Global citizenship via Self-Sovereign Identity

Source: Markus Spiske 


Every human is born free with human rights as to life and property. We do not choose our place of birth, and we should have full freedom to choose our location of self-development. Therefore, we need a global citizenship that not only is given but also owned by us as sovereign individuals. At the moment, this could be done with technology as SSI. Regardless of how global governance functions as in the future in principle, every human should own its identification. Nobody should be without ID, paperless or a stateless person. This is especially vital when it comes to mobility. Thanks to global citizenship, humans can always move from point A to point B to conduct legal agreements, interactions and self-development with respect for freedom, dignity and human rights. Categories as immigrants and emigrants could be abolished since there will only be mobility of world citizens.

Development of an individually owned global citizenship is also vital for affections and participation. Citizenship has three main components which are legal (rights, freedoms), affiliation (community, polity) and engagement (democracy, lobby). Such elements are still oriented around national citizenships for political and historical reasons as development of national-state institutions as education, military organisation and democratic governance. That is among the reason why EU-citizenship is not regarded as a “real citizenship” since it is I mostly based on its legal meaning while affiliation and participatory aspects are weaker. Therefore, the creation of global citizenship should be based on inspiration and experience from EU-citizenship. Global citizenship should include the possibility to vote on local and global levels as regarding commune/municipality and the World Parliament (or a global democratic governance institution). It also has to be part of civic participation in the sense of symbolic meaning that as a global citizen, one is active in initiatives as lobby, civic activism and supporting of solving global problems and challenges.

Finally, being a global citizen would also include “glocal” behaviours and civic orientation. Local institutions and governance levels are, in fact much more critical when it comes to global problems and challenges since they can operate with global governance levels and institutions directly rather than going via state or union levels. Establishment of a world federation would demand that more sovereignty is being conducted on local levels in areas as climate and ecology, humanitarian and refugee help, law enforcement and human security aspects. Being a global citizen is therefore as much as being a locally oriented individual who regardless of its local areas in the world has the possibility and freedom to operate in agreements with other individuals and with relations to local and global institutions.  

“Do you know what a nation is”?

Source: Pexels 

On 6 June, which is Sweden’s national day,  historian Herman Lindkvist made a post on Facebook expressing how he felt lot of confusion when members of the “cultural elite” as in the media were questioning the national day while celebration of the national day as in USA was a “normal thing” to do.[1] However, recent discussions about and criticisms of Trump’s behaviour showed that 4^th July was not a day without political debates around collective identification. As the libertarian Reason magazine published its title “Trump’s militarized fourth of July parade makes America less great”.[2] There was no need to celeberate by behaving in sense of “pathological sense of victimhood”, as Isiash Berlin wrote in his book “The Crooked Timber of Humanity”,  and in sense of  national inadequacy as the case is in France. Instead, the message was that Americans celebrate the Fourth of July joyously with food and recreation. 

As Tucker argues in his book about right-wing collectivism, disagreement and confusion are parts of the political life in a political community as a nation.[3] Tucker exemplifies the meaning of the term nation by referring to 19^th-century historian Ernst Renan writings about the nation which also inspired von Mises reasoning about classical-liberal view on nationhood. Not everything from Renan’s essay and reasoning can be applied as sensible or correct today but parts of his reasoning still be relevant for contemporary analysis as the following five criteria:

-       Dynasty. The view that there is ruling class which has created a nation as on basis of wars, treaties, alliances which can also remind of European feudal experience. Renan wrote at that time that nation can exist or be created without a “dynastic principle”, which for example was the case of the French revolution.

-       Religion. The view that there should be one religion per nation. But as history show, nations have been communities with members having different religions or different types of the same religion. Liberal ideas a religious freedom and harmony led to acceptance for different religious identifications within communities.

-       Race. The view that there should be one race (in modern sense as in USA based on skin colour and social constructions) per nation. Renan argued that even if the race was a large factor in primate societies, as tribes, creation of more civilized societies as via music, arts, literature, education, trade led to reduction of meaning of race during establishment of larger political communities. Also, thanks to modern science it is known that there is not “pure race”.

-       Language. The view that a language is the most vital aspect of nationhood. But having a same language is not always equal to having a same nation or political community. Canada and USA both have English, Brazil and Angola have Portuguese. Renan wrote that “languages invite people to unite…but it does not force them to do so”. For example, this is can be seen in cases of individuals having different dialects if feeling irritated in their interactions will try to speak more loudly and stronger on their local or regional dialects as in Stockholm and Scania. 

