Archive for the ‘Corruption’ Category

Gold as a private currency

Friday, March 28th, 2014

For the system to function once again, gold should constitute a private currency for which only users would be the guarantors; as in the spirit of SALT (system or service of local exchange), but with the advantage of a quick exchange, which would not rely on waiting for a service rendered by a neighbour.
“Gold was always the currency of choice of the free man, but the statesman does not want free men.” (Andre Dorais, in Le Québécois, September 21st, 2009).
Over recent years, gold has been exploited for political purposes, for instance the Chinese government’s policies on increasing gold holdings, or, equally politically inspired, Gordon Brown’s sale of nearly half the UK reserves. Yet gold is essentially apolitical: it has the same value beyond borders; it is the savings of conservative voters, the private currency of people of the left and even of the anarchists who await a new world order.
Could gold then be the federator, the currency of the future around which everyone would get together and exchange, without an intermediary as manipulator? It has after all the necessary qualities to constitute a private currency.

In opposition to the currency issued by a central bank, private currency is a financial security issued by a private bank (or free bank). A contract defines the conditions according to which the issuer guarantees the value and the liquidity of its currency, as well as the standard by which to measure the value of the currency.
If the value which one gives to a currency remains subjective, that of gold is universally recognized so that it can very well be used as a “value meter” (of standard) for any currency – and gold has itself the advantage of having once been actual currency, for example, French 20F &10F Napoleons or British gold sovereigns (Fig. 6).
Moreover, the value of the private currency is decided only by the currency contract, the private contract signed between the issuer and the user: thus, its value does not depend on the political whims of a state. The growing mistrust of citizens with respect to official currencies may one day encourage them to use a non-governmental currency tied to gold. It would thus constitute a true shield to the benefit of individual freedom.

Amazingly it is in the US that this has already started happening in the state of Utah where they have remonetized gold. Discontent with the erosion of their wealth and purchasing power arising from the effects of quantitative easing (devaluation of the dollar) citizens have campaigned for and forced new laws into being that have led to the establishing of a state depository where gold and silver coins can be stored. This new currency allows participants to conduct commercial transactions including paying their taxes using the value of their stored gold. They have introduced a card which can be “loaded” with dollar equivalents of their gold holdings so even though they have to spend dollars it is deducted from their precious metal account balance. This is effectively the reintroduction of the Gold Standard in one forward-thinking state whose citizens have lost patience with the dollar and the “untouchables” who manipulate it.

Extract from the English adaptation of the French book : L’or, Un Placement qui (R)Assure (2011) written by Jean-François Faure,President and founder of

When Trust and Manipulation are just one …

Thursday, March 6th, 2014

Bloomberg reports that the London gold fix, the benchmark used by miners, jewellers and central banks to value the metal, may have been manipulated for a decade by the banks setting it, researchers say.

Unusual trading patterns around 3 p.m. in London, when the so-called afternoon fix is set on a private conference call between five of the biggest gold dealers, are a sign of collusive behaviour and should be investigated, New York University’s Stern School of Business Professor Rosa Abrantes-Metz and Albert Metz, a managing director at Moody’s Investors Service, wrote in a draft research paper. Read more

We already read about that kind of issue and one needs to be extremely careful when investing some money …

What is not being manipulated nowadays ?  Today in The Economist, you can read on the cover page ‘What’s gone wrong with Democracy? and How to revive it ? If you want to know more, you need to read a 6 page essay. Quite interesting reading. Main lines : lack of trust ? Democratic disillusion ? or rather the financial crisis has starkly exposed the unsustainability of debt financed democracy.We talk about democracy but what about the country leader ? Let’s have a thought for Ukraine.  Their president run away, leaving the country in such a poor state. He managed to manipulate so many people and got the country bankrupt. So, who shall we trust ? Ukraine citizens are left hardly with nothing but debts. Before this happens in other countries like ours, let’s see what we can do. There are values in which we can trust and these are gold, silver, diamonds among others. Physical tangible values that can be stored in a safe place outside the banking system.

