illuminate the deep connection between corporations, democracy, and monetary reform — revealing that the true problem lies not in technical economics but in ideology itself. Drawing from religion, history, and political philosophy, Wall describes the “Great Inversion,” when corporations transformed from public franchises under government authority into self-declared private masters, reversing their original democratic purpose. He urges reclaiming corporations as public creations meant to serve collective wellbeing rather than private greed. Ciepley and Wall both emphasize that democracy’s survival depends on redefining corporate personhood, reasserting public authority over the franchise relationship, and recognizing corporations as stewards — not sovereigns — of public power.
Leah Downey Our Money Monetary Policy as if Democracy Matters
Oct 7, 2025
Dr. Leah Downey, a rising scholar in political theory, challenges the long-held belief that central banks must remain independent from democratic oversight. In this compelling talk, she argues that insulating institutions like the Federal Reserve undermines both democratic accountability and state capacity. Drawing from her forthcoming book, Downey proposes an iterative governance model—where elected legislators regularly review, steer, and re-charter central bank policy—to replace the outdated “guardrails and compliance” framework. She explains that monetary policy cannot be treated as a purely technical or neutral domain; rather, it shapes the real economy and people’s lives, making it inseparable from democratic decision-making. Using recent examples of political interference in the Fed, she warns that both authoritarian control and technocratic insulation threaten genuine self-rule. The conversation expands through insightful audience questions on the Fed’s bias toward private financial interests, global inequality, and the historic struggle to reclaim public authority ...
Mehrsa Baradaran on Money, Empire, and the Racial Wealth Divide
Oct 7, 2025
Neoliberalism and the Looting of America: How the Financial System increases the Racial Wealth Gap and Deepens Income-Based Class Inequality In this powerful lecture, Professor Mehrsa Baradaran exposes how neoliberalism and the modern financial system have fueled racial and economic inequality across centuries. She traces money’s origins in slavery, empire, and patriarchy—showing how law, capital, and ideology intertwine to sustain extraction and dispossession. Connecting the evolution of money from gold-backed empires to the rise of neoliberal capitalism, she argues that our current system—driven by corporate charters, privatization, and debt—is a continuation of colonial plunder by new means. Baradaran calls this the “quiet coup”: a capture of democracy by financial elites and market fundamentalism. Through historical and legal analysis, she reveals how neoliberal policies transformed banks into engines of profit rather than public service, worsening racial wealth divides and debt slavery. Yet, she ends with a challenge: ...
Sam Hummel - Building Multi-Issue Coalitions that Can Win Monetary Reforms
Oct 7, 2025
Monetary reform researcher Sam explores how social movements can gain political power by bridging the gap between monetary reform advocates and issue-focused campaigns like climate justice, debt relief, and human rights. Drawing from 45 in-depth interviews with activists, academics, and policymakers, he presents strategic insights on coalition-building, shared narratives, and the political opportunities that arise when movements recognize how the money system shapes every social and ecological struggle. Sam emphasizes that while reformers have deep institutional knowledge, broader movements bring political clout, grassroots energy, and policy influence—making collaboration essential for systemic change. The study reveals major barriers, from lack of awareness about money creation to limited dialogue, but also highlights successful cross-issue models like public banking coalitions. Ultimately, Sam calls for coordinated education, shared language, and a united push to transform monetary systems into tools for ecological balance, justice, and collective well-being.
From Glass-Steagall to Stablecoins: David Dayen on the Corporate Coup in Finance
Oct 7, 2025
How Wall Street Is Moving to Silicon Valley: How Financial Deregulation Led Wall Street to Monopolize the American Economy. Award-winning journalist David Dayen, Executive Editor of The American Prospect and author of Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power, explores how decades of financial deregulation allowed Wall Street to monopolize nearly every sector of the U.S. economy—and how Silicon Valley is now taking over finance itself. Tracing the story from the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the rise of “too big to fail” banks to the emergence of shadow banking and fintech, Dayen explains how consolidation in finance fuels monopoly power across industries—from airlines to healthcare to Amazon. He warns that deregulated crypto and private equity markets are paving the way for the next financial crisis, as Big Tech moves to dominate payment systems and private currencies through stablecoins and the GENIUS Act. Yet, Dayen also highlights ...
Michael Hudson Temples of Enterprise Debt, Finance, and Society from Antiquity to Today
Oct 8, 2025
In this wide-ranging lecture, economist Dr. Michael Hudson explores how ancient Bronze Age societies like Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria managed to build stable, balanced economies by treating money, debt, and credit as public utilities—a model he contrasts with today’s privatized, debt-driven capitalism. Hudson explains how early rulers used debt jubilees (clean slates) to prevent wealth polarization and maintain social stability, ensuring cultivators retained their land and independence. He traces how this system unraveled through climate crises, invasions, and the rise of creditor oligarchies, culminating in the inequality of Greece and Rome. Hudson connects these historical lessons to modern times, warning that today’s financialized economies mirror late-stage Rome, where oligarchs, banks, and monopolies dominate. He calls for restoring public control over money creation and credit allocation—akin to the Chicago Plan or China’s state-directed credit system—to prevent economic collapse and revive balance between labor, government, and ...
Spaceship Earth 101: How Public Money Can Save People and Planet, by Nick Egnatz
Oct 8, 2025
Nick’s presentation explores how our current banking system fuels inequality and environmental destruction—and how publicly created money could restore balance and justice. A Vietnam veteran, father, and long-time activist, Nick embodies the “everyman hero” who transformed from believing that money was created by governments to uncovering the truth: private banks create money as debt. He explains the historical roots of this system, from goldsmiths to the Federal Reserve, and contrasts it with the Chicago Plan and NEED Act—proposals for sovereign money issued by the people’s government. Drawing from his three books—Money Creation 101, History of Money 101, and Spaceship Earth 101—Nick connects monetary reform to social justice, climate action, and economic equality. He argues that a sovereign money system could eliminate debt dependency, fund social safety nets, and tackle climate change. The session ends with a passionate discussion on how reforming money creation is essential to democracy, ...
Adrian Kuzminski: A Monetary Theory You Never Heard of Classical American Populism and Public Bankin
Oct 8, 2025
This talk dives into the forgotten populist roots of American monetary reform, tracing the lineage from Jeffersonian ideals to 19th-century populism and the visionary work of Edward Kellogg. Scholar Adrien presents a reinterpretation of Kellogg’s “national public banking” concept — a decentralized, democratically run system of local public banks coordinated by a central public clearinghouse. Unlike modern fiat systems or private debt money models, Kellogg’s framework sought to end usury through fixed 1% loans backed by real collateral, creating a self-regulating, interest-limited economy rooted in justice and sustainability. Adrien situates this model within the populist vision of balancing private and public property — a “third way” between libertarianism and socialism — aiming to restore individual access to capital as a natural right. The presentation explores how such a system could achieve economic freedom, social fairness, and ecological stability, while audience members probe its historical grounding, practical implementation, and relevance to today’s ...
Joseph Arminio The Dire Perils of Stablecoin
Oct 8, 2025
