Author: fccreformt

Government money will spend more in producing outdoor gears

In my discussions and presentations over the decades, I have discovered that the concept of money is very mysterious to most people. The current system is too confusing, nontransparent, and unsustainable to provide an understanding of what money is and how it comes about; it has been the most difficult challenge in the monetary reform movement. We need to focus more on tourism , especially manufacture more outdoor gears.

The correct definition of money goes back to Aristotle believe it or not! He wrote: “Money exists not by nature but by law”. All of today’s money is fiat money, meaning there is no asset backing its value. It is created out of thin air and is mostly a digital entry; not printed currency. It costs zero to create—just a simple push of a computer key! The current money supply is made up of 97% digital entries, only 3% is actual cash currency. Money has value because people work together in an economy under a legal framework. Paying one’s taxes helps legitimize a fiat currency, which is issued by a government, and has no actual asset backing it. There is no longer any country that has a gold reserve backing its currency.

Money is not a commodity like gold. It is also not credit or debt—even though that is how it is created and distributed in
today’s world! It is the lifeblood of an economy. It is needed for purchases and investments instead of barter. It is a medium of exchange. If money is scarce, you can count on a recession or depression. When money substantially flows, circulates and is dispersed, you will see a very healthy economy—even if there is some excess inflation. Just look at the most recent experience of India. After removing only two currency notes from circulation, India experienced extreme economic havoc.

Individuals use money for spending and savings, as well as for investing for future spending (retirement). It is a record of their productive work. Businesses use it for current operations and capital expenditures to advance their business. It is part of wealth and a storehouse of value. Governments use it for current spending for their various programs. They all have faith in their money that it will not inflate away. As you can see now there is more and more money to spend on some products like best edc knife and best police flashlight 2017 to gain more tax and income.

Money needs to be the sen^ant of commerce, not the master, as it basically is now. Money is currently generated and distributed into the economy through the monetary system. This system is made up of commercial and central banks that create the new money by making loans. The first usage of newly created money in the economy is called “new money”. After the first use, the money becomes “old money”, which continues to circulate in the economy.

The term “old money” does not refer to the term that describes traditionally wealthy families. This section has nothing to do with old money! This also means that it has little to do with the private financial services sector, where I built my practice as a Certified Financial Planner, only the commercial banking system. The cost of creating money is ZERO! The cost of distribution is small. Money does not have to be scarce!

HISTORY OF MONETARY SYSTEMS AROUND THE WORLD

Most countries, big and small, A to Z, Argentina to Zimbabwe, have had significant monetary-banking crises in the last half-century. I am not going into their history, but the following is a short list: Germany, Hungary,Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Chile, Mexico, Venezuela, Indonesia, Korea, India, Turkey, Thailand, and Bolivia, just to name a few.In the last 30 years, the world has suffered six globally significant financial crises:

• Latin America debt crisis of the early 1980s

• Japanese crisis of the 1990s

• The Tequila crisis of 1994, whose epicenter was Mexico, but also affected many parts of Latin America

• East Asian crisis of 1997-1999

• Global financial crisis of 2007-2009; started by the U.S.

• Eurozone financial crisis of 2010-2013; and the ongoing Greek tragedy

According to Martin Wolf in his book, The Shifts and Shocks, “the Euro has been a disaster! A project intended to strengthen solidarity, bring prosperity, and weaken the German economic domination of Europe has achieved precisely the opposite. It has undermined solidarity, destroyed prosperity, and reinforced German domination, at least for a while.”

The following is a review of U.S. monetary history up to the enactment of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The English Crown took away the Colonial States’ right to create and spend their colonial currency. This caused a severe depression in the colonies and was the major cause of the Revolutionary War, according to Ben Franklin in his autobiography. Then the Continental Congress, to fund the Revolutionary War, issued their currency.

Soon after, British warships in the New York harbor were found printing massive amounts of counterfeits in an effort to destroy the new currency. This was s tactic of the British at that time.