JP Morgan whistleblowers confess bank manipulates Gold and Silver

Wednesday, September 18th, 2013

In a stunning development, two JP Morgan whistleblowers have confessed that the bank manipulates the Gold and Silver markets.  This is truly a shocking admission by the courageous JP Morgan whistleblowers.  In a blockbuster King World News interview, London metals trader Andrew Maguire told KWN that the two JP Morgan employees came directly to him with hard evidence that the bank was actively manipulating the Gold and Silver markets.

Since this concerns an “old” story, why is this important now? The answer is that there is a statute of limitations and any investigation (if not proceeding) will likely be dropped completely at the end of this September.

You can read the full story on the King World News blog by clicking this link.

In other news, the Pope confirms he is indeed a Catholic and it is discovered that bears do…. you know the rest.


Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

By Mark Rogers

I have discussed in Gold is Money, and the previous Gold Standards I and II the advantages of understanding that gold is not a commodity, that it is money that serves the usual purposes of money, as a store of value and a means of exchange, but with the vital difference that it also serves as a standard unit of measurement. The latter function is owed to its intrinsic qualities.

However, in Paper Money Collapse, Detlev Schlichter expounds Carl Menger’s view that gold, like all other things that people have found a use-value for, can indeed be considered a commodity, at least in historical terms. (I have looked at this book twice before in Gold Money A Currency of the Past and What Are Banks For?)

How does this argument work? Menger, says Schlichter, that “money could only have come into existence as a commodity”. It was not the creation of the State, there were no issuing authorities; money arose from mutual trading activities in which all commodities had a use-value. Without that use-value, no commodity was worth anything. Schlichter explains:

“For something to be used, for the very first time, as a medium of exchange, a point of reference is needed as to what its value in exchange for other goods and services is at that moment. It must have already acquired some value before it is used as money for the first time. That value can only be its use-value as a commodity, as a useful good in its own right. But once a commodity has become an established medium of exchange, its value will no longer be determined by its use-value as a commodity alone but also, and ultimately predominantly, by the demand for its services as money. But only something that has already established a market value as a commodity can make the transition to being a medium of exchange.”

Gold the Supreme Embodiment of Value

This anthropological-historical understanding of the emergence of money puts the market, trading, at the heart of the valuation process. Which, in turn, reminds us that the ultimate source of value, what something is worth, is its value to the parties, few or numerous, who engage in the transaction. So what in turn is required of a monetary medium, a currency, is a value that as far as possible stands outside that arbitrary subjectivity. Money itself, whatever its currency embodiment, is an attempt to render value objective in that the currency can be used in any exchanges, unlike bartering.

So in turn, the more objective the currency can become, the more it can become a standard (and this is where it is easy to see why it therefore becomes a unit of measurement), the more reliable, the more valuable that currency unit becomes.

And again, in turn, it is easy to see why gold quickly established itself as the supreme embodiment of exchange value: “it is no surprise that throughout the ages and through all cultures, whenever people were left to their own devices and free to choose which good should be used as money, they most always came to use precious metals.”

Gold is Money

Historically then we can enlarge Turk’s and Rubino’s contention that gold is not a commodity, not at least a commodity like oil or eggs, by allowing that the currency standard will have had a life as an object with use-value until other properties lead people to realise that it may have a value above its use-value. People have become familiar with these properties until it is singled out in use as being dominated by these properties and becomes money.

And the dominant characteristic of gold is its stability: soon all other characteristics were subordinated to this one, thereby changing not its nature but its purpose.

Of course, gold can be re-commodified as jewellery or ornament, as Jocelyn Burton, gold– and silversmith, demonstrates in her extraordinary work. People will always have these uses for gold, which are not intrinsically opposed to its properties as money: jewellery after all carries a premium and can, somewhat philistinely perhaps, be regarded as a form of storage, but then this form of storage shares with gold coins the property of portability.

And money can be re-subjectivised, in the past by mutilating it, clipping and shaving gold and silver coinage; and in the present of course the rolling of the printing presses with paper money has made money supremely subjective, its value becoming volatile and it storage properties destroyed.