In this thought-provoking discussion, Dr. Joseph Armenio—political scientist, defense consultant, and founder of the Statesman Debate Institute—traces his journey from advocating the gold standard to becoming a champion of public banking. Reflecting on his transformation, Dr. Armenio exposes how private central banking has long dominated U.S. monetary policy and warns that digital currencies, particularly stablecoins, could cement that control. He explains how stablecoins, though marketed as innovations, may serve as tools for deeper financial surveillance and economic bondage—effectively a “backdoor” to central bank digital currencies. Joined by moderator Stephen Zarlenga and Ellen Brown of the Public Banking Institute, the conversation explores bipartisan barriers to reform, the moral flaws of debt-based money, and historical precedents like colonial Pennsylvania’s public credit system. Together, they call for unity between conservatives and progressives to end corporate control of money and reestablish public monetary sovereignty before the window for reform ...
John G Root Jr Money Issuance The Primary Tool of the Sovereign
Oct 8, 2025
John Root delivers an illuminating and deeply human exploration of money as the primary tool of sovereignty. Drawing from thinkers like Rudolf Steiner, Michael Hudson, and Stephen Zarlenga, Root reframes money not as a commodity or debt instrument, but as a measure of value—a political and moral power that should serve humanity, not dominate it. He proposes renaming the unit of value “Juno” and the means of exchange “Moneta,” reviving their ancient Roman roots. Root envisions a world where banking operates as a public utility, unburdened by interest, enabling communities to issue money for the common good. Through concepts like “spontaneous order” and restorative justice, he argues that human cooperation—not coercion—naturally generates harmony and abundance. The talk transitions from economic theory to lived experience, weaving together ideas of sovereignty, equity, and moral purpose. Root challenges listeners to practice sociocracy, community banking, and volunteer-based economies, redefining wealth as ...
National Money – Shifting the Debate to the Next Level
Oct 8, 2025
This presentation features Hungarian economists Gergely and Gábor sharing their groundbreaking research on sovereign money reform and financial system redesign. They explain how the current global monetary architecture—dominated by private money creation through banks—produces systemic instability, inequality, and chronic underfunding of public needs. Drawing on years of empirical research, they illustrate how nations could regain monetary sovereignty by returning money creation to the public sector, potentially reclaiming 4–6% of GDP annually. Their work explores the structural flaws of the present system, including legal and ideological barriers rooted in IMF and central bank regulations, and offers pathways toward stability and equity through full-reserve banking and national electronic currencies. The speakers also stress the importance of education, legislation, and grassroots mobilization to achieve reform. The talk concludes with questions from the audience about GDP differences, interest rate disparities, and the transformative potential of full employment under a sovereign money system.
Richard Robbins: Mean, Stupid Money — How Debt Rules Our World (and How to Take It Back)
Oct 8, 2025
In this insightful lecture, Professor Richard Robbins—renowned anthropologist and author of Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism—traces the origins and consequences of our debt-based monetary system, arguing that it has become the central organizing principle of modern life. Robbins explains how the 1694 founding of the Bank of England institutionalized money creation as interest-bearing debt, locking the global economy into a cycle demanding perpetual growth, deepening inequality, and fueling authoritarian power. He examines how this structure drives environmental destruction, financialization of everyday life, the erosion of privacy through surveillance capitalism, and the consolidation of wealth and political control among a small elite. Drawing on thinkers like Michael Hudson, David Korten, and Thomas Piketty, Robbins connects economic theory with lived realities—illustrating how debt money sustains corporate domination and democratic decay. In closing, he offers potential paths of resistance, including a “party of the 99%,” strategic debt strikes, and reclaiming ...
Les Leopold: Building a Worker-Led Political Revolution
Oct 8, 2025
Les Leopold closes his talk by calling for a worker-led political realignment rooted in solidarity and economic rights. He challenges reliance on the Democratic Party, arguing that it is structurally tied to Wall Street and incapable of meaningful reform. Instead, he urges building an independent, union-based political movement to advance ideas like voluntary layoff buyouts, a 32-hour workweek, and public ownership of finance through public banking. Leopold connects monetary reform to job insecurity, linking mass layoffs, automation, and debt to concentrated corporate power. He draws parallels to MLK’s Freedom Budget and the New Deal, advocating for social democracy centered on economic rights—decent jobs, fair wages, and political power for workers. He calls for uniting unions, public banking advocates, and monetary reformers to create a broad, education-driven movement capable of confronting the billionaire class and democratizing the economy from the ground up.
Geoff Crocker - Rethinking Income and Money:Incorporating Technology Into Economic Theory
Oct 8, 2025
Economist Jeff Crocker argues that automation is shrinking labor’s share of income—especially for the lowest-income households—so welfare income (potentially a modest UBI) becomes a structural necessity. He reframes “affordability” for governments as a real-resources question (land, labor, materials, technology) rather than an accounting balance, and contends money is not debt at the moment of creation. He critiques QE as a costly, distortionary way to fund public spending and favors direct money financing that avoids arbitrary debt ceilings and austerity. Beyond money, he urges economics to explicitly integrate technology’s effects on production, employment, prices, and inequality, challenging neoclassical price-centric models with more behavioral and realistic approaches. In Q&A, participants probe UBI vs. targeted welfare, social credit and national dividends, whether money is inherently “debt,” ecological limits (AI’s energy use, donut economics), universal basic services, and practical mechanics for distributing sovereign money. Crocker maintains rising automation ...
Oliver Heydorn - Douglas Social Credit: Restoring Honesty and Functionality to the Financial System
Oct 9, 2025
Dr. Oliver Heydorn, founder of the Clifford Hugh Douglas Institute for the Study and Promotion of Social Credit, introduces Douglas Social Credit as a comprehensive monetary reform model that addresses both justice and functionality in the financial system. He argues that while equity in money creation is important, functionality—ensuring that the system accurately reflects the real economy—is the true foundation of fairness. The talk explores the chronic “price-income gap,” where production costs outpace consumer income, causing artificial scarcity, debt dependence, and instability. Heydorn outlines how the Douglas model proposes solutions through a National Credit Office, national dividend, and compensated price system—mechanisms designed to inject debt-free credit, ensure honest accounting, and decentralize economic power. He contrasts Douglas’s approach with the AMI and NEED Act proposals, advocating for a balance between public oversight and private initiative. The presentation ends with a discussion on restoring honesty, stability, and freedom ...
Mario Marti?nez Lorenzo - Can Money Creation Be Much Simpler?
Oct 9, 2025
Can Money Creation Be Much Simpler? Untangling Public And Private Roles - Unleashing Prosperity for All Economist Mario Martínez presents a clear, passionate case for simplifying the modern monetary system by separating public and private roles in money creation. Speaking at the AMI Conference, he explains how banks create risk at the core of our payment infrastructure—forcing society to support fragile institutions through bailouts, deposit insurance, and complex regulations. Martínez proposes a radical yet practical alternative: a public digital currency issued debt-free, available to all, and operating alongside cash. He argues that such public money could make the economy more stable, democratic, and transparent—freeing society from dependence on bank-created debt and endless bailouts. Through balance sheet examples and systemic analysis, he shows how public money could empower governments, reduce inequality, and end the parasitic debt cycle. His talk connects monetary reform to social justice, sustainability, and ...
David Ciepley - After Neoliberalism: Toward a Stewardship Economy
Oct 9, 2025