-       Geography. The view that nations are decided upon geographical boundaries. As history shows, nature and geography can be overcome as in cases of Hong-Kong belonging to United Kingdom or that Riga during 17-th century was the biggest town of Swedish kingdom. Renan wrote that “I know of no doctrine which is more arbitrary or more fatal, for it allows one to justify any or every violence.”[4]

So is there a way to explain a single factor to account for people’s sense of attachment to a political community? Is it about loyalty? Or about fiction? Or ideas? One keyword is – affection. As Tucker explains it in relation to Renan[5]:

“In Renan’s view, nationhood is a spiritual principle, a reflection of the affections we feel toward political community—its ideals, its past, its achievements, and its future. Where your heart is, there is your nation. This is why so many of us can feel genuine feelings of joy and even belongingness during July 4th celebrations. We are celebrating something in common: a feeling we have that we share with others, regardless of religion, race, language (this is, after all, a country where “Despacito” is the number one pop hit), geography, and even ideology.”

Similarly, can be said about for example 9 May (Europe day). And even if one day there will be some kind of world federation or United Planet of Humans with institutionalized global citizenship and democracy there will still be place for public holidays, civic rituals and celebrations on “sub-global” levels as in villages, towns, cities, regions, countries and unions.

---

[1] Facebook. Herman-Lindqvist. Publication date: 2019-06-06. Downloaded: 2019-07-17. Website: https://www.facebook.com/Herman-Lindqvist-769626599763426/?__tn__=kCH-R&eid=ARDmt0jSCpnPwEAj49n798ZpjDVSvrTlUS7XEbt7D02p57DK2CY8MgsshkY7tYmqMkNwJJYxScvOBlfT&hc_ref=ARQpAoJxY4wfPdmg-mfQXH30F55i6eL2MKim1oKyo0XpPbnvh24NWPMhSSSGdNVFQXg&fref=nf&__xts__%5b0%5d=68.ARASDlBIYiwyaR0DNzirDG7dAbqPDBBJiV2nX0YRet7iKirAYAM8DYS7_ICdnWGpL218F9nrtem5YFI6H6WwgGCVrTaucVdnrBlAALY6Y_MVMTUvPTMqTIs3U0e7j8U7sq_wVKUt9UNYWgeMQyb5qIDyrlkr4My-lqr8hRPQ6E3e2xuGhpJ5R3xuM_LKhiQNuNfNkWDR7k6PRBzOqgSUKeMtlDglf2NZjezu0l0H4NJEogpWq6ovv8SKy81GJEOzoJFKfThUFI8eWizHc7XdlKx6tcpHxwegopF_7ZRjLXrLzKW6zSHVXW-cWK0vbgRVei3JFNs68JeLpbeEJQ

[2] Reason. Trump’s Militarized Foruth of July Parade Makes America Less Great”. Publication date: 2019-07-04. Downloaded: 2019-07-17. Website: https://reason.com/2019/07/04/trumps-militarized-fourth-of-july-parade-makes-america-less-great/

[3] Tucker, RWC. p.57-60

[4] Tucker. RWC. p.61. Rennan also wrote that: “Man is a slave neither of his race nor his language, nor of his religion, nor of the course of rivers nor of the direc­tion taken by mountain chains. A large aggregate of men, healthy in mind and warm of heart, creates the kind of moral conscience which we call a nation.”

[5] Tucker. RWC. P.64

Are globalization and globalism dead?

Source: Pexels  

Arguments and opinions in style that “globalism is dead” are common today and are nothing new. Similar statements were made during 1990’s and 2000’s. One example is “The Collapse of Globalism” by John Ralston Saul published in 2005.[1] In order to show that globalism was dead and collapsing Saul presented aspects as rising inequality, nationalism and economic populism around the world. Other examples of globalism on decline were the Asian financial crisis and demonstrations in Seattle. It is interesting that his book was published during the same period which intellectuals, academics and pundits as for example Dani Rodrik have presented as a period of “hyperglobalization” and “hyperglobalism”.

