mercoledì 30 dicembre 2020

La moneta mariana: un progetto per l'attuazione della dottrina sociale della Chiesa


Rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno

Ispirandoci alla Madonna dei debitori e all'ultimo scritto di Jacques Maritain, stiamo preparando un testo divulgativo che mostrerà una proposta su come sia possibile creare ed amministrare una moneta sociale etica rispettando i principi contabili fin dal momento dell'emissione.
   La moneta mariana è un mezzo, una misura di valore che ha il valore della misura per convenzione. Starà poi alla dottrina sociale della Chiesa gestirne la distribuzione, attuando la massima per cui "gli ultimi saranno i primi".

Piano dell'opera (provvisorio):
La Moneta Mariana
- Prefazione
Indice:
- Moneta, denaro creditizio e bilanci bancari contemporanei
- Tentativi attuali di (non)riforma monetaria
- La Dottrina Sociale della Chiesa e il credito sociale
- Lo strumento della moneta mariana per impedire l'usura e la corruzione
- La moneta mariana in rapporto alle altre religioni
- Proposte concrete per l'adozione della moneta mariana
- Bibliografia

Letture consigliate:

COMPENDIO DELLA DOTTRINA SOCIALE DELLA CHIESA
- Una Società Senza Denaro
Credito sociale e dottrina sociale della Chiesa
- L'ordinamento internazionale del sistema monetario
Debito: i primi 5.000 anni

Une Société Sans Argent
Le Crédit Social et la doctrine sociale de l'Église
De la réforme du système monétaire à la monnaie sociale : l’apport théorique de P.J. Proudhon (1809-1865)

- A Society Without Money
- Distributivism and Catholic Social Teaching
- THE LOST TRADITION OF BIBLICAL DEBT CANCELLATIONS
- The Money PSYOP
- Can banks individually create money out of nothing ?
Social Credit and the Social Doctrine of the Church
- Social Credit: an impact
Sovereign Money in Critical Context
- Surplus producers and appropriators

martedì 26 giugno 2018

The Vatican and the International Monetary System

Speaker’s Corner
 .
The Vatican and the International Monetary System
 .
M.G. Hayes
.
Robinson College, University of Cambridge, Grange Road,
Cambridge CB3 9AN, UK
Published online: 10 Jan 2013.
Abstract
This paper considers the Note issued by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in 2011 calling for reform of the international financial and monetary systems. Three main themes are identified: (a) the inequality of global economic growth over the last century, (b) the failings of economic liberalism as a guide for the conduct of policy and (c) the need for a degree of transfer of sovereignty from individual states to the global level. This paper articulates the meaning of these themes in economic terms and illustrates the nature of the changes in thought and practice that the Note considers necessary in the interests of the common good.

Keywords:
Catholic Church, international monetary system, global governance,
financial transactions tax