mercoledì 5 novembre 2025

The Risks of the EU Commission's 'Kamikaze' Sanctions Against Russia

 The Risks of the EU Commission's 'Kamikaze' Sanctions Against Russia: Impact on the European Financial System

by Marco Saba, Italian Center for Monetary Studies, November 5, 2025

Video:


Summary
This paper examines the risks stemming from the EU Commission's "kamikaze" sanctions against Russia, defined as reckless and potentially self-destructive measures that aim to economically isolate Moscow but ultimately undermine European financial stability. Using data up to 2025, we analyze the impact on Central Securities Depositories (CSDs) such as Euroclear, the consequences of Russian lawsuits, and the macroeconomic effects on the EU. The sanctions, now in their 19th package, have generated temporary profits from frozen assets but expose the system to losses, litigation, and global fragmentation. We propose alternatives, such as a review of sanctions policies and the use of distributed ledger technology (DLT) to mitigate systemic risks. Estimates indicate potential costs to the EU of over €100 billion in indirect fallout.

JEL: F51; G01; G28; P45.

Keywords: EU-Russia Sanctions, Frozen Assets, Euroclear and Clearstream, Systemic Risks, CSD, Great Taking, Rehypothecation, CSDR and BRRD, DLT Tokenization, Quantitative Balancing, Financial Geopolitics, International Litigation, Bail-in Resolution, Security Entitlement.

Podcast:


1. Introduction
The EU Commission's sanctions against Russia, launched in 2022 in response to the invasion of Ukraine, have been described by some analysts as "kamikaze" for their aggressive and ill-calculated approach, sacrificing short-term European economic interests for geopolitical objectives. By 2025, with the 19th package adopted on October 23, these measures targeting energy, banks, and cryptocurrencies have intensified pressure on Moscow, but have also generated systemic risks for the EU, including legal disputes and financial vulnerabilities. This paper, linked to my previous work on Collateral Seigniorage, explores how these "unwise" choices could threaten the stability of European CSDs and the overall economy, focusing on frozen assets and Russian retaliation.

