Guv’mint is omniscient and omnipotent.

Banks are holding back funds from struggling companies even as they rack up jumps in their own profits, says The Times. (1)

The guns of United Kingdom guv’mint know how to deal with that, without it even being necessary to inquire as to the causes of this “holding back of funds”.

Pressure therefore mounts on Bank of England to ‘print more money’, says The Times (1, again)

Printing money, that’s how the UK guv’mint deals with the nasty banks which are holding back funds.

In the United Arab Emirates, the Central Bank wants to force its subjects, the UAE commercial banks, to charge lower interest rates. (2) (3)

Forcing them to lower interest rates, that’s how the UAE Central Bank deals with the nasty commercial banks which are changing interest rates which are too high.

Whereas the UK government complains that the banks do not lend any money, the UAE charges that the interest rates at which they lend are not low enough.

Will lowering interest rates in the UAE lead to more loans and thus more money creation by the UAE commercial banks? We’ll see.

As I quoted Leuschel and Vogt so many times on this blog
(while still eagerly awaiting the their new book “Die Inflationsfalle: Retten Sie Ihr Vermögen!”, 2 September 2009):
Banks used to have the right to issue receipts for the gold they held in reserve in warehouse.
This right was taken away from them by the institution of central banks. (4)

The guns of the UK and UAE governments know indeed better. They are omniscient and omnipotent. The nasty commercial banks are not.

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com
http://twitter.com/ivocerckel/

NOTES

(1)
From The Times August 5, 2009
Pressure mounts on Bank of England to ‘print more money’
Gary Duncan, Economics
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6739361.ece
SNIP
Pressure mounted on the Bank of England on Tuesday to expand its radical scheme to jump-start growth by “printing money” after its own figures revealed that a continued lending drought is blighting businesses and jeopardising recovery prospects.
Hopes that the ground-breaking quantitative easing (QE) scheme would boost credit flows to businesses and consumers were dealt another blow by the stark figures, which came as the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meets today and tomorrow to consider its next move.
Banks’ outstanding lending to businesses outside the financial industries plunged by a record £14.7 billion in the second quarter from the previous three months, emphasising the danger that constricted credit could stifle any economic upturn.
The news came after Alistair Darling met banking chiefs last week to demand that they boost lending flows, and is bound to inflame anger that banks are holding back funds from struggling companies even as they rack up jumps in their own profits.

(2)
UAE central bank discussing dirham benchmark rate
by Martin Morris
on Wednesday, 05 August 2009
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/563858-uae-central-bank-mulls-dirham-benchmark-rate
SNIP
The UAE central bank on Tuesday met with lenders to discuss the creation of an ”official” Emirates interbank offered rate as it seeks greater influence over interest rates that haven’t tracked cuts in the repurchase rate.

(3)
Central bank wants official interbank lending rate
Sarmad Khan
Last Updated: August 04. 2009 7:44PM UAE / August 4. 2009 3:44PM GMT
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090804/BUSINESS/708049926/1005
SNIP
The Central Bank plans to create an official interbank lending rate that could encourage banks to provide cheaper loans and help stimulate the economy.

(4)
Roland Leuschel and Claus Vogt, “Das Greenspan Dossier, Wie die US-Notenbank das Weltwährungssystem gefährdet. Oder: Inflation um jeden Preis”, www.finanzbuchverlag.de, 2006, 3rd ed., p. 299

For the World Health Organisation, the concept of right and wrong has to be eradicated.
Hence, the WHO did nothing to prevent thalidomide from staying 18 months on the market after its dangers had been pointed out on 1st May 1960.

In an 18 July 2009 post, I argued that I am a thalidomide monster because of the World Health Organisation. (1)

My argument ran as follows:
I was born in February 1962.
The dangers of thalidomide were known since at least 1st May 1960.
The World Health Organisation only recommended banning thalidomide in 1961.
(Thalidomide was eventually taken from the market by its manufacturer on 27 November 1961.)

Now,
Dr. George Brock Chisholm CC (1896-05-18 – 1971-02-04) was the first director-general of the WHO. (2)

His term ran from 1948 to 1953. (3)

The guy was a psycho-analyst who advocated no less that the eradication of the concept of right and wrong. He maintained that it is the task of the psychiatrist to free the human race from the crippling burden of good and evil. (4)

This guy said
“Instead of bringing our children up according to our own preconceived rules of good and bad we must teach them to question everything. Tell your child you believe in God, point out that some people don’t” (2, again)
+
“The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy.” (2 again)

Now, I understand why the WHO did nothing against thalidomide.

There is no right and wrong for the WHO.

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com
http://twitter.com/ivocerckel/

NOTES

(1)
I am a thalidomide monster because of WHO
Posted by Ivo Cerckel on July 18th, 2009
http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2009/07/18/i-am-thalidomide-monster-because-of-who/
[if the link does not work, try to copy it and to paste it in your browser.]

(2)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Brock_Chisholm
Dr. George Brock Chisholm CC (1896-05-18 – 1971-02-04) was a Canadian First World War veteran, medical practitioner and the first Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO).

(3)
Dr B. Chisholm
Canada
Term of office: 1948-1953
Former Directors-General
http://www.who.int/dg/former/en/

(4)
F.A. Hayek, (W.W. Bartley III, ed.), “The Fatal Conceit – The Errors of Socialism”, The University of Chicago Press, 1989 (originally published 1988, paperback edition 1991), p. 58

AAristotle’s ethics is a rational eudemonism in which moral freedom is recognised without being elaborated, but in which obligation is unknown. (1)

In his examination of the nature of happiness in his “Nicomachean Ethics” Aristotle says:
if we assume that the function of man is a certain kind of life, namely, an activity or series of actions of the soul, implying a rational principle, and if the function of a good man is to perform these well and rightly; and if every function is performed in accordance with its proper excellence: if all this is so, the conclusion is that the good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind.
There is a further qualification: ‘in a complete lifetime’. One swallow does not make a summer, neither does one day. Similarly neither can one day, or a brief span of time, make a man blessed and happy. (2)

Friedrich August von Hayek says that for Aristotle, only actions aiming at perceived benefit to others are morally approved and actions solely for personal gain must be bad. (3)

 Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com
http://twitter.com/ivocerckel/

NOTES

(1)
Maurice De Wulf,  “Précis d’Histoire de la Philosophie” , Louvain, E. Nauwelaerts éditeur, 1950,  9th  ed.,  p. 30, paragraph 34:
la morale d’Aristote est un eudémonisme rationnel.
elle connait la liberté morale, sans l’approfondir
mais elle ignore l’obligation

(2)
Aristotle  “Nicomachean Ethics’ ,  J.A.K. Thomson translation, revised by Hugh Tredennick, published by Penguin Books, 1976, 2004, p. 16, 1098a13-19

(3)
F.A. Hayek, (W.W. Bartley III, ed.), “The Fatal Conceit – The Errors of Socialism”, The University of Chicago Press, 1989 (originally published 1988, paperback edition 1991), p. 46:
Since only actions aiming at “perceived benefit to others” were, to Aristotle mind,  morally approved, actions solely for personal gain must be bad.