In a similar essay called “The Collapse of Globalism. And the rebirth of nationalism” Saul pointed out on trends, behaviors and signs of globalization not working well, and at least not working as globalists were presenting it.[2] According to Saul, keynesianist economic polices did not worked well as during the 1970’s  which led to acceptance for new ideas as by Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek who argued that government regulation was the problem and  that the free market was the solution. Both Hayek and Friedman became as symbols in what was to be called neo-liberalism and neo-liberal capitalism.[3] Among Saul’s main criticism was that presenting globalization as inevitable was a sign of arguments in favor of globalization actually being week. As he explained that: “once you believe that the market is inevitable you start believing that the lower the taxes the bigger the growth, and the happier people will be. Well, there’s absolutely no historic proof for that at all”.[4]

Such developments were truth in some parts of the world as Europe and North America, but not for others as Africa, Asia and South America. It is harder to measure happiness of humans, especially from older historical periods as from 19^th century. History has examples of lower taxes and higher growth as during 19^th century parts of Europe as United Kingdom, Sweden during 1950’s and 60’s and also sub-national entities as Texas. Also, when it comes to inequality there are still challenges with measurement, very much depending on national bias in statistics but also on human bias regarding one’s emotions and perceptions of economy. As in the review of Saul’s book, economist Bibek Debroy wrote that:

”What is the impact of globalisation on disparities? The answer depends on the yardstick used and there is a difference between poverty, an absolute concept, and inequality, a relative one. Saul doesn't appreciate the difference… No economist has said globalism is sufficient, though it is necessary”. [5]

According to Saul, globalization was dead because “grand economic theories rarely last more than few decades” and due its “technocratic and technological determinism”. In his views, globalization’s promotion, such as symbolism of “inevitable” and “end of history” became as a religion as Christianity. And the dichotomy globalism-nationalism was already manifested with WTO being established during the same period as the war in former Yugoslavia was ending and that globalization peaked in 1995.[6] However, as it will be shown, the case of globalization, as well as globalism being dead is simply not the case.

---

[1] Saul, Ralston John. “The Collapse of Globalism. And the Reinvention of the World”. (2005, Abrams Books, New York). 

[2] John Ralston Saul. The Collapse of Globalism. And the Rebirth of Nationalism. Publciation date: Unknown. Downloaded: 2019-06-19. Website: http://www.urbanlab.org/articles/misc/Saul%202010%20-%20collapse%20of%20globalism.pdf

[3] Mother Jones. The Collapse of Globalism. Publication date: 2005-11-09. Downloaded: 2019-06-19.  Website: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/11/collapse-globalism/ .

[4] Ibid

[5] India Today. Book review: John Ralston Saul’s “Collapse of Globalism And Reinvention of World”. Publication date: 2005-11-14. Downloaded: 2019-06-19. Website: https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/society-the-arts/books/story/20051114-book-review-collapse-of-globalism-and-reinvention-of-world-by-john-saul-786561-2005-11-14  

[6] John Ralston Saul. The Collapse of Globalism. And the Rebirth of Nationalism. Publciation date: Unknown. Downloaded: 2019-06-19. Website: http://www.urbanlab.org/articles/misc/Saul%202010%20-%20collapse%20of%20globalism.pdf

Dollarzone and Eurozone failures – “Socialism for the rich”

”The Federal Reserve isn't just inflating markets. It's also shifting a massive amount of wealth from the middle-class and poor to the rich, according to billionaire hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller…

"This is fantastic for every rich person," he said Thursday, a day after the Fed's stunning decision to delay tightening its monetary policy. "This is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich ever."

"Who owns assets—the rich, the billionaires. You think Warren Buffett hates this stuff? You think I hate this stuff? I had a very good day yesterday.”[1]

September 2008 and Lehman Brothers collapse became as a milestone in global history because of its symbolism that people around the world could recognize and feel about. A bank became a symbol of a global financial system being in crisis, at least regarding the “Western part” of the world as USA and EU. And it was all connected to the US housing market and policies created during the presidency of George Bush Jr. As the Obama administration took over during the same year. The US government intervention came among other things to be based on using public money worth of 50 billion dollars officially in order prevent house owners from being evicted. The idea was that mortgage loan companies would use public money in order to reduce and remove debts of house owners who were fulfilling certain criteria.  According to president Obama, this program would help between 3-4 million house owners. However, the opposite took place which came to be exemplified in Jeremy Fletcher’s history. Instead of receiving help Jeremy Fletcher ended up in financial nightmare being exposed to stress, threats for eviction, lower financial credit and family problems. US federal government program as Home Affordable Modification Program or HAMP came to be administrated by the mortgage companies meaning that the US government came to subsidize mortgage companies’ pending times and administrative costs. The unofficial intentions by the government was not to help house owners directly but to “secure soft landings” for the banks. This was done by delaying house owners´ bankruptcy were individuals as Jeremy had to send 5-6 loan applications that were “lost” by the companies as City Mortgage.  The results of the HAMP program were less than one million house-owners with receiving real help while around six million owners were evicted. The winners were the banks and mortgage companies, thanks to the government, while the losers were low and middle-income individuals.[2]