2. EU Sanctions: An Updated Overview to 2025
Since 2022, the EU has imposed 19 sanctions packages, which include bans on energy imports, financial restrictions, and the targeting of Russian and third-party entities (e.g., Chinese banks). In 2025, the focus is on strategic sectors: the 19th package targets Russian energy, third-party banks, and crypto providers, aiming to reduce Moscow's revenues by 5–10% annually. However, analyses such as those by the UK Parliament highlight that these measures have increased energy costs for the EU, contributing to a decline in European GDP of 0.5–1% in 2025. Critics call them "suicidal" because they foster global financial fragmentation, pushing non-Western countries towards alternatives such as the Russian NSD system.

3. Risks for CSDs: The Case of Euroclear and Clearstream
CSDs such as Euroclear and Clearstream hold the majority of frozen Russian assets (~€300 billion in total, of which €185-194 billion is held by Euroclear). These sanctions have generated interest income (€4.4 billion in 2024 for Euroclear), but also direct costs (€82 million) and business losses (€25 million) in 2025. Russian lawsuits pose a key risk: in September 2025, a Moscow court ordered Euroclear to pay $105.4 million in damages; in October, another order for frozen assets. If they escalate, they could erode Euroclear's balance sheet (€227 billion as of September 2025, with €193 billion tied to sanctioned assets), potentially causing systemic instability.
EU proposals to use these assets for loans to Ukraine (€140 billion) have been delayed due to Belgian concerns about legal risks and Russian retaliation, which could include expropriation of EU assets in Russia. Clearstream faces similar, but lesser, risks, given its smaller exposure. In an extreme scenario, a fallout could evoke "The Great Sting," with losses for original investors due to amplified rehypothecation.

Escalating Tensions: What Would Happen? 
If escalated, "kamikaze" sanctions could accelerate a vicious cycle. If the EU proceeds with the use or confiscation of frozen assets (e.g., to finance loans to Ukraine without full compensation), Russia could intensify legal and operational retaliation. For example, the Russian Central Bank could file multi-billion dollar lawsuits in Russian courts, ordering the seizure of Western assets in Russia or seeking damages for "illegal expropriation," as already seen in smaller cases. This could include cyberattacks on CSD infrastructure (e.g., disruption of settlement systems), amplifying fail rates and operating costs. Furthermore, third countries (e.g., China) could withdraw assets from European CSDs for fear of secondary sanctions, causing liquidity outflows estimated at tens of billions. Escalation could also fragment the global market, with Russia promoting alternatives such as its National Settlement Depository (NSD), reducing the role of Euroclear and Clearstream in international clearing.

CSD Failure: Hypothetical Scenario 
Although unlikely given the "too big to fail" nature of CSDs (protected by the CSDR and BRRD), a failure of Euroclear or Clearstream could result from a catastrophic escalation: cumulative losses from Russian lawsuits (>€10-20 billion), combined with secondary sanctions and cyber disruption. In such a scenario, the CSD would enter resolution: asset freeze, creditor bail-in, and state intervention (e.g., Belgium for Euroclear). Settlement fails could exceed 10% of daily volume (~€1 trillion), causing operational and reputational losses. Fitch Ratings notes that operational risks (including system failures) are key for Euroclear, and a rating downgrade could accelerate the collapse. Clearstream, part of Deutsche Börse, could suffer a domino effect, impacting EU equity markets.

Consequences for Original Title Owners 
For the original owners (retail investors, pension funds), the consequences would be devastating, echoing David Webb's "Great Taking" concept: in a CSD failure, rehypothecated securities (reused as collateral) would be seized by secured creditors under the EU Financial Collateral Directive and UCC Article 8. Security entitlements—contractual rights to dividends and coupons, not legal ownership—would evaporate, leaving investors as unsecured creditors last in line for recovery. Fungible assets in custody chains could be lost in a "ripple effect," with losses estimated in the hundreds of billions for EU pension funds. This would amplify inequalities, reduce trust in the financial system, and push for decentralized alternatives such as blockchain tokenization.

4. Economic Consequences for the EU
The "kamikaze" sanctions have amplified economic vulnerabilities: rising energy costs, declining exports to Russia, and financial fragmentation. Analyses indicate a negative impact on EU GDP of 0.5-1%, with sectors such as energy and finance most affected. Russia has responded with countermeasures, including bans on cryptocurrencies and third-party banks, which could cost the EU billions in lost opportunities. Furthermore, the delay in using frozen assets has exposed the EU to criticism for ineffectiveness, while Russia is exploiting domestic rulings for compensation.

5. Policy Implications
To mitigate these risks:
    1. Sanctions Review: Adopt a more selective approach, avoiding measures that harm the EU (e.g. focus on individuals rather than energy sectors). 
    2. CSD Protection: Strengthen CSDR with dedicated resolution funds for sanctioned assets and reuse limits (100% cap). 
    3. Targeted Taxation: Apply a 15% tax on profits from frozen assets, as in Collateral Seigniorage, to finance aid without legal risk. 
    4. Transition to DLT: Tokenize assets for direct ownership, reducing reliance on geopolitically vulnerable CSDs. 

6. Conclusion
The EU Commission's "kamikaze" sanctions, while aimed at weakening Russia, pose a systemic risk to the European economy, exposing CSDs like Euroclear to litigation and instability. As with Quantitative Balancing, it is essential to bring these hidden rents back to the public, through democratic discussion to avoid "economic suicide." Further research could quantify the net costs to the EU.

References
    • European Council (2025). 19th package of sanctions against Russia. 
    • Euroclear (2025). Q3 2025 Results. 
    • Reuters (2025). Russian court recovers $105.4 million from Euroclear. 
    • BBC (2025). EU fails to back frozen Russian cash loan. 
    • UK Parliament (2025). Sanctions against Russia: What has changed in 2025? 
    • Saba, M. (2025). Collateral Seigniorage: The "Grand Prize" Hidden in the Reuse of Clients' Proprietary Securities. 
    • Saba, M. (2025). Quantitative Balancing: A Nash Equilibrium Framework for Transparent Bank Accounting and Financial Stability. 
    • Webb, D. R, (2024). The Great Taking.

