Showing posts sorted by relevance for query CRASH 2008. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query CRASH 2008. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Boeing’s financial woes continue, while families of crash victims urge US to prosecute the company


BY DAVID KOENIG
 April 24, 2024

Boeing said Wednesday that it lost $355 million on falling revenue in the first quarter, another sign of the crisis gripping the aircraft manufacturer as it faces increasing scrutiny over the safety of its planes and accusations of shoddy work from a growing number of whistleblowers.

CEO David Calhoun said the company is in “a tough moment,” and its focus is on fixing its manufacturing issues, not the financial results.

Company executives have been forced to talk more about safety and less about finances since a door plug blew out of a Boeing 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight in January, leaving a gaping hole in the plane.

The accident halted progress that Boeing seemed to be making while recovering from two deadly crashes of Max jets in 2018 and 2019. Those crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 346 people, are now back in the spotlight, too.

About a dozen relatives of passengers who died in the second crash met with government officials for several hours Wednesday in Washington. They asked the officials to revive a criminal fraud charge against the company by determining that Boeing violated terms of a 2021 settlement, but left disappointed.


READ MORE


Boeing put under Senate scrutiny during back-to-back hearings on aircraft maker’s safety culture


United Airlines reports $124 million loss in a quarter marred by grounding of some Boeing planes


Boeing pushes back on whistleblower’s allegations and details how airframes are put together


Boeing officials made no mention of the meeting, but talked repeatedly while discussing the quarterly earnings of a renewed focus on safety.

“Although we report first-quarter financial results today, our focus remains on the sweeping actions we are taking following the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 accident,” Calhoun told employees in a memo Wednesday.

Calhoun ticked off a series of actions the company is taking and reported “significant progress” in improving manufacturing quality, much of it by slowing down production, which means fewer planes for its airline customers. Calhoun told CNBC that closer inspections were resulting in 80% fewer flaws in the fuselages coming from key supplier Spirit AeroSystems.

“Near term, yes, we are in a tough moment,” he wrote to employees. “Lower deliveries can be difficult for our customers and for our financials. But safety and quality must and will come above all else.”

Calhoun, who will step down at the end of the year, said again he is fully confident the company will recover.

Calhoun became CEO in early 2020 as Boeing struggled to recover from the Max crashes, which led regulators to ground the planes worldwide for nearly two years. The company thought it had sidestepped any risk of criminal prosecution when the Justice Department agreed not to try the company for fraud if it complied with U.S. anti-fraud laws for three years — a period that ended in January.

Boeing has been reaching confidential settlements with the families of passengers who died, but the relatives of those killed in the Ethiopia crash are continuing to press the Justice Department to prosecute the company in federal district court in Texas, where the settlement was filed. On Wednesday, department officials told relatives that the agency is still considering the matter.

Leaving the meeting, Paul Cassell, a lawyer for the families, called it “all for show.” He said the Justice Department appears determined to defend the agreement it brokered in secret with Boeing.

“We simply want that case to move forward and let the jury decide if Boeing is a criminal or not,” he said.

It was an emotional meeting, according to Nadia Milleron, whose daughter Samya Stumo died in the 2019 crash.

“People are angry. People are shouting. People are starting to talk over other people,” said Milleron, who watched online from her home in Massachusetts while her husband attended in person. Relatives believe the Justice Department is “overlooking a mountain of evidence against Boeing. It’s mystifying,” she said.

According to Milleron, the head of the fraud section of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Glenn Leon, said his agency could extend its review beyond this summer, seek a trial against Boeing on the charge of defrauding regulators who approved the Max, or ask a judge to dismiss the charge. She said Leon made no commitments.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

A federal judge and an appeals court ruled last year that they had no power to overturn the Boeing settlement. Families of the crash victims hoped the government would reconsider prosecuting Boeing after the Jan. 5 door-plug blowout on the Alaska Airlines jetliner as the plane flew above Oregon.

Investigators looking into the Alaska flight say bolts that help keep the door plug in place were missing after repair work at a Boeing factory. The FBI told passengers that they might be crime victims.