After the establishment of our nation, there was significant political conflict to establish a National Bank. Two acts were passed, creating the first and second National Banks. President Andrew Jackson eliminated the bank and was right to do so. However, he did not replace it with any money creating system, causing the severe depression of 1837. (Note – this was the last time the national debt was paid off.)

Abraham Lincoln had to finance the Civil War, and the U.S. private bankers wanted to loan the money to the government at a significant interest rate. Lincoln then established the very successful “greenbacks” where the government just printed up the money and paid for the war. (This gives us the best example that money does not have to be created by a loan/debt.) After the Civil War, the bankers wanted to take the greenbacks out of circulation to reduce the competition from government created currency. Every time the government takes money out of circulation, a recession is created. They were called “panics” in those days.

In summary of our nation’s first 150 years, the immature monetary system and consequent lack of a fiscal system (tax & spend) created the panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907; the Banking Crisis of 1884; the recessions of 1892-1896, 1904, and 1921 and the severe depression from 1873 to 1879.

When you review monetary history, every country, and I mean every country, has gone through these significant crises. In our nation’s last 100 years, the under diversified monetary system and lack of fiscal spending (recirculation) in the U.S. created the severe Great Depression of the 1930’s; post World War II recessions in the 50’s, 8o’s and 90’s; culminating in the current Great Recession, which began in 2007. This was caused by the monetary subprime collapse, which we spread to other parts of the world.

Why was this necessary? This Great Recession was caused solely by the private commercial banking system’s mortgage departments. These banks also loaned funds to the private mortgage companies. The crash was made more severe by the investment banks, and lack of financial regulation enforcement and improper incentives. The 2008 Great Recession had nothing to do with the fiscal policy (tax & spend) of government!

Encourage more people to spend money on going hunting will help government earn more money from this kind of business.

Some of the other governments involved in the subprime crisis were in surplus not deficit. Then the crash hit, causing tax revenues to decrease and safety net expenses (unemployment insurance) to increase. On top of that, most European governments had to bail out their commercial banks. Their central bank did not bail them out as was done by the U.S. Federal Reserve. Now the European Central Bank is getting around to supporting the European commercial banks with their quantitative easing.

The FCC Gets Serious On Outreach

One of the longstanding problems noted but not generally addressed before in FCC policy has been how to get the word out to folks not already plugged in as insiders to file comments. Traditionally, the FCC (like most federal agencies) has taken a very passive attitude. (Indeed, the FCC has traditionally been ahead of the curve. Many federal agencies have made it downright difficult for members of the public to find out what has been going on, or to file comments.)

In the last few weeks, the FCC has taken a number of steps forward on this. It started modestly with Twitter. Then came the the blog, including a video blog of Chairman Genachowski. As if that werent enough, last week the FCC launched a slew of social networking and crowdsource tools including an RSS feed, a crowdsourcing platform, and a site to track all the social media tools, such as the FCCs Facebook and Youtube pages. And, perhaps more important from the perspective of actually considering the public comments, FCC Spokesperson Mark Wigfield stated that comments on the blogs will become part of the official record.

All of these are tremendous steps forward and worthy of applause. Yes, there is still lots to do on making things like the electronic comment system or the Universal Licensing Service more usable. But folks at the FCC have acknowledged this time and again, and deserve credit for doing the things they could do quickly first. Steps forward deserve encouragement, especially when they keep on coming.

Which brings me to the unexpected surprise in my email box today. I received an outreach email from the FCC, with a request that I pass it on to anyone I think interested.

Think about that, the FCC doing outreach. Not just making it easy for anyone already interested, but trying to get the word out to those who might otherwise never even hear about a relevant FCC proceeding until too late.

It is easy to remain cynical about whether the FCC is really looking for new ideas or just putting on a show before going down the usual time-worn route of caving to the incumbents. Certainly we here at PK have not hesitated to make our opinions known when we see something weighted too far to industry or when the Administration bows to industry pressure. At the same time, we should recognize when the FCC makes extensive efforts to bring the public in and take them at their word that they want new ideas and real evidence from a variety of disciplines.