I Rischi delle Sanzioni 'Kamikaze' della Commissione UE contro la Russia

I Rischi delle Sanzioni 'Kamikaze' della Commissione UE contro la Russia: Impatto sul Sistema Finanziario Europeo
di Marco Saba, Centro Italiano di Studi Monetari, 5 novembre 2025

Video:


Sommario
Questo paper esamina i rischi derivanti dalle sanzioni "kamikaze" imposte dalla Commissione UE contro la Russia, definite come scelte imprudenti e potenzialmente autodistruttive che mirano a isolare economicamente Mosca ma finiscono per minare la stabilità finanziaria europea. Basandoci su dati aggiornati al 2025, analizziamo l'impatto sui Central Securities Depositories (CSD) come Euroclear, le conseguenze delle cause legali russe e gli effetti macroeconomici sull'UE. Le sanzioni, giunte al 19° pacchetto, hanno generato profitti temporanei da asset congelati ma espongono il sistema a perdite, contenziosi e frammentazione globale. Proponiamo alternative come una revisione delle politiche sanzionatorie e l'uso di DLT per mitigare rischi sistemici. Le stime indicano potenziali costi per l'UE superiori a €100 miliardi in fallout indiretti.

JEL: F51; G01; G28; P45.

Parole chiave: Sanzioni UE-Russia, Asset Congelati, Euroclear e Clearstream, Rischi Sistemici, CSD, Great Taking, Rehypothecation, CSDR e BRRD, DLT Tokenizzazione, Quantitative Balancing, Geopolitica Finanziaria, Contenziosi Internazionali, Bail-in Resolution, Security Entitlement.

Podcast:

1. Introduzione
Le sanzioni della Commissione UE contro la Russia, avviate nel 2022 in risposta all'invasione dell'Ucraina, sono state descritte da alcuni analisti come "kamikaze" per il loro approccio aggressivo e poco calcolato, che sacrifica interessi economici europei a breve termine per obiettivi geopolitici. Al 2025, con il 19° pacchetto adottato il 23 ottobre, queste misure targeting energia, banche e crypto hanno intensificato la pressione su Mosca, ma hanno anche generato rischi sistemici per l'UE, inclusi contenziosi legali e vulnerabilità finanziarie. Questo paper, collegato al mio precedente lavoro sul Signoraggio Collaterale, esplora come queste scelte "scellerate" possano minacciare la stabilità dei CSD europei e l'economia complessiva, con focus su asset congelati e ritorsioni russe.

2. Le Sanzioni UE: Una Panoramica Aggiornata al 2025
Dal 2022, l'UE ha imposto 19 pacchetti di sanzioni, che includono divieti su importazioni energetiche, restrizioni finanziarie e targeting di entità russe e terze (es. banche cinesi). Nel 2025, il focus è su settori strategici: il 19° pacchetto colpisce l'energia russa, banche terze e provider crypto, con l'obiettivo di ridurre le entrate di Mosca del 5-10% annuo. Tuttavia, analisi come quelle del Parlamento UK evidenziano che queste misure hanno aumentato i costi energetici per l'UE, contribuendo a un calo del PIL europeo dello 0.5-1% nel 2025. Critici le definiscono "suicide" perché favoriscono una frammentazione finanziaria globale, spingendo paesi non-occidentali verso alternative come il sistema russo NSD.

3. I Rischi per i CSD: Il Caso Euroclear e Clearstream
I CSD come Euroclear e Clearstream detengono la maggior parte degli asset russi congelati (~€300 mld totali, di cui €185-194 mld in Euroclear). Queste sanzioni hanno generato profitti da interessi (€4.4 mld nel 2024 per Euroclear), ma anche costi diretti (€82 mln) e perdite business (€25 mln) nel 2025. Le cause legali russe rappresentano un rischio chiave: nel settembre 2025, un tribunale di Mosca ha ordinato a Euroclear di pagare $105.4 mln in danni; nel ottobre, altro ordine per asset bloccati. Se escalassero, potrebbero erodere il bilancio di Euroclear (€227 mld al settembre 2025, con €193 mld legati ad asset sanzionati), potenzialmente causando instabilità sistemica.
Proposte UE per usare questi asset per prestiti a Ucraina (€140 mld) sono state ritardate per preoccupazioni belghe su rischi legali e ritorsioni russe, che potrebbero includere espropriazioni di asset UE in Russia. Clearstream affronta rischi simili, ma minori, data la minore esposizione. In uno scenario estremo, un "fallout" potrebbe evocare "La Grande Stangata", con perdite per investitori originali dovute a rehypothecation amplificata.

Escalation delle Tensioni: Cosa Succederebbe? 
In caso di escalation, le sanzioni "kamikaze" potrebbero accelerare un circolo vizioso. Se l'UE procedesse con l'uso o la confisca degli asset congelati (es. per finanziare prestiti all'Ucraina senza compensazione integrale), la Russia potrebbe intensificare le ritorsioni legali e operative. Ad esempio, la Banca Centrale Russa potrebbe intentare cause multimiliardarie nei tribunali russi, ordinando sequestri di asset occidentali in Russia o richiedendo danni per "espropriazione illegale", come già visto in casi minori. Questo potrebbe includere cyber-attacchi su infrastrutture CSD (es. disruption di settlement systems), amplificando i fail rates e i costi operativi. Inoltre, paesi terzi (es. Cina) potrebbero ritirare asset da CSD europei per paura di sanzioni secondarie, causando outflow di liquidità stimati in decine di miliardi. L'escalation potrebbe anche frammentare il mercato globale, con la Russia che promuove alternative come il suo National Settlement Depository (NSD), riducendo il ruolo di Euroclear e Clearstream nel clearing internazionale.

