As long as Ron Paul does not take office as president of the USA, and puts an end to “our” debt-driven political economy, it will be necessary to consolidate your wealth in gold metal, not in the synthetic fiat-dollar storage which is dishonestly being administrated by the Federal Reserve.

FREEGOLD
replaces the necessity to check whether the Federal Reserve bureaucrats exercise or perform their duties with the reasonable care

Freegold on the USA Treasury and/or Federal Reserve balance-sheet would act as a stabilizer of the value of the dollar.

By declaring the USA gold reserves at Fort Knox to be an item not related to monetary policy operations,
the Ron Paul presidency will erect a wall between the gold component and the paper component of the dollar
so that even if no brakes are put on the rapidly expanding money supply,
Americans will have enough confidence in those gold reserves
to have the self-confidence required to use dollar-paper as a store of value,
thereby, i.e. by the use of that paper, building confidence in each other.

LET ME EXPLAIN

YES,
Newt Gingrich had a triumphant victory in the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday. The victory was however a surprise as Mitt Romney was expected to win. The race for the Republican nomination is now wide open. It should moreover not be forgotten that only a little over one percent of the delegates have been awarded. The race is a marathon, not a sprint, and Ron Paul, who ended fourth and last in South Carolina behind Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich is just getting started. Florida is just around the corner on January 31, with caucuses in Nevada, Maine, Colorado, and Minnesota following right on its heels. On March 06, hundreds of delegates will be up for grabs on Super Tuesday with elections in multiple states, including Virginia, where it’s a two-man race between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.

As long as Ron Paul does not take office as president of the USA, and puts an end to “our” debt-driven political economy, it will be necessary to consolidate your wealth in gold metal, not in the synthetic fiat-currency paper-storage which is dishonestly being administrated by the USA Federal Reserve.

The only thing president Paul will have to do is to declare, like the European Central Bank, the USA gold reserves – if any – still held at Fort Knox, to be an item not related to monetary policy operations and to (quarterly) mark these reserves to market (mark to market – MTM),
just like the gold reserves of the Eurosystem,
not to the Bretton-Woods model of $42.2 (originally at Bretton Woods $35), like the USA Treasury and/or Federal Reserve is doing now.

In that way, a firewall will be erected between the gold component and the paper component of the dollar. (More about this firewall later in this blog post).

Ron Paul said in the USA congress in 1980 that he would be delighted with a serious consideration of any form of commodity-backed currency that would put brakes on the rapidly expanding money supply. (1)

The old gold-standard could indeed not change human nature which dictates that no ruler can withstand the pressure to print more receipts than he has gold in reserve. The old gold-standard did moreover not provide for the possibility that an increase of the ounces, kilograms, or tons of gold held in reserve would lead to an increase in the currency’s value. Its chief weakness was however that it could be repealed by the politicians. (2)

REASONABLE CARE

Freegold forces the bureaucrats who are charged with the administration of the dollar to stop dishonestly performing this administration and to start doing this in a responsible way.

It forces them to exercise or perform their duties with reasonable care.

Faced with the known problem of human nature which dictates that no ruler can withstand the pressure to print more receipts than he has gold in reserve,
the bureaucrats administrating the dollar could be forced to demonstrate they exercised reasonable care in trying to prevent this problem..
It is however easier to prevent the problem which arose under the old gold-standard from arising in the first place.

Ergo, FREEGOLD.

FreeGold means that the euro has a gold component and a paper component, and puts a “firewall” between both so that gold’s valuation as a wealth-preserving asset cannot be pulled lower by the inevitable inflation of the paper component of circulating currencies. It is the (quarterly) marking to market (MTM) of the gold reserves of the Eurosystem, not to the model of $42.2 like the USA central bank (originally $35), by the Eurosystem which provides that wall.

Gold is an item not related to euro monetary policy operations.

The euro and Freegold are coexisting to supplement each other, without interacting with each other. That’s how the polity achieves its democratic legitimacy. Just like Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755), divided government power into three branches and called his idea the “separation of powers”, so does Freegold separate the gold component and paper component of the currency. Whereas Montesquieu freaks have never been able to find a way to make sure that the separation of powers is not being violated, the MTM-firewall guarantees that the separation is not a vain word..