Boeing stock has plunged by about one-third since the blowout. The Federal Aviation Administration has stepped up its oversight and given Boeing until late May to produce a plan to fix problems in manufacturing 737 Max jets. Airline customers are unhappy about not getting all the new planes that they had ordered because of delivery disruptions.

The company said it paid $443 million in compensation to airlines for the grounding of Max 9 jets after the Alaska accident.

Several former and one current manager have reported various problems in manufacturing of Boeing 737 and 787 jetliners. The most recent, a quality engineer, told Congress last week that Boeing is taking manufacturing shortcuts that could eventually cause 787 Dreamliners to break apart. Boeing pushed back aggressively against his claims.

Boeing, however, has a couple things in its favor.

Along with Airbus, Boeing forms one-half of a duopoly that dominates the manufacturing of large passenger planes. Both companies have yearslong backlogs of orders from airlines eager for new, more fuel-efficient planes. And Boeing is a major defense contractor for the Pentagon and governments around the world.

Richard Aboulafia, a longtime industry analyst and consultant at AeroDynamic Advisory, said despite all the setbacks Boeing still has a powerful mix of products in high demand, technology and people.

“Even if they are No. 2 and have major issues, they are still in a very strong market and an industry that has very high barriers to entry,” he said.

And despite massive losses — about $24 billion in the last five years — the company is not at risk of failing, Aboulafia said.

“This isn’t General Motors in 2008 or Lockheed in 1971,” Aboulafia said, referring to two iconic corporations that needed massive government bailouts or loan guarantees to survive.

All of those factors help explain why 20 analysts in a FactSet survey rate Boeing shares as “Buy” or “Overweight” and only two have “Sell” ratings. (Five have “Hold” ratings.)

Boeing said the first-quarter loss, excluding special items came to $1.13 per share, which was better than the loss of $1.63 per share that analysts had forecast, according to a FactSet survey.

Revenue fell 7.5%, to $16.57 billion.

Moody’s downgraded Boeing’s unsecured debt one notch to Baa3, the lowest investment-grade rating, citing the weak performance of the commercial-airplanes business.

Boeing Co. shares closed down 3%. They have dropped 34% since the Alaska blowout.


Tuesday, May 26, 2020


Richard D. Wolff Interview: The End Of Capitalism Near? New Stimulus Package. Oil Prices Below 0.



Apr 22, 2020



9.26K subscribers




Follow on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/actdottv Julianna welcomes Marxian Economist Professor Richard D. Wolff to the show again, to discuss how Congress and the Trump administration came to another deal yesterday to boost the economy, and how the price of oil unprecedentedly dipped below 0 yesterday. But the real discussion is what does this all mean... and are we in for long lasting ramifications that might finally topple capitalism? Wolff is an American Marxian economist, known for his work on economic methodology and class analysis. He is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. Wolff has also taught economics at Yale University, City University of New York, University of Utah, University of Paris I (Sorbonne), and The Brecht Forum in New York City. For info on Richard Wolff go to: https://www.rdwolff.com/ And make sure to follow him on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/profwolff For more Julianna, follow her on Twitter at https://twitter.com/juliannaforlano and @juliannaforlano on Instagram and Facebook! ——— act.tv is a progressive media company specializing in next generation live streaming and digital strategy. Our YouTube channel focuses on animated explainers, livestreams from protests around the country, and original political commentary. Main site: http://act.tv Facebook: http://facebook.com/actdottv Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/actdottv Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/actdottv YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/actdottv