Fallimento di un CSD: Scenario Ipotetico 
Sebbene improbabile data la natura "too big to fail" dei CSD (protetti da CSDR e BRRD), un fallimento di Euroclear o Clearstream potrebbe derivare da un'escalation catastrofica: perdite cumulative da cause legali russe (>€10-20 mld), combinate con sanzioni secondarie e cyber disruption. In tale scenario, il CSD entrerebbe in resolution: congelamento di asset, bail-in di creditori e intervento statale (es. Belgio per Euroclear). I fail di settlement potrebbero superare il 10% del volume giornaliero (~€1 trilione), causando perdite operative e reputazionali. Fitch Ratings nota che rischi operativi (inclusi sistemi failure) sono chiave per Euroclear, e un downgrade del rating potrebbe accelerare il collasso. Clearstream, parte di Deutsche Börse, potrebbe subire un effetto domino, con impatti su mercati azionari UE.

Conseguenze per i Proprietari Originali dei Titoli 
Per i proprietari originali (investitori retail, fondi pensione), le conseguenze sarebbero devastanti, richiamando il concetto di "Great Taking" di David Webb: in un fallimento CSD, i titoli rehypothecated (riutilizzati come collaterale) verrebbero sequestrati da creditori privilegiati sotto la Financial Collateral Directive UE e UCC Article 8. I "security entitlement" – diritti contrattuali a dividendi e cedole, non proprietà legale – evaporerebbero, lasciando gli investitori come unsecured creditors ultimi in linea per il recovery. Asset fungibili in catene di custodia potrebbero essere persi in un "ripple effect", con perdite stimate in centinaia di miliardi per pension funds UE. Questo amplificherebbe disuguaglianze, riducendo fiducia nel sistema finanziario e spingendo verso alternative decentralizzate come la tokenizzazione blockchain.

4. Conseguenze Economiche per l'UE
Le sanzioni "kamikaze" hanno amplificato vulnerabilità economiche: aumento dei costi energetici, calo delle esportazioni verso Russia e frammentazione finanziaria. Analisi indicano un impatto negativo sul PIL UE dello 0.5-1%, con settori come l'energia e la finanza più colpiti. La Russia ha risposto con contromisure, inclusi divieti su crypto e banche terze, che potrebbero costare all'UE miliardi in opportunità perdute. Inoltre, il ritardo nel uso degli asset congelati ha esposto l'UE a critiche per inefficacia, mentre la Russia sfrutta sentenze domestiche per compensazioni.

5. Implicazioni di Policy
Per mitigare questi rischi:
    1. Revisione delle Sanzioni: Adottare un approccio più selettivo, evitando misure che danneggiano l'UE (es. focus su individui anziché settori energetici). 
    2. Protezione dei CSD: Rafforzare CSDR con fondi di resolution dedicati per asset sanzionati e limiti al reuse (cap 100%). 
    3. Tassazione Mirata: Applicare una tassa del 15% sui profitti da asset congelati, come nel Signoraggio Collaterale, per finanziare aiuti senza rischi legali. 
    4. Transizione a DLT: Tokenizzare asset per proprietà diretta, riducendo dipendenza da CSD vulnerabili a geopolitica. 

6. Conclusione
Le sanzioni "kamikaze" della Commissione UE, pur mirate a indebolire la Russia, rappresentano un rischio sistemico per l'economia europea, esponendo CSD come Euroclear a contenziosi e instabilità. Come nel Quantitative Balancing, è essenziale ricondurre queste rendite occulte alla collettività, discutendone democraticamente per evitare un "suicidio economico". Ulteriori ricerche potrebbero quantificare i costi netti per l'UE.

Riferimenti
    • Euroclear (2025). Q3 2025 Results. 
    • Reuters (2025). Russian court recovers $105.4 million from Euroclear. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/russian-court-recovers-1054-million-damages-euroclear-ria-reports-2025-09-03/ 
    • BBC (2025). EU fails to back frozen Russian cash loan. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8v0zyx9zyo 
    • UK Parliament (2025). Sanctions against Russia: What has changed in 2025? https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10342/CBP-10342.pdf
    • Saba, M. (2025). Collateral Seigniorage: The "Grand Prize" Hidden in the Reuse of Clients' Proprietary Securities. https://www.academia.edu/144800749/Collateral_Seigniorage_The_Grand_Prize_Hidden_in_the_Reuse_of_Clients_Proprietary_Securities 
    • Saba, M. (2025). Quantitative Balancing: A Nash Equilibrium Framework for Transparent Bank Accounting and Financial Stability. https://www.academia.edu/142942995/Quantitative_Balancing_A_Nash_Equilibrium_Framework_for_Transparent_Bank_Accounting_and_Financial_Stability
    • Webb, D.R. (2024). La Grande Stangata.

venerdì 31 ottobre 2025

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) originale, MMT italiana e/o Bilanciamento Quantitativo (QB)

Confronto tra Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) originale, MMT italiana e Quantitative Balancing (QB)

Di SuperGtok, 31 ottobre 2025

La Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) originale è una teoria macroeconomica per economie sovrane; la MMT italiana ne è un adattamento euro-scettico con proposte di uscita dalla moneta unica; il Quantitative Balancing (QB), come descritto nel documento di Marco Saba, è un framework di riforma contabile e legale per il sistema bancario, che riclassifica i depositi come passività sovrane (signoraggio liabilities) verso il Tesoro, trattando le banche come custodi e imponendo oneri di signoraggio per allineare incentivi via Nash Equilibrium. QB si basa su letteratura post-keynesiana e endogena (simile a MMT), ma si focalizza su trasparenza contabile piuttosto che su politica fiscale diretta, riducendo rischio sistemico (12-18 bp di probabilità di default) e integrando varianti anti-usura compatibili con finanza islamica, IFRS e CBDC.