It may be objected that we have little ancient anthropological evidence for this process, but we do not need to rely upon this as merely an explanation of what “must have happened”, we need only look at how those living in a territory with a devalued currency deal with the depredations of their government: in the twentieth century they have singled out dollars. When I asked an acquaintance from Zimbabwe how Zimbabweans coped with all those noughts, he laughed and said: “We just use dollars.”

The idea that money, and gold as money, emerged from the free trades of people going about their ordinary business also helps explain the deep disdain for gold in today’s political establishment: the idea that people are incapable of looking after themselves has become rooted in modern political thinking.

For the raison d’être of these articles on read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

For background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

For a series of articles on the pernicious effects of progressive tax regimes: THE MORAL DILEMMA AT THE HEART OF TAXATION

For a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES


Monday, June 3rd, 2013

By Mark Rogers

In Gold is Money and Gold Standards I looked at the consequences of accepting that gold is not a commodity but rather money. I suggested in the former article that the confusion between a commodity with a price, and money with an exchange value, was part and parcel of the confusions that arise out of the corruption of money, its worth and functions that result from a command economy and its fiat currency.

Here’s a splendid example of this linguistic confusion, straight from the horse’s mouth; in remarks to the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C. on November 21, 2002, Bernard Bernanke said:

“[T]he U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.” [My emphasis; and I shall be making a longer scrutiny of this talk in a later article.]

Talk of “positive inflation” is irresponsible, but it’s what you get when the printing press or its electronic equivalent is set rolling.

Language and Loans

In “Gold is Money” I went on to examine other possible misuses of language in discussing money and value. I raised the issue of whether it was proper to consider the interest one pays on a loan as being in effect the price of the loan, and whether or not the money constituting the loan is in fact sold to one: if it is, then “price” would seem to be the better way to describe the transaction.

Except that this in turn produces confusion, largely because service professions, such as banks, have come to be described in industrial or retail terms: banks have “products” which they “sell” to “customers”.

But this is nonsense: banks don’t manufacture anything, and do not buy in their “goods” at “wholesale” prices which they then try to “sell” at competitive rates.

Take mortgages: if you have one it is on condition that the bank or building society offers to remove a portion of your income every month over a period of years, and if you fail to fund this activity, your house is taken away from you. This is not a “product”. Why do you think you have got one, though? Because you have been beguiled by a metaphor.

Interest and Prices

I suggested: “In considering how we speak about value and prices and fiat money and borrowing and cheap and dear money, it might concentrate the mind if we did indeed speak of the “cost” of a loan, the “price” the bank charges us for lending, or perhaps selling, to us.”

This thought experiment was intended to throw into relief just how we think about what constitutes monetary transactions: there is an important moral sense in which it would concentrate the mind to think about “costs” if credit is extended for non-productive reasons.

When money is “dear” it is likely that the chief criterion for extending credit will be the purpose to which the loan is to be put. If it is for business expansion, say new plant, or into a new market, then the likelihood that the venture will produce a substantial return on the loan means two things: the loan is more likely to be repaid, and that after the loan is repaid the firm will have made a profit on that loan.

The problem comes with credit extended for consumption (and under consumption we most definitely must include homes that are not affordable outright): this is wholly an academic affair. Keynesian economists have persuaded governments that consumption equals an expanding economy (and note again the point in Bernanke’s talk that I emphasized: “a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation”). But the question needs to be asked: why do economists think that expense means expanse?

Credit lines extended purely for consumption end up damaging economies. In buying things now that one could not afford without the credit does not add to economic activity, it simply stokes up the personal indebtedness of the debtor and increases the book entries on the bank’s accounts. Because the money has to be paid back out of earnings, not production, it increases the likelihood of the debt being unaffordable and ultimately written off.

There is another problem here: credit lines for consumption imply that there is no real criterion: one’s present income hardly counts because it might not be there when the debt has to be repaid. No, the real irresponsibility is that the loan’s the thing, in and of itself, not whether it will be turned to productive purposes – that is used to make something that wasn’t there before. Failing to see that this distinction needs to be made is what makes Bernanke’s remarks so irresponsible.