Mind you, we still have to make our case. But I am operating on the assumption the folks at the FCC are actually listening.

Heres the FCCs outreach letter. Feel free to spread it around.

On August 27, the Federal Communications Commission released two Notices of Inquiry (NOIs) seeking public input on questions related to innovation and competition in the wireless communications industry. We invite you to file comments in one or both of these proceedings. There is no obligation to respond, but the FCC hopes to receive ideas from a broad range of interested parties. Please share this information with your colleagues.

One NOI seeks comment on innovation and investment in the wireless industry and on concrete steps the FCC could take to support and encourage further innovation and investment. The full text of this NOI is available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-66A1.pdf. For additional information regarding this NOI, please contact Peter Trachtenberg at (202) 418-7369 or [email protected]

The other NOI seeks comment, data, and input on competition in the mobile wireless industry, including the vertical relationships between providers in different segments of the mobile wireless market, such as service providers and device manufacturers, and the effects of such relationships on competition. The full text of this NOI is available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-67A1.pdf. For additional information regarding this NOI, please contact Chelsea Fallon at (202) 418-7991 or [email protected]

The deadlines for filing comments in both of these proceedings have been extended. Comments are due by Wednesday, September 30, 2009, and reply comments by Thursday, October 15, 2009.

Instructions on how to file comments are included at the back of each of these NOIs and in public notices available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-73A1.pdf

and http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-72A1.pdf.

Additional information on how to file and access comments can be found on our website at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

Stupak Bill Would Promote More Honest Decisionmaking at the FCC

Its been nearly a year since Public Knowledge and the Silicon Flatirons Center held its FCC Reform conference, and the FCC has moved slowly but steadily towards addressing many of the concerns raised at the conference and the paper submitted beforehand.

One concern raised by a number of the conference participants was some of the unintended consequences of the Government in Sunshine Act. The Sunshine Act was intended to ensure that agency business is not done behind closed doors. This is certainly a noble goal, but by prohibiting more than 2 Commissioners (3 is a quorum for the 5 member FCC) to meet unless an open meeting is held and public notice is given, power has trickled down to unappointed and unconfirmed FCC staffers, who are under no such prohibition and who serve as secret brokers for their bosses. After staff finish their horse trading, the actual open meeting is like Kabuki theatre – Commissioners read from prepared statements, there is little or no debate and the outcome is predetermined.

Today, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) introduced legislation to exempt certain Commission collaborations from the Sunshine Act while providing protections to ensure that important Commission decisions are not made behind closed doors. H.R. 4167, entitled the Federal Communications Commission Collaboration Act, would permit 3 or more Commissioners to hold a meeting that is closed to the public to discuss official business under four conditions:

no vote is taken at the meeting;

each person at the meeting is either a Commissioner or Commission employee;

there is at least one Commissioner from each political party; and

an attorney from the FCCs Office of General Counsel is present.

To ensure transparency, the bill requires the FCC to disclose the meeting on its website, including the names of attendees and a summary of the matters discussed at the meeting. If passed, the law would sunset after 5 years.

This bill was the result of recommendations made by Commissioner Michael Copps and former Chairman Michael Powell, but numerous other former Commissioners, most notably Nicholas Johnson and Ervin Duggan have similarly complained about the limits the Sunshine Act places on sound policymaking.

We agree, and believe that the Stupak bill could result in more frank discussions among Commissioners, greater collegiality and collaboration, which in turn will result in more honest policymaking. It is critically important, however, that private meetings between 3 or more Commissioners be documented in detail. To that end, it is critical that the FCC reform its ex parte rules, which require that most meetings between Commission staff and the public be documented and made part of the public record. We have complained in the past that such rules have been honored in the breach and have not been enforced by the Commission. Thankfully, the FCCs Office of General Counsel is undertaking such reform, and has already held a workshop featuring, among others, PKs very own Jef Pearlman.