Gold on the European Central Bank balance-sheet is these days acting as a stabilizer of the value of the euro vis-à-vis the dollar
notwithstanding the debt problems encountered by the banksters and guv’mints established on euroland, on the one hand,

and notwithstanding, on the other hand, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, the fact that the ECB is printing euros for its lunatic quantitative-easing programs.

I REPEAT:
Notwithstanding the fact that the ECB is printing euros for its lunatic quantitative-easing programs,
the exchange rate of the euro vis-à-vis the dollar does NOT suffer.
This is BECAUSE gold on the ECB balance-sheet is these days acting as a stabilizer of the value of the euro.
COMPRENDO?

Gold on the ECB balance-sheet replaces the need to check whether the administrators of the euro exercise or perform their duties with reasonable care.

By putting an end to our political-debt driven economy, the Ron Paul presidency of the USA will make it possible for Jane and Joe to consolidate their wealth in green paper.

A FOREIGN POLICY OF FREEGOLD

For Ron Paul, one of the reasons people succumb to dangerous policies of war and conquest is related to the false sense of patriotism promoted by the USA politicians. Most Americans do not want to appear weak, they enjoy expressions of strength and bravado. They fail to understand that SELF-CONFIDENCE and strength of conviction place restraints on the use of force, that peaceful solutions to problems require greater wisdom than unprovoked force. (3)

The first European Central Bank president, the late Dr Willem F. Duisenberg, asked in his May 09, 2002 Acceptance speech of the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen for 2002 “What is money?”
And he replied that money is a social contract.

“What is money? Economists know that money is defined by the functions it performs, as a means of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. But, just as importantly, money is also defined by the community for whom it performs these functions. Because it is an economic instrument for each of its users, it is also a political and cultural bond between them. Consider this simple fact: we engage in an exchange of goods and services everyday by using money as the means of exchange; and we offer our labour in exchange for money, which, in itself, has no value. We only do this because we believe that we will, in turn, be able to exchange that money for more goods or services. This fact tells us much about the confidence that we place in money itself. And it tells us much more about the CONFIDENCE that we place in each other. Hence, money is, in essence, a social contract.
The euro, probably more than any other currency, represents the mutual confidence at the heart of our community.” (4)

For Ron Paul, many Americans fail to understand that self-confidence […] place[s] restraints on the use of force
For Wim Duisenberg, the simple fact that we engage in an exchange of goods and services everyday by using money as the means of exchange, tells us much about the confidence that we place in money itself, and it tells us much more about the confidence that we place in each other.

If we have confidence in each other (Duisenberg), we don’t use force against each other (Paul).

Duisenberg continued in his Charlemagne speech:

“[The euro] is the first currency that has
not only severed its link to gold,
but also its link to the nation-state.” (4, again)

It is the severance of this link to gold which provides the firewall, about which I spoke earlier, between the gold component and the paper component of the euro.

Gold is an item not related to euro monetary policy operations.

THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING

You don’t believe me?

Go in the press room on the ECB website to its January 04, 2012 press release “Consolidated financial statement of the Eurosystem as at 30 December 2011″,

you will find under the
“Items not related to monetary policy operations”
[I cannot help but draw the reader’s attention to the fact that since the euro has severed the link from gold, gold is an item "not" related to monetary policy operations.]

that
“In the week ending 30 December 2011 the increase of EUR 3.6 billion in gold and gold receivables (asset item 1) reflected quarterly revaluation adjustments, as well as [....]”
[the reader will notice that gold thus gets quarterly marked to market]

this asset item 1 “Gold and gold receivables” had at the end of December 2011 a value of
423’458 X 1 million euro
and that the value of the total assets of the Eurosystem at the end of December 2011 was
2’735’628 X 1 million euro. (5)

This means that gold constitutes (42’345’800 / 2’735’628 = ) 15 % of the Eurosystem’s total assets – the percentage still rising with the rising price of gold.

That’s Freegold!

