domenica 3 novembre 2019

"ECB is completely out of line" - professors rant against Draghi

Polemical debate
"ECB is completely out of line with your mandate" - professors rant against Draghi
From: Frank Wiebe, Ingo Narat


Source: https://app.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/polemische-debatte-ezb-verstoesst-vollkommen-offensichtlich-gegen-ihr-mandat-professoren-wettern-gegen-draghi/25174660.html



At the "Monetary Policy Forum" in Frankfurt, economists discussed the course of the ECB on Thursday - so bitter that the landlord had to intervene.

Image: https://app.handelsblatt.com/images/transp/7252108/1-formatOriginal.png
Mario Draghi - The newly retired ECB President is unpopular in Germany. Image: Tim Wegner / laif

Frankfurt - It was a very special conference. The DVFA, the Association of German Financial Analysts, held a "Monetary Policy Forum" in Frankfurt on Thursday, but was mainly invited by critics and opponents of the European Central Bank (ECB). In the morning the discussion degenerated temporarily so that the economics Volker Wieland had to intervene as host of the event in the Frankfurt University.

In the afternoon, the tone became much more objective. Ulrich Bindseil also had the opportunity to speak with a prominent department head of the ECB and defend the monetary policy of his institution.

But the event, which has at least partly gotten out of hand, by the renowned DVFA, shows how much the ECB's policy is now polarizing. Another sign of how difficult it will be for ECB head Christine Lagarde to reconcile monetary policy, both inside and outside the central bank.

The invited economists were in agreement for long stretches. From their point of view, the ECB, with its loose monetary policy, produces "zombies", ie half-dead companies that would not be able to survive at higher interest rates. Or, as Ludger Schuknecht of the OECD put it, the "Schumpeterian process" is questioned in this way.
 
The economist Joseph Schumpeter had spoken of the "creative destruction" in capitalism. In this view, the ECB is hampering the selection process and is thus responsible for the weak productivity. "The ECB is an obstacle to development, I believe that is also empirically proven," warned the Munich Professor Bernd Rudolf.

Their efforts to raise low inflation are exaggerated and jeopardize financial stability. And again and again came the hint that in reality monetary policy was only for the interests of heavily indebted euro states. In addition, there were frequent visions of bubbles in the markets and future economic collapse.

Against a point target in inflation

Jörg Krämer, chief economist at Commerzbank, argued that the ECB could hardly influence inflation anyway because it was kept low by externalities such as globalization. He proposed instead of a "point target" of just under two percent in inflation, a margin between 1.25 and 2.25 percent. "It's a fairytale that low inflation hurts," he said.

He referred to a study by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), according to which in the past even periods of slight deflation, ie falling prices, would not have caused any major problems. In his opinion, in addition to stable prices, the ECB should also keep an eye on the stability of the financial system, he spoke of "comprehensive stabilization".
 
Central bankers like to point out that financial supervisors are responsible for the financial stability. Krämer is convinced that these authorities are permanently overtaxed to fight against an expansionary monetary policy.

Gunther Schnabl of the University of Leipzig complained that the ECB should focus on asset prices instead of consumer prices, which in any case could no longer influence them.

He called for interest rates to be gradually raised, irrespective of inflation, for example by a quarter of a percentage point a year. He assumed a reasonable interest rate of four to five percent. "This leads to a stable drive that gives people a positive perspective," he said.
 
It's a fairytale that low inflation hurts. 
Jörg Krämer, chief economist at Commerzbank

The day before, Schnabl had already argued at an event of the asset manager Flossbach von Storch. Their chief economist Thomas Mayer had said: "Nobody will meet Schnabl's demand. We are dealing with an asymmetrical monetary policy: you let the party run, when it goes up, it only intervenes when it goes down. That's why I expect a major financial crisis in the next recession. Then the question arises of a system change. "

Schnabl criticized at the DVFA Congress also, the inflation is reported too low, because there are no quality reductions that are included. "There are quality reductions everywhere, the food does not taste anymore, the toys and the furniture are made of plastic," he criticized. In his opinion, services are getting worse: "Everywhere you have to serve yourself."

Kerber accuses ECB of "omnipotence fantasies"
 

When the debate got lost in the question of where to buy bread rolls with or without service, Wieland intervened: "Anyone can buy bread, where he wants, that has nothing to do with monetary policy."

He quickly warned that it was very dangerous to demand that monetary policy be guided by direct asset prices. In fact, that would also amount to making the much-bemoaned manipulation of capital markets by the ECB a principle.

It became even wilder when professors Christoph Degenhart from Leipzig, Stefan Homburg from Hannover and Markus Kerber from the TU Berlin came to the podium with well-known ECB opponents. Homburg is an economist, the other two are lawyers and also sharply attacked the European Court of Justice, which had dismissed the ECB's controversial bond purchases. Among the three was Stefan Schneider, a sometimes seemingly intimidated economist of the Deutsche Bank, who occasionally tried to bring some calmness into the discussion.

Kerber criticized the oft-cited promise by ECB President Mario Draghi in 2012, voiced by many of his critics, that he would "do whatever it takes" to save the euro, as exceeding the mandate of the central bank. He pointed out that "Signor Draghi", as he called him, had said clearly that he would pursue this goal "within the mandate".
 
 
Kerber added: "The ECB postulates the freedom of law." He accused her of "omnipotence fantasies" and a claim to sovereignty, which is comparable to Hitler's former claim to leadership in the formulation of the notorious state theorist Carl Schmitt.

It was left to a participant of the audience, especially to counter this history clutter. The participant also objected to the allegation, the monetary politicians acted mainly in the national interest of their respective countries of origin.

In the course of the discussion, Kerber hinted that "the Greeks" are not really Europeans and therefore did not belong in the EU. Kerber received support from Degenhart.

The law professor spoke of a "delimitation of the mandate of the ECB and the encouragement of the European Court of Justice". Economist Homburg in turn said: "The ECB is completely contrary to their mandate, and this is taboo by politics and the media."

Schneider and Wieland tried to convey a few basic insights into monetary policy to the professor of economics, who also upset the ECB's various programs - whether it was successful or not.

Wieland finally tried to capture the whole discussion again. He clearly criticized the "one-sidedness" of the podium and commented on the course of the discussion: "We are not just on the wrong track here. We completely slipped. "

The criticism shows that the new ECB boss Lagarde will not have it easy. The hope lies on her that she will explain the monetary policy of the ECB to the German public better than before and thus make it palatable. In this context, she will meet the rejection of many German economists, while she is not an economist, but a lawyer.
 
