Honest Money

Gold is Wealth Hiding in Oil

Freegold 和回归定理

Posted by Ivo Cerckel on August 8th, 2012

上海奥地利经济峰会
2012 年 7 月 20-23日
希尔顿 DoubleTree 酒店,华侨/昆山

Freegold 和回归定理
Ivo Cerckel 撰写
ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

像苏格拉底一样,孔子的哲学都是由其门徒编写成书的。
“子贡问曰:‘有一言而可以终身行之者乎?’子(孔子)曰:‘其恕乎,己所不欲,勿施于人。’”(《论语》篇 15 章 23 )

世界上的许多哲学和宗教体系均主张对待他人如同对待自己的道德原则,称之为“黄金法则”,并将其作为主要道德教义。

此“黄金法则”假设人具备此类本性,而孔子正是在这一假设的基础上构建起其道德原则。(Alfredo P. Co,《古代中国哲学》,马尼拉,圣托马斯大学出版社,1992,2002 年再版,107 页)

正如人具备本性一样,货币也有其本性。

1999 年《中华人民共和国合同法》第 130 条规定,“买卖合同是出卖人转移标的物所有权于买受人,买受人支付价款的合同。”。

卖方给予买方具有价值的标的物时,如果买方支付卖方没有价值的物品,则买方对卖方的给予进行了交换吗?买方是否因此违背了“黄金法则”,即,对待卖方如同自己——即买方本人——己所不欲勿施于人,换言之,以无价换有价?

为了避免交易一方以无价换有价,货币必须有一个锚定价值,这个价值须是实际的,而非虚构的。不是标称价值,即,不仅仅是票面价值。货币如果没有实 际价值,就失去了自身的意义。货币如果仅有虚构(数字)价值,则其自身不能成为该锚定价值。货币需要锚定价值的原因与不是为了唤起(为了让人意识到)金本 位,而是通过提供“货币之外”的财富价值来确定货币的价值,而且与货币之间没有现代标签或官方联系,以下称为 WABM。

称这一定价过程为“锚定”,是因为其与轮船停泊时在某一地点抛锚,以避免漂移相似。

门格和孟子

奥地利经济学派的创始人卡尔•门格 (1840 – 1921) 认为,人是每次交易的参与者,因此,也是交易中使用何种货币的决策者。这不是由政府规定的,而是市场决定的。在门格看来,货币不是由法律规定的。其根源在于社会,而非国家机构。

而根据 Ludwig von Mises(路德维希•冯•米塞斯,1881 – 1973)的观点,货币是在实物交易经济中产生货币商品需求之后产生的。因此,货币的根源是实用的、有价值的商品,而非政府可创造的物品,而且是货币自己赢得了人们的信任。

孟夫子(孟子),是与亚里士多德同时代的人,曾向孔子的曾孙学习,后成为孔子最著名的门徒,同时也是孔子正统教义最伟大的发展者,他曾说道“不以规矩,不成方圆。”(《孟子》,篇 VI,章 1,点 6 )

“黄金”是货币事务最原始和最适当的标准。和谐的经济体系必须通过货币凭证来运作。这种凭证起源于人们为了避免携带大量金银去付款或还债,而提供并接受的仓库贵金属量证明。因为每个仓库凭证均可认领特定金属块,因此,是货币的最佳替代品。

这种古老的金本位不能改变人的本性,使统治者不能违背原则地印制超过黄金储备价值的货币凭证(法定通货),既不仅发行仓库凭证,也发行信托流通券,还为仓库中没有的黄金发行凭证。

奥地利经济学派公认的原则之一即是,货币本身并非体系(不是清偿债务体系),而是在特定地理区域内人人可接受的恰当交换手段,货币用于重复交换目的。对于奥地利经济学派来说,货币仅是实现交换的媒介,而非清偿债务的媒介。

布雷顿森林体系 (BRETTON WOODS) 和尼克松 (NIXON)

1971 年 8 月 15 日金本位制度消亡,当时,美国总统尼克松打破了 1944 年的布雷顿森林协议。该协议创建了“国际货币基金组织 (IMF)”,主张 IMF 的唯一责任是维护协议体系。当协议不复存在时,IMF 在 1971 年 8 月就已应被撤销。