Economic Update: Virus Triggers Capitalist Crash


Apr 20, 2020


[S10 E16] Virus Triggers Capitalist Crash **We make it a point to provide the show free of ads. Please consider supporting our work. Become an EU patron on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/economicupdate Today’s episode features an analysis (part 1) of how, why capitalism - especially in US - failed to prepare for or cope with a virus thereby enabling it to trigger another crash of capitalism (third this century: dot.com in 2000, sub-prime mortgage in 2008). In part 2, Prof. Wolff provides an analysis of how to respond to crash better than the US govt by emphasizing re-employment in millions of new jobs rather than unemployment, emphasizing worker-coops, etc. Read the full transcript: https://www.democracyatwork.info/eu_v... ____________________________________________________________________ Prof. Wolff's latest book "Understanding Socialism" http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/democra... Want to help us translate and transcribe our videos? Learn about joining our translation team: http://bit.ly/2J2uIHH Jump right in: http://bit.ly/2J3bEZR __________________________________________________________________________________________ Follow us ONLINE: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/economicupdate Websites: http://www.democracyatwork.info/econo... http://www.rdwolff.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/EconomicUpdate http://www.facebook.com/RichardDWolff http://www.facebook.com/DemocracyatWrk Twitter: http://twitter.com/profwolff http://twitter.com/democracyatwrk Instagram: http://instagram.com/democracyatwrk Subscribe to our podcast: http://economicupdate.libsyn.com Shop our Store: http://bit.ly/2JkxIfy



Thursday, July 22, 2021

2008 THE GREAT BANK CRASH
UK
Taxpayer stake in NatWest Group may be slashed to less than 40% as Treasury looks to offload billions in shares over next 12 months

Two £1.1bn share sales were made by the UK Government in March and May

The Treasury sold another two tranches totalling £2.5bn each in 2015 and 2018

Taxpayers are expected to lose £38.8bn from the sale of NatWest Group shares


By HARRY WISE FOR THIS IS MONEY
PUBLISHED: 07:13 EDT, 22 July 2021 

The Treasury is set to sell more of its stake in NatWest Group in a move that could leave the banking giant in majority private ownership for the first time since before the global financial crisis.

UK Government Investments (UKGI), a Treasury-owned body that administers its NatWest stake, said it had directed Morgan Stanley to gradually offload up to 15 per cent of its shares over a year-long period from next month.

It means the taxpayer's ownership stake might reduce from the 54.7 per cent it currently holds to less than 40 per cent, having already fallen by about 7 per cent this year following two sell-downs.

Sell-off: The Government said it had directed Morgan Stanley to gradually offload up to 15 per cent of its shares over a year-long period from next month

In March, the Treasury announced that it had sold £1.1billion worth of shares back to NatWest - previously known as Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) until July last year - before selling the same amount two months later.


It sold another two tranches totalling £2.5billion each in 2015 and 2018 that cut its ownership share from 78.3 per cent to 62.4 per cent as part of plans to eventually trade its whole stake in the financial services group by 2023-24.

However, these sell-offs ignited considerable controversy as they were all traded at a significant loss compared to the average 502p-per-share price the Government paid to bail out RBS over a decade ago.

NatWest Group's shares were down 1.1 per cent to 197.4p this morning, though they have risen by 24 per cent since the start of the year.

According to recent estimates from the Office for Budget Responsibility, of the £45.8 billion spent to prop up the bank during the crisis, the taxpayer is expected to make a loss of £38.8billion.

The deadline to sell the entire taxpayer stake in NatWest was also pushed back a year when the coronavirus crisis struck the UK, as a global sell-off saw stock markets around the globe collapse.


Saved: NatWest Group was known as RBS until July last year. The UK Government became the bank's majority owner in 2008 after spending £46.8billion bailing it out

The Treasury additionally missed out on a dividend payment last year when regulators decided to ban payouts by financial institutions during the height of the pandemic in order to buffer capital stocks and incorporate potential loan losses.

Those restrictions were partially relaxed in December, and NatWest subsequently declared a dividend in 2021 of 3p a share, handing £225million to the Government as the biggest shareholder.

It later reported pre-tax operating profits surged by 82 per cent to £946million for the first three months of 2021 thanks to expectations for fewer loans to turn sour due to the pandemic and a jump in mortgage lending and customer deposits.

NatWest came close to going bust in 2008 soon after it bought Dutch bank ABN Amro in 2007 - despite investor warnings - as part of a consortium in what was the largest takeover ever in the financial services industry.

Six months afterwards, it launched a record-breaking £12billion rights issue and went on later that year to report a half-year loss of nearly £700mllion, its first loss in four decades, as a result of credit crunch write-downs of £5.9billion.