Ecco un confronto strutturato in tabella:


Aspetto

MMT Originale (americana/australiana)

MMT Italiana (adattamento eurozona)

Quantitative Balancing (QB) dal documento

Applicabilità principale

Economie con moneta sovrana piena (fluttuante, non convertibile, es. USA, UK, Giappone). Non per eurozona.

Contesto eurozona: prerequisito uscita dall'euro per sovranità; piano transitorio per Italia.



Riforma bancaria globale (ad es. UE, US, UK, Giappone), con focus su armonizzazione IFRS e cross-border (es. clausole Rome I). Applicabile anche in unioni monetarie, senza richiedere uscita immediata.


Ruolo della spesa pubblica

Crea moneta ex novo (spende prima di tassare); deficit come surplus privato per piena occupazione.


Simile, ma post-uscita: spesa in valuta nazionale crea domanda; enfasi su investimenti costituzionali (art. 1-4 Cost. IT).



Non centrale (focus su accounting bancario), ma rafforza sovranità statale: depositi riclassificati come passività verso il Tesoro, equilibrando creazione moneta autonoma delle banche con la distribuzione del signoraggio allo Stato.


Funzione delle tasse

Distruggono moneta per anti-inflazione, valore valuta e redistribuzione; non finanziano spesa.


Idem, con tasse progressive anti-disuguaglianze post-austerity; proposta su transazioni finanziarie per drenare speculazione.



Non esplicita, ma signoraggio come "tassa" sulle banche per creazione moneta legale (operating expense), drenando profitti opachi e riducendo moral hazard; allinea con anti-usura (spese trasparenti invece di interessi).


Gestione del debito pubblico

Non vincolo: Stato ripaga con moneta creata; interessi come trasferimento, non sistemico.

Critica debito euro come "trappola" (spread BCE); piano per ridenominazione graduale senza default.



Riduce il peso del debito attraverso riclassificazione: depositi non più passività bancarie, ma segregati per la clientela con riconoscimento del signoraggio allo Stato; la variante anti-usura elimina intererssi composti, abbassando rischio sistemico (empirico: -12-18 bp default prob.).


Politica di cambio e moneta

Fluttuante gestita da banca centrale; no focus su unioni.

Nuova lira introdotta via spesa/tassazione; cambio stabilizzato da BC, usando art. 50 TUE per uscita ordinata.


Non primaria, ma considera frizioni cross-border (es. UCC Art. 4A vs. UE law); compatibile con CBDC sovrane per moneta debt-free. Enfatizza sovereign monetary authority (TFEU Art. 127).


Proposte politiche e radicalismo

Descrittiva/keynesiana: Job Guarantee per occupazione; anti-inflazione via risorse reali. Meno "rivoluzionaria".

Sovranista/interventista: uscita UE in 2 anni, moneta pubblica senza rentier; radicale per Italia (benessere costituzionale).


Riforma contabile: Equilibrio di Nash (banche-Tesoro-depositanti) per stabilità; implementazione graduale (sandbox testing), armonizzazione legale; integrabile con etica islamica (no riba). Più tecnica che politica, ma radicale su trasparenza.


Critiche principali

Rischio iperinflazione senza calibrazione; sottovaluta geopolitica.

"Populista" per euro-exit; ignora ritorsioni UE; debito 150% PIL IT.

Implementation gaps (transizioni, costi regolatori); frizioni cross-border; limitato a banking, non macro-fiscale; gaps empirici su behavioral responses.


Influenze e autori chiave

Mosler, Wray, Mitchell: chartalismo, contabilità settoriale, post-keynesiana.

Mosler + italiani (Barnard, Carnovali); Costituzione IT, storia pre-euro.

Saba (Centro Studi Monetari IT); cita Werner (2016), BoE (2014), Bossone/Costa (2018-21), Keen (2011); post-keynesiana, moneta endogena, legale (Mann/Proctor 2022). Nash da Rosen (1965).



In sintesi, MMT (originale e italiana) è macro-policy oriented, enfatizzando spesa sovrana e tasse anti-inflazionarie per sovranità; QB è micro-reform (accounting/legal), complementare a MMT: condivide la critica alla creazione monetaria privata (endogena), ma usa la teoria dei giochi (Nash) per allineare gli incentivi bancari-statali, riducendo rentier e systemic risk senza alterare fiscal policy diretta. QB potrebbe integrare MMT italiana in un'uscita euro, armonizzando con IFRS per transizione. Per dettagli su implementazione QB (pagine 9+), il documento suggerisce sandbox e Monte Carlo analysis per validazione empirica.


Identificare la scelta migliore per lo Stato

Nell'interesse dello Stato – intendendo un'entità sovrana come l'Italia, con vincoli eurozonali, alto debito pubblico e necessità di stabilità finanziaria senza sconvolgimenti geopolitici – sceglierei il Quantitative Balancing (QB) come framework prioritario da adottare e implementare. Ti spiego il ragionamento passo per passo, basandomi sul confronto precedente e sull'analisi del documento fornito (che descrive QB come una riforma contabile e legale innovativa), integrando evidenze aggiornate al 2025. La mia scelta privilegia fattibilità, benefici immediati per la sovranità monetaria e riduzione del rischio sistemico, senza i costi elevati di un'uscita dall'euro (come proposta dalla MMT italiana) o l'inapplicabilità diretta della MMT originale.