该协议把美元以固定平价与黄金挂钩,所有其它货币与美元挂钩。1971 年 8 月 15 日,尼克松总统打破了协议。从此,美元的价值就…乱了套。当然,美国从未敢公开表示其美元脱离了金本位。在确保 IMF 协议条款的新第七款,第 2 章 (b) 确实禁止成员国货币采用金本位之后,美国成功地为 IMF 赋予了新责任,使其得以继续存在。

从此,所有 IMF 成员国的货币都成为了法定通货。法定通货是指不通过任何公式与某种商品,如黄金挂钩的通货。但是,这种通货可以某种公式与原有通货挂钩。如果不与原有通货挂钩,人们就不能确定新法定货币的购买力,也就不能接受其作为交易媒介。

法定货币可能源于纸币和硬商品之间的兑换延期或由于引进了新的货币形式。

1999 年 1 月 1 日引进了一种新的货币形式,欧元。欧元区的人们对这种货币很有信心,因为欧元与仍在流通的现有货币之间存在明确关联。新货币形式(欧元)的纸币和硬币,在 其后 3 年才正式引入。欧元不仅与德国马克、法国法郎等货币挂钩,而且马克和法郎在 1971 年 8 月 15 日之前也与黄金挂钩。因此,法定货币(欧元)得以被欧元区(以及其它地区)需要交易媒介的人们所接受。根植于某种商品或某种旧有货币体系(该体系自身植根 于某种商品)的法定通货会仍然具备价值,即使其来源已经随着时间而变得模糊不清。

如果禁止 IMF 成员国将其货币与黄金挂钩,而又没有任何法规禁止国际贸易中各方使用黄金作为国际贸易结算的交易工具,那么黄金将因此而恢复其在作为 WABM 之前孟子和孔子时代的交易地位。

杜伊森伯格 (DUISENBERG) 和蒙娜丽莎

2002 年 5 月 9 日,欧洲中央银行行长威廉•杜伊森伯格 (Willem Duisenberg) 在接受“2002 年国际查理曼奖 (International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen)”的演讲上说:
“欧元 [1999 年 1 月 1 日引入的新货币形式],可能超越其它任何货币,代表我们社会核心的相互信任。这是首个不仅与黄金挂钩,而且与国家政府挂钩的货币。”
(英语名词“信任 (confidence)”的词源包含与我前文中使用的“信托流通券 (fiduciary media)”中的形容词“fiduciary(信托的)”相同的拉丁词 “fides”、”trust”。)

杜伊森伯格在此说明,新的交易媒介(欧元)将与 Freegold 并存。Freegold 将是一种通货不与固定量黄金捆绑的金本位通货价值体系。这将必然要求黄金价格自由浮动,因此黄金将不是货币,而是实际财富的承载体,是一种你可以将自己财 富换算为的 WABM,以便保持其购买力并预防贬值。

欧元具备黄金成分和票面成分,并在两者之间插入“防火墙”,以便作为保值资产的黄金价值不会因流通货币票面价值的必然通胀而贬值。这是提供防火墙 的欧元体系(欧洲中央银行系统)黄金储备的(季度)盯市制度 (MTM),而非像美国(原来 $35)的 $42.2 模式。黄金不与欧元货币政策运作相联系。

通过在 MTM 防火墙后交易,而非法定货币防火墙后交易,欧元正努力实现 Freegold,并恢复黄金作为 WAMB 的地位,本身是资产,而非资产主张。

一旦实现 Freegold,欧洲体系保险库内的黄金储备将如同巴黎卢浮宫的名画《蒙娜丽莎》一样,成为欧洲货币联盟(卢浮宫)中的财富储备。

奥地利经济学派和回归

如上文所述,米塞斯表明了货币的绝对市场根源。根据米塞斯的观点,货币是在实物交易经济中产生货币商品需求之后产生的。人们接受什么样的货币(交易媒介)、为其附加何种价值皆因个人价值判断各异。

下一个问题是人们希望持有多少货币。奥地利经济学派认为,人们会看哪种货币可以当前价格交易,或更准确地说,可以当时刚刚过去的主导价格交易。人 们以刚才什么价格决定希望持有的货币数量?以当时刚刚过去的当前价格交易?奥地利经济学派很容易被反对者们抨击他们的无限回溯。批评奥地利经济学派推理陷 入循环非常容易,这种批评即是著名的“奥地利圈”。

为了回应“奥地利圈”,米塞斯引进了“回归定理”,即,将货币的价值追溯到货币(一种商品)未成为货币而仅是实用的交易商品时。

我们今天给作为交易媒介的货币赋予的价值,米塞斯说,反映了昨天它能够购买的商品量。同样,其价值反映了货币前天的购买力——以此类推。最终,无论我们使用什么作为货币,我们必然回归到货币不是交易媒介而是具有自身实用性的物品(因而可与其它物品进行交易)的那一天。

那时,货币这种商品不是货币,而是实用的交易商品。

那时有孔子提出的“互惠互利”。

米塞斯回归至货币这种商品不是货币而是实用的交易商品的时刻,然后再返回现行货币.