The UK Government eventually rescued it in October 2008 and took a 43 per cent stake in Lloyds Bank after spending £20.3billion bailing it out. It started selling its shares in Lloyds in 2013 and eventually sold its last stake four years ago.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Forward to the Past

Well excuse me if I am not surprised that Steady Eddie Alberta's CEO produced a TV show last night that announced nothing new. In fact while some folks bemoan the premier for not being Ralph Klein, including King Ralph his-self, Steady Eddie is living up to his name.

In fact he is the ghost of the Tories Past, the actions of his government are just a rehash of Klein's fiscal renovation, of the 1990's. The government is cutting hospital beds and freezing hiring of nurses and doctors, just as Klein did. The are cutting back funding to schools, just as Klein did. They are cutting funding to post secondary institutions just as Klein did. They are calling for a wage freeze for two years for all public sector workers just as Klein did. The debt and deficit hysteria that launched the Klein regime has returned like Marley's ghost to haunt the Alberta Government. Having no plan Steady Eddie returns to the past to find solutions to the Tories Made In Alberta Recession.

Blaming the economic crash of last year for Alberta's current deficit is of course par for the course, all governments have used the crash to explain away their economic mistakes. But in Alberta that crash should have been expected, since we have experienced boom and busts before, and those who had like former Premier Peter Lougheed warned that the Alberta Government led by his old party, had no plan to deal with the boom. And of course it had no
plan to deal with a crash.

The failure to invest the Heritage Trust fund or to fund it adequately led to the current deficit. And yet those in charge of investing both the Trust fund and the new AIMCO investment fund (made up of your and my public sector pension funds) lost the province billions, that now make up part of the current deficit. It was this investment failure that has cost the province much including outrageous buy outs and bonuses to these same fund managers.

The province's Heritage Savings Trust Fund lost the $3 billion between March 2008 and March 2009 in the economic downturn, and currently sits at $14.3 billion. The record loss sent Alberta into a deficit for the first time in 15 years. It was the biggest loss in the fund's 33-year history.

two AIMCo executives earned a combination of more than $5 million last year even as the funds they managed -- including the Heritage Savings Trust Fund -- lost more than $7 billion.

The collapse of oil and gas prices of course added to the deficit but not to the degree that the bad investments of our surpluses did. In fact the decline in natural gas production in the province began back in 2001 and is something that could be planned for, if you had a government that was not adverse to planning.

The problem, however, is that production in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) is declining. Production peaked in 2001; the vast majority of the country's natural gas is produced in the WCSB. According to Canada's National Energy Board (NEB), Canada's marketable production peaked around 17 Bcf/day in 2001.

Sadly, no amount of drilling is going to reverse the decline. Production declined in 2005, despite having a record number of well completions in the WSCB. Take a look for yourself:

Western Sedimentary Basin Well Completions

If we take a look back, 2005 should have been a huge year for Canadian natural gas. That year, we saw the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history. Fifteen hurricanes blew past us. Five became Category 4 hurricanes and four reached Category 5, including Katrina and Wilma.

That same year, Canada imported 3.7 Tcf of natural gas to the U.S. However, Canadian production of marketable natural gas fell 1.7%, compared to 2001 levels. According to NEB projections for 2009, natural gas production will sit at 5.5 Tcf — 12% lower than in 2001.




Add to that the expansion of infrastructure projects, that under Klein had been halted, as labour costs increased during the boom and you have another reason for the deficit.

Finally we have the creation of Hospital Boards, which were to have been publicly elected and were for one term and then when to0 many liberals and dippers were elected the boards were fired by Klein and replaced with Tory hacks. Steady Eddie's first act as Premier was to follow in Klein's footsteps, firing the regional boards and forming a super board, the cost of which was again payouts resulting in the new super board having a half billion dollar deficit.


And while Steady Eddie announced a wage freeze for senior government managers it means little when in fact these same managers racked in bonuses worth $6.7 million last year. And we suspect that even if he follows through with MLA and cabinet salary freezes its after the cabinet gave itself and the Premier a 34% increase last year.

The other reason for the deficit is that Alberta is business friendly. The cost of doing business in this province is nil, zilch, nada. The working class taxpayers in Alberta shoulder the burden of business costs. And thanks to the generous tax breaks to business the burden of the deficit is shouldered by you and me, and the solution that some are suggesting is the dreaded of all taxes the sales tax.