The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has offered a reflection on the current economic and financial crisis (2011, hereafter “the Note”). I begin this piece with a short precis of the Note, with particular reference to the international monetary system, upon three principal themes: (a) the inequality of global economic growth over the last century, (b) the failings of so-called “economic liberalism” as a guide for the conduct of policy and (c) the need for a degree of transfer of sovereignty from individual states to the global level in order to make progress. I then articulate the meaning of these themes in economic terms and illustrate the nature of the changes in thought and practice that the Note considers necessary in the interests of achieving the common good.
The Pontifical Council writes that the Church is concerned with the common
good and therefore about the material resources necessary to achieve it. The last 60 years have seen unprecedented global economic growth but widening inequality within and between countries. The current crisis has its origins in the liberalisation of the financial system since the 1970s, culminating in the failure of Lehman, which led to the shattering of confidence and serious damage to the real economy, especially in the developing world.
The cause of this increasing inequality and of the crisis itself is an ideology of free markets and of opposition to appropriate regulation, particularly at the international level. Underpinning this ideology is a utilitarian philosophy and an individualist culture. One consequence is a technocratic, materialist outlook, which encourages the error that economic problems have merely technical solutions. The neglect of ethics and of social justice will lead to hostility and violence and threatens democracy. Successful policy will be based on an ethic of solidarity and the recognition that people are not commodities.
Pope John XXIII recognised in 1963 that an increasingly global society requires corresponding political structures in order to achieve the common good.
The progress of economic globalisation, together with concerns about security, human rights and the environment, has made more pressing the need for a renewed commitment to the reformation and extension of the scope of the United Nations in accordance with the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. Although the road will be long and difficult, the world needs to set its course towards a global political Authority at the service of the common good.
In the sphere of economics and finance, two factors have been historically
decisive: the loss by the Bretton Woods institutions since 1971 of their central role in global governance and the deregulation of finance. There is a need to renew the vision that led to Bretton Woods and return to a system of managed exchange rates with a global central bank. The primacy over economics and finance of a politics, grounded in the spiritual and ethical, needs to be restored so that markets and financial institutions may come to serve the human person and the common good.
The building of the necessary consensus will take time and a higher education that recognises the ethical dimension.
Despite its immense productive potential, the modern world lacks solid ethical foundations and a sense of purpose. In the face of present uncertainties, we need vision and imagination to transform society for the better. Over the centuries, rival clans and kingdoms gave way to modern states, and in a similar fashion the common good of peoples increasingly unified by globalisation now requires, as a moral imperative, a gradual, balanced transfer of sovereignty to a world Authority.
1 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
It is striking that the Note singles out what it calls “economic liberalism” for
criticism. This term appears to refer not only to neoliberal ideology but also to mainstream economic analysis itself. The criticism is not only of its tendency to favour free markets and discourage regulation, but more deeply of its methodological distinction between positive (economics) and normative (ethics) and its philosophical roots in utilitarianism. A particular criticism is that liberal economic thought is a form of “a priorism” that derives its policy prescriptions from axiomatic principles without reference to reality, an essentially unscientific enterprise. The Church was equally critical of Marxist economic thought for this very reason, as set out by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and John Paul II in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. It appears that Catholic thought on economic matters occupies quite distinct territory. Although both left and right have sought to appropriate them for their own policy agendas, the Church’s insights cannot be reduced to those terms. Commentators from the Catholic Right, more accustomed to the Church’s championing of the dignity and freedom of the human person, have greeted this latest Note with varying degrees of dismay.
The Note approaches economics at a meta-theoretical level, addressing the
principles upon which economic thought and policy should be based. People are to be treated not as commodities, but with the respect due to their intrinsic worth.
Social and economic problems cannot be addressed in purely technical terms (for example, “labour market flexibility”), without reference to ethics or culture.
In an echo of the ancient teaching on usury, the purpose of finance is to be
understood as the service of industry and not simply as the pursuit of profit
through the unbounded creation and trading of financial claims without reference to the proper needs of production, consumption and physical investment. The invisible hand cannot be relied upon to deliver the common good unaided.
Without prudence, temperance and charity in the form of solidarity, at all levels of society from the individual to the state, the market will often deliver unjust outcomes that undermine the fabric of democracy and ultimately threaten the existence of the market itself.
It is clear that the Church welcomes globalisation on the right terms. Economic growth is good insofar as it provides the material resources needed for human flourishing. The Note credits globalisation with the nearly fivefold increase in global income per capita between 1900 and 2000, while the world’s population increased almost fourfold. Nevertheless, these changes have been associated with increasing inequality both within and between countries. The Church finds this degree of inequality unjust and inconsistent with an authentic people-centred development. Citing the evidence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), increasing inequality is held to be the consequence of an inadequately managed process of globalisation.
The Note finds as a further major failing of the process of globalisation, since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the series of financial crises beginning with the 1973 oil crisis, through the developing country debt crises of the 1980s, together with the long series of currency and banking crises suffered by individual countries and regions but culminating in the 2008 global crisis.
These crises have caused hardship to untold millions. At the root of these crises, the Note identifies the uncontrolled growth of the financial sector consequent upon the liberalisation of capital movements between countries and the deregulation of the banking sector. In both cases, these reforms were justified by economic liberalism.
The Church’s message is at one level pragmatic. Multilateral cooperation has historically been good for growth, and both autarky and liberalisation much less so. Nevertheless, there were many development failures during the Bretton Woods era and the IMF system itself contained the seeds of its own destruction. It is not a question of going back to that particular regime but first of repudiating the doctrinaire rejection of such institutions by economic liberalism, itself often a thin veil for powerful vested interests. It is then necessary to consider why multilateral cooperation is so difficult and where the solutions may lie. This is where the Church’s positive vision and discernment can contribute.
As though the inequality of income and the hardships suffered by the poor in the crises produced by the current economic order were not a sufficient motive for reform, the Note points to the threat posed by them to the world as a whole.
Quoting Hobbes, who contrasts the solidarity between citizens with the enmity between their states, which “prey upon each other like wolves”, the Note warns that economic injustice creates a climate of growing hostility and violence and threatens to undermine democracy itself.
Although it is unlikely that many in authority are complacent about the current state of the world, the Note’s target is the assumption of economic liberalism that the solutions lie with the global extension of competitive markets, without a corresponding recognition of the need for stronger institutions at the international level and beyond that a change of heart that makes human dignity and the common good the underlying principles guiding the design of all institutions, including the social infrastructure of markets. The Note warns that economic liberalism may ultimately destroy the very freedom upon which it is based.
2 THE REFORM OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SYSTEM
Why might world government of the monetary system be necessary and in the interests of the common good?
Economic liberalism advocates flexible exchange rates and the liberalisation of capital, goods and labour markets. Optimal currency areas are largely defined in terms of the territorial limits of the free movement of labour as well as political expediency; if prices and wages were fully flexible, national currencies would be irrelevant. From this perspective, there is nothing to warrant the transfer of national sovereignty to a global, or even regional, level and indeed the role of the state within the national economy should be kept to the minimum required for markets to function smoothly.
There is a shared recognition among economists of all schools that the trade
imbalances between countries are a matter of concern but sharply diverging
analyses as to why. Mainstream commentators tend to attribute trade imbalances either to profligacy (by the public or private sector) or to allegedly protectionist practices, such as the pegging of the Chinese currency to the US dollar at too low a value. The normal prescriptions of thrift and free markets follow. By contrast, Keynesian economists emphasise the importance of long-run demand patterns in determining trade balances, the need for adjustments beyond changes in exchange rates and the absence of an easy tendency to balance of payments equilibrium. Thus, the trade balance becomes a force in itself such that a trade deficit requires a corresponding deficit on the part of either the public or private sector. For example, in the case of Greece, its increasing trade deficit post-1999 was largely matched by government borrowing, whereas in Spain it was mainly offset by often speculative private capital flows into construction. In the
USA, it has been a mixture of both public and private deficits financing
consumption.
Once the balance of payments is understood as a causal variable and indeed as a potential constraint on demand and economic growth, economists can no longer be indifferent to the form in which the trade deficit is financed. Private capital flows into a country only in the expectation that the inflow will be reversed over time by more than the initial amount to cover the investor’s profit. Therefore, it matters how the private inflows are invested and, in particular, they are only in the national interest if they can be expected to generate a surplus over the cost of capital, not simply in monetary terms, but in terms of net exports. This applies whether or not the country has its own currency or is part of a monetary union such as the Eurozone. In the absence of such investment opportunities, the country can
in the long run correct its balance of payments deficit not only by other, more direct methods of increasing net exports, including a reduction in the real exchange rate (whether by nominal devaluation or, much more difficult, by cuts in money wages), but also by industrial and trade policy, both of which are anathema to economic liberalism. There is an agreement that import restriction is generally to be regarded as a last resort because of its long-run implications for world trade and competitiveness, yet such measures, preferably on a multilateral basis, play a valid role when targeted against countries running persistent trade surpluses and thereby reducing global demand.
The Bretton Woods system was created in response to this Keynesian
understanding of the nature of the global market economy. Nevertheless, the flaws in that system demonstrate the need for government
super partes , beyond governance inter partes . The following three features stand out:
(a) The logic of the system required gradual exchange rate adjustments in line with changes in domestic price levels so as to maintain real exchange rates and, when necessary, change them in order to take account of changes in the economic fundamentals governing the balance of payments. In practice, the intellectual legacy of the gold standard and the national interests of member states made them reluctant either to devalue or to revalue, and the system became rigid and brittle. While the IMF had some power, in the form of access to finance, to persuade deficit countries to accept devaluation, it had no authority to impose it and a fortiori no means either to persuade or to compel surplus countries to accept a revaluation. Indeed, the original IMF articles reversed the onus and required IMF approval for exchange rate changes proposed by members in order to avoid the competitive devaluations of the 1930s.
(b) Apart from the IMF’s lack of authority to change the exchange rates, no
sanctions or financial penalties were imposed on countries in balance of
payments surplus. Although there was a “scarce currency clause” allowing
restrictions onimports from persistent surplus countries, this was never invoked.
Since the system as a whole had to balance, any tendency towards long-run
surplus among some members forced corresponding deficits on others. For many years, the USA was content to run a deficit in order to accommodate the surpluses of Germany, France and Japan, but this was unsustainable (the “Triffin dilemma”).
(c) The Bretton Woods system did not shake off the legacy of gold. As a gold
exchange standard, growth in international reserves required the issue of US dollars or sterling against an obligation to redeem in gold at a fixed parity. The US deficit could not continue indefinitely without the total liability exceeding the value of its gold reserves. After the devaluation of sterling in 1967, leading to the eventual suspension of gold convertibility by the USA in August 1971, the system was finished.