Just like the view of money as the institution of or, rather, for debt settlement, so is monetary “nominalism” a theory advocated mainly by lawyers.
The theory says that what defines a currency is its name (e.g.: dollar, euro, renminbi) not its purchasing power. (6)

By severing the link from (the nation-state and thus from) nominalism,
the euro founding fathers,
not to be confused with, Jean Monnet (and Robert Schuman), the founding fathers of European integration,
have said that the euro is defined by its purchasing power,
not by the euro convergence criteria.

To repeat:
Ron Paul would be delighted with a serious consideration of any form of commodity-backed currency that would put brakes on the rapidly expanding money supply. (1, again)

Ron Paul promotes Freegold.
Freegold is the “monetary theory”, if I may call it like that, advocated by the founding fathers of the euro.

Freegold replaces the necessity to check whether the Federal Reserve bureaucrats exercise or perform their duties with the reasonable care.

Freegold on the USA Treasury and/or Federal Reserve balance-sheet would act as a stabilizer of the value of the dollar – even if no brakes can be put on the rapidly expanding money supply

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com

NOTES

(1)
Congressional Record – USA House of Representatives, July 1, 1980
reprinted in: Ron Paul, “Pillars of Prosperity – Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property”, Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008, 116, p. 121

(2)
Roland Leuschel and Claus Vogt, “Das Greenspan Dossier, Wie die US-Notenbank das Weltwährungssystem gefährdet. Oder: Inflation um jeden Preis”, finanzbuchverlag.de, 2006, 3rd ed., pp. 300 and 304

(3)
Ron Paul, “A Foreign Policy of Freedom – Peace Commerce, and Honest Friendship”, Lake Jackson, Texas: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, 2007, p. 361

(4)
International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen for 2002
Acceptance speech by Dr. Willem F. Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, Aachen, 9 May 2002
http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2002/html/sp020509.en.html

(5)
PRESS RELEASE
4 January 2012 – Consolidated financial statement of the Eurosystem as at 30 December 2011
http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/wfs/2012/html/fs120104.en.htm

(6)
Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès et Philippe Stoffel-Munck, “Les Obligations”, Paris, Defrénois, Lextensio Editions, 2011, text before section 1097

Gold is an item not related to euro monetary policy operations

This is my review of:
Johan Van Overtveldt,
“The End of the Euro- The uneasy Future of the European Union”
Chicago, Agate Publishing, 27 Oct 2011

Money is not an institution for debt settlement

Gold is an item not related to euro monetary policy operations

The inside front-jacket says that the book “shows how uniting Germany, France, Italy, and other European countries with a single currency and monetary policy – but without a true political union to govern it – could only result in major imbalances between the member countries and threaten the stability of the European Union itself”.

“A whole generation of Europeans has found comfort in the idea that economic co-operation has overruled the pull of power politics and even some of the basic laws of economics. This book forcefully quashes that illusion. [...]“,
says Jonathan Holslag, research fellow at the Brussels Free University (Université Libre de Bruxelles?), on the back-over.

Page v has seven quotes by a central bankster, university lecturers, bureaucrats, and politicians.

Missing is the quote of Jacques Rueff, judge at the European Court of Justice and ghost-writer of France’s president Charles de Gaulle, although Rueff vehemently denied this ghost-writing, that
“If Europe is to be made, it will be made through money”.

My understanding (who am I to understand it like this?) is that quotes ## 1, 3, 5 (5 = UK-of-NI-and-GB prime minister Margaret Thatcher saying that the euro is bound to fail), and 7 are quoted approvingly

and thus that the quotes ## 2, 4, and 6 (6 = European Central Bank (ECB) president Jean-Claude Trichet saying that
“There is no crisis of the euro”) are quoted disapprovingly.

Now, quote #1 is Jean Monnet, father of European integration, saying that
“Nothing is possible without men and women, but nothing is lasting without institutions”.

The problem with this Monnet quote and with the inside front-jacket,
which deplores the introduction of the euro without a true political union to govern it,
is that money is not an institution (the institution of or, rather, for debt settlement) which, to paraphrase Professors Lasok and Bridge in the Preface to their ground-breaking 1973 “Law and Institutions of the European Communities”, emanates from society and purports to govern it.

Money is a good readily acceptable in exchange by everyone in a given geographical area and is sought for the purpose of being re-exchanged.
(George Reisman, “Capitalism – A Treatise on Economics”, Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson books, 1998. 3rd ed., p..142).