如果我们不返回现行货币体系又会如何呢?

如果我们停留在真正的孔子互惠互利的状态呢?

当 Freegold 支持者提出回归定理,货币回归至不再是货币,而是实用的交易商品,
这些支持者停留在那一阶段,防止货币从商品变为可以使用的货币,而非作为偿债机制,而是在国际贸易结算中的双边交易品。

换言之,一旦 Freegold 支持者回归至货币不再是货币,而是实用的交易商品阶段,即,一旦 Freegold 支持者证明了米塞斯的“回归定理”:所有货币(甚至政府法定通货)最终都必须根据其在历史上易货状态时的商品价值来确定其购买力,Freegold 支持者停留在此,并视黄金为交易工具(对于石油,因此免除了石油生产商转换其石油美元为黄金的必须性,正如美元本身,没有任何价值)。

自愿和仁

如果货币需要锚定价值,合同法也同样。

在 1804 年通过了《法国民法典》之后,合同自由成为现代合同法的“锚”。(付俊伟(音译),“现代欧洲和中国合同法:双方自治之比较分析”,Kluwer Law International,2011 年,第 40 页)

上述法典第 1134 条规定,双方签订的协议是规范双方之间关系的法律,[而且该协议...]应本着“诚信”的原则执行。

1999 年《中华人民共和国合同法》第 4 条规定,“当事人依法享有自愿订立合同的权利,任何单位和个人不得非法干预”。

《中国合同法》中是否提及“诚信”?

的确,欧洲的“合同自由”承认选择合同交易方、执行和决定合同内容的自由,而中国的“合同自愿”仅赋予选择合同交易方并履行合同的自由。但是,一般来说,“诚信”是限定中国和欧洲合同法中合同各方权利的最基本原则之一。(付,前引用书,第 67 页)

而且,在《中华人民共和国合同法》中有明确条款要求,合同双方应彼此尊重,以负责任的方式履行职责,避免滥用权利,遵守法律和通用商业惯例。这一原则可追溯至孔子的主张“仁”,仁爱。(付,前引用书,第 44 页)

孔子认为,“仁”表示尊重他人。(孔子,前引用书,第 107 页)

孟子认为,“仁”意味着合乎道德的行为。(孔子,前引用书,第 312 页)

一位比利时学者甚至认为,当《德国民法典》第 242 章规定“债务人必须根据诚信原则履行责任,并考虑通用惯例,”这个“根据诚信原则履约”(“Leistung nach Treu und Glauben”) 的责任,逐渐发展成为合同或侵权行为中产生的所有义务的基础,甚至是关键,与传统中国思想不谋而合。(Jacques H. Herbots, “Contracteren in China”, Ghent (比利时),Larcier, 2008, 第 30 章)

当然,德国是 Freegold 的创始国之一。

当欧洲中央银行主席杜伊森伯格在其旁征博引的“查理曼授奖仪式”演讲中说道:
“[...] 每天,我们使用货币作为交易手段 [自愿] 参与商品和服务交易;我们用劳动来交易货币,而货币本身,没有价值。我们同意如此仅仅是因为,我们相信,我们能够用货币来换取更多的商品和服务。这一事实 告诉我们,我们对货币的信任有多么重要 [confidence(信任)的词源含拉丁名词 fides,信任或信心]。这一事实也告诉我们,我们对于彼此的信任更为重要。”

杜伊森伯格将自愿与诚信挂钩。

这与感情用事无关,这意味着,现实或存在,决定是否能够实现互惠互利。“货币”机构所用的词汇或用于其通货的词汇,与是否能够实现互惠互利无关。

Ivo Cerckel
ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

No related posts.