The Note calls for the creation of a world central bank as one condition of a stable international monetary regime. This would require addressing the major questions of the nature of the assets supporting the issue of a global reserve currency, the implications for the US dollar and other reserve currencies, and the implications for private capital flows. It seems likely that any new system would need to contain the following elements of government, as opposed to governance:
(a) A reformed IMF would need the authority and the economic capacity to fix exchange rates on a smoothly adjusting peg at the level it judged to be
consistent with long-run equilibrium of the balance of payments between
countries. This would be analogous to central bank independence at national level in fixing the interest rate.
(b) Exchange rates would be pegged in the first instance against a new global currency (working title, the mondeo) issued by the IMF and backed by a basket of (say) 30 commodities in proportion to their significance in world trade and other criteria. While some fiduciary element (i.e. loans to central banks denominated in mondeo) would be desirable, the commodity basket substitutes for the ability to impose taxation, which ultimately supports national fiat currencies. The use of commodities to back the mondeo would produce a negative return of up to 5% per annum, corresponding to the carrying costs of the physical goods. Although there might be ways of reducing this cost, notably by expanding the fiduciary element, it is the price of creating a reserve asset that is independent of the economic policies of any individual state, especially in relation to inflation, as under the gold standard.
The recovery of these costs might be a suitable application of a financial
transactions tax that would overcome some of the objections to such a
supranational tax. The historical role of gold reflected its low carrying costs.
(c) All foreign exchange reserves held by central banks would be converted to mondeos. This would be achieved by the issuing countries selling
commodities to the IMF for mondeos to purchase the existing reserves
(again a fiduciary element might be involved, at least as a transitional
measure). A large proportion of these commodities are already held in
strategic reserves so that it becomes a matter of transferring title. Any
shortfall would be met by production over a sufficient period (say five years),
incidentally providing an initial boost to global demand. The physical
distribution of commodities in warehouses across countries could over time
be adjusted to match approximately their holdings of mondeos in order to
provide security against political risk. Any aggregate surplus of mondeos
could be redeemed pro rata for commodities.
(d) Member states would need to accept measures to adjust their balance of
payments where the IMF judged that exchange rate adjustments would be
insufficient. This would apply to both surplus and deficit countries. In the
former case, the ultimate sanction might be compulsory loans (unremunerated and repayable only upon winding up) from the persistent surplus to multilateral development banks to finance productive, export-oriented investment in deficit countries. The negative return on mondeos would also help to discourage unnecessary reserve accumulation.
(e) The corollary of the negative return and the provisions for surplus country adjustment are an irrevocable undertaking that each central bank would accept only the mondeo or its own national currency in settlement of balances due from other central banks or the IMF. Gold and other currencies would not be accepted (i.e. they would become demonetised for the purposes of international official transactions). This would not prevent bilateral credits in the currency of the lender but by their nature such transactions would need to balance over time.
(f) Although conversion would deal with official reserves, private holdings of
foreign currency assets would remain. After 40 years of financial
liberalisation, these balances dwarf official reserves, and capital controls
would be necessary to maintain the currency pegs. Provided that the new
exchange rate regimes were seen to be sustainable, there would be little
reason for a run on a currency, given responsible national monetary and fiscal policies, since the path of future exchange rates would be largely predictable and interest and capital repayments could continue to be made in line with economic fundamentals (which indeed is the only way such payments can ever be made, in aggregate). Speculation on currencies would become both less possible and less necessary, and capital controls might be relaxed accordingly.

Thus, in summary, a world central bank would require the transfer of sovereignty, over exchange rates and over the imposition of adjustment on surplus countries, together with the acceptance by member states of a reserve currency with a negative return. Capital controls would remain a matter for member states and represent a reclaiming of sovereignty from financial markets by the state. The main benefit would be a system of stable exchange rates and a semi-automatic mechanism to ensure that trade imbalances do not depress global employment.
There would be a number of side effects of particular benefit to developing
countries, although these would not be the direct objective of the world central bank itself.
It is not difficult to see why such a system would require states to subordinate their immediate short-term interests for the benefit of the common good. The demonetisation and conversion of existing official exchange reserves would impose a loss of income relative to other assets and involve taxation in one form or another. Conversely, the requirement on issuers of existing reserve currencies to deliver commodities would represent a real transfer of resources and a cancellation of the seignorage previously earned. The USA in particular would lose the ability to borrow without limit from other central banks and become subject in certain respects to the IMF! Both the USA and the UK contain powerful
vested interests that would oppose capital controls. There are therefore formidable political obstacles to any such proposals.
The introduction of an element of global government into the international
monetary system along these lines would require a degree of political vision and
consensus that has rarely, if ever, been achieved, even in the aftermath of world
war. The value of the Note is that it offers hope and direction to a world lost in
confusion and misled by market ideology. It does not forecast that the world will
take this road, any more than that a benighted traveller will find a path through a swamp. The Note merely points out that, in the end, the only reliable solution is to drain the swamp.




REFERENCE

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2011) Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority, Vatican City: Tipografia Vaticana.


NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR

Dr M. G. (Mark) Hayes is Fellow and Director of Studies in Economics at
Robinson College, Cambridge. He is an economist with research interests in
Keynes and in Fair Trade, with which he was formerly involved as a practitioner
for 15 years until 2002, and also had a previous career as an investment banker.