In USA, the economic recovery from 2008 to 2016 was lower comparing to similar levels after the World War II. Except of using public money for dealing with certain sectors as the housing and mortgage market, one of the official ideas of quantitative easing policies is to stimulate the real economy. However, as the cases of USA and EU are showing this cannot be seen as a good case. Another case is that QE policies in one country, especially larger economies, lead to similar behaviors in other ones. Such policies were initially driven by Republican party during the Bush era. Interesting how a party often proposing free markets and limited government could do such policies and QE was continued by centrist politicians as by Obama. Both liberals and socialists can agree on that socialism for the rich is bad idea and that trickle-down economics do not work, or at least do not work on the free/ less regulated markets. As Mattias Svensson writes, criticism of free market politics among left-wing actors have often been based on perception that free markets are “trickle-down” economics where there are few rich and some of their money eventually ends up among the poor. Because in free, open or less regulated markets one becomes rich mostly thanks to selling stuff that people in general want to buy as clothes, food and toys. In more regulated and state driven markets it is often easier to become rich thanks to usage, or better said, misuse or criminal use of government and public institutions. Basically, QE policies have very limited and a bad impact on real economy. And what happened in 2008-2106 was mostly a failure of state, public institutions and politics than comparing to the market and private sector. Period of can be described as 2008-2016 was period of wealth distribution from poor and middle-income earners to high income earners and rich.[3]

Regarding USA, the problem was not about the deregulation of the US financial sector. The problem was in regulations and their content. This also occurred due implementation of Basel rules which provided the large banks with possibility to purchase more risky financial instruments due lower demands for capital cover rate. Another case was the spirit of the time of 2001 and 9/11. During 1980’s and 1990’s American economic policy was mainly based on deregulation, liberalizations and what can be called as neo-liberal capitalism. After the terror attacks and in combination with the later financial crisis, Keynesian economic ideas of spending public and taxpayer’s money became more popular even among the Republican party. Patriotism became used in economic references. One case was the General Motors communication about “Keep America rolling” with references to the importance of nation and cohesion. In basics it was about buying cars with credit and interest rate free loans.[4]

Part of the pre-crisis development was George Bushs Jr reform ideas about making it easier for ethnic minority groups as African and Latin Americans to own their homes. The idea was that government intervention on the banking market it would lead to more people in USA owning their homes and thereby standing for values as individuality and success. This reform was part of his electoral campaign in 2004. But such willingness and interests to govern, enjoy power and conduct politics led to wrong results. In 2004, a libertarian journalist James Bovard warned that easy government sponsored credits to individuals who had high credit risks and where not in good position to pay back the money on the long-term could lead to catastrophic results for American taxpayers. Basically, if Bush did not change the rules that were in place before 2004 the economic and financial crisis probably would have been much less serious and devastating. When Bush left power in 2008 there were around 28 million high-risk loans with low-possibility payback. And the main actors in that financial theater were half-public companies Fannie Mea and Freddie Mac.[5]

According to IMF-economist Simon Johnson, during the crisis it was possible to see how interest of the financial companies were going hand in hand with government decision-making regardless of parties. This explains how Wall Street companies are interlinked with government institutions since it was common that individuals working in finance sectors would change jobs between private and public. Freddie and Fannie were spending money on lobby, even up to 200 million dollars. Such money would go to politicians as democrats Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. In case of Dodd, who prevented government supervision of Freddie and Fannie, was chosen by the governing Democratic party to  make new regulations for the financial sector after the Lehman’s crash. To balance this history, it should be mentioned that the republican politician Newt Gingrich came to earn around 1,6 million dollars in payments by being a voice of Freddie and Fannie. To makes things worse, Fannie and Freddie also sponsored academic research to confirm their agenda were even Joseph Stiglitz was involved.[6]