One Response to “Freegold 和回归定理”

  1. Ivo Cerckel Says:

    Last updated Thursday 07 March 2013 10h50 GMT+8

    Currency hegemony is the imposition of a currency, even gold (at a stated currency price, of course), on the population. Such an imposition is in fact precisely the opposite of allowing the parties to a sales contract to freely determine the contents of the contract.

    Although article 4 of the 1999 Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that “a party is entitled to enter into a contract voluntarily under the law and no entity or individual may unlawfully interfere with such right”,

    the programme of the 14 March 2013 FT Standard Chartered Taiwan Economic Summit says that currently only a tiny amount of the USD 120 billion in trade between China and Taiwan is settled in renminbi.(1)

    The programme continues by saying that a major opportunity for Taiwan may be generated by the further internationalisation of the said renminbi.
    http://www.ft-live.com/fttaiwan

    Notice immediately that the debate at the Summit concerns renminbi “internationalisation”, not renminbi “convertibility” – into pieces of scrap, a.k.a. USA dollars.

    MENG-TZE

    What is money? And what is [the renminbi as] a currency?

    As Mencius (Meng-Tze) (372 – 289 B.C.), who studied with the great-grandson of Confucius (2) and became the foremost follower and greatest developer of the orthodox teaching of Confucius (3), taught: “wherever there are things and affairs, there must be their principles.” (4)

    Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.), who like the elder Plato (429 – 347 B.C.) was a contemporary of Mencius, saw “substance” as the root of the intelligibility of the world and went on to define the “substance” of a thing as its “essence” by which the thing is differentiated from other things due to its nature which “specifies” it. (5)

    For “essence”, Aristotle gave the “what-it-was-to-be-that-thing” as definition. (5, again)
    By using a phrase in this way in the grammatical role of a noun, this definition is as unnatural in Greek as it in English.
    The definition suggests the idea of what something was all along going to, destined to, become. (6)

    Could it be that money [as opposed to currency] is a good readily acceptable in exchange by everyone in a given geographical area and is sought for the purpose of being re-exchanged (7) and that gold was all along going to, destined to, become money?

    Could it also be that when English speakers say that something has “currency”, they mean that it is in the state of being current; that it is in the state of being in general acceptance or … “recognition”?

    Xinhua reported on 22 February 2013 that according to Peng Xingyun, a researcher and financial specialist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the developments in renminbi internationalisation may indicate a rising “recognition” of the currency worldwide. (8)

    This seems to indicate that before the renminbi can be recognised as an “international” currency, it must be recognised as a “currency”.

    MONETARY ANCHOR

    Money must have an anchor, an anchor in reality, not in the mind. Not a nominal anchor, not an anchor in name only. Money cannot be itself the anchor if it has no reality. Money cannot be itself the anchor if it exists only in the (digital) mind. The reason why money needs an anchor is not to evoke, not to bring into the mind, the gold standard, but to anchor money by providing for a Wealth Asset that stands Beside Money, yet has no official connection to money, hereafter a WABM. Calling this process “anchoring” relates to the way that ships down anchor to keep themselves in a specific place to avoid drifting way.

    The last remnant of the gold standard disappeared on 15 August 1971 when USA president Richard Nixon broke the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement. This Agreement, which established the International Monetary Fund (IMF), said that the IMF’s only task was to maintain the Agreement. As the Agreement did no longer exist, the IMF should have been repealed in August 1971.

    The Agreement linked the USA dollar at fixed parity to the price of gold and all other currencies to the said dollar. On 15 August 1971, Nixon broke the Agreement. Since then, the value of the USA dollar is determined by … nothing. The USA of course never (dare to make explicit that it) severed the link of the USA dollar to gold. Nay, after making sure that article IV, section 2, (b), of the IMF Articles of Agreement does prohibit members from linking their currencies to gold, the USA managed to give new tasks to the IMF so that it could be kept in existence.

    Middle East oil producers could therefore obtain less gold than before with the USA dollars received for their oil. Out of love for gold, they were thus forced to increase their prices which caused the first oil crisis in 1973.