His primary research is on and related to Keynes’s General Theory, and he is Secretary of the Post Keynesian Economics Study Group (PKSG). His major book is
The Economics of Keynes: A New Guide to The General Theory
(Edward Elgar, 2006)

lunedì 25 dicembre 2017

He died for our debts, not our sins

He died for our debts, not our sins

Smart Living | Bookmark to dashboard
As we turn towards our faiths this Christmas and Hanukkah in an attempt to make sense of the year that was, economist Professor Michael Hudson says we have been interpreting the bible incorrectly. And he has written an entire book about it. Rather than sex and sin, both Christianity and Judaism is preoccupied with debt. As it turns out, Jesus was a socialist activist who paid the ultimate price fighting for the reinstatement of regular debt jubilees. In fact, the rulers of classical antiquity who cancelled their subjects’ debts were overthrown with disturbing frequency and tended not to live that long…
As many people turn towards their Christian and Jewish faiths this Christmas and Hanukkah in an attempt to make sense of the year that was, at least one economist says we have been reading the bible in an anachronistic way.
In fact he has written an entire book on the topic. In ‘…And Forgive them their Debts: Credit and Redemption’ (available this spring on Amazon), Professor Michael Hudson makes the argument that far from being about sex, the bible is actually about economics, and debt in particular.
“The Christianity we know today is not the Christianity of Jesus,” says Professor Hudson.
Indeed the Judaism that we know today is not the Judaism of Jesus either.
The economist told Renegade Inc the Lord’s Prayer, ‘forgive us our sins even as we forgive all who are indebted to us’, refers specifically to debt.
“Most religious leaders say that Christianity is all about sin, not debt,” he says. “But actually, the word for sin and debt is the same in almost every language.”
“‘Schuld’, in German, means ‘debt’ as well as ‘offense’ or, ‘sin’. It’s ‘devoir’ in French. It had the same duality in meaning in the Babylonian language of Akkadian.”
Professor Michael Hudson has achieved near complete consensus with the assyriologists & biblical scholars that the Bible is preoccupied with debt, not sin.
The idea harks back to the concept of ‘wergeld’, which existed in parts of Europe and Babylonia, and set the value of a human life based on their rank, paid as compensation to the family of someone who has been injured or killed.
“The payment – the Schuld or obligation – expiates you of the injury caused by the offense,” Dr Hudson said.

 The Ten Commandments were about debt

People tend to think of the Commandment ‘do not covet your neighbour’s wife’ in purely sexual terms but actually, the economist says it refers specifically to creditors who would force the wives and daughters of debtors into sex slavery as collateral for unpaid debt.
The Ten Commandments are largely about how to deal with debt in Near Eastern ancient economies.
“This goes all the way back to Sumer in the third millennium,” he said.
Similarly, the Commandment ‘thou shalt not steal’ refers to usury and exploitation by threat for debts owing.
The economist says Jesus was crucified for his views on debt. Crucifixion being a punishment reserved especially for political dissidents.
“To understand the crucifixion of Jesus is to understand it was his punishment for his economic views,” says Professor Hudson. “He was a threat to the creditors.”
Jesus Christ was a socialist activist for the continuity of regular debt jubilees that were considered essential to the wellbeing of ancient economies.
A ‘clean slate’ referred not to forgiveness of sins, but of debt.

Governments can forgive debt. The bible says so.

In Sumer and Babylonia, whenever a new ruler would come to power, the first thing they would do was proclaim a “clean slate”, forgiving the population’s personal debt in what was known as a ‘debt jubilee’.
The alternative would have been for those who couldn’t pay to fall into bondage to their creditors. Governments would have lost thee availability of such debtors to fight in its armies.
But classical antiquity’s rulers who cancelled their subjects’ debts tended to be overthrown with disturbing frequency – from the Greek ‘tyrants’ of the 7th century BC who overthrew the aristocracies of Sparta and Corinth, to Sparta’s Kings Agis and Cleomenes in the 3rd century BC who sought to cancel Spartan debts, to Roman politicians advocating debt relief and land redistribution, Julius Caesar among them.
Jesus’ first reported sermon in Luke 4 documents his announcement that he had come to revive the enforcement of the Jubilee Year. The term “gospel” (or ‘good news’) was used specifically to refer to debt cancellation which became the major political fight of the imperial Roman epoch, pitting Jesus against the pro-creditor Pharisees, (a political party and social movement that became the foundation for Rabbinic Judaism around 167 BC).

Jesus died for our debt

Professor Hudson says Jesus Christ paid the ultimate price for his activism.
The Pharisees, Hillel (the founder of Rabbinical Judaism) and the creditors who backed them decided that Jesus’ growing popularity was a threat to their authority and wealth.
“They said ‘we’ve got to get rid of this guy and rewrite Judaism and make it about sex instead of a class war’, which is really what the whole Old Testament is about,” Professor Hudson said.
“That was where Christianity got perverted. Christianity turned so anti-Jesus, it was the equivalent of the American Tea Party, applauding wealth and even greed, Ayn-Rand style.”
The economist says that Christianity was reshaped by Saint Paul, followed by the “African” school of Cyril of Alexandria and St Augustine.
“Over the last 1000 years the Catholic Church has been saying it’s noble to be poor. But Jesus never said it was good to be poor. What he said was that rich people are greedy and corrupt. That’s what Socrates was saying, as well as Aristotle and the Stoic Roman philosophers, the biblical prophets in Isaiah.”
Neither did Jesus say that it was good to be poor because it made you noble.
What Jesus did say is that say if you have money, you should share it with other people.
“But that’s not what Evangelical Christianity is all about today,” says Professor Hudson. “American Fundamentalist Christians say don’t share a penny. King Jesus is going to make you rich. Don’t tax millionaires. Jesus may help me win the lottery. Tax poor people whom the Lord has left behind – no doubt for their sins. There’s nothing about the Jubilee Year here.”
As it turns out, Jesus was a socialist activist who fought for the reinstatement of the debt jubilee.

What would Jesus do?

To understand how to fix today’s economy, Hudson says that the Bible’s answers were practical for their time.
“When you have a massive build up of debt that can’t be paid, either you wipe out the debt and start-over like Germany did during ‘the 1947 Miracle‘ when the Allies forgave all its debts except for minimum balances, or you let the creditors foreclose as Obama did in America after the 2008 crisis and 10 million American families lost their homes to foreclosure,” he said.
“If you leave this wealth in place then it’s going to stifle society with debt deflation.
“Today’s world believes in the sanctity of debt. But from Sumer and Babylonia through the Bible, it was debt cancellations that were sacred.”
The economist recommends replacing income tax with land, monopoly and natural resource tax, banning absentee ownership, and empowering the government to distribute land to the population.
“If you want to be like Jesus then you become political and you realise that this is the same fight that has been going on for thousands of years, across civilisation – the attempt of society to cope with the fact that debts grow faster than the ability to pay,” he says.