 
 
Critics see bond purchases as indirect public finance

For a long time now, the ECB has been subject to criticism by renowned economists in Germany. In part, this also applies to former central bankers, as the former ECB chief economist Otmar Issing has often said distanced to today's monetary policy of the central bank.

In addition, especially after the ECB meeting in September, the internal division between supporters of outgoing ECB President Mario Draghi and his opponents has deepened. Immediately after the meeting, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann criticized the resolutions on new bond purchases. Klaas Knot and Robert Holzmann, the heads of the national central banks in the Netherlands and Austria, also went public with a similar agenda.

These critical economists consider the ECB's response to relatively low inflation to be greatly exaggerated. While Draghi's supporters, and, for example, the new ECB chief economist Philip Lane, want to combat inflation as close to the target of just under two percent as clearly as overshooting, Weidmann believes that much more patience is necessary if inflation is too low. Issing believes that only self-reinforcing deflation, that is, accelerated price erosion, must be resolutely combated.

Bond purchases are considered by critics partly as indirect state financing. For some of them, the blatant accusation that the ECB wants to support weak states in the south of the monetary union, or at any rate its low interest rates, helps to avert the need for fundamental reforms.
 
 
 For a while, the discussion about the so-called Target 2 balances played a role in Germany, through which payments between national central banks, which run via the ECB, are charged. The well-known economist Hans-Werner Sinn has repeatedly described these balances as loans and demanded a reduction or collateralization.

However, by far not all German economists are in this criticism. Isabel Schnabel, for example, who was newly proposed for the ECB Executive Board, endeavors to differentiate his arguments and resolutely opposed Sinn's allegations.

At the DVFA event, the ECB head of Bindseil had the chance to bring a slightly different perspective to the discussion in the afternoon. He explained that the ECB is guided by the "natural equilibrium interest rate", which can also be estimated as the sum of growth and inflation expectations. Because this sum is very low, the ECB is controlling it.

In his view, the euro zone would be much worse off without this monetary policy. An assessment with which he would have felt rather lonely on this day, in this place.

More: In a guest commentary, the chief economist of the Hamburg Commercial Bank writes: Mario Draghi has said clearly that fiscal policy is more in demand. His successor in the ECB is likely to agree.

Juncker's operation postponed the spy scandal hearings

Juncker's operation postponed the spy scandal hearings
Source: Операция на Юнкер отложи дело по шпионски скандал
Nov 1, 2019
https://bg.euractiv.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2019/11/42738351_2083797991651431_3642781172141916160_o.jpg
A Luxembourg court has adjourned its upcoming hearing on a spy scandal case after former Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker announced plans to undergo surgery.

The President of the European Commission will undergo surgery on 11 November for an aortic aneurysm in the abdomen. This is the reason why he cannot appear as a witness in the case, scheduled for November 19. It envisages 12 interrogations.
Three agents of the SREL intelligence service are charged with tapping. The prosecution said the crime was committed in 2007 when Juncker was still prime minister.

Prosecutors are in contact with various countries to propose another delay in the process, hoping it could start this year, a source told AFP.

The case was originally supposed to start in November 2017, but was postponed due to a loaded Junker program headed by the EC.

Prior to becoming President of the European Commission, Juncker was Prime Minister of Luxembourg for 18 years. However, the SREL scandal led to an election, after which Juncker fell out of power.
Officers for whom he was responsible were charged with various abuses between 2004 and 2009, including unlawful wiretapping to keep informants under control. The case is also linked to a series of undisclosed explosions of electric poles and public buildings that occurred in 1984 and 1986.

Two former gendarmerie officers have been investigated in a separate case, suspected of involvement in a bomb attack in which 5 people were injured. So far, these attacks have not been fully elucidated.

Meanwhile, SREL chief Marco Mill in 2003-2010 accused Juncker of allowing wiretaps when the service investigated the bombings.

Juncker denied but was summoned as a witness.



See also: Jean-Claude Juncker: the lurid spy scandal that forced him from office
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/luxembourg/10929711/Jean-Claude-Juncker-the-lurid-spy-scandal-that-forced-him-from-office.html

sabato 2 novembre 2019

Accounting perversion: a letter to the ECB's president

A letter to the ECB new President Mrs Lagarde

Banks: the problem of accounting for money creation


Source:  https://centralerischibanche.blogspot.com/2019/11/a-letter-to-ecb-new-president-mrs.html

Dear President Mme Christine Lagarde,

First of all, congratulations on your appointment as ECB President !

I am writing to you to point out an outstanding inconsistency in the Statement of Cash Flows in the financial institutions. This problem is recognized by the academy and the World Bank advisors, see a short bibliography here: https://centralerischibanche.blogspot.com/2018/11/bibliografia-sulla-questione-contabile.html

In short, when a bank creates new money that is entered as a client deposit, an outflow is recorded in the cash flow account as if the bank were intermediating pre-existing funds. But no matching entry exist of a previous inflow in the cash flows account due to the same bank decision of new money creation. This inconsistency was confirmed to me by ECB in an email dated December 3, 2018: https://view.publitas.com/p222-14223/third-ecb-answer-terza-risposta-bce/page/1
"...an extension of a loan would have an impact on “Cash flows from operating activities”. “Funds advanced to customers” would show an outflow reflecting a loan extension, while “Deposits from customers” would show an opposite inflow due to increase in customer deposits. Therefore initially there would be no net impact on the bank’s cash position."  

I.e.: creating new cash don't affect the net cash position ! The ECB has the same problem when creating new money: negative cash flows are netted with future repayment of loans as if money creation didn't happened anytime. The ECB solution was to not publish his own Statement of Cash Flows - as if hiding a problem could solve the problem...

This banking practice of not accounting for a cash inflow at the moment of cash creation - deposits are defined as cash BOTH under GAAP and IAS/IFRS accounting standards - creates the false appearance of a continuous need for new cash inflows to net an unreal negative position on the cash account, thus putting an enormous stress on the whole economy at large and on the same banks' books.