    China doesn’t declare its gold purchases, but it is an open secret that its People’s Bank is buying on every dip, as they have to do merely to keep the proportion stable at 2 percent of their USA dollar 3.3 trillion reserves, said a London newspaper on 21 February 2013. (9)

    The old “fixed” gold-standard could not change human nature which dictates that no ruler can withstand the pressure to print more receipts than he has gold in reserve. (10)
    The old “fixed” gold-standard was faced with the problem of matching the amount of gold in the treasury to the “fix”. To make the money stronger, one had to bring in gold, as it took twice as many ounces to back a currency “in circulation” at USD 10 as it did at USD 20. The reverse is true when lowering the money value to USD 40. Then, one half the gold backing had to be removed as only half was now needed to back the USA dollar. (11)
    Its chief weakness was however that it could be repealed by the politicians. (10, again)

    Since, on the one hand, a monetary system must have an anchor, but since, on the other hand, a fixed gold-standard, is affected by many weaknesses, the only way a monetary system can work is if anyone, anywhere, be able to exchange the currency for gold, not at a fixed rate, but at a floating rate.

    This is “Freegold”, the free exchangeability “at will” of a (any?) currency into gold. I say free exchangeability “at will” into gold. I don’t say free exchangeability “on demand” into gold, as “on demand” would imply that somebody – most likely the issuer of the currency – can be forced to exchange his gold for currency.

    FREEGOLD

    On 01 January 1999 a fresh form of currency, the euro, was introduced.

    In his 09 May 2002 Acceptance speech of the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen for 2002, European Central Bank (ECB) president, the late Dr Willem F. Duisenberg said:
    “The euro probably more than any other currency, represents the mutual confidence at the heart of our community. It is the first currency that has not only severed its link to gold, but also its link to the nation-state.” (12)

    Dr Duisenberg was here saying that the euro, the new medium of exchange, is to co-exist with Freegold, as a store of value. Freegold will be a gold-based currency valuation system where the currency is not tied to a fixed amount of gold. This will entail a free-floating price of gold whereby gold will not be money, but a physical wealth consolidator, a WABM into which you can transform your wealth in order to maintain its purchasing power and to prevent it from vanishing into thin air.
    Remember that a WABM has no official connection to money.

    By the same token, Duisenberg challenged USA-dollar hegemony, confirming to the planet that not only had the currency of which the ECB is the guardian severed the link to the nation-state but that the ECB was also prepared to utilise gold as a “currency without a country” to act as a reserve for interventions if required — a breakthrough. (13)

    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 (the European System of Central Banks) not to the model of USD 42.2 like the USA (originally, in 1944, when Bretton Woods came into force, USD 35), by the Eurosystem which provides that wall. Gold is an item not related to euro monetary policy operations.

    By trading behind the MTM firewall, not behind a fiat-monetary firewall, the euro is trying to achieve Freegold and return gold to its status as a WABM, an asset itself, not a claim on assets.
    Remember that a WABM has no official connection to money and that a WABM is a Wealth Asset that stands Beside Money.

    Once Freegold will have been achieved, the gold reserves in the strong-rooms of the Eurosystem will fulfil the same role as the Mona Lisa in the Louvre museum in Paris, a wealth reserve, a WABM, in the strong-room (the Louvre) of a monetary union.

    That’s a model which the People’s Bank of China could be following.

    Whether the Bank is following the model, I don’t know.

    CONTRACT VOLUNTARINESS

    If money needs an anchor, so does contract law.

    Freedom of contract became the “anchor” of modern contract law after the French Civil Code was adopted in 1804. (14)

    Article 1134 of the said Code provides that the agreement entered into between parties is the law governing the relationship between the parties [...].

    Does Chinese contract law allow for the inclusion in an international trade contract of a clause stipulating that payment shall be made in Another currency than the USA dollar – the currency imposed by trade usages?

    I said at the outset that article 4 of the 1999 Contract Law of (the People’s Republic of) China (CLC) provides that “a party is entitled to enter into a contract voluntarily under the law and no entity or individual may unlawfully interfere with such right”.

    Dr Junwei Fu of the Beijing Institute of Technology School of Law says that it is often believed by Chinese academic circles that “contract voluntariness” of the CLC is the same as “freedom of contract”. (15)

    In order to understand what the Chinese legislator meant with this article 4, the drafting history or drafting process of this article 4 may contain some indications – as to the meaning. And this history or process reveals that “freedom of contract” which was stated as a general principle in a 1995 bill which finally led to the 1999 CLC was already revised in a 1997 bill and was finally rejected and replaced in the final 1998 bill by “contract voluntariness”, says Dr Fu. (16)

    This seems to indicate that “contract voluntariness” is NOT the same as “freedom of contract”.