The Progressive Conservative government, in power since 1971, has long had a hands-off approach to business. Foreign investors have long been attracted by the lack of sales, payroll or capital taxes, low income taxes and competitive corporate taxes, at 29 per cent and dropping to 25 per cent by 2012. Despite a current deficit, overall net direct and indirect debt is low, totalling C$1bn or 0.3 per cent of GDP on March 31, according to a recent Moody’s report that gave Alberta a triple-A debt rating.

Like the mythical debt and deficit crisis of the Klein years this too is a short term recession, with a temporary deficit. And like then the deficit will be paid off by cutting public sector funding and freezing wages rather than taxing the capitalists. Nothing new here just as there is nothing new with the Tired Old Tories still in power.



SEE:

Your Pension Plan At Work

P3

Your Pension Dollars At Work

P3= Public Pension Partnerships



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , ,

,
d blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , ,
,, , ,, , , , ,
,

Thursday, July 28, 2022

Interest Rate Hikes Will Not Save Us from Inflation

Rather than making money harder to get, the U.S. government needs to focus on the other side of the demand vs. supply equation.

In prescribing cures for inflation, economists rely on the diagnosis of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman: inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon—too much money chasing too few goods. But that equation has three variables: too much money (“demand”) chasing (the “velocity” of spending) too few goods (“supply”). And “orthodox” economists, from Lawrence Summers to the Federal Reserve, seem to be focusing only on the “demand” variable.

The Fed’s prescription is to suppress demand (borrowing and spending) by raising interest rates. Summers, a  former U.S. Treasury Secretary who presided over the massive post-2008 bank bailouts, is proposing to reduce demand by raising taxes or raising unemployment rates, reducing disposable income and thus people’s ability to spend. But those rather brutal solutions miss the real problem, just as Summers missed the crisis leading up to the 2008-09 crash. As explained in a November 2021 editorial titled “Too Few Goods – The Simple Explanation for October’s Elevated Inflation Rates,” we don’t actually have too much consumer money chasing available goods:

M2 money supply surged [in 2020] as the Fed pumped out liquidity to replace businesses’ lost sales and households’ lost paychecks. But bank reserves account for nearly half of the cumulative increase since 2020 began, and the vast majority seem to be excess reserves sitting on deposit at Federal Reserve banks and not backing loans. Excluding bank reserves, M2 money supply is now growing more slowly than it did for most of 2015 – 2019, when inflation was mostly below the Fed’s 2% y/y target, much to policymakers’ chagrin. Weak lending also suggests money isn’t doing much “chasing,” a notion underscored by the historically low velocity of money. US personal consumption expenditures—the broadest measure of household spending—have already slowed from a reopening resurgence to rates more akin to the pre-pandemic norm and surveys show many households used stimulus money to repay debt or build savings they may not spend at all. It doesn’t look like there is a mountain of household liquidity waiting to do more chasing from here. [Emphasis added.]

In March 2022, the Federal Reserve tackled inflation with its traditional tools – raising interest rates and tightening the money supply by selling bonds, pulling dollars out of the economy. But not only have prices not gone down since then, they are going up. As observed in a July 15 article on Seeking Alpha titled “Fed-Induced Recession Looms As Rate Fears Roil All Markets”:

On Wednesday, the Consumer Price Index came in at a 9.1% annual rate. The higher-than-expected reading puts the CPI at a new 41-year high.

The biggest contributors to rising consumer prices are the basic necessities of food, fuel, and shelter. As households struggle to make ends meet, they are trimming discretionary spending, burning through savings, and running up credit card balances.

Businesses are also getting squeezed. On Thursday, the Producer Price Index showed wholesale costs rising at a massive 11.3% year-over-year.

When their own costs go up, producers must raise the prices of their products to cover those costs, regardless of demand. Less money competing for their products won’t bring producer costs down. It will just drive the companies out of business, as happened in the Great Depression. The Seeking Alpha article concludes:

… As both businesses and consumers are forced to tighten their belts, a slowdown looms.

And if the Federal Reserve makes another major policy misstep, then a severe recession and financial crisis may also be coming.