This practice and policy may subject the bank itself - the ECB - to two kind of liabilities - in the trillions - for future claims at ECJ (European Court of Justice) for damages pursuant to article 340 of the TFUE, second paragraph: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12016E340

The first ground of liability is the wrongly accounted activity of money creation effected by ECB itself. (Time ago I wrote to the German ECB auditor E&Y on that matter, but received no answer in return...See the attachment below);

The second ground of liability lies in the supervisory activity over member states commercial banks by the ECB; in fact, the latter omitted to halt and correct this accounting perversion that is causing enormous damages both to the member states finances and directly to the involved banks themselves, as it manifest when we consider, e.g., the current situation of the Italian Bank CARIGE under ECB "special" administration.

I hope that you will take some time to examine this accounting situation that was also the subject of an EFRAG Project - unfortunately aborted before reaching any significant result: https://www.efrag.org/Activities/335/Statement-of-Cash-Flows-issues-for-Financial-Institutions

In the mean time, there are pending Court cases in Italy about linked matters.

Kind regards,

Marco Saba
Forensic accountant
Rome - Italy

Attached:

Questions about true and fair view of the financial position of the ECB


sab 13 ott 2018, 10:15


To: Claus-Peter Wagner (E&Y)
 
Dear Herr Wagner,

I have read your ECB's Independent auditor's report as of page 173 of the ECB English annual report, here:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/annrep/ecb.ar2017.en.pdf?8887833fa471f64f8293868ae8260877

My email to you is about the accounting view of money creation as it is reported in this paper on the World Bank website:
The “accounting view” of money: money as equity
My questions are as following:
1) Are you sure that the Central Bank Annual report without a 'Cash Flow statement' is a true and fair view of the ECB' financial position ?
2) Are you sure that the Central Bank liabilities regarding euro money creation must be exposed for the full capital nominal value of the money created and not just only for the cost of production ? I.e. seigniorage on capital creation is actually not considered and/or disregarded.
3) Have you been subjected to any kind of pressures or other ways of influencing for disregarding such obvious accounting matters ?
Thank you for your answer,
Marco Saba
Forensic accountant
c/o Studio Legale Orlandi - 28, Via Alfieri Vittorio – Firenze – ITALIA

The monetary terorrism of the Federal Reserve

The Fed's Liquidity Response Is Too Little Too Late - But That Was Always The Plan...



Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/feds-liquidity-response-too-little-too-late-was-always-plan

The globalists and banking elites have been running the “order out of chaos” scam for a long time, centuries in fact. One thing that practice does is make people of otherwise average intelligence appear brilliant. One thing that organized conspiracy does is make a group of highly vulnerable criminals appear omnipotent and untouchable. Ultimately, it's all about time. The globalists have had lots of time to tune and refine their methods for manipulating the collective psyche of the masses.

They make mistakes often, but as long as no one confronts them directly and removes these people from the equation, they simply set up shop elsewhere under a different name using different masks and continue their insidious work. As long society is still stricken with ignorance and assumes that such conspiracies are “impossible”, the elites have a free hand to victimize the population further. As long as academic idiots misinterpret Occam's Razor and insist that the evidence of conspiracy does not matter because it does not fit with their narrow notion of “the simplest explanation”, they prop up the banking cartel and allow it to thrive.

On the positive side, I see an awakening taking place among a subset of the population which is savvy to the games of the globalists. I believe this subtle wave of analytical samurai has the elites worried; they realize that time for them is, for once in history, starting to run out. One day soon, they may find themselves the direct targets of a revolution, and they don't like that idea.

Hence, the globalists need a plan, a con game of epic proportions on top of one of the largest economic bubbles in recent history. The plan relies first on a tried and true weapon of the elites: Co-option of the people that oppose them. And how does one co-opt a movement? By taking over their leadership. Second, for global change the cabal needs a global distraction, or a firestorm of numerous distractions to keep the public enthralled or in fear. Third, they need to divert blame away from themselves by presenting the public with believable scapegoats.

When it's all over, they want people dazed and shell-shocked, wondering how it happened and searching for anyone to point a finger at. The narrative will be that “it was a perfect storm of coincidences”, that it was “the evil of the political left”, or the “evil of the political right”. They want to turn public confusion into civil war, all while they sit back and enjoy the chaos from a comfortable beach chair and wait for the moment they can swoop in and act like saviors seeking to “end the madness”.

This process is happening today, and only the most blind have problems seeing that the world has gone over the edge of an ugly precipice.
Disinformation agents call it “doom and gloom”, because that is supposed to dissuade you from taking it seriously. But the facts are the facts. This is why I focus so much of my time on economics – While numbers and stats can be rigged, the effects of a financial crash cannot be hidden. It is undeniable, and all the critics of this information can do is try to trick people into not looking at it.

The reality is this: The US economy is in steep decline and this is an engineered event.
The Federal Reserve spent the better part of the past decade inflating what we now call the “Everything Bubble”, a bubble that spreads through almost every facet of the economy from equities to housing to GDP to employment to corporate debt, consumer debt and national debt. I don't think anyone denies the existence of this bubble except the central banks and a few mainstream media outlets.

Jerome Powell, now the Fed chairman, warned back in 2012 that the markets had become addicted to Fed stimulus and that any tightening of liquidity by the central bank, including cutting the balance sheet or raising interest rates, would cause a sharp reversal or crash. As soon as Powell became chairman, he ignored his own warnings and tightened liquidity anyway.

People confused about why Powell would take such action knowing full well that it would trigger a crash should look into the history of the Bank for International Settlements and how it dictates the policy decisions of all its member banks. The BIS is the “central bank of central banks” and is the central global manager of all national central banks. Powell and the Fed board do not write policy alone, they merely carry out policy decision made by the BIS.

As Powell hinted at in 2012, the Everything Bubble was popped in 2018 by the Fed through rate hikes and balance sheet cuts. Once the avalanche is triggered there is no stopping it.  The rupture in fundamentals is ongoing.  Only stocks markets and certain rigged statistics remain in blissful levitation.