It is true that from the legal point of view, money is not the common medium of exchange but the common medium of payment or debt settlement. For the economist, the problem presents, however, a different aspect. If the economist were to adopt, and the book which is hereby being reviewed seems implicitly to adopt this definition (of the jurist), the definition of the jurist, this would prejudice his prospects of contributing to the advancement of economic theory.
(Ludwig von Mises, “The Theory of Money and Credit”, Indianapolis, Liberty Classics, 1980, pp. 49 and 84)

An economist should know that money only becomes a medium of payment by virtue of being a medium of exchange. (Mises, op. cit., p. 84)

ECB president Wim Duisenberg went on in his 9 May 2002 Acceptance speech of the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen for 2002 to ask: “What is money?”

And he replied:
“Economists know that money is defined by the functions it performs, as a means of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. But, just as importantly, money is also defined by the community for whom it performs these functions. Because it is an economic instrument for each of its users, it is also a political and cultural bond between them. Consider this simple fact: we engage in an exchange of goods and services everyday by using money as the means of exchange; and we offer our labour in exchange for money, which, in itself, has no value. We only do this because we believe that we will, in turn, be able to exchange that money for more goods or services. This fact tells us much about the CONFIDENCE [capitalised by this reviewer] that we place in money itself. And it tells us much more about the confidence that we place in each other. Hence, money is, in essence, a social contract.”

The introduction of the book which is hereby being reviewed starts by saying that
“The EURO is struggling to survive. For more than a decade, political decision makers have ignored economists’ warning about the EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION’s
["European monetary union's" in the book, thus no capital M nor capital U -
this reviewer capitalised everything in order to show the contrast with the "euro" which he capitalised earlier in this paragraph]
structural shortcomings”.

The epilogue concludes that
“Despite the deep crisis, the European authorities have done hardly anything really substantial about the fundamentally important issues: rebuilding the European banking sector, restoring the long-term sustainability of public finances, improving the structural growth performance of their economies and, most important of all, rebuilding the institutional framework of the monetary union to make it more durable and efficient. They are quickly running out of time. As a matter of fact, it is probably already too late.”

This reviewer asks: Is this a book about the euro, about (a) European monetary union, or about the EMU (European Monetary Union) – the subtitle of the book (“The uneasy future of the European Union”) even implying that this is a book about the European Union?

The reader may answer that these three (or even four) things are only one and the same thing.

Not so for the late Dr Willem F. Duisenberg, president of the ECB.

In his quoted 09 May 2002 Acceptance speech of the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen for 2002, where gave the three functions of money for economists and defined money also as confidence between its users, Duisenberg said that
“The euro is the first currency that has not only severed its link to gold, but also its link to the nation-state”.

Severing the link from nation-states means severing the link from the nation-states’ budget deficits and thus from that euro convergence criterion of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty (formally, the Treaty on European Union or TEU) which imposes an upper limit to government debt – the other three criteria concerning themselves with inflation rates, exchange rate, and long-term interest rates.

This reviewer repeats: Duisenberg said in 2002 in Aachen that the euro has nothing to do with the euro convergence criteria of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

These criteria wanted to harmonise inter alia the government debts of the euro nation-states.
This harmonisation would be necessary for the euro’s very existence,
The harmonisation may have been thought necessary by the signatories of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.
However, since then, the euro has arisen on 01 January 1999.
And the euro has severed the link with the euro convergence criteria, said ECB president, the late Wim Duisenberg, in May 2002.

The 2011, 6th edition of Wyatt and Dashwood’s “European Union Law”,
which does not discuss EMU nor the euro,
confirms, p. 700, that:
“It has always been possible to rationalise measures of company law harmonisation in terms of promotion of cross-border business activity.
It is more difficult to confirm the effectiveness in practice of such measures.”

Replace “measures of company law harmonisation” with “the euro convergence criteria”.
And replace “in terms of promotion of cross-border business activity” with “as being necessary for the euro’s very existence”.
Notice that the exchange rate of the euro with the USA-dollar hegemon is still not suffering – it is still way above the rate at which the euro was launched on 01 January 1999..