Today, more than 10 years after the crisis started taking place there are still ongoing discussions in US politics if Fannie and Freddie, that were established during the 1930’s and era of government interventionism, should be preserved, abolished or limited. The whole process in which Fannie and Freddie were involved was based on giving loans to high-risk consumers, turning loans into obligations and securities, selling them to other private or public institutions and then making new loans. But the problem was not the market – it was government regulations. In combination with Basel rules that made insecure securities and assets to look secure thereby leading to moral hazard behaviour among banks as Citybank , Bank of America, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachss. As Svensson writes, the banks who were most connected to government programs and politics were those banks who were the worst ones and made politics worse.[7]

A similar situation came to take place in Europe, regarding the Eurozone and its governance. One important thing with Euro as a currency is that historically it was more of a political idea and project than of an economic one. According to the EU-treaties, when being a member state of the Eurozone governments must keep the state deficit under 60% of the total GDP and budget deficit to be highly 3%. And in 1997, only two years of euros official introduction there were only three states – Luxembourg, France and Finland who were fulfilling these requirements. And before Greece could enter the Eurozone it was known among the leading EU political circles as among the European Council (heads of states, prime ministers) that the Greek government at that time was not honest with their financial statistics. Here the following political manifestations can be seen. German chancellor Helmut Kolh stated that majority of population was not in favor of abolishing the Deutschmark and that he was ignoring warnings from economists in order to promote the European project. Romano Prodi, who except being prime minister of Italy also was the president of European Commission made statements in an interview for Financial Times that euro would lead to challenge which would lead to new policy instruments to be created.[8]

Also, for the EU there was another case when comparing to USA. In the beginning there was a feeling of EU dealing with the crisis very fast. Even a more critical economist Hans-Werner Sinn wrote about the European Central Bank made a good decision to provide Eurozone banks with more financial liquidity by lowering security demands for loans. Sinn argues that already in 2009, the crisis was over but instead of going back to normal the ECB: s temporary policy became the new normal. This made it possible for Eurozone states to create new credits via national central banks as in the case of Greece. By being members of the Eurozone it meant that states had better credit ratings and could create credits in order to “fill the budget holes” but this was all depending on ECB: s guarantees plus cover from European taxpayers money. A paradox that the Euro-crisis came to manifest as Svensson writes “the world’s most imbalanced system”. Not even federations as USA or Switzerland accept such imbalances between different states or cantons. Euro-crisis became a period of breaking and ignoring European constitutionalism such as bailouts between governments. [9]

Irish state has until 2041-42 to payback its debts from the Euro-crisis. This is only one example how serious and deteriorating the situation was during that period. ECB became as an owner of state obligations with low security in billions of euros. This took place due ECB: s decision to do what ever it takes to save the Euro, as its president Mario Draghi stated once. Securities for loans are made of public obligations in heavily indebted states as Greece and Italy. However, due the new banking regulations and mechanism such loans came to be transformed into “solid assets” regardless of market’s judgments. Svensson presents such behaviour as similar to “financial instrument equivalent to East German government made car Trabant ”. Therefore, one problem with the proposal for creation of a EU-banking union is that it would mean higher risks for European taxpayers since a more institutionalized and integrated Eurozone would mean also EU-level being more responsible for buying obligations and QE behaviour in order for governments to make new credits.[10]

The whole process can be described as a mixture of bad competitiveness, higher prices and unemployment, lower wages and trust in EU-institutions. It also leads to banks and hedge-funds as those based in France and Germany to be able to take even higher risks and moral hazard behaviour since ECB and European taxpayers’ money is seen as a guarantee. Basically, the ECB applied similar policies that failed in USA. And in similar ways to USA, the case of Euro-crisis shows that it was not a failure of market in the first place but a failure of governance. It was also manifested in “To big to fail” behaviour where states and public institutions are protecting banks.[11]

Within academic research, there are some general agreements on how a financial system should work:[12]

1.     Banks need higher own capital for security and to earlier admit looses

2.     Public regulations on the mortgage/housing market need to be reformed in order to prevent risky and destabilizing subventions (as with Freddie and Fannie)

3.     Large private financial institutions need to understand that they are not to big to fail and can end up in bankruptcy. 