The plunge in stock markets in December was stalled as corporations stepped in with stock buybacks and China pumped billions in stimulus into the global system. However, stocks are not long for this world as buybacks are set to slow down and stimulus measures from various central banks are seeing limited gains.
  • US manufacturing has fallen to levels not seen in 10 years and has entered recession territory.
  • US housing starts fell sharply in September and new home building declined. This indicator usually precedes a fall in overall housing sales by a few months. This would mean a return to the plunge in housing sales last seen during the summer.  In other words, the recent pop in sales is a one off driven by lower mortgage rates, and is set to end.
  • US retail sales are following a similar pattern to housing markets, with a recessionary decline earlier this year, followed by a short term rebound, and now a return to negative territory as the trend reasserts itself.
  • Retail stores are closing at a record pace in 2019. Over 8500 stores are already closing this year, with a predicted 12,000 store closing by the beginning of 2020. This is often blamed on “online shopping”, but online retailer only account for around 14% of the total retail market. This hardly explains why brick and mortar stores are closing in droves.  Not only that, but major online retailers like Amazon are seeing declining profits, with projected holiday profits set to fall even further.
  • Corporate profits have tumbled in 2019 and earnings growth estimates have been drastically adjusted to the downside Only certain companies, like Apple, have come out of the fray untouched so far, but this is common during recession and depression level crisis events - a handful of corporations survive and consolidate while the rest collapse.
  • Corporate debt is at all time highs while cash holdings of most corporations are minimal; so much so that these companies are turning to the Fed's repo overnight loans more and more to stay liquid.
  • Consumer debt is at all time highs, with American households owing a total of more than $13 trillion.
  • While there has been a recent steepening of the 3 month to 10 year yield curve as well as the 2 year to 10 year yield curve, this is actually a bad sign. A long term inversion of the yield curve is a sure signal of economic recession. When the yield curve steepens, this is the point historically in which a sharp crash in fundamentals and markets takes place.
In other words, the crash is happening now. Many analysts have wrongly assumed that that the Fed's recent asset purchases indicate that they are seeking to “kick the can” on the crash. It's much too late for that.  If the Fed wanted to stall the crash then they would have initiated full bore QE4 around 8-10 months ago just after the December plunge. International banks and central banks have been warning about dollar liquidity issues since mid-2018. The Fed continued to tighten and did not act until the past couple of months, coincidentally, right after multiple polls showed that a majority of Americans were becoming worried about a recession.
That is to say, the Fed kept liquidity conditions as tight as possible until the public finally became aware of the crisis.  The truth is, nothing has changed as far as liquidity is concerned.

The Fed launched asset purchases to make it look like they care about trying to fix the problem. However, the Fed's repo stimulus and balance sheet increases are not enough to make any difference. Calling Fed repo actions “Not-QE” is a funny means pointing out that the Fed is not being straightforward about its intentions, but when comparing current repo loans and asset purchases to an event like TARP back in 2008, which by itself injected over $16 trillion in liquidity into the financial system (no audit of the other QE programs has yet been undertaken), the current stimulus is nothing but a drop in the ocean.
The Fed is definitely NOT being honest in its intentions, but not in the way many alternative analysts seem to think.  The Fed's not trying to hide QE4 measures, the Fed is continuing to do the bare minimum necessary to appear as though they are taking action while actually accomplishing very little.
They clearly have no intention of kicking the can any longer. The Fed WANTED a crash, and now they have it. The reason why is perfectly logical: The central bank, under the control of globalists at the BIS, needs economic chaos to provide cover for what they call the “global economic reset”. Essentially, it is the controlled demolition of the old world order to make way for their “new world order”.

As I've noted in previous articles, they've done all his before and openly admitted to causing crashes in the past, including the Great Depression. After each of these financial crisis events, globalist institutions have been formed and leaps forward in global governance have been taken. The implosion of the Everything Bubble appears to be the last intended economic crisis event before total centralization is achieved.



If you were wondering why the globalists stalled for ten years on crashing the system, now you know. If they launched the crisis a few years ago, they would have been blamed for it. Today, it's hard to say. The growing contingent of liberty activists immune to the scam (and immune to the Kabuki theater involving Donald Trump) might be able to turn the tide enough to force the hand of the elites. Maybe they will have to back off of some of their centralization efforts, or drag out the economic downturn longer than they wanted. I suspect they have already had to do this on a number of occasions because of liberty analysts.

Ultimately, the crash is about us. It is about affecting changes to the public psychology, making us more receptive to extreme globalization. If they don't care what we think, then why spend trillions of dollars and endless hours and manpower trying to influence our perception? They need the vast majority of us to consent to the “new world order”, otherwise they will have failed.
*  *  *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Development of total war in tandem with central banking

It's No Coincidence The Century Of Total War Coincided With The Century Of Central Banking

Via The Mises Institute,
[This talk was delivered at the Mises Circle in New York City on September 14, 2012.]
Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/its-no-coincidence-century-total-war-coincided-century-central-banking


The 20th century was the century of total war. Limitations on the scope of war, built up over many centuries, had already begun to break down in the 19th century, but they were altogether obliterated in the 20th. And of course the sheer amount of resources that centralized states could bring to bear in war, and the terrible new technologies of killing that became available to them, made the 20th a century of almost unimaginable horror.