Section 11-040 of the 2011, 3rd edition of Koen Lenaerts and Piet Van Nuffel’s book with the same title as Wyatt and Dashwood’s says that the four “basic tasks” of the European System of Central Banks or Eurosystem, are
(1) to define and implement the monetary policy of the Union
(2) to conduct foreign-exchange operations,
(3) to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of the Member States without prejudice to the governments of Member States holding and managing working balances in foreign-exchange; and
(4) to promote the smooth operation of payment systems.

That section 11-040 contains four more paragraphs.
One explaining the (1) of the first paragraph.
One explaining the (2) of the first paragraph.
One saying that the Eurosystem is also responsible for contributing to the smooth conduct of policies pursued by the competent authorities relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and the stability of the financial system; and
One saying that the ECB has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of banknotes within the Member States participating in the third stage of EMU.

The (3) which says that “one of the basic tasks of the Eurosystem is to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of the Member States without prejudice to the governments of Member States holding and managing working balances in foreign-exchange” is thus not being explained.

This is all the more surprising when one uses one’s favourite search engine to find, in the press room on the ECB website, its 04 January 2012 press release
“Consolidated financial statement of the Eurosystem as at 30 December 2011″,
one finds under the
“Items not related to monetary policy operations”
[This reviewer cannot help but draw the reader’s attention to the fact that since the euro has severed the link from gold, gold is an item "not" related to monetary policy operations.]
that
“In the week ending 30 December 2011 the increase of EUR 3.6 billion in gold and gold receivables (asset item 1) reflected quarterly revaluation adjustments, as well as [...]”
[the reader will notice that gold thus gets quarterly marked to market – see infra]
this asset item 1 “Gold and gold receivables” had at the end of December 2011 a value of
423’458 X 1 million euro
and that the value of the total assets of the Eurosystem at the end of December 2011 was
2’735’628 X 1 million euro.

This means that gold constitutes (42’345’800 / 2’735’628 = ) 15 % of the Eurosystem’s total assets – the percentage still rising with the rising price of gold.

What’s that? Isn’t “gold” a four-letter word? No, “gold” is an eight-letter word “Freegold”.

FreeGold means that the euro has a gold component and a paper component, and puts a “firewall” between both so that gold’s valuation as a wealth-preserving asset cannot be pulled lower by the inevitable inflation of the paper component of circulating currencies. It is the (quarterly) marking to market (MTM) of the gold reserves of the Eurosystem, not to the model of $42.2 like the USA central bank (originally $35), by the Eurosystem which provides that wall.

Gold is an item not related to monetary policy operations.

The euro and Freegold are coexisting to supplement each other, without interacting with each other. That’s how the polity achieves its democratic legitimacy. Just like Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755), divided government power into three branches and called his idea the “separation of powers”, so does Freegold separate the gold component and paper component of the currency. Whereas Montesquieu freaks have never been able to find a way to make sure that the separation of powers is not being violated, the MTM-firewall guarantees that the separation is not a vain word.

Just like the view of money as the institution of or, rather, for debt settlement, so is monetary “nominalism” a theory advocated mainly by lawyers.
The theory says that what defines a currency is its name (e.g.: pound sterling, euro, renminbi) not its purchasing power.
(Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès et Philippe Stoffel-Munck, “Les Obligations”, Paris, Defrénois, Lextensio Editions, 2011, text before section 1097)

By severing the link from (the nation-state and thus from) nominalism,
the euro founding fathers,
not to be confused with, Jean Monnet (and Robert Schuman), the founding fathers of European integration,
have said that the euro is defined by its purchasing power,
not by the euro convergence criteria.

Peter Praet was member of the Executive Board of the ECB from June to December 2011.
Since January 2012, Praet is chief economist of the ECB.

In his Address on the occasion of the inauguration of the Euro Exhibition at the Cité des sciences et de l’industrie, in Paris on 16 June 2011, Praet said that
“Since 2002 the euro has probably become the most visible symbol of European integration”.

Duisenberg said in his quoted May 2002 Charlemagne speech:
“Surely this uniting power [of the euro] must have been felt – I am even tempted to say, physically – by those who have travelled from one euro area country to another this year.”

