The ECB and the Giro di BOT

The ECB has lent 500 billion euro to the European banks at one per cent interest for three years. Pratically for free. It’s done that to get Europe to take off again. To allow the banks to reopen the taps and to finance the real economy for the companies that are closing down at the speed of light. As my youngest child, Ciro would say “it’s a proper barbatrucco {Barbapapa trick}”. Money from the ECB isn’t born under a cabbage plant, it’s guaranteed by the states of the EU. Basically it’s our money. The banks have to be saved. They have a liquidity crisis and they are not even lending money to each other. Furthermore, they have billions of uncollectable credits and various financial rubbish that sooner or later they’ll have to write off. 500 billion is a lifesaving anchor and in fact there’s been a queue of bankers to get the loan just like at the end of season sales. Banks however, act like banks. It’s in their nature to practise usury. Capital is nvested where the return is highest. Giving money to a company in difficulty or to a start up is a risk. Buying public bonds is a bit less risky. A whole State has to go bust. So it’s probable that the banks will buy the State bonds of the PIGS, the ones with the highest interest rates, from 6 or 7 % upwards. Guaranteed net earnings. It’s also a noble gesture. The loan agreed with the ECB would cover all the needs of Italy and Spain for the whole of 2012. Europe would be saved. However in this conjuring trick there’s something that doesn’t add up. So as to save us and to place the public debt, we have to pay really high rates of interest to the banks with money loaned by us through the ECB. The same banks, starting with the French and German ones, that have sold Italian and Spanish bonds with open hands in the year that’s gone by. And now that they’ll buy them back with interest rates that have been multiplied by five. Reason gets lost in this labyrinth. In this Giro di BOT {Roundabout of Italian Treasury Bonds} Why give interest to private banks that are buying our debt while we are lending them the money? Let’s buy our own debt, with the Treasury or the Bank of Italy, at least we’ll be paying the interest to the State. They will never give up (but is it in their interests?). Neither will we.
![]() | Siamo in guerra, {We are at War}, by Beppe Grillo and Gianroberto Casaleggio. |
Posted by Beppe Grillo at 04:13 PM in Economics
| Comments
(3) | Comments in Italian (translated)
Post a comment
| Sign up
| Send to a friend |
| GrilloNews
|
Listen
|
View blog opinions
Tweet |
|
Condividi




















Comments
We need to listen to economist Steve Keen who says that instead of keeping bailing out the banks and giving them generous loans the Government should give money to the people to pay off their debts.
This seems to make sense since the banks merely keep the money to maintain their salaries and bonuses whereas if the people had the cash to pay off our reduce their debts the banks would still get the money but release millions of people from the burden of debt and thus have more spending power to stimulate the economy.
I would add that it is also time to put an end to the privatizations and re-nationalize the energy and utility companies and end the concessions granted to private companies to manage the motorways. This would end the constant hike in prices that are causing so much hardship for poorer families just so a few bosses and shareholders can keep cashing in.
Posted by: peter fieldman | December 28, 2011 06:00 PM
However - it appears that at least for the moment, these banks have re-deposited the funds with the ECB. So they are paying 1% to borrow the money and then receiving .25% - a loss of .75%. It's hard to say why they would do this. Temporary year-end positioning? The price of guaranteed access to capital?
Posted by: Soren Blackwell | December 27, 2011 08:41 PM
However - it appears that at least for the moment, these banks have re-deposited the funds with the ECB. So they are paying 1% to borrow the money and then receiving .25% - a loss of .75%. It's hard to say why they would do this. Temporary year-end positioning? The price of guaranteed access to capital?
Posted by: Soren Blackwell | December 27, 2011 08:36 PM