It isn't terribly often that people discuss the development of total war in tandem with the development of modern central banking, which — although antecedents existed long before — also came into its own in the 20th century. It's no surprise that Ron Paul, the man in public life who has done more than anyone to break through the limits of what is permissible to say in polite society about both these things, has also been so insistent that the twin phenomena of war and central banking are linked. "It is no coincidence," Dr. Paul said, "that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking."
He added:
If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I'm quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.
For the sake of my remarks today I take it as given that Murray Rothbard's analysis of the true functions of central banking is correct. Rothbard's books The History of Money and Banking: The Colonial Era Through World War II, The Case Against the FedThe Mystery of Banking, and What Has Government Done to Our Money? provide the logical case and the empirical evidence for this view, and I refer you to those sources for additional details.
For now I take it as uncontroversial that central banks perform three significant functions for the banking system and the government.
First, they serve as lenders of last resort, which in practice means bailouts for the big financial firms.
Second, they coordinate the inflation of the money supply by establishing a uniform rate at which the banks inflate, thereby making the fractional-reserve banking system less unstable and more consistently profitable than it would be without a central bank (which, by the way, is why the banks themselves always clamor for a central bank).
Finally, they allow governments, via inflation, to finance their operations far more cheaply and surreptitiously than they otherwise could.
As an enabler of inflation, the Fed is ipso facto an enabler of war. Looking back on World War I, Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1919, "One can say without exaggeration that inflation is an indispensable means of militarism. Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would set in much earlier."
No government has ever said, "Because we want to go to war, we must abandon central banking," or "Because we want to go to war, we must abandon inflation and the fiat money system." Governments always say, "We must abandon the gold standard because we want to go to war." That alone indicates the restraint that hard money places on governments. Precious metals cannot be created out of thin air, which is why governments chafe at monetary systems based on them.
Governments can raise revenue in three ways.
Taxation is the most visible means of doing so, and it eventually meets with popular resistance.
They can borrow the money they need, but this borrowing is likewise visible to the public in the form of higher interest rates — as the federal government competes for a limited amount of available credit, credit becomes scarcer for other borrowers.
Creating money out of thin air, the third option, is preferable for governments, since the process by which the political class siphons resources from society via inflation is far less direct and obvious than in the cases of taxation and borrowing. In the old days the kings clipped the coins, kept the shavings, then spent the coins back into circulation with the same nominal value. Once they have it, governments guard this power jealously. Mises once said that if the Bank of England had been available to King Charles I during the English Civil War of the 1640s, he could have crushed the parliamentary forces arrayed against him, and English history would have been much different.
Juan de Mariana, a Spanish Jesuit who wrote in the 16th and early 17th centuries, is best known in political philosophy for having defended regicide in his 1599 work De Rege. Casual students often assume that it must have been for this provocative claim that the Spanish government confined him for a time. But in fact it was his Treatise on the Alteration of Money, which condemned monetary inflation as a moral evil, that got him in trouble.
Think about that. Saying the king could be killed was one thing. But taking direct aim at inflation, the lifeblood of the regime? Now that was taking things too far.
In those days, if a war were to be funded partly by monetary debasement, the process was direct and not difficult to understand. The sequence of events today is more complicated, but as I've said, not fundamentally different. What happens today is not that the government needs to pay for a war, comes up short, and simply prints the money to make up the difference. The process is not quite so crude. But when we examine it carefully, it turns out to be essentially the same thing.
Central banks, established by the world's governments, allow those governments to spend more than they receive in taxes. Borrowing allowed them to spend more than they received in taxes, but government borrowing led to higher interest rates, which in turn can provoke the public in undesirable ways. When central banks create money and inject it into the banking system, they serve the purposes of governments by pushing those interest rates back down, thereby concealing the effects of government borrowing.
But central banking does more than this. It essentially prints up money and hands it to the government, though not quite so directly and obviously.
First, the federal government is able to sell its bonds at artificially high prices (and correspondingly low interest rates) because the buyers of its debt know they can turn around and sell to the Federal Reserve. It's true that the federal government has to pay interest on the securities the Federal Reserve owns, but at the end of the year the Fed pays that money back to the Treasury, minus its trivial operating expenses. That takes care of the interest. And in case you're thinking that the federal government still has to pay out at least the principal, it really doesn't. The government can roll over its existing debt when it comes due, issuing a new bond to pay off the principal of the old one.
Through this convoluted process — a process, not coincidentally, that the general public is unlikely to know about or understand — the federal government is in fact able to do the equivalent of printing money and spending it. While everyone else has to acquire resources by spending money they earned in a productive enterprise — in other words, they first have to produce something for society, and then they may consume — government may acquire resources without first having produced anything. Money creation via government monopoly thus becomes another mechanism whereby the exploitative relationship between government and the public is perpetuated.
Now because the central bank allows the government to conceal the cost of everything it does, it provides an incentive for governments to engage in additional spending in all kinds of areas, not just war. But because war is enormously expensive and because the sacrifices that accompany it place such a strain on the public, it is wartime expenditures for which the assistance of the central bank is especially welcome for any government.
The Federal Reserve System, which was established in late 1913 and opened its doors the following year, was first put to the test during World War I. Unlike some countries, the United States did not abandon the gold standard during the war, but it was not operating under a pure 100 percent gold standard in any case. The Fed could and did engage in credit expansion. On Mises.org we feature an article by John Paul Koning that takes the reader through the exact process by which the Fed carried out its monetary inflation in those early years. In brief, the Fed essentially created money and used it to add war bonds to its balance sheet. Benjamin Anderson, the Austrian-sympathetic economist, observed at the time, "The growth in virtually all the items of the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve System since the United States entered the war has been very great indeed."
The Fed's accommodating role was not confined to wartime itself. In America's Money MachineElgin Groseclose wrote,
Although the war was over in 1918, in a fighting sense, it was not over in a financial sense. The Treasury still had enormous obligations to meet, which were eventually covered by a Victory loan. The main support in the market again was the Federal Reserve.
Monetary expansion was especially helpful to the US government during the Vietnam War. Lyndon Johnson could have both his Great Society programs and his overseas war, and the strain on the public was kept — at first, at least — within manageable limits.
So confident had the Keynesian economic planners become that by 1970, Arthur Okun, one of the decade's key presidential advisers on the economy, was noting in a published retrospective that wise economic management seemed to have done away with the business cycle. But reality could not be evaded forever, and the apparently strong war economy of the 1960s gave way to the stagnation of the 1970s.
There is a law of the universe according to which every time the public is promised that the boom-bust business cycle has been banished forever, a bust is right around the corner. One month after Okun's rosy book was published, the recession began.
Americans paid a steep cost for the inflation of the 1960s. The loss of life resulting from the war itself was the most gruesome and horrific of these costs, but the economic devastation cannot be ignored. As many of us well remember, years of unemployment and high inflation plagued the US economy. The stock market fared even worse. Mark Thornton points out that
in May 1970, a portfolio consisting of one share of every stock listed on the Big Board was worth just about half of what it would have been worth at the start of 1969. The high flyers that had led the market of 1967 and 1968 — conglomerates, computer leasers, far-out electronics companies, franchisers — were precipitously down from their peaks. Nor were they down 25 percent, like the Dow, but 80, 90, or 95 percent.
… The Dow index shows that stocks tended to trade in a wide channel for much of the period between 1965 and 1984. However, if you adjust the value of stocks by price inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index, a clearer and more disturbing picture emerges. The inflation-adjusted or real purchasing power measure of the Dow indicates that it lost nearly 80% of its peak value.
And for all the talk of the Fed's alleged independence, it is not even possible to imagine the Fed maintaining a tight-money stance when the regime demands stimulus, or when the troops are in the field. It has been more than accommodating during the so-called War on Terror. Consider the amount of debt purchased every year by the Fed, and compare it to that year's war expenditures, and you will get a sense of the Fed's enabling role.
Now while it's true that a gold standard restrains governments, it's also true that governments have little difficulty finding pretexts — war chief among them — to abandon the gold standard. For that reason, the gold standard in and of itself is not a sufficient restraint on the government's ambitions, at home and abroad.
As we look to the future, we must cast aside all timidity in our proposals for monetary reform. We do not seek a gold-exchange standard, as existed under the Bretton Woods system. We do not seek to use the price of gold as a calibration device to assist the monetary authority in its decisions on how much money to create. We do not even seek the restoration of the classical gold standard, great though its merits are.
In the 1830s, the hard-money Jacksonian monetary theorists coined the marvelous phrase "separation of bank and state." That would be a start.
What we need today is the separation of money and state.
There are some ways in which money is unique among goods. For one thing, money is valued not for its own sake but for its use in exchange. For another, money is not consumed, but rather is handed on from one person to another. And all other goods in the economy have their prices expressed in terms of this good.
But there is nothing about money — or anything else, for that matter — that should make us think its production must be carried out by the government or its designated monopoly grantee. Money constitutes one-half of every non-barter market transaction. People who believe in the market economy, and yet who are prepared to hand over to the state the custodianship of this most crucial good, ought to think again.
Interventionists sometimes claim that a particular good is just too important to be left to the market. The standard free-market reply turns this argument around: the more important a commodity is, the more essential it is for the government not to produce it, and to leave its production to the market instead.
Nowhere is this more true than in the case of money. As Ludwig von Mises once said, the history of money is the history of government efforts to destroy money. Government control of money has yielded monetary debasement, the impoverishment of society relative to the state, devastating business cycles, financial bubbles, capital consumption (because of falsified profit-and-loss accounting), moral hazard, and — most germane to my topic today — the expropriation of the public in ways they are unlikely to understand. It is this silent expropriation that has made possible some of the state's greatest enormities, including its wars, and it is all of these offenses combined that constitute a compelling popular brief against the current system and in favor of a market substitute.
The war machine and the money machine, in short, are intimately linked. It is vain to denounce the moral grotesqueries of the US empire without at the same time taking aim at the indispensable support that makes it all possible. If we wish to oppose the state and all its manifestations — its imperial adventures, its domestic subsidies, its unstoppable spending and debt accumulation — we must point to their source, the central bank, the mechanism that the state and its kept media and economists will defend to their dying days.
The state has persuaded the people that its own interests are identical with theirs. It seeks to promote their welfare. Its wars are their wars. It is the great benefactor, and the people are to be content in their role as its contented subjects.
Ours is a different view. The state's relationship to the people is not benign, it is not one of magnanimous giver and grateful recipient. It is an exploitative relationship, whereby an array of self-perpetuating fiefdoms that produce nothing live at the expense of the toiling majority. Its wars do not protect the public; they fleece it. Its subsidies do not promote the so-called public good; they undermine it. Why should we expect its production of money to be an exception to this general pattern?
As F.A. Hayek said, it is not reasonable to think that the state has any interest in giving us a "good money." What the state wants is to produce the money or have a privileged position vis-à-vis the source of the money, so it can dispense largesse to its favored constituencies. We should not be anxious to accommodate it.
The state does not compromise, and neither should we. In the struggle of liberty against power, few enough will oppose the state and the conventional wisdom it urges us to adopt. Fewer still will reject the state and its programs root and branch. We must be those few, as we work toward a future in which we are the many.
This is our mission today, as it has been the mission of the Mises Institute for the past 30 years. With your support, we shall at this critical moment carry on publishing our books and periodicals, aiding research and teaching in Austrian economics, promoting the Austrian School to the public, and training tomorrow's champions of the economics of freedom.