That’s the Carolingian legacy which chief economist Peter Praet is upholding.

It’s not that
“Rien n’est possible sans les hommes mais rien n’est durable sans les institutions”, as Jean Monnet, which statement was translated above by the author of the book which is hereby being reviewed
but that
“L’Europe se fera par la monnaie ou ne se fera pas”, as Jacques Rueff said, which statement was translated above by this reviewer. (To tell the truth, this reviewer found the translation of the latter statement on the web.)

Could it be that the fact that money is not an institution for debt settlement which emanates from society and purports to govern it, explains why the euro convergence criteria of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which view money only as an institution for debt settlement, are irrelevant?

Anyone noticed that this reviewer capitalised “CONFIDENCE” in Duisenberg’s answer to the question “What is money?” and that the epilogue of the book which is hereby being reviewed does not consider this, i.e., confidence, a “fundamentally” important issue?

Does confidence emanate from society and purport to govern it?

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com

Honest Money, Dishonest UK-of-NI-and-GB press!

Camilla Cavendish asks this morning in The Times whether the press could expose thalidomide today,

Could the press expose thalidomide today?
Camilla Cavendish
January 19 2012 12:01AM
http://www.thetimes.co..uk/tto/opinion/columnists/camillacavendish/article3291072.ece

Did the press ever warn about thalidomide?

The whistle on thalidomide was blown
on 30 April – 1 May 1960 at a Düsseldorf congress of neurologists
by neurologist, Dr Ralf Voss (1)

Googling (google.co.uk) for “press exposed thalidomide” gives as first result the so-called independent UK-of-NI-and-GB newspaper saying that William McBride was the Australian doctor who first alerted the world to the dangers of the thalidomide drug,

Wikipedia “William McBride_(doctor)” says that McBride’s public thalidomide-concerns came only in 1961.

Where was the press in the meantime?

Was it that Dr Ralf Voss “only” said that thalidomide attacked the nervous system of the …
mother
and thus did not say that thalidomide attacked the
foetus?

Harold Evans, the editor of the Sunday Times “in tempore VERY suspecto”, fails in his 2009 Memoirs “My Paper Chase” to give exact thalidomide dates.

Quousque tandem … ?

You bastards! I don’t apologise for this B-word.

Honest Money, Dishonest UK-of-NI-and-GB press!

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com

NOTE

(1)
Chronik des Conterganfalls
Tragödie – Katastrophe – Skandal?
http://www1.wdr.de/themen/archiv/sp_contergan/contergan176.html
[this URL changer very often]
SNIP
30. April/1. Mai 1960:
Auf einem Neurologen-Kongress in Düsseldorf berichtet der Neurologe Ralf Voss über die Nervenschädigungen, die seinen Beobachtungen zufolge durch Thalidomid verursacht werden.

Pope Benedict XVI says that the economic crisis can and must be an incentive to reflect on human existence and on the importance of its ethical dimension, even before we consider the mechanisms governing economic life

Swiss central bankster resigns over insider trading scandal – wife’s currency deal

(Reuters) – Swiss National Bank Chairman Philipp Hildebrand resigned with immediate effect on Monday, saying he could not prove he had been unaware of a currency trade made by his wife and wanted to protect the integrity of the central bank.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/uk-swiss-hildebrand-idUKTRE8080J420120109

There’s nothing wrong with insider trading.

Insider trading, so what? – Repeal the US SEC now!
Posted by Ivo Cerckel on July 29th, 2009
http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2009/07/29/repeal-sec/
SNIP
Logic is the science and art of correct thinking.
It is true that access to information may not be as efficient as desired.
The question which arises is whether it is logically possible to deter insider trading significantly.
Moreover, insider trading harms nobody.
UNSNIP

There is no sound ethical principle which requires that others have a right to one’s revealing to them information one has honestly obtained AHEAD OF THEM. Quite the contrary, morality may require one to act promptly ahead of everyone else, so as to make headway financially .
(Tibor R.. Machan, and James E. Chesher, “What is Morally Right with Insider Trading? ” in: “A Primer on Business Ethics”, Rowman and Littlefield, 2002 , 131, p. 132)

There’s nothing wrong with insider trading.