    While European “freedom of contract” acknowledges, among other things, the freedom to choose the other contractual party and to conclude and determine the contents of a contract (17), Chinese “contract voluntariness” is much narrower and essentially limited to the autonomy to enter into a contract. (18)
    Conversely, the exceptions to European “freedom of contract” are much narrower than the exceptions to Chinese “contract voluntariness”.

    When European legal systems say that contracts must respect “public order” and “good morals”, those two concepts are always defined in a narrow way in order to respect the will and freedom of the parties. (19)

    In China due to the influence of Confucianism and a historically planned economy, it is necessary for the state to exercise intervention measures to ensure that contracts are not disturbing the “socio-economic order”. (20)

    “Disturbance of the “socio-economic order” or disruption of the State economic plan by any organisation or individual is prohibited”, says article 7 of the amendment to the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at the First Session of the Eighth National People’s Congress and promulgated for implementation by the Announcement of the National People’s Congress on March 29, 1993).

    Is the USA dollar regime a constitutive part of the Chinese socio-economic order?

    TRADE USA-GES

    Chinese law of contracts consists of default rules and mandatory rules. The first ones can be excluded by the parties whereas mandatory rules are widely accepted to be a limitation to the freedom of contract since contractual parties cannot avoid them in the agreement. (21)
    Since China has signed “numerous” international treaties impacting the parties concluding the contract, the mandatory rules in those international treaties cannot be violated by the individuals. These treaties are given priority over national law. (22)

    China has signed the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods.
    This Convention is not mandatory in character and article 6 provides that parties may exclude its application altogether. (23)

    Trade usages and trade terms play however an important role in international commercial law, and for a convention to be successful it needs to be sympathetic them. [... At the negotiations leading to Vienna Convention,] Socialist countries were wary of trade usages since they preferred the contract to be secure and certain so that the parties are not taken by surprise, especially where local usages are adopted. [...] This does not mean that Socialist countries did not recognise trade usages. By and large they do, provided they are widely “recognised” – that is, internationally well-known – clear and certain. (24)

    Does payment in USA dollar, not in Zimbabwe dollar, the official currency of Zimbabwe from 1980 to 12 April 2009, make the contract secure and certain?

    Payment in USA dollar is deemed to be payment in a known – should I say “recognised”? – “hard” currency, which currency is not subject to surprises – such as being reduced to its intrinsic value, the paper it is printed on and the green ink, of course – that’s the way to test whether the USA dollar is a “hard” currency.

    And what about the payment for the shipping of the goods to and from Taiwan and China? Also in USA dollars?

    In international law concerning carriage of goods by sea, there are standard forms of contract which include “freight clauses”, that is, additional clauses which will normally make provision for the currency in which the freight is to be paid. In a period of fluctuating exchange-rates [such as in 2013] this is a matter of particular importance to the ship-owner, especially where the expenses of the voyage are likely to be incurred in a different currency. (25)

    Will the carrier also have to accept USA dollars?

    This becomes hilarious.

    Moreover, if Taiwan and China do a good job of manufacturing and run a balance of trade surplus they are receiving more USA dollars than they are spending.
    What can or should they do with those excess USA dollars they are receiving in their trade exchanges with the planet?

    If Taiwan and China allow those USA dollars to flow back into the world markets (actively buying Taiwan dollars c.q., renminbi with those USA dollars) this would raise the NTD c.q. RMB exchange-rate and penalise the international pricing structure of their goods. Their goods would cost more and slow down their exports.

    Yet, since Taiwan’s and China’s currency management is strong (like that of euroland) and their people (read that economy) work better than their foreign competitors (including those from euroland) the exchange-rate system shouldn’t hurt the price of Taiwan’s and China’s goods. But, it does.

    You see, selling these extra USA dollars today has the effect of hurting a competitive producer that has good money management.

    The only alternative for Taiwan and China is to save those USA dollars, thereby supporting the USA dollar regime. (26)

    Is that the way (the original 1944 or) the post-1971 Bretton Woods regime was supposed to work?

    Or is that the result of machinations by the USA dollar regime?