martedì 8 ottobre 2019

CARIGE: the ongoing mystery of the Caribond (ISIN: MT0000981200)

A bond is blocked by February 2019 in the Borza Malta Stock Exchange

The bond is linked to the Italian CARIGE Bank affair 

Risultati immagini per carige
CARIGE Bank in Genoa, Italy

(Rome, October 8, 2019) - Pending various court cases against CARIGE Bank and the European Central Bank both in the Italian Court of Genoa and in the European Court of Justice, a 1.2 B Euro bond is blocked from transaction at the Malta Stock Exchange. The case as been reported to the MFSA (Malta Financial Services Authority) for further investigation.

Risultati immagini per tribunale di genova
The Court of Genoa


Could the outcome of this case influence the situation of the Italian Bank CARIGE and the whole European banking system, and how ?

We contacted Marco Saba, who originated the bond, for a short interview. "There are two cases" - explains Saba - "the first case is that the Court agrees with me and the creation of money has to be accounted for into the bank books, and in this case one trillion Euro will resurface in the Italian banking system, and our bond will be paid in full. In the second case, if the Court states that bank money - a.k.a. deposits - is not cash and need not to be accounted for in the financial statement, and thus the clients accounts should be segregated from the books, the value of the bond will fall. In this last case the bank money continues to circulate as an 'Unidentified Cashing Object' (UCO - do they really exists ?) and all the banks, not just CARIGE, will find it increasingly difficult to survive."

In fact, by not accounting for the creation of money, and hence the profits from the same creation - as Biagio Bossone from the World Bank also states - the bank's balance sheet appears poorer than the operational reality.  And he continues: "The purpose of the bond was to finance the judicial battle to see the current violation of the IFRS IAS-7 recognized and, at the same time, to let the public know that this serious problem holds continuously the whole banking system under the sword of Damocles of imminent collapse. "

Saba claims that the current lawsuit in the Genoa court - for 25 billion - is deliberately ignored by the press and mainstream media because of the bankers cartel that wants to continue to make the public believe that commercial banks are just pure intermediaries when in reality they create all the money they needs for their operation over the counter.

The topic is relatively new and has found some new life with the admissions by the Bank of England in the famous quarterly bulletin of 2014. One of the many evidences is the last report given to the Malta Financial Services Authority by the same company that holds the blocked bond account. The issue, particularly relevant for the regulation of the banking system, is in progress.

On September 26, 2019, the Genoa Court of Appeal finally suspended the execution of the first instance sentence, which was unfavorable to Mr Saba, and set the hearing for the conclusions on October 14, 2021. The Italian Court order is available here.

martedì 1 ottobre 2019

Unit of account or medium of exchange? Reply

Unit of account or medium of exchange? Reply *

JOSEPH ASCHHEIM and GEORGE S. TAVLAS

BNL Quarterly Review, Vol. 60, No 241, 2007

In his thoughtful comment on our paper (Aschheim and Tavlas 2006), Leland Yeager takes issue with our thesis that the primary function of money is that of numéraire. While Yeager (2007, p. 196) "would agree [...] that a single unit of account in a currency area is more important than a single medium of exchange", he also argues that "both the unit-of-account [...] and medium-of-exchange functions of 'money' characterize an efficient reckoning [of the] payments systems" (ibid., p. 195). Thus, "[b]oth functions are important in economic life and in monetary theory [... and it is difficult] to measure and compare degrees of importance" (ibid., p. 204, original italics).