Public Knowledges statement supporting the bill is here.

FCC Reform Moves Forward At Thursdays Meeting

Assuming the Federal Government opens for business on Thursday (and I am not taking bets), we can expect to see Genachowski taking another substantial step to make good on his pledge to reform how the FCC does business. The agenda for the Commission’s open meeting for Thursday, February 11 lists three items. Two have to do with changing FCC rules to make the agency more open and more streamlined, the third has to do with reforming the E-Rate Program under which schools get money to subsidize broadband.

We can expect that to the extent the press cover this, the focus will go to the E-Rate story. At least people understand about broadband in schools. But for long term difference that matters, the FCC process stories — while phenomenally boring and unsexy — have much broader impact.

The first item is a general “housekeeping” item.

The FCC has already made strong improvements on the E-government front. But to the extent things like blog comments are actually part of the record, the FCC needs to issue a public notice on a case-by-case basis. The proposed new rules should standardize and simplify the ways in which the FCC does business to take into account the new technologies, and institutionalize these changes as opposed to operating them on a continuously ad hoc basis.

The second item relates to the system of “ex partes.” Whenever parties discuss matters with FCC staff or Commissioners relevant to a “permit but disclose” proceeding (which covers most rulemakings and major mergers these days), the party that meets with the FCC personnel need to file a written summary of the conversation called a “notice of oral ex parte presentation” or just “ex parte” for short. This rule tends to accumulate lots of “street law” exceptions (e.g., the “trade show” exemption, which holds that somehow any private conversation held at an industry trade show doesn’t count). More significantly, the part of the rule that requires parties to disclose what they actually talked about tends to get ignored (you can see my vote for “Worst Ever Ex Parte” here).

For about a year now, the FCC have been looking at how to improve the ex parte process to make it more likely that parties will file meaningful summaries and help reduce the problems with compliance. At the meeting, the FCC will release a proposed set of rules. Of course, like all proposed rules, these will need to go through notice and comment and be adopted as final rules. So parties can still recommend further adjustments or explain why proposed changes may not be a good idea after all, and then parties can explain why the first set of comments are either too ridiculous and burdensome or obvious attempts to preserve the status quo that favors entrenched interests — depending on your preference.

Real FCC reform, like most process reform, is incredibly unsexy and detailed oriented. It is easy to pledge more “openness” and make cosmetic changes. It takes commitment and determination to actually go through the process of changing rules to make things work better for everyone over the long haul. So a tip of the hat to Genachowski and everyone else at the Commission for carrying through on the commitment. Now up to us to do our part and actually participate in the rulemaking process.

EVENT: An FCC for the Internet Age: Reform and Standard-Setting

A Conference Hosted by Silicon Flatirons, Public Knowledge and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF).

Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC March 5, 2010, 9:00 AM – 12:15 PM (Light breakfast and registration at 8:30 AM)

RSVP HERE

Last year, Silicon Flatirons co-hosted events, respectively, with Public Knowledge on FCC reform, and ITIF on innovation economics and new models of governance. This conference is a follow-up and confluence of those two topics: Where do we stand on efforts at FCC reform? And how do new models of governance and standard-setting fit into that reform effort?

The preamble from the www.fcc-reform.org website summarizes the conclusions from the January 2009 conference: The consensus was clear – the FCC has serious procedural, organizational, and cultural problems that must be addressed by the agencys incoming leaders as soon as practicable. While the current FCC leadership is being asked to perform many tasks, the consensus about reform is foundational to the credibility of any actions the agency might take. Accordingly, it is not too early to assess whether and how the new FCC is addressing those procedural, organizational and cultural issues and if the FCC has made progress on reform. These issues will all be addressed in the first panel.

The second panel will explore the purpose and guiding principles of standard-setting for broadband, as well as the specific topics standard-setting and mediating institutions might be well-suited to address.