1. Perché non la MMT originale?

  • È eccellente per stati con piena sovranità monetaria (es. USA o Giappone), dove lo Stato crea moneta spendendo direttamente, usando tasse solo per drenare inflazione e non per "finanziare" deficit. Ma per l'Italia, vincolata dal Trattato di Maastricht e dalla BCE, è inapplicabile senza una rottura istituzionale. Implementarla richiederebbe una moneta nazionale fluttuante, esponendo lo Stato a shock di cambio e speculazione (spread BTP-Bund già critici nel 2025). Benefici per lo Stato: alti in teoria (controllo totale sulla moneta), ma rischi geopolitici e legali (art. 127 TFEU) la rendono secondaria.

2. Perché non la MMT italiana?

  • È un adattamento brillante e contestualizzato, con piano transitorio per l'uscita dall'euro (via art. 50 TUE, simile a Brexit), introduzione della lira e spesa debt-free per piena occupazione costituzionale (art. 1-4 Cost.). Allinea tasse e spesa per redistribuzione e anti-inflazione, criticando il debito euro come "trappola rentier". Per lo Stato italiano, offrirebbe sovranità piena e riduzione del debito netto (da 150% PIL). Tuttavia, nel 2025, con tensioni UE post-pandemia e guerre ibride (es. sanzioni Russia), un'uscita forzata rischierebbe ritorsioni (default percepito, fuga capitali), come simulato in studi recenti. È radicale e visionaria, ma troppo disruptiva per un interesse statale "prudente" – priorità alla stabilità su rivoluzione immediata.

3. Perché il Quantitative Balancing (QB) è la scelta ottimale per lo Stato

  • QB, come delineato nel paper di Marco Saba (Italian Center for Monetary Studies, rev. 2024/2025), è una riforma mirata e incrementale che rafforza la sovranità statale senza stravolgere il sistema euro. Riclassifica i depositi bancari come "signoraggio liabilities" verso il Tesoro (non debiti privati), trattando le banche come custodi statali. Questo cattura il signoraggio (profitto dalla creazione moneta) per lo Stato, riducendo la creazione autonoma di moneta-debito da parte delle banche private e allineando incentivi via Nash Equilibrium (un equilibrio stabile tra banche, Tesoro e depositanti, dove nessuno devia unilateralmente, per massimizzare payoff: profitti bancari netti - signoraggio; revenue statale da signoraggio; sicurezza depositi).

  • Benefici chiave per lo Stato (evidenziati dal documento e aggiornamenti 2025):

    • Sovranità monetaria rafforzata: Lo Stato riacquista controllo sul 90-95% della moneta creata endogenamente dalle banche (cfr. Werner 2016, BoE 2014), senza bisogno di uscire dall'euro. I rimborsi del signoraggio (oneri operativi per banche) generano entrate statali (stima marginale su profitti bancari, ma +12-18 bp riduzione probabilità default sistemico via Monte Carlo su dati UE/US/UK/JP).

    • Stabilità finanziaria: Riduce moral hazard e systemic risk (es. crisi tipo 2008), separando la policy monetaria dalle attività commerciali bancarie. Compatibile con IFRS, CBDC sovrane e finanza islamica (variante anti-usura con fee trasparenti vs. interessi), ideale per diversificazione etica.

    • Implementazione fattibile: Phased (2-3 anni): sandbox testing regolatorio, armonizzazione legale (Rome I per cross-border), transizione via clausole contrattuali. Nel 2025, paper correlati (es. "Solving the Conundrum of Banks' Cash Flow Statements" su Academia.edu) confermano validazione empirica, con basso impatto su profitti bancari ma alto su trust pubblico.

    • Integrazione con MMT: Complementare – QB "prepara il terreno" per MMT italiana, drenando moneta privata e distribuendo signoraggio, riducendo il peso del debito senza portare austerity.

  • Rischi minimi: A differenza di MMT italiana (shock euro), QB è reversibile e UE-compatibile (TFEU art. 127), con costi regolatori bassi (gap policy colmati da armonizzazione). Nel contesto 2025, con inflazione persistente e debito UE in calo ma fragile, offre priorità a riforme tecniche che catturino valore statale dal banking privato.

Confronto sintetico in tabella (focus su interesse statale)


Aspetto per lo Stato

MMT Originale

MMT Italiana

Quantitative Balancing (QB)


Sovranità monetaria


Alta (ma solo post-sovranità)


Alta (post-uscita euro)


Media-alta (incrementale, cattura signoraggio)


Riduzione rischio sistemico


Media (via piena occupazione)


Bassa (shock transitorio)


Alta (-12-18 bp default; Nash stability)


Revenue statale


Da spesa/tasse dirette


Da moneta debt-free


Da signoraggio bancario (marginale ma stabile)


Fattibilità 2025 (Italia)


Bassa (vincoli UE)


Media (rischi geopolitici)


Alta (riforma contabile, IFRS-compatibile)


Costo implementazione


Alto (riforma costituzionale)


Alto (exit plan)


Basso (sandbox, 2-3 anni)



In conclusione, QB è la scelta pragmatica: massimizza controllo statale sul money creation privato, minimizza instabilità e si integra con visioni MMT per un'evoluzione graduale. Per l'Italia 2025, è un "ponte" verso la sovranità piena senza giocare d’azzardo.