… And Forgive them their Debts: Credit and Redemption’ will be available for purchase just in time for Easter on Amazon.

Claire Connelly

Claire Connelly

sabato 26 agosto 2017

Vix Pervenit

Lettre encyclique de notre seigneur très saint Benoît, pape par la providence divine, XIV



domenica 9 aprile 2017

Il Giubileo dei Debiti e la Sovranità istantanea: istruzioni per l'uso

Come rimettiamo i nostri debiti: il Giubileo del Debito attuato con Moneta Nostra

Con la fine dell’Anno Santo, è partita l’iniziativa Moneta Nostra per attuare il Giubileo dei Debiti. Come funziona ? E’ stata creata una pagina Facebook Moneta Nostra da dove è possibile richiedere gratuitamente un modulo standard, preparato da avvocati e commercialisti, con cui è possibile pagare tutti i debiti con banche e pubblica amministrazione, creando euro scritturali.
https://www.facebook.com/MonetaNostra

Infatti, la creazione di euro scritturali attualmente non è disciplinata dalla legge. Solo l’emissione di euro scritturali – contro fondi esistenti – è normata e riservata a banche e Istituti di Emissione di Moneta Elettronica. Ma la creazione dal nulla non è normata ed è per questo che le banche possono farlo impunemente. Ma, attenzione ! Le banche si spacciano per istituti di intermediazione. Le banche, al pubblico, raccontano che raccolgono risparmio e con questo effettuano i prestiti, e questa è una loro prerogativa. Non raccontano però che i prestiti (gli impieghi) vengono effettuati creando nuova moneta. Il pudore dei banchieri arriva al punto che la creazione di denaro non viene riportata nelle scritture contabili e nei bilanci delle banche stesse ! E’ così che tutto il denaro scritturale in circolazione non ha una origine dichiarata e pertanto risulta in nero (in inglese: shadow money).

Da qui l’idea innovativa di alcuni professionisti: se le banche creano denaro alla chetichella, il pubblico può, invece, per PAR CONDICIO, crearlo addirittura contabilizzandone la creazione !

L’iniziativa è partita in sordina nell’ottobre 2016. Due ordinanze, del Tribunale di Bolzano e del Tribunale di Cremona, sostanziano indirettamente la liceità dell’operazione. Il Tribunale di Bolzano ha detto che le banche creano denaro scritturale perché nessuna legge lo vieta (quindi, per l’art. 3 della Costituzione sull’uguaglianza, il diritto si intende esteso a tutti). Il Tribunale di Cremona ha scritto esplicitamente, citando una sentenza della Cassazione del 2007: “..ai fini dell’adempimento delle obbligazioni pecuniarie… il debitore ha facoltà di offrire, quando la legge non ponga specifiche limitazioni, moneta scritturale in luogo di quella legale… senza che il creditore possa rifiutarla senza giustificato motivo.”

E’ partito così il Giubileo dei debiti attraverso la pagina Facebook “Moneta Nostra”. Il 23 gennaio 2017 la Banca d’Italia ha confessato che le banche creano denaro e creano depositi esentasse:
https://iassem.blogspot.it/2017/03/forensic-evidence-risposta-della-banca.html

Il 22 marzo 2017 si è tenuto il primo corso di “Forensic accounting della creazione di denaro” ad Ancona, anche per formare i professionisti che volessero aderire all’iniziativa sia pagando in proprio le rispettive Casse con il sistema Moneta Nostra, sia facendo da consulenti a quanti scelgooo questa strada di sdebitamento. L’elenco dei professionisti già aderenti è sulla pagina facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MonetaNostra

Il 28 marzo 2017, l’AD di Carige in assemblea ha affermato e ribadito che la banca non contabilizza decine di miliardi creati dal nulla:
https://iassem.blogspot.it/2017/03/intervento-allassemblea-azionisti-di.html


Diffondete la lieta novella ed adoperatevi per il nuovo rinascimento !

lunedì 27 febbraio 2017

La Chiesa-banca o la Chiesa della gente ?

La Chiesa-banca o la Chiesa della gente ?

Dopo la regina d'Inghilterra e la famiglia reale saudita, il Vaticano è il terzo latifondista più grande del mondo con proprietà che superano i 177 milioni di acri, ovvero 716mila chilometri quadrati. Per fare un paragone, tutta l'Italia occupa appena 300mila km quadrati.

La più grande invenzione delle Chiese è stata quella di prendere, loro, le elemosine per perdonare peccati commessi contro altre persone. Invece di indennizzare direttamente le vittime, così si mette di mezzo un intermediario tra il carnefice e la vittima lasciando quest'ultima a bocca asciutta ma arricchendo notevolmente la Chiesa. L'assurdità di questo sistema diventa evidente se si considera che fu perfezionato dalla famiglia di banchieri dei Medici cui dobbiamo il primo Papa banchiere, Leone X


Una cosa simile avviene con la rappresentanza democratica parlamentare, dove i legittimi diritti di tutto il popolo vengono sussunti da una casta di parlamentari, lasciando la gente a bocca asciutta.

E' in questa chiave che si capisce come, dalla bla-bla-land del Vaticano, non arriva mai un "Giubileo di tutti i debiti", che era il vero scopo originario della proclamazione dell'anno del Signore.

venerdì 13 gennaio 2017

Canzone e preghiera

Pope Benedict XVI In the German Bundestag


Pope Benedict XVI In the German Bundestag on 22 September 2011

The spoken word applies
https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/geschichte/gastredner/benedict/rede/250244
 
Dear Mr President,
Mr President of the Bundestag!
Ms Federal Chancellor!
Mr. President of the Federal Council!
Ladies and gentlemen,
 
It is my honor and pleasure to speak in front of this House - before the Parliament of my German fatherland, which is meeting here as a democratically elected representative, to work for the good of the Federal Republic of Germany. I would like to thank the President of the Bundestag for his invitation to this speech as well as for the kind words of the welcome and appreciation with which he has received me. In this hour I turn to you, ladies and gentlemen, certainly also as a countryman, who knows his origins all his life, and who pursues the fate of the German homeland with sympathy. But the invitation to this speech applies to me as a Pope, as Bishop of Rome, who bears the supreme responsibility for Catholic Christendom. They thus acknowledge the role played by the Holy See as a partner within the community of nations and nations. From this point of international responsibility, I would like to give you a few thoughts on the foundations of the free legal state.
 