    See also my
    Freegold ?????
    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on August 8th, 2012
    http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2012/08/08/freegold-%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%9E%E5%BD%92%E5%AE%9A%E7%90%86/

    Ivo Cerckel
    ivocerckel@yahoo.com
    https://twitter.com/IvoCerckel

    NOTES

    (1)
    FT Standard Chartered Taiwan Economic Summit 14 March 2013
    https://www.etouches.com/ehome/52414/98778/
    SNIP
    4:05 pm – 5:05 pm
    Moderator: Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, Financial Times
    Panel Discussion: Financial Market Innovation – Taiwan as the next offshore Renminbi Centre and the impact on Taiwan’s businesses
    SNIP
    Currently only a tiny amount of the U.S.$120 billion in trade between China and Taiwan is settled in renminbi.

    (2)
    Alfredo P. Co, “The Blooming of a Hundred Flowers -Philosophy of Ancient China”, Manila University of Santo Tomas, 1992, p. 303

    (3)
    Dr Charles McGruder, professor of philosophy, Mt. San Antonio College, Los Angeles, California, USA, “Mencius”, handout (to students), without date,
    http://faculty.mtsac.edu/cmcgruder/mencius.html

    (4)
    Mencius, “Book of Mencius”, Book VI, Chapter 1, point 6

    (5)
    Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, Book VII, Chapter 4

    (6)
    Hugh Lawson-Tancred. “Introduction”, in: Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, Penguin Books, 1998, updated bibliography 2004, xi, p. xxx
    http://bphouse.com/honest_money/2009/10/15/the-substance-of-the-gcc-single-currency-reserves/

    (7)
    George Reisman, “Capitalism – A Treatise on Economics”, Ottawa, Illinois, USA, Jameson books, 1998, 3rd ed., p. 142

    (8)
    Currency expands its reach
    English.news.cn 2013-02-22 10:28:09
    By Wang Xiaotian in Beijing and Cecily Liu in London
    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/22/c_132184771.htm

    (9)
    Gold’s Death Cross is a buy signal for China
    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
    Last updated: February 21st, 2013
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100022953/golds-death-cross-is-a-buy-signal-for-china/

    (10)
    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

    (11)
    ANOTHER (THOUGHTS!) ID#60253:
    The Management of Gold, A Simple Tool for the 90s
    (ANOTHER (THOUGHTS!)
    Foundational Gold Trail Commentary
    The Inside Story on the Gold-for-Oil Deal that could Rock the World’s Financial Centers
    – Page Three -
    Mar ’98 – Apr ’98
    Date: Sat Mar 07 1998 13:08
    http://www.usagold.com/goldtrail/archives/another3.html

    (12)
    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

    (13)
    FOA (05/08/01; 09:59:55MT – USAgold.com msg#70)
    A Tree in the Making #02
    (The Gold Trail:- The Message of an Evolving Market – Walking the Gold Trail Using the “Thoughts! ” of ANOTHER. “Nearing the Great Divide…?”, the Fourth Archive for “Walking the Gold Trail”
    http://www.USAgold.com/goldtrail/archives/goldtrailfour.html

    (14)
    Junwei Fu, “Modern European and Chinese Contract Law: A Comparative Study of Party Autonomy”, Alphen aan den Rijn (The Netherlands), Wolters Kluwer – Law and Business, Kluwer Law International, 2011, p. 134

    (15)
    Fu, op. cit., p. 40

    (16)
    Fu, op. cit., p. 41

    (17)
    Fu, op. cit., p. 67

    (18)
    Fu, op. cit., p. 40

    (19)
    Fu, op. cit., p. 47

    (20)
    Fu, op. cit., p. 41

    (21)
    Fu, op. cit., p. 152

    (22)
    Fu, op. cit., p. 151

    (23)
    Indira Carr, “International Trade Law”, London & New York, Routledge-Cavendish, 2010, 4th ed., p. 68

    (24)
    Carr, op. cit., p. 70

    (25)
    John F. Wilson, “Carriage of Goods by Sea”, Pearson Education, 2010, 7th ed., p. 50

    (26)
    FOA (09/16/00; 15:11:26MD – usagold.com msg#38)
    After six miles we arrive at the burial tree!
    (The Gold Trail:- The Message of an Evolving Market – Walking the Gold Trail Using the “Thoughts! ” of ANOTHER, “The Long and Winding Road…” the Second Archive for “Walking the Gold Trail”
    http://www.usagold.com/goldtrail/archives/goldtrailtwo.html

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Fatal error: Call to undefined function get_current_site() in /home2/bphouse/public_html/wp-content/themes/andreas09/footer.php on line 4