But, yes, everything is wrong with central banksterism (creating “money” through printing it out of thin air).

”The crisis can and must be an incentive to reflect on human existence and on the importance of its ethical dimension, even before we consider the mechanisms governing economic life,”
said Pope Benedict XVI yesterday Monday in His yearly speech to foreign ambassadors accredited with the Vatican.
(Pope calls for new ethics in gloomy global message
By: Dario Thuburn
Agence France-Presse
1:52 am | Tuesday, January 10th, 2012
http://business.inquirer.net/38973/pope-calls-for-new-ethics-in-gloomy-global-message

What is money? Economists know that money is defined by the functions it performs, as a means of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. But, just as importantly, money is also defined by the community for whom it performs these functions. Because it is an economic instrument for each of its users, it is also a political and cultural bond between them. Consider this simple fact: we engage in an exchange of goods and services everyday by using money as the means of exchange; and we offer our labour in exchange for money, which, in itself, has no value. We only do this because we believe that we will, in turn, be able to exchange that money for more goods or services. This fact tells us much about the CONFIDENCE that we place in money itself. And it tells us much more about the confidence that we place in each other. Hence, money is, in essence, a social contract.
(Acceptance speech of the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen for 2002
by Dr. Willem F.. Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank,
Aachen, 9 May 2002
http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2002/html/sp020509.en.html

Is the confidence that we place in each other not an ethical question?

So the debate can start
(even though, yes, Duisenberg was a central bankster,
but a honest one, advocating Honest Money)
…

Professor Maurice De Wulf writes ;
Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that man by his nature is called to live society because alone he would be deprived of inter alia material resources. Hence the fundamental principle that society exists for the good of the individual and thus that the individual does not exist for the good of society
The individuals of society retain their personality intact and they only contribute certain of their activities to society – which activities should be co-ordinated within the community.
From the metaphysical point of view, the social group is equated to or with a group of men hauling or towing a boat “operatio multidinis trahentium (trahendum?) navem”. (Saint Thomas, “Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics [of Aristotle]“, Book I, lectio I)
On each side, the unity is an accidental unity, a unity of functions, exercised by different members, trying to realise a state of affairs which transcends the activity of a single or isolated individual
The group is constituted for the good of the individuals. The group can therefore not infringe the rights retained by the individual as a consequence of his (the latter’s) rational nature.
(Maurice De Wulf, “Initiation à la philosophie thomiste”, Louvain: E. Nauwelaerts Editeur, 1949, 2nd ed., pp 154-156)

This blogger asks (rhetorically) whether, when a group of individual is pulling a boat, each individual of the group must not have confidence in the other members of the group doing the same?

So yes, for Saint Thomas, the confidence that we place in each other is an ethical question.

And, as one of the 33 Doctors of the Church, Saint Thomas
AKA Doctor Angelicus, AKA, Doctor Communis, AKA Doctor Universalis
is considered the Church’s greatest theologian and philosopher,
Pope Benedict XV having declared: “This [Dominican] Order [to which Saint Thomas belonged] … acquired new luster when the Church declared the teaching of Thomas to be her own and that Doctor, honored with the special praises of the Pontiffs, the master and patron of Catholic schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com

Will Paul De Grauwe now become sensible and advocate Freegold at the LSE?

Peter Praet, formerly from the Belgian central bankster, has been appointed chief economist of the European Central Bankster.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/business/global/04iht-ecb04.html

Before being a bureaucrat at the Banquestère National de Belgique,
Praet worked for the banksterism arm of the Sociètè Gènèrale de Belgique
which (the latter) was created under the Gold Standard somewhere between 1815 and 1830
by King Willem of the Low Countries.

As the other more recent Willem had problems with his chamber-pot
http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2011/12/29/the-chamber-pot-of-wim-duisenberg/

they now appointed Peter from the city of Manneken Pis as one of Otmar Issing’s successors,
Bernard Connolly having been so bright as to featuring Manneken Pis on the front-cover of his 1995 book “The Rotten Heart of Europe – The Dirty War for Europe’s Money” (which actually explains why this blogger didn’t read the book “in tempore non suspecto”, but only in 2011)?

Will Peter have the courage to say that Willem and Bernard erred?