We are grateful to Professor Yeager for his commentary. We would like to point out, however, that, in our paper, we addressed criticism to those contemporary economists - evidently an overwhelming majority - who assign primacy to the medium-of-exchange function of money. [1] Professor Yeager has a different view from that of most other economists. He believes that the two functions deserve equal billing. In what follows, we briefly elaborate on our view that the numéraire deserves top billing, both analytically and in practice.

[] The George Washington University, Washington (USA); Bank of Greece, Economic Research Department, Athens (Greece);

• The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as
those of the Bank of Greece.


l. Analytic considerations

As noted above, Yeager argues that both functions of money are equally important in economic theory. In our paper, in contrast, we argue that the numéraire function is more important than that of medium of exchange in theoretical analysis.

To illustrate the importance of the numéraire in theoretical investigation, consider the case of Pareto optimization in a one-period, representative-agent model comprised of a single, utility-maximizing, household and a single firm. [2]
In this simple model economy, there are two goods - a consumption good and leisure (or time not working in the market). One unit of labor time exchanges for w units of consumption goods, with the consumption good playing the role of the numéraire. The consumer's goal is to choose consumption and leisure to make himself or herself as well off as possible subject to his or her budget constraint. The firm demands labor and supplies consumption goods, with its choices determined by the available production technology and profit maximization. Under certain conditions (i.e., a constant-returns-to-scale production function, a price-taking consumer), it can be shown that the firm optimizes when the value of the marginal product of labor equals the real wage while the consumer optimizes at the point at which the marginal rate of substitution of Leisure for consumption equals the real wage. That is, a competitive equilibrium obtains when both the value of the marginal product of Labor and the marginal rate of substitution of leisure for consumption equal the real wage, the numéraire of the system. A Pareto optimum is the point on the consumer's utility function and the firm's production possibility frontier at which the consumer is as well off as possible, given the technology for producing consumption goods using labor as an input, and the firm maximizes profits (at the point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, or w) (Williamson 2005, pp. 142-43). In this simple framework, it is straightforward to show that, under certain conditions, a competitive equilibrium is Pareto optimal (i.e., the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics holds) and that a Pareto optimum is a competitive equilibrium (i.e., the second fundamental theorem of welfare economics holds). [3]

Crucially, the equivalence of a competitive equilibrium with Pareto optimality can be ascertained without a medium of exchange.
In this model economy, there is no need to invoke a cash-in-advance constraint or to put money in the consumers' utility function, the usual techniques for introducing a transactions medium into a model.
However, the existence of the numéraire is a necessary condition for determination of the Pareto optimum. Without the numéraire, the system is not solvable. In more complicated systems (e.g., extension to multi-period analysis), showing whether the first and second welfare theorems hold can be difficult. Nevertheless, the existence of a numéraire is necessary to solve the systems. The numéraire constitutes what we have called embryonic money (Aschheim and Tavlas 1996).


2. Practical aspects

How might the primacy we accorded to role of the numéraire be shown in practical application? To provide a specific example, consider the creation of the European Payments Union (EPU) in 1950. The EPU carne into operation to deal with the US dollar shortage in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its members were essentially the countries of Western Europe and their overseas dependencies. [4]

With the United States holding the bulk of gold reserves, and with the dollar the only international currency serving as a generally-acceptable reserve asset and medium of exchange, intra-European trade was smothered by widespread restrictions on current-account transactions. Essentially, European countries did not have sufficient quantities of the medium of exchange (Le., the US dollar) to engage in international trade. To deal with the dollar-shortage problem, the EPU effectively eliminated, or greatly reduced, the need of a medium of exchange. Each member country's debits and credits to all other members of the EPU were totaled every month. A particular country would be liable to pay only its net debit balance at the end of each month or, conversely, it would receive only its net credit balance each month. Ali other transactions would cancel against each other. In this way, the need of the dollar as a medium of exchange was greatly diminished.

Now suppose, hypothetically, that in a particular month all members of the EPU had zero net aggregate balances, allowing the possibility of non-zero bilateral balances. In such a situation, there would be no intra-EPU monetary transactions at the end of the month. That is, no money would be exchanged. Money would not function as a medium of exchange. Yet, the unit-of-account function would have been necessary to tabulate each member's transactions with all other members. Though goods would have exchanged for goods, the existence of the unit of account was the necessary and sufficient condition for exchange. Some writers might describe this example as barter exchange since money did not change hands. Underlying the exchange, however, was the unit of account. This is the reason we prefer to call this example a monetary-exchange transaction (Aschheim and Tavlas 1996).

In fact, a medium of exchange can be used to conduct transactions without the medium's changing hands. In his regard, Tobin (1992) pointed out that, on the island of Yap, debts were settled by changing ownership of large immovable stone wheels. As Tobin (ibid., p. 771) also observed, "the practice continued after the sea flooded their site and the stones were invisible at the bottom of a lagoon". An issue that Tobin did not address concerns why such unlikely objects as immovable stones were selected to be media of exchange in the first place. This issue was dealt with by Del Mar (1895), who noted that the inc1ination of some societies to use large objects as money arose as a result of the need of a numéraire: thus, Del Mar (ibid., p. xxxiv) pointed out that the ancient "states of lona, Byzantium, Sparta and Athens" created

"discs of purposely rotted sheet iron or bronze, having no value as pieces of metal, but possessing great and definite value of public measure". [5]

Because the pieces of metal served as numéraire, they

"enabled any exchange to be effected upon a more equitable basis than before simply by [ ... ] holding a vast number of parities in view at once" (ibid., p. xxxi).

Del Mar's systematic analysis of the role of the numéraire is one reason that, in our paper, we singled him out as a progenitor of the chartalist theory of money (Aschheim and Tavlas 2006).

Finally, consider the example of the use of cigarettes as money in prisoner-of-war camps. Citing the original contribution by Radford (1945) on this subject, [6] Yeager suggests that cigarettes emerged spontaneously and simultaneously as both a medium of exchange and a unit of account (see, also, Tobin 1992 and Meltzer 1995). We have a somewhat different view. Consider the following.