Welcome 9:00am – 9:15am

Dale Hatfield
Executive Director, Silicon Flatirons Center
Adjunct Professor, University of Colorado
Former Chief Engineer, Federal Communications Commission
The Present and Future of FCC Reform 9:15am – 10:30am

Mark Cooper
Silicon Flatirons Senior Adjunct Fellow
University of Colorado
Director of Research
Consumer Federation of America

Susan Crawford
Professor of Law
University of Michigan

Matthew Hussey
Telecommunications Legislative Assistant
Senator Olympia Snowe

Nick Johnson
Professor of Law
University of Iowa
Former FCC Commissioner

Mary Beth Richards
Special Counsel
Federal Communications Commission

Austin Schlick
General Counsel
Federal Communications Commission

Moderator: Gigi B. Sohn
Silicon Flatirons Senior Adjunct Fellow
University of Colorado
President and Co-founder
Public Knowledge

Networking Break 10:30am – 11:00am

Regulatory Reforms: Standard-Setting and Mediating Institutions 11:00am – 12:15pm

Kathryn C. Brown
Senior Vice President, Public Policy & Corporate Responsibility
Verizon

Paul de Sa
Chief, Office of Strategic Planning & Anaylsis
Federal Communications Commission

Pierre de Vries
Silicon Flatirons Senior Adjunct Fellow
University of Colorado

Kathleen Wallman
CEO
Wallman Strategic Consulting

Rick Whitt
Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
Google

Moderator: Robert Atkinson
President
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

Bringing Private Meetings at the FCC into the Light

If you stand outside of the FCC on any given day, you will have the opportunity to witness the great ebb and flow of telecommunications lobbyists (and, admittedly, the occasional public interest representative) streaming inside. These folks are at the FCC to have private meetings to discuss their issues with staffers and Commissioners. Although these meetings are private, there are some rules – called ex parte rules – that require people meeting with Commissioners and Commission staff to write up a summary of what was discussed. These summaries – called ex parte letters – are supposed to let the public know what happened. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, those letters are not always very informative.

As we announced in The Greatest Video EVER Made in the History of the World About FCC Ex Parte Reform, the FCC recently began looking at ways to improve its ex parte system and bring some transparency to the process. Yesterday Public Knowledge, along with Consumer Federation of America, filed our suggestions. In our comments, we suggested some big changes as well as some smaller changes to try and fix the system.

In the big change category, we offered three different ways that the Commission could eliminate some of the secrecy surrounding the private meetings. The first option would be to eliminate ex parte meetings entirely. Instead of in person meetings, all information presented to the Commission would have to come in the form of a written comment. This way, the public would know exactly what points are being made on a given topic.

The second option would be to make a video recording of the meeting available to the public. If the private meetings are valuable, the video option would be a way to make them as transparent as possible.

The third option is to have an independent third party, a “neutral scribe,” attend the meeting and prepare a record. This record could either be a verbatim transcript (like a court reporter) or a detailed summary. As with the video recording, this report would be accessible to the public and provide meaningful details about the discussion.

Ideally, the Commission would approve all three of these options, and then let individual Commissioners and Bureaus choose from the menu. That way we could find out which most effectively balanced the importance of bringing the business of the Commission into the sunlight with the value of having the meetings in a resource effective manner.

We also proposed a number of smaller changes. Perhaps the most important was to the scope of what can be discussed during a meeting. The value of private meetings is often justified on the grounds that they give the Commission staff an opportunity to probe arguments offered by various parties. In light of this, we suggest that the scope of private meetings be narrowed to include only existing arguments. If a party has an important new argument to put forward, it should be required to do so in a written document open to the public.

Finally, we pointed out that one of the biggest problems with the current ex parte system is not that today’s rules are deficient, but rather that no one is actively enforcing them. Any reform of the ex parte process must be paired with a commitment to enforcement, or the entire exercise will be a waste of time.

© 2017 Reforming the FCC

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