Or did the late ECB president Dr Willem F. Duisenberg piss on purpose, in the golden Morean (as in Thomas More’s “Utopia”)  chamber-pot he was provided in Aachen on 9 May 2002 on the occasion of his Acceptance speech of the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen for 2002, to force us to read section 2 of Chapter 6 of Part 1 of Ludwig von Mises’s “The Theory of Money and Credit” and the rest of the book?
http://mises.org/books/Theory_Money_Credit/Part1_Ch6.aspx

Praet graduated from KU Leuven.

Paul De Grauwe is the author of ‘Economics of Monetary Union” (Oxford UP. June 2012, 9th ed.)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Economics-Monetary-Union-Paul-Grauwe/dp/0199605572/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1325644832&sr=8-2

De Grauwe is retiring next month from KU Leuven to the London School of Economics.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/aroundLSE/2011/DeGrauwe..aspx

Will De Grauwe become sensible and advocate – or, at least, outline – Freegold?

Freegold means that the euro has a gold component and a paper component, and puts a “firewall” between both so that gold’s valuation as a wealth-preserving asset cannot be pulled lower by the inevitable inflation of the paper component of circulating currencies.
It is the (quarterly) marking to market (MTM) of the gold reserves of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) , not to the Bretton Woods model of $42.2 like the USA central bank (originally $35), by the ESCB which provides that wall.

Today, the ECB can use not only it’s excess dollars to buy physical gold sold from other banks, they could use Euros printed outright to buy physical spot delivery. If their currency continues to fall before the dollar begins its terminal phase, this option is wide open to them. Certainly, “Free Gold” is not going to compete against them as it would against the dollar because it’s their policy to mark all its rise to the market. Because Free Gold will not be an official currency, its wealth building power will complement the bank’s reserves. In addition, national citizens would own gold as a wealth savings, not a currency.
(Walking the Gold Trail Using the “Thoughts!” of ANOTHER
Archive II (June 2000 to January 2001); “The Long and Winding Road”
http://www.usagold.com/goldtrail/archives/goldtrailtwo.html
FOA (09/16/00; 15:11:26MD – usagold.com msg#38)
After six miles we arrive at the burial tree!)

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com

The Financial Times carries an editorial this morning arguing that the European Union is still a model for a volatile world.

January 2, 2012 10:14 pm
EU still a model for a volatile world
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/97dfe9fa-354f-11e1-84b9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1iCwZZ4aq

Me replies:

It has always been possible to rationalise measures of company law harmonisation in terms of promotion of cross-border business activity.
It is more difficult to confirm the effectiveness in practice of such measures
(Wyatt and Dashwood’s, “European Union Law”, 2011, 6me ed., p. 700)

The Stability and Growth Pact wanted  to harmonise budget deficits of the euro  nation-states.

The latter harmonisation would be necessary for the euro’s very existence,

The latter harmonisation may have been necessary for Jacques Delors when he elaborated the Maastricht criteria in the said Pact.

Howvever, since then, the euro has arisen.

And the euro is the first currency that has not only severed its link to gold, but also its link to the nation-state,
said European Central Bank president, the late Dr Willem F. Duisenberg,
in his 9 May 2002 Acceptance speech of the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen for 2002.
http://www.ecb.eu/press/key/date/2002/html/sp020509.en.html

Severing the link from nation-states means severing the link from the nation-states’ budget deficits.

“Nation” comes from “nasci”,
past participle “natus’, noun “natio”,
“to be born” in Latin.

At hirth, you get a “name”, “nomen”, genitive “nominis”,  in Latin.

Monetatary “nominalism” is the theory advocated mainly by lawyers which says that
what defines a currency is its name (e.g.; pound sterling, euro, dinar) not its purchasing power
(Philippe Malaurie, Laurent Aynès et Philippe Stoffel-Munck, “Les Obligations”, Paris, Defrénois, Lextensio Editions, 2011, text before section 1097)

By severing the link from (the nation-state and thus from) nominalism,
the euro founding fathers have said that the euro is defined by its purchasing power.
not by Jacques Delors de Maestricht.

EU harmonisation is no model for anything.

Ivo Cerckel
honestmoney@maktoob.com