Perhaps part of the problem lies in the fact that governments themselves do not produce anything: there are some seven million people who work for the British government, on average higher salaries than those in the private sector and with gold plated pensions (insofar as an unfunded liability can be said to be “gold plated” – the latter phrase really means that the government won’t break its promises to look after its own). These people produce nothing.

So while consumers intending to consume above earnings are anxious to find low interest loans to fund extra, unproductive consumption, it might indeed concentrate their minds to talk about prices, because that might put the nature of what they are doing into perspective.

In the serious world of productive business, however, interest is the proper term to use: the bank takes depositors’ funds and lends them at interest to enterprises that have been considered on balance likely to succeed for the purposes of the loan. In 100% reserve banking this process would perhaps be a great deal more transparent. And using gold as the ever-present unit of measurement will tell us what our money is really worth.

For the raison d’être of these articles on read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

For background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

For a series of articles on the pernicious effects of progressive tax regimes: THE MORAL DILEMMA AT THE HEART OF TAXATION

For a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES


Thursday, May 16th, 2013

By Mark Rogers

In the Seventeenth Century, “[t]he financial system of England had staggered through the disturbances of the Civil War and had grown worse during the inefficiency and corruption of the Stuarts … the current money had deteriorated to a state of confusion.” (Louis Trenchard More, Isaac Newton: A Biography (first published 1934), Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1962)

This state of confusion resulted from the mutilation of money, rendering its recoinage a matter of urgent necessity. In the 17th century counterfeiting and adulterating the coin of the realm was so common that a coin worth its original face value was extremely rare. Both crimes were capital offences.

Louis Trenchard More describes the debauched currency and its consequences:

“The standard currency of the country was silver; and till the reign of Charles the Second the minting of the coin had been carried on by the process introduced by Edward the First in the thirteenth century. The metal was cut with shears and then shaped and stamped by the hammer. Coins made thus by hand were not exactly round nor true in weight and, as they were neither milled nor inscribed on their rims, they were easy to clip, or file, without detection. Clipping thus became one of the most profitable kinds of fraud. The custom had become so detrimental that, in the reign of Elizabeth, it was treated as high treason [hence the death penalty M.R.]. At the time of the Restoration, a large proportion of the coins had been more or less mutilated. To remedy this condition, a mill worked by horses was set up in the Tower which stamped the coins accurately and inscribed their edges with a legend; as, however, the old money was kept in circulation, the remedy was useless. The new coins were either hoarded, or melted down and shipped abroad; the old coins persisted as the medium of business, and they continued to shrink in weight and value. In the autumn of 1695, it was found by actual and careful test that the average value of a shilling had been reduced to six pence. Every transaction was accompanied by a bitter altercation between the buyer and the seller; the former insisting on estimating the coins by tale, and the latter by weight. Every Saturday night, all over the country, was a period of riot and bad feeling between employer and employee. The labourer and the clerk might receive the stipulated number of shillings, but for their purchases they acted like sixpences or less. We have, as a startling witness of these troubles, the complaints of Dryden that his publisher, Tonson, on one occasion included forty brass shillings in a payment of clipped money, and at another time the money was so bad that all of it was returned. If the foremost writer of the day was so treated, we can easily imagine the distress of the common people. … During even a most disturbed and evil rule, the common people manage to pursue their personal affairs, but such a state of the money as then existed affected every moment and every transaction in their lives.”

The situation was worse than impossible, and in 1695 King William III, addressing Parliament, recommended that the coinage be reformed. Thus, Charles Montague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, prepared a Bill to this effect.

Charles Montague

Montague was the fourth son of a younger son of the first Earl of Manchester; he was later ennobled as Lord Halifax. Although Isaac Newton’s junior by nineteen years, Montague struck up a deep and lasting friendship with the great philosopher, then Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, when he, Montague, matriculated at Trinity College as a Fellow-Commoner.

Montague was a man of superlative ability and quickly impressed himself upon the political life of the nation. His highest achievement, the great recoining, came about after his appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1694. He also instituted the Bank of England, as a private body. As a result of his friendship with Newton, he secured the latter the position of Warden of the Mint in 1696. It was this partnership that was to carry out the new minting. According to Montague, the success of this project was due to the administrative work of Newton.