Let me start my reflections on the foundations of law with a little story from the Holy Scriptures. In the first book of the kings it is narrated that God made a request to the young King Solomon on his accession to the throne. What will the young ruler ask at this important moment? Success - Wealth - Long Life - Destruction of the Enemies? He does not ask for these things. He asks, "Give your servant a hearing heart, so that he may govern your people and distinguish good from evil" (1 Kings 3: 9). The Bible wants to tell us with this story what ultimately a politician must arrive at. His ultimate measure and the reason for his work as a politician must not be success, and certainly not material gain. Politics must be struggling for justice and thus create the basic prerequisite for peace. Of course, a politician will seek the success that opens up the possibility of political design. But success is subordinated to the criterion of justice, the will to right, and the understanding of law. Success can also be seduction and thus can open the way for the falsification of the law, for the destruction of justice. "Take the right away-what then is a state more than a great band of robbers," Saint Augustine once said. We Germans know from our own experience that these words are not an empty fright. We have seen that power has been separated from law, that power has been right, has crushed the right, and that the state has become the instrument of the destruction of justice, a very well-organized band of robberies which threaten the whole world and drive it to the edge of the abyss could. Serving the right to defend the rule of injustice is and remains the basic task of the politician. In a historical hour, in which human power has become powerless, which has hitherto been inconceivable, this task becomes particularly urgent. Man can destroy the world. He can manipulate himself. He can, so to speak, make people and exclude people from being human. How do we recognize what is right? How can we differentiate between good and evil, between true law and false law? The Salomonian question remains the decisive question before the politician and politics stand today.
In a large part of the legally regulated matters, the majority can be a sufficient criterion. But that in the fundamental questions of law, which is concerned with the dignity of man and mankind, the principle of majority is not sufficient: Everyone responsible must seek the criteria of his orientation in the formation of the law. In the third century, the great theologian Origen had justified the resistance of the Christians against certain valid legal orders: "If anyone were with the Scythians who have godless laws, and would be forced to live with them, he would be very reasonable If, in the name of the law of truth, which is indeed illegal with the Scythians, he would form, together with the like-minded, in opposition to the existing system of ordinances ... "
 
From this conviction, the resistance fighters have acted against the Nazi regime and against other totalitarian regimes, thus serving the right and humanity as a whole. For these people, it was indisputably evident that actual law was in fact wrong. But in the decisions of a democratic politician, the question of what now corresponds to the law of truth, which is true and law can not be as evident. What is the right to the fundamental anthropological questions and can become valid law, is by no means simply plain. The question of how to recognize the true rights and thus to serve justice in the legislation was never easy to answer, and it has become much more difficult nowadays in the wealth of our knowledge and ability.
 
How do you recognize what is right? In history, legal orders have been almost religiously justified: from the viewpoint of the divinity, it is decided what is right among men. In contrast to other great religions, Christianity has never given the state and society a right to revelation, a legal order of revelation. Instead, it has referred to nature and reason as the true sources of the law - the convergence of objective and subjective reason, which, of course, presupposes the foundation of both spheres in the creative reason of God. Christian theologians have thus joined a philosophical and legal movement, which had formed since the second century BC. In the first half of the second century BC there was an encounter between the natural law of nature, developed by Stoic philosophers, and responsible teachers of Roman law. In this contact was born the Western legal culture, which was and is of decisive importance for the legal culture of mankind. From this pre-Christian connection of law and philosophy the path goes through the Christian Middle Ages into the development of the right to the Enlightenment up to the explanation of the human rights and up to our German basic law, with which our people 1949 to the "inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every human Community, peace and justice in the world ".
For the development of the law and for the development of humanity, it was decisive that the Christian theologians had placed themselves on the side of philosophy against the religious right demanded by the belief in the gods, and recognized reason and nature as mutually exclusive as the valid source of law. Paul had already made this decision in the letter to the Romans when he said, "If heathen who do not have the law (the Torah of Israel) do by nature what is required by law, they are ... themselves law . They show, therefore, that the demand of the law is written in their hearts; Their conscience bears witness to it ... "(Rom 2:14). Here the two basic conceptions appear to be nature and conscience, where conscience is nothing but the listening heart of Solomon, as the reason open to the language of being. If the question of the foundations of the legislation seemed to have been resolved in the course of the Enlightenment, the Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War, and the constitution of our Basic Law, a dramatic change in the situation has taken place in the last half century. The idea of ​​natural law is now regarded as a special Catholic doctrine, which would not be worth discussing outside the Catholic sphere, so that one is almost ashamed to mention the word at all. I would like to briefly explain why this situation arose. In the first place, the thesis is that there is an unbridgeable ditch between Being and Ought. There can be no ought to be from being because there are two completely different areas. The reason for this is the generally accepted positivistic understanding of nature and reason. If one considers nature, in the words of H. Kelsen, as "an aggregate of being things connected with one another as cause and effect," then no kind of ethical direction can emerge from it. A positive concept of nature, which understands nature purely functionally, as natural science explains it, can not create a bridge to ethos and law, but in turn can only produce functional answers. But the same also applies to reason in a positive understanding which is widely regarded as a purely scientific one. What is not verifiable or falsifiable does not belong to the realm of reason in the strict sense. For this reason, ethos and religion must be assigned to the space of the subjective and fall out of the realm of reason in the strict sense of the word. Where the sole rule of positivist reason is valid-and this is the case in our public consciousness-the classical sources of knowledge for ethics and law are overridden. This is a dramatic situation that is all about and a public discussion is necessary to urgently invite is an essential intention of this speech.
 
The positivistic concept of nature and reason, the positivistic world-view as a whole, is a great part of human knowledge and human ability, which we must never dispense with. But, as a whole, it is not a culture which is adequate to humanity in its breadth. Where positivistic reason alone sees itself as a sufficient culture and banishes all other cultural realities into the status of subculture, it diminishes man, even it threatens his humanity. I am saying this with regard to Europe, in which broad circles try to recognize only positivism as a common culture and as a common basis for the formation of law, all the other insights and values ​​of our culture are subordinated to the status of a subculture, and thus Europe opposes other cultures The world is placed in a status of lack of culture, and at the same time extremist and radical currents are challenged. The exclusively giving positivist reason, which can not perceive anything beyond the functioning, resembles the concrete buildings without windows, in which we give ourselves climate and light, no longer want to relate both to the wide world of God. And yet we can not conceal the fact that in this self-made world we quietly draw from the supplies of God, which we transform into our products. The windows must be torn open again, we must again see the expanse of the world, the sky and the earth, and learn all this to be right.
 