Recession is already evident. The stock market has lost a cumulative $7 trillion in value this year, while the crypto market has lost $2 trillion since last November. Emerging markets are in even worse straits. According to a July 14 article by Larry McDonald on ZeroHedge, “Emerging and frontier market countries currently owe the IMF over $100 billion. US central banking policy plus a strong USD is vaporizing this capital as we speak.… A quarter-trillion dollars of distressed debt is threatening to drag the developing world into a historic cascade of defaults.”

Every time the Fed raises rates, borrowing becomes more expensive. That means higher interest costs not only for governments but for borrowers with mortgages, home equity lines of credit, credit cards, student debt and car loans. For both large and small businesses, loans also get pricier.

To be clear, this is not the same sort of inflation that Paul Volcker was taming in 1980 when he raised the Fed funds rate to 20%. McDonald observes, “In 2021, global debt reached a record $303T, according to the Institute of International Finance .… Volcker was jacking rates into a planet with about $200T LESS debt.” [Emphasis added]

Volcker was also not dealing with the supply shortages we have today, generated by lockdowns that put more than 100,000 U.S. companies out of business; sanctions and war that cut off global supplies of fuel, food and resources; and farming crises such as that in the Netherlands, generated by overly stringent regulations.

Higher interest rates don’t alleviate cost/push inflation caused by supply crises; they make it worse. Rather than making money harder to get, the government needs to focus on the supply side of the equation, stimulating local production to bring supply levels up. Rather than Volcker’s solution, what we need is that pioneered by Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who pulled us out of similar crises with public banking institutions designed to stimulate infrastructure and development.

For foreign models, we can look to the infrastructure-funding central banks of Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the first half of the 20th century; and to China, which salvaged the global economy following the 2008 banking crisis with massive infrastructure and development funded through its state-owned development banks.

China Did It

In the last 40 years, China has exploded from one of the world’s poorest countries to a global economic powerhouse. Among other notable achievements, from 2008 to 2022 it built 23,500 miles of high-speed rail, at a time when U.S. infrastructure projects were stalled for lack of funding. How did China pull this off? Rather than relying on taxpayer funds or foreign debt, it borrowed from its own banks.

China has three massive state-owned infrastructure and development banks – the China Development Bank, the Export-Import Bank of China, and the Agricultural Development Bank of China. Called “policy banks,” they get their liquidity either (a) directly from the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) in the form of “Pledged Supplementary Lending,” or (b) by issuing bonds, which have higher credit ratings than commercial bank bonds and are in demand because they can be used as collateral to borrow from the central bank. China’s policy banks are limited to funding certain specific government policies; and these policies are all productive and public-purpose-driven, unlike the short-term private profit-maximization driving Wall Street banks.

Besides its big state-owned banks, China has an extensive network of local banks, which know their local markets. The PBOC website lists seven tools it can use for adjusting monetary policy, including not just a short-term lending facility like the U.S. Fed’s discount window, but a facility to inject liquidity into banks for medium-term loans, as well as the “pledged supplementary lending” to fund long-term loans from the three policy lenders for specific sectors, including agriculture, small businesses, and shanty town re-development.

Yet all this stimulus has not driven up Chinese prices. In fact, consumer prices initially fell in 2008 and have hovered around 2% ever since. [See chart below.]

Prices are creeping up now, as is happening everywhere; but they have reached only 2.5%—far below the 9.7% seen in the U.S. in July.

Our Forebears Did It Too

State-owned infrastructure banks are not unique to China. In the United States, a similar model was initiated by Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Treasury Secretary. The “American System” of government-issued money and credit was key both to winning the American Revolutionary War and to transforming the nation from a collection of agrarian colonies to an industrial powerhouse. But after the War, the federal government was $70 million in debt, including $44 million from the colonies-turned-states.

Hamilton solved the debt problem with debt-for-equity swaps. Debt instruments were  accepted in partial payment for stock in the First U.S. Bank. This capital was then leveraged into credit, issued as the first U.S. currency. Loans were based on the fractional reserve model. Hamilton wrote, “It is a well established fact, that Banks in good credit can circulate a far greater sum than the actual quantum of their capital in Gold & Silver.”