This is also shown in empirical evidences that cases of austerity, reducing debt and accepting lower wages sooner or later lead to new economic growth and dynamic development. Comparing to the case of for example Japan which is among most prominent examples of long-term stagnation based on low-interest rates and long-term debt. In EU, this can be seen where Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were better in dealing with the crisis than for example Greece and Italy. And having over-indebted states in the Euro-zone was shown to have positive impact for richer individuals in the Euro-zone by having access to valuable assets with taxpayers’ money and public institutions as a guarantee. Therefore, as in the case of USA, one can speak about transformation from market driven economy to central planning, but which ends in in socialization of the credit market that benefits rich but has negative impact on poorer and youthful segments of society – socialism for the rich. Basically, QE polices do not lift and stimulate the whole economy and especially the “real economy” as in terms of wages and assets among majority of individuals. Even if such policies can stimulate the financial sector, they also end up misuse of taxpayers money and to benefit a smaller number of individuals that already are wealthy. It ends up with taxpayers, young and retired people being exposed to negative economic impact and debts while politicians and bureaucrats are protecting the private financial institutions.[13]

Regarding Sweden’s development things came to look better. Not being a member of the Eurozone contributed but at the same time Swedish banks as SEB and Swedbank were exposed to the financial situation in the Baltics. Absence of currency devaluation of in Baltic states (before the introduction of Euro) and imposition of austerity measures had an effect in such way that the Swedish state finances and private banks were not negatively affected. Also, the Swedish government mobilized around 1500 billion SEK (which was around two budgets) at the beginning of the crisis for dealing with eventual shocks. One thing with the Swedish system was that banks abstained from using much money because the regulations were perceived as strict. When looking on statistics from 2001-2015 the government debt, tax pressure and public spending all went down in different numbers. [14]

Swedish state was not in the same position as the USA one as a “TBTF guarantor” and neither in the same position as the Finnish one who had to bailout indebted Eurozone states. However, not everything was good in Sweden at that point. The Swedish central bank (Riksbanken) has a tendency like for example the Norwegian one to follow the footsteps of ECB. And from a global perspective, if there are several and more influential central banks as Fed or ECB who are conducting QE, such process would lead to similar behaviors among other central banks. Riksbanken did not buy state obligation papers as ECB but has via its negative interest rate policy made an impact towards a more unstable housing market with increasing house prices and debts among the owners. As in other parts of Europe, the financial crisis led to increased government role. Also, globally, there have been similar trends with increasing public expenditure and increasing loans equal from 5%-10% of GDP as in BRICS states. As result of government intervention, capital flows from USA and EU to at that time “emerging markets” also led to higher prices for accommodation, food and energy. A similar case is in Sweden, and where prices on stocks and housing are increasing while they are not included in older models for calculating inflation.[15]

Today it is more known that deflation as reduction of consumption prices is not a “bad thing”. For ECB: s function it is vital to understand that modern studies show that inflation and price stability around 2% is not necessary. The QE inflation polices have not led to wished results while deflation has not been shown as bad for economic growth. And not only that but QE has also influenced on more global instability in the sense of governments, as between USA and China, being more intolerant and skeptical to each other. QE is not only equal to stagnation, poverty and debts but also to global instability, conflicts and nationalist behaviors. As Svensson puts it, the word extreme is used often in bad ways to discredit political opponents but not often when it comes to QE policies. What is known now is that QE leads to financial imbalances, reduction for future pensions and to redistribution to the richest. QE has not prevented Japan to improve its economy since 1998. Since the beginning of 2000’s states and supranational institutions as in EU have become the main consumer and controller of banks and central-banks. Zero rates and state driven credits became the new normal. In 2016 IMF reported that the world is most indebted than ever, meaning that repayments are among us, our children and grandchildren. As Svensson puts it, the yesterday’s unthinkable policies will become new the normal tomorrow.[16]

---

[1] NBC News. Hedge fund billionaire: Fed’s move “fantastic” for the rich. Publication: 2013-09-13. Downloaded: 2019-05-22. Website: https://www.nbcnews.com/businessmain/hedge-fund-billionaire-feds-move-fantastic-rich-4B11199524

[2] Mattias Svensson. Den stora statens återkomst (Return of the big state). (2017, Timbro Förlag, Klaipeda) p.39

[3] Svensson p.42

[4] Svensson p.45

[5] Svensson p.47

[6] Svensson p.49

[7] Svensson p.53

[8] Svensson p.55

[9] Svensson p.56

[10] Svensson p.57-58

[11] Svensson p.59

[12] Calmoris and Haber p.278

[13] Svensson p.61-63

[14] Svensson p.65

[15] Svensson p.68

[16] Svensson p-71-73