The Great Recoinage

The first remarkable aspect to note of the proposed recoinage, was that this was to be done at a time of war: this was the war between France and the League of Augsburg (known as the Nine Years’ War 1688-1697, or the War of the Grand Alliance), which King William III joined soon after becoming King of England with his wife Mary as Queen, on the occasion of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The North American theatre of this war, known as King William’s War, finally settled the issue of the American colonies between France and England in the latter’s favour.

To embark on the wholesale refashioning of the national coinage, and to complete it in a short time, at a time like this was a remarkable feat and owed everything to Charles Montague’s fortitude and eloquence. Although the Jacobites tried to discredit the government and the Whigs advised half-hearted measures, Montague managed the House of Commons so adroitly that the Bill was passed into law on the King’s signature on 1st January, 1696.

It provided for the recoining to be to the old standard of weight and fineness, and for all new coins to be milled. The public exchequer was to bear the loss on the clipped coins. Most expeditiously, the time at which no mutilated money could pass ever again was set at 4th May 1696: this great task, therefore, was to be carried out in a mere four months. We must assume that such was the pressing need to address this huge task as Montague and Isaac Newton, the new Master of the Mint, understood it, that no time was to be lost.

This new coin was the cause of the window tax, which was not as unpopular as legend has suggested. It came about like this: the loss to the exchequer referred to above was not easy to estimate, but Montague obtained a loan from the Bank of England which was secured by the new tax levied on the number of windows of the houses; however, inhabitants of cottages were to be exempt from the new tax in compensation for the cruel harassment they had undergone at the hands of the assessors of the now defunct hearth tax.

A month after the bill became law, the recoining had begun. Furnaces were erected in the gardens behind the Treasury and vast quantities of mutilated money were melted in them and cast into ingots which were at once conveyed to the Tower for minting. Although there had at first been widespread panic at the thought of money, however bad, being withdrawn from circulation, its relative scarcity did not become a serious factor and the panic soon subsided.

Isaac Newton assumed responsibility for the work in March, and under his direction branches of the mint were set up in several towns, thus easing the passing of the old money in exchange for the new throughout the country.

4th May

Loius Trenchard More describes the result:

“The real agony began in May when the clipped coins were no longer received by the government in payment of taxes. There was little of the old money which would pass the test and the new money was just beginning to trickle from the Mint; but, by means of barter, of promissory notes given by merchants, and of negotiable paper issued by the Exchequer, the summer slowly wore away. It was not till August that the first faint signs of returning ease in the money situation appeared, and there is no doubt that the able administration and indefatigable industry of Newton shortened this period of distress. He wrote peremptorily to Flamsteed that he would not be teased about mathematical things nor trifle away his time while he was about the King’s business. The Wardens of the Mint had previously been fine gentlemen who drew their salaries and rarely condescended to do any work.”

But work Newton certainly did: “It had been considered a great feat to coin silver to the amount of fifteen thousand pounds weight a week; but under the energetic management of Montague and Newton, the weekly coinage soon rose to sixty thousand pounds, and finally to a hundred and twenty thousand pounds. But even this rate was inadequate, and normal conditions were not restored till the following spring.”

Thus on 4th May 1696, mutilated money was finally abandoned for true coins, which were far harder to counterfeit, and a proper system of milling and guaranteeing the standardised value of the coinage came into being, overseen by one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Sir Isaac Newton. We shall see what he thought of debasers of currency below.

“When was the last time you read your money?”

The question is posed by the analysts Daniel Brebner and Xiao Fu in their report for Deutsche Bank, London, Gold: Adjusting for Zero (discussed here). They go on:

“It is useful to do so as it will call attention to its subtle warnings. A £20 note reads: I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of twenty pounds. Two immediate questions arise: 1) 20 pounds of what? 2) Who is I, and can he/she be trusted? The US dollar bill is more prosaic, its nebulous message being: This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private. Our only comment would be that since fiat money is inherently a form of obligation (liability) that it is simply a tool for exchanging debts of different riskiness and thus underscores that there is an inherent risk in such an instrument.”

