Martin Wolf, Financial Times: Stop banks from creating money (Video)

Home » Blog » 2014 » October » 14 » Martin Wolf, Financ…
M Wolf 9th Sep 2014

Martin Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator of Financial Times speaks at the event “Does Money Grow on Trees?” at the hall of the Institute for Chartered Accountants on 9th September 2014.

Watch the presentation (32 min):

“Why should we let such a social creation [money] be handed over to profit-seeking private enterprises?”

Watch the following panel discussion (23 min):


  • Martin Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times
  • Alderman Alison, GowmanPartner, DLA Piper
  • Frosti Sigurjónsson, ‎Member of Parliament, Iceland
  • Ben DysonFounder, Positive Money
  • Michael Izza, Chief Executive, ICAEW

M Wolf event_packed hall

M Wolf event_panelists



Stay in touch

Trackback from your site.

  • Andrew

    Seems to have be pretty heavy theoretical stuff, can hear lot of great ideas, but can’t quite honestly keep attention with such a monotone voice, can we get a transcript of Mr. Wolf’s speech?

  • kavadias

    I could not understand the point of Mr. Wolf in the last panel
    discussion question. What was the alternative to a bail-in in a case a
    state cannot bail-out the banks? What was Geithner’s
    take on this, to which Mr. Wolf refers to? Let the system melt down?
    Meaning take all the hit in the present (stand back watching banks
    forced to liquidate assets, until prices fall sufficiently in the sector
    involved in the bubble) and not let the state spread it in a longer
    run? And how is this going to avoid bank defaults (and runs) and the associated full bail-in?

    this has to be done in a controlled way, so that only people that had
    invested in the sector(s) causing the bubble would take the hit, and the
    rest of the bank can be kept alive and associated deposits safe…

    • JamieWalton77

      Mr Wolf’s point was that in a large bust in a large country, the government of that country would not allow a bail-in, instead, they would do whatever it takes to preserve the deposits of the banking system, and he alluded that this is what Mr. Geithner writes in his book also.

  • Farid Khavari
    • Polymath

      How is the Positive Money proposal fundamentally different from the Public Banking solution? It still achieves the same positive result in the end. Less tax, less debt and more money. It’s sovereign money in both cases.

      • JamieWalton77

        Question: How is the Positive Money proposal fundamentally different from the Public Banking solution?

        Answer: The Positive Money proposal adds money to the economy without adding debt to the economy, whereas the “Public Banking solution” only adds money to the economy by adding more debt to the economy, which is the problem that needs to be solved, so obviously not part of the solution – i.e., the “Public Banking solution” is not a solution at all; it’s part of the problem.

        I hope that’s clear to everyone.

        • Polymath

          Then why does North Dakota, the only state with a state owned bank, have the lowest debt burden throughout the US? The interest is recycled back into the productive economy.

          I don’t doubt, however, that Positive Money is the optimal method.

          • Howard

            The BND does not participate in the fractional reserve system but operates as a 100% reserve bank as the Chicago Plan required and Milton Friedman advocated long ago, which keeps them on solid economic footing. But this does not solve the problem, that is just one part of the 3 part solution.

  • Farid Khavari
  • OurParty

    How is allowing the Government to have control over the creation of money something to the left?

    Does he think Cameron would spend extra Government funds on anything other than war?

    This worry is precisely why PM want a transparent body, similar to the MPC, to create the money according to a cross party agreed protocol.

No Announcement posts

back to top