But how does it work? How do we find ourselves in the vastness, in the whole? How can reason find its greatness again without losing its way into the irrational? How can nature again appear in its true depth, in its claim, and with its instruction? I recall a process in recent political history, hoping not to be misunderstood, and not to produce too many unilateral polemics. I would say that since the 1970s, the occurrence of the ecological movement in German politics has probably not torn open windows, but it has been and remains a cry for fresh air, which can not be overthrown and can not be pushed aside Much irrational in it. Young people had become aware that something was wrong in our dealings with nature. That matter is not only material for our making, but that the earth itself carries its dignity within itself, and we must follow its instructions. It is clear that I am not making propaganda for a certain political party here-nothing is more important to me than this. If something is wrong in our dealings with reality, then we must all seriously consider the whole thing, and we are all referred to the question of the foundations of our culture at all. Allow me, for a moment, to remain at this point. The importance of ecology is now undisputed. We must listen to the language of nature and respond accordingly. However, I would like to emphasize a point that is still largely ignored: there is also an ecology of man. Man, too, has a nature which he must respect and which he can not manipulate as he likes. Man is not only self-sufficient freedom. Man is not himself. He is spirit and will, but he is also nature, and his will is right when he listens to nature, respects him, and accepts himself as the one who is, and who is not himself Has. This is precisely the way in which real human freedom takes place.
 
Let us return to the basic concept of nature and reason, from which we have proceeded. The great theoretician of legal positivism, Kelsen, abandoned the dualism of Being and Duty at the age of 84 years - 1965. He had said that norms can only come from the will. Nature, therefore, could contain norms only when a will has inserted these norms into them. This, in turn, would presuppose a creative god, whose will has entered into nature. "Discussing the truth of this faith is completely hopeless," he notes. For real? - I would like to ask. Is it really pointless to consider whether objective reason, which is shown in nature, does not presuppose a creative reason, a creator spirit ?
 
At this point, Europe's cultural heritage should come to our aid. The idea of ​​human rights, the idea of ​​the equality of all human beings before the law, the recognition of the inviolability of human dignity in every individual human being, and the knowledge of the responsibility of human beings for their actions has been developed from the conviction of a creator god. These cognitions of reason form our cultural memory. To ignore it or to regard it as a mere past would be an amputation of our culture as a whole and would deprive it of its totality. The culture of Europe has arisen from the encounter between Jerusalem, Athens and Rome - from the encounter between the faith of Israel, the philosophical reason of the Greeks and the legal thought of Rome. This triple encounter forms the inner identity of Europe. In the consciousness of man's responsibility before God and in the acknowledgment of the inviolable dignity of man, of every human being, he set standards of the right to defend us in our historical hour.
 
A petition has been given to the young King Solomon at the hour of his office. How would it be if we, the legislators of today, were given a request? What would we ask? I think today, in the end, we could only wish for nothing else but a listening heart - the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and so to put true justice, justice and peace. Thank you for your attention!

mercoledì 9 novembre 2016

Papa: si salvano le banche e non le persone, è una vergogna

Papa Francesco \ Incontri e Eventi
Francesco: si salvano le banche e non le persone, è una vergogna http://it.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/11/05/francesco_si_salvano_le_banche_e_non_le_persone/1270369
L'incontro di Francesco con i Movimenti Popolari - ANSA
L'incontro di Francesco con i Movimenti Popolari - ANSA
E' uno scandalo salvare le banche e non quella che è la "bancarotta dell’umanità". Così il Papa ha parlato dei migranti e dei rifugiati, incontrando in Vaticano circa cinquemila membri dei Movimenti Popolari, partecipanti al Terzo incontro mondiale che si è concluso questo sabato a Roma. A loro ha chiesto di proseguire l'impegno per un mondo che rimetta al centro "l'essere umano”. Francesca Sabatinelli:

"Terra, casa e lavoro per tutti": questo il grido con il quale il Papa esprime la sete di giustizia di tutti i partecipanti al terzo incontro dei movimenti popolari. Francesco ricorda l’ultimo appuntamento in Bolivia e loda il percorso intrapreso dai movimenti popolari, e il dialogo tra i “milioni di persone che lavorano quotidianamente per la giustizia in tutto il mondo”, e che sta “mettendo radici”:
Il terrore e i muri
Tuttavia, questa germinazione, che è lenta, è minacciata da “forze potenti che possono neutralizzare questo processo di maturazione di un cambiamento che sia in grado di spostare il primato del denaro e mettere nuovamente al centro l’essere umano”:
Quien gobierna entonces? El dinero …
“Chi governa allora? Il denaro. Come governa? Con la frusta della paura, della disuguaglianza, della violenza economica, sociale, culturale e militare che genera sempre più violenza in una spirale discendente che sembra non finire mai”.
Francesco parla del terrorismo di base che deriva dal controllo globale del denaro sulla terra. Di questo si alimentano il narco-terrorismo, il terrorismo di stato e quello che alcuni erroneamente chiamano terrorismo etnico o religioso:
Ningun pueblo, ninguna religiòn ees terrorista…
“Nessun popolo, nessuna religione è terrorista. È vero, ci sono piccoli gruppi fondamentalisti da ogni parte. Ma il terrorismo inizia quando «hai cacciato via la meraviglia del creato, l’uomo e la donna, e hai messo lì il denaro» (Conferenza stampa nel volo di ritorno del Viaggio Apostolico in Polonia, 31 luglio 2016). Tale sistema è terroristico”.
La Chiesa si ribella contro “l’idolo denaro che regna invece di servire, tiranneggia e terrorizza l’umanità”. E’ tirannia terroristica e quando questo terrore, espresso nelle periferie con “massacri, saccheggi, oppressione e ingiustizia” esplode “con diverse forme di violenza”, i cittadini “sono tentati dalla falsa sicurezza dei muri fisici o sociali”:
Muros que encierran a unos y destierran a otros …
“Muri che rinchiudono alcuni ed esiliano altri. Cittadini murati, terrorizzati, da un lato; esclusi, esiliati, ancora più terrorizzati, dall’altro”.
La paura alimentata e manipolata diviene “buon affare per i mercanti di armi e di morte”. E’ una paura che “anestetizza di fronte alla sofferenza degli altri” e che alla fine rende crudeli. Ed è qui che Francesco chiede di pregare affinché Dio possa dare coraggio a coloro che hanno paura e possa ammorbidire i loro cuori in questo anno della misericordia che “è il miglior antidoto contro la paura”, “meglio degli antidepressivi e degli ansiolitici. Molto più efficace dei muri, delle inferriate, degli allarmi e delle armi. Ed è gratis: è un dono di Dio". Francesco chiede di “continuare a costruire ponti tra i popoli” per abbattere “i muri dell’esclusione e dello sfruttamento”, e chiede anche di affrontare il terrore con l’amore.
L’Amore e i ponti
Il Papa rivolge il pensiero a chi è privato della dignità del lavoro, a chi è vittima degli “ipocriti” che “per difendere sistemi ingiusti, si oppongono a che siano guariti”. Parla delle realtà di lavoro “inventate” dai “poveri organizzati”, come le cooperative, o il recupero di una fabbrica fallita:
… estàn imitando a Jesùs …
“State imitando Gesù, perché cercate di risanare, anche se solo un pochino, anche se precariamente, questa atrofia del sistema socio-economico imperante che è la disoccupazione”.
‘Terra, casa e lavoro per tutti’, il grido dei popoli che il Papa fa proprio, è “un progetto-ponte dei popoli di fronte al progetto-muro del denaro”. Bisogna “aiutare a guarire il mondo dalla sua atrofia morale”, che è il contrario dello sviluppo.
Bancarotta e salvataggio
Francesco guarda al dramma dei rifugiati e degli sfollati, così come fece a Lampedusa parla di vergogna per “una situazione obbrobriosa”. Alla bancarotta di una banca risponde la comparsa di “somme scandalose” per salvarla, dice, così non è per la "bancarotta dell’umanità":
Y asì el Mediterràneo se ha convertido en un cementerio …
“E così il Mediterraneo è diventato un cimitero, e non solo il Mediterraneo... molti cimiteri vicino ai muri, muri macchiati di sangue innocente”.
Nessuno dovrebbe mai fuggire dalla propria patria, il male diviene doppio quando “il migrante si vede gettato nelle grinfie dei trafficanti”, è triplo, “se arrivando nella terra in cui si pensava di trovare un futuro migliore, si viene disprezzati, sfruttati e addirittura schiavizzati”. Ai presenti il Papa chiede di essere solidali, così come sa fare chi ha sofferto. “Forse con il vostro esempio – è l’augurio – alcuni Stati e Organizzazioni internazionali apriranno gli occhi”
Francesco affronta un altro tema dell’incontro: il rapporto tra popolo e democrazia che, anziché essere “naturale e fluido”, può correre “il pericolo di offuscarsi fino a diventare irriconoscibile”:
La brecha entre los pueblos y nuestras formas actuales de democracia…
“Il divario tra i popoli e le nostre attuali forme di democrazia si allarga sempre più come conseguenza dell’enorme potere dei gruppi economici e mediatici che sembrano dominarle”.
Il Papa quindi incita i movimenti popolari a non aver paura ad entrare “nelle grandi discussioni, nella Politica con la maiuscola” ma avverte : si può essere tollerati, aggiunge, fin quando non si “in discussione l’economia o la politica con la maiuscola”. Mettere in discussione le “macrorelazioni”, strillare e gridare al potere, non fa essere più tollerati, dice il Papa, perché si esce “dalla casella”, perché ci si mette “sul terreno delle grandi decisioni che alcuni pretendono di monopolizzare in piccole caste”. Ecco che la democrazia si atrofizza e lascia fuori “il popolo nella sua lotta quotidiana  per la dignità”.
Francesco ripete quando detto in passato che il futuro dell’umanità “è soprattutto nelle mani dei popoli”, e che anche la Chiesa “può e deve, senza pretendere di avere il monopolio della verità, pronunciarsi e agire”. Parla poi del rischio di lasciarsi corrompere, perché la corruzione “non è un vizio esclusivo della politica”, ma esiste ovunque e indica la giusta via, per i politici, come per i dirigenti sociali, come per gli stessi pastori: “bisogna vivere la vocazione di servire con un forte senso di austerità e di umiltà”. Laddove austerità è intesa come morale e umana, specifica il Papa per sgombrare il campo da ogni equivoco.
Chiunque sia legato a cose troppo materiali o allo specchio, è l’indicazione, preghi “Dio di liberarlo da questi lacci”. Chiunque invece sia “affezionato” a tutto ciò, “non si metta in politica, non si metta in un’organizzazione sociale o in un movimento popolare, perché farebbe molto danno a se stesso e al prossimo e sporcherebbe la nobile causa che ha intrapreso”. “Davanti alla tentazione della corruzione, non c’è miglior rimedio dell’austerità, morale-personale, praticare l’austerità è, in più, predicare con l’esempio”:
Les pido que no subestimen el  valor ,,,
“Vi chiedo di non sottovalutare il valore dell'esempio perché ha più forza di mille parole, di mille volantini, di mille 'mi piace', di mille retweets, di mille video su youtube".
E’ l’esempio il miglior modo per “promuovere il bene comune” e il progetto-ponte di ‘Terra, casa e lavoro per tutti’. A tutti i dirigenti il Papa chiede quindi non stancarsi mai di “praticare questa austerità morale-personale”, agli altri chiede di esigerla dai dirigenti:
La corrupciòn, la soberbia, el exhibicionismo de los dirigentes…
“La corruzione, la superbia e l’esibizionismo dei dirigenti aumenta il discredito collettivo, la sensazione di abbandono e alimenta il meccanismo della paura che sostiene questo sistema iniquo”.
In conclusione il Papa cita ai movimenti l’esempio di Martin Luther King, sollecitandoli a continuare “a contrastare la paura con una vita di servizio, solidarietà e umiltà in favore dei popoli e specialmente di quelli che soffrono”. Perseverando si vedranno i frutti. E poi ripete: “Contro il terrore, il miglior rimedio è l’amore” che guarisce tutto.

giovedì 3 novembre 2016

Banche: Convegno a Roma su creazione e contabilizzazione della moneta

Per partecipare accreditarsi al seguente link: http://bit.ly/creazionedenaro