Tag Archives: Ludwig Von Mises
February 1, 2012Posted by on
The following is a brief extract from ‘Big Brother Loves You!’ by Detlev Schlichter in which he rails against fiat money and the creation of debt something that I touched on in A Universal Debt. Commenting on the trend towards interventionist policies and assertive state action, The Economist and the Financial Times talk of the trend towards ‘repression’ and ‘national capitalism’ in crisis management. The public believe that greedy bankers and ‘unfettered capitalism’ brought about this crisis. Yet cheap credit through state fiat money and the systematic subsidisation of the housing market, are not features of the free market but of politics. Read more of this post
December 30, 2011Posted by on
There is a view (especially in France) that the enemies of the Euro are the AS (Anglo-Saxons). In my opinion this is not so. I do not believe the AS are against the Euro but, in common with the Austrian School of Economics, they are against its inherent flaws. As Martin Feldstein points out in his article ‘The French Don’t Get It. The French government just doesn’t seem to understand the real implications of the euro. French officials apparently don’t recognize the importance of the fact that Britain is outside the eurozone, and therefore has its own currency, which means that there is no risk that Britain will default on its debt. By contrast, the French government and the French central bank cannot create euros. There is a second reason why the British situation is less risky than that of France. Britain can reduce its current-account deficit by causing the British pound to weaken relative to the dollar and the euro, which the French, again, cannot do without their own currency. The eurozone fiscal deficits and current-account deficits are now the most obvious symptoms of the euro’s failure. But the credit crisis in Europe, and the weakness of eurozone banks, may be even more important. The persistent unemployment differentials within the eurozone are yet another reflection of the adverse effect of imposing a single currency and a single monetary policy on a heterogeneous group of countries. These comments may be valid but in making the ‘French connection’, either Feldstein hasn’t been following recent European events very well, or he simply doesn’t understand the nature of the Anglo/French relationship, which is based on mutual distrust. Read more of this post
December 8, 2011Posted by on
Unlike Owl I always have a problem spelling Tuesday – my shortcomings here saved by a spellchecker and an intuitive notion that something doesn’t look right. When extraordinarily large valuations are put on artifacts, it simply doesn’t look right, especially when the artifact being purchased appears to be trivial, like a comic book. But this of course misses the point, which is that the investment in artifacts can be a means of hoarding wealth. This also means that large exchanges of money for artifacts has to take place. However: regardless of the price that an artifact may sell for, in a world where the medium of currency exchange is fiat money, any sum of money becomes irrelevant. With fiat money, there is no need for money to exist in a form that requires its physical exchange. Read more of this post
December 3, 2011Posted by on
I posted the link to Paul Gringon’s video as I found its message quite appealing, given the censure being heaped on bankers and financiers. However, I found the solution offered to the hypothesis of ‘money as debt’ somewhat optimistic, for in whatever form money is regulated, politicians will attempt to manipulate the supply of money to service their own political agenda. I have always eschewed the conspiracy theorists, Illuminati, Bilderberg, Freemasons, et al, but perhaps what is most surprising about conspiracy theories, is their popularity. There is a wide, if somewhat sceptical, acceptance of the possibility of a conspiracy, balanced by a naïve belief that somehow protection from such conspiracies is inherent in a democracy.
Read more of this post
February 23, 2011Posted by on
Quantitative Easing is the method used by the UK government (past and present) to stimulate economic growth by injecting money electronically into the economy. The theory is that the sale of British Government bonds (gilts) and high quality Corporate Bonds from private sector companies (banks, pension funds, insurance companies and non-financial institutions) provides this economic stimulus. Quantitative easing to finance the purchase of these bond sales injects money directly into companies (and into the government coffers) thus increasing their available capital. The theory being that this in turn allows the release of money into the general economy, which also stimulates growth. In selling gilts the government effectively promotes a legal Ponzi scheme. In buying gilts or Corporate Bonds with money electronically printed for that purpose, the government and the banks are effectively laundering that money. When the State spends more money than it receives in taxes and resorts to printing more money; to paraphrase Frank Chodorov from Don’t buy Government Bonds, it is deliberately committing an act of bankruptcy.