That was also the model of the Bank of England, the financial engine of the colonial oppressors; but there were fundamental differences between the two models. The Bank of the United States (BUS) was designed for public development. The Bank of England (BOE) was intended for private gain. (See Hamilton Versus Wall Street: The Core Principles of the American System of Economics by Nancy Spannaus, and Alexander Hamilton: A Biography by Forrest McDonald.)

The BOE was chartered to fund a national war and was capitalized exclusively by public debt. The government would pay private lenders, who controlled what policies could be funded. Hamilton’s BUS, by contrast, was to be a commercial bank, funding itself by generating credit for infrastructure and development.

Under Hamilton’s system of “Public Credit,” the primary function of the BUS would be to issue credit to the government and private interests for internal improvements and other economic development. Hamilton said a bank’s function was to generate active capital for agriculture and manufactures, increasing the quantity and quality of labor and industry. The BUS would establish a sovereign currency, a banking system, and a source of credit to build the nation, creating productive wealth, not just financial profit.

The BUS was chartered for only 20 years, after which it lapsed. When economic hardships and monetary pressures followed, the Second Bank of the United States was founded in 1816 under President John Quincy Adams, basically on the Hamiltonian model. It funded one of the most intense periods of economic progress in history, investing directly in canals, railroads, roads, and coal and iron enterprises; lending money to states and cities engaged in such projects; and managing credit so that it continually flowed into needed productive activities.

After the Second BUS was shut down, Abraham Lincoln’s government issued Greenbacks (U.S. Notes) directly, funding both the Civil War and extensive infrastructure and development. The National Banking System was also established, under which national banks would be partially capitalized with federal securities.

An International Movement Is Born

The American System and its leaders not only allowed the American colonists to break free of British control but inspired an international movement. Other British colonies revolted, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada; and other countries rebelled against the British imperial free-trade doctrines and developed their own infrastructure and manufacturing, including Germany, Ireland, Russia, Japan, India, Mexico, and South America.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), founded in 1911, followed the Hamiltonian model. It was masterminded by an American named King O’Malley, who called Hamilton “the greatest financial man who ever walked the earth.” The CBA funded major national development and Australia’s participation in World War I, simply with national credit issued by the bank.

In Canada from 1939-74, the government borrowed from its own Bank of Canada, effectively interest-free. Major government projects were funded without increasing the national debt, including aircraft production during and after World War II, education benefits for returning soldiers, family allowances, old age pensions, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway project, and universal health care for all Canadians.

Meanwhile in the U.S., we got the Federal Reserve – and the worst banking crisis and economic depression ever in 1929-33. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt then rebuilt the U.S. economy financed through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, again funded on the Hamiltonian model. Initially capitalized with $500 million, from 1932 to 1957 it lent or invested over $40 billion for infrastructure and development of all kinds; funded the New Deal and World War II; and turned a net profit to the government of $690 million.

Solving Today’s Price Inflation

That could be done again, assuming the political will. Some pundits predict that the Fed will back off its aggressive interest rate hikes when the carnage from that approach becomes painfully evident, but it seems to be a phase we have to go through to convince policymakers that the Fed’s current tools are not able to curb the price inflation we have today. We need to stimulate local development with a national infrastructure and development bank like China’s; and for that, Congress needs to pass an infrastructure bank bill.

Four such bills are currently before Congress. Only one, however, is capable of generating the nearly $6 trillion that the American Society of Civil Engineers says is needed over the next decade for U.S. infrastructure investment. This is HR 3339: The National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2021, which would effectively be self-funded on the American System model – a critical feature given that the federal debt is at record levels. The bank would be capitalized with federal debt acquired in debt-for-equity swaps – federal securities for non-voting bank shares paying a 2% dividend. This capital would then be leveraged at 10 to 1 into low-interest loans, essentially at cost. The bank would be anti-inflationary, by bringing supply up to meet demand; would not require new taxes but would rather increase the tax base, by increasing GDP; and would require only a small Congressional outlay for startup costs, which would quickly be repaid. For more information on HR 3339, see the National Infrastructure Bank Coalition website.

• This article was first posted on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Read other articles by Ellen, or visit Ellen's website.