First, several factors contributed to the use of cigarettes as the medium of exchange in prisoner-of-war camps. Cigarettes are portable, divisible (in that a packet of cigarettes is divisible into its components), and (to some extent) storable, fundamental requirements of a medium of exchange. Cigarettes also possess intrinsic value, a helpful attribute for a medium of exchange in the absence of government fiat. Clearly, it was in the interests of the members of prisoner-of-war camps to settle on a medium of exchange to narrow transaction chains and on a unit of account to simplify calculations. But which function came first? Radford's (1945, p. 191) first-hand account is informative:

"By the end of a month, when we reached our permanent camp, there was a lively trade in all commodities and their relative values were well known, and expressed not in terms of one another - one didn't quote bully in terms of sugar - but in terms of cigarettes. The cigarette became the standard of value. In the permanent camp people started by wandering through the bungalows calling their offers - "cheese for seven" (cigarettes) - and the hours after parcel issue were Bedlam. The inconveniences of this system soon led to its replacement by an Exchange and Mart notice board in every bungalow, where under the headings "name", "room number", "wanted" and "offered" sales and wants were advertised. When a deal went through, it was crossed off the board. The public and semi-permanent records of transactions led to cigarette prices being well known and thus tending to equality throughout the camp, although there were always opportunities for an astute trader to make a profit from arbitrage. With this development everyone, including non-smokers, was willing to sell cigarettes, using them to buy at another time and place. Cigarettes became the normal currency, though, of course, barter was never extinguished" .

Thus, in prisoner-of-war camps the members of the group apparently first settled on a numéraire and then on a medium of exchange.

Second, a case can also be made that the soldiers in prisoner-of-war camps had pre-existing conceptions of numéraires with which to make calculations - namely, their national currencies. For example, US soldiers who were prisoners of war were geared to transact (and think) in terms of US dollars, having spent their lifetimes prior to imprisonment doing so. With the US dollar serving as pre-existing numéraire, it was straightforward to calculate relative values of tradable objects, including cigarettes, in terms of their values in dollars.

As we discussed above, in such circumstances there were logical reasons to settle on cigarettes as transactions media. To the extent that trade in prisoner-of-war camps may have been carried out in the context of a pre-existing concept of the numéraire, this example illustrates the feasibility of the notion, cogently argued by Greenfield and Yeager (1983), that it is possible to separate the unit of account from the medium of exchange in real-world situations.

3. Concluding remarks

Professor Yeager has provided an insightful presentation of the view that the numéraire and the medium of exchange functions of money are equally important. In this regard, he stands apart from the majority of contemporary economists who 1) assign top billing to the medium-of-exchange function, 2) do so without systematic analysis to support their view and 3) characterize general-equilibrium models without a medium of exchange, but with a numéraire, as barter models (e.g., Gordon 2000, p. 106; Champ and Freeman 2001, pp. 33-45).
One of the principles that emerged from the rational-expectations revolution in economics is that macro models and concepts should be grounded in solid microeconomic foundations, including the preferences, endowments and technologies of optimizing consumers and firms. It appears, however, that, in contrast to Yeager, for the majority of economists this principle has not been extended to the analysis of the functions of money.







Notes:

1 - For example, Krugman and Obstfeld (2003, p. 358) wrote: "The most important function of money is to serve as a medium of exchange" (originai italics). They went on to state: "Money's second important role is as a unit of account'" (original italics). Similarly, Gordon (2000, p. 106) argued: "The most important function that differentiates money from other assets is its role as medium of exchange" (original italics).

2 - For a thorough treatment, see Williamson (2005, chapter 5).

3 - Among the conditions required for a competitive equilibrium are the following: 1) consumer optimization, 2) profit maximization by firms and 3) equality between the quantities of labor demanded and supplied. With a government sector introduced in the one-period model, competitive equilibrium requires that government spending equals government revenue.

4 - See Yeager (1976, pp. 411-22) and Eichengreen (2007, pp. 79-85) for detailed
discussions of the EPU.

5 - For a discussions of Del Mar's views, see Aschheim and Tavlas (2004 and 2006).

6 - Radford had been a prisoner of war in Italy during the Second World War.


REFERENCES

ASCHHEIM, J. and G.S. TAVLAS (1996), "Monetary economies in doctrinal perspective", Journal oJ Money, Credit and Banking, voI. 28, no. 3, pp. 406-17.

ASCHHEIM, J. and G.S. TAVLAS (2004), "Academic exclusion: the case of Del Mar", European Journal oJ Political Economy, voI. 20, no. 1, pp. 31-60.

ASCHHEIM, J. and G.S. TAVLAS (2006), "Money as numéraire: doctrinal aspects and contemporary relevance", Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, voI. 59, no. 239, pp. 333-62.

CHAMP, B. and S. FREEMAN (2001), Modeling Monetary Economies, second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

DEL MAR, A. (1895), History oJ Monetary Systems, Effingham Wilson, London.

EICHENGREEN, B. (2007), The European Economy Since 1945, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

GORDON, R. (2000), Macroeconomics, eighth edition, Addison-Wesley, Boston.

GREENFlELD, R. and L. YEAGER (1983), "A laissez-faire approach to monetary stability", Journal oJ Money, Credit, and Banking, voI. 15, no. 3, pp. 302-15.

KRUGMAN, P. and M. OBSTFELD (2003), International Economies : Theory and Policy, sixth edition, Addison-Wesley, Boston.

MELTZER, A. (1995), "What is money?", Economic Affairs, voI. 15, no . 4, pp. 8-14.

RADFORD, R. (1945), "The economic organization of a P.O.w. camp", Economica, voI. 12, no. 48, pp. 189- 201.

TOBIN, J. (1992), "Money", in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman eds, The New Palgrave Dictionary oJ Money and Finance, voI. 2, Macmillan, London, pp. 770-79.

WILLIAMSON, S. (2005), Macroeconomics, second edition, Addison-Wesley, Boston.

YEAGER, L. (1976), International Monetary Relations: Theory, History and Policy, second edition, Harper and Row, New York.

YEAGER, L. (2007), "Unit of account or medium of exchange?", Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, this issue, pp. 195-205.

Post in evidenza

The Great Taking - The Movie

David Webb exposes the system Central Bankers have in place to take everything from everyone Webb takes us on a 50-year journey of how the C...