That risk is well brought out in a passage I have quoted in an earlier article. It is by C.H.V. Sutherland (then Keeper of Coins at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, in “Gold: Its Beauty, Power and Allure”)

“Collapse of the gold standard was followed by the era of credit currency. We accept a bank-note for the payment of £1, but in accepting it we receive in fact only the bank’s promise to pay £1. We accept a cheque, similarly; but a cheque again is no more than its drawer’s promise that his bank will pay us another bank’s promises. The growth of ‘money’ in this sense – and of course it is not money at all, in any true sense, but an extension of credit – is one of the most remarkable features of economic life since 1914 [emphasis added].”

The risk is presently underscored by quantitative easing and low interest rates: capital/worth is fiercely undervalued, with millions of pounds being wiped off pensions and savings.

In other words the promise on a modern English banknote is meaningless, and as such is a breach of trust with the general public. At one time the note was no more than a convenient substitute for gold and silver coins, and the strength of the currency depended on knowing that should anyone wish to hold the “I” to account, the promise on it would be redeemed in actual gold/silver coin or bullion. Knowing this was sufficient to keep the notes rather than coins in circulation; the trust was reciprocal in that the Bank of England did not dare print more of them than could be practically redeemed, thus keeping faith with the general public that the value stated on the note was a real value.

Mutilated Money Now

While the mutilation of the imperfectly guaranteed silver coinage in the seventeenth century was obvious to all, hence the squabbles in trading and on payday that an English note is itself mutilated money is not so obvious. The comparison can be made with the PAYE system: the vast majority of people in work in this country is on PAYE and as such receives their salary/wages net of tax, it having been deducted by the business they work for before the wages are paid over. In other words, not having to write out a cheque to the Inland Revenue, most people are only aware of the taxes they pay in the abstract – it is not a painful moment of reckoning each time tax is paid as it is for those of us who are business owners or freelance.

In this sense, the promise on a bank note represents mutilated money at one remove: we take it on trust that we can proffer these notes in exchange for goods and services, so we tend to think of the notes themselves as money. But they are not: I have remarked before that QE is the state forging its own currency, but without gold backing, even before QE, the actual “currency” in circulation is fake. And of course the coins we use are made of base metals and not precious ones, and are therefore far easier to forge. Indeed it was estimated earlier this year that three in every £100 pounds worth of pound coins is counterfeit.

This is the denouement of the situation described above by Keeper Sutherland.

Hang Them

As observed in above, counterfeiting and adulterating the coin of the realm were capital offences: death by hanging in these instances. It is interesting that the public did not approve: although the debased coinage was an economic disaster which enveloped everyone, the act of skimming a few shreds of precious metal from a handful of coins seemed, in itself, too insignificant for such a draconian punishment. “The sympathy of the people extended to the malefactors: juries would not sentence except in flagrant and wholesale cases, and judges would not sentence; while the evil effect of the practice spread its poisonous influence throughout the trade and life of the nation.” (Trenchard More)

The gallows did nothing to curb the practice because it was too easy to perform, thus ensuring that many people of course went undetected. While he was Warden of the Mint, Sir Isaac Newton had the fate of a counterfeiter drawn to his attention. He was firmly on the side of upholding the existing law, and the short letter in which he does so is worth quoting in full:

Newton to Lord Townshend

My Lord,

I know nothing of Edmund Metcalf convicted at Derby assizes of counterfeiting the coin; but since he is very evidently convicted, I am humbly of the opinion that it’s better to let him suffer, than to venture his going on to counterfeit the coin and teach others to do so until he can be convicted again, for these people very seldom leave off. And it’s difficult to detect them. I say this with the most humble submission to His Majesty’s pleasure and remain,

My Lord, your Lordship’s most humble and obedient Servant,

Is. Newton, Mint Office Aug. 25, 1724

Of course, the problem is in many ways worse now because whereas the counterfeiters and adulterers of yore were common criminals and ordinary folk on the make, and the problem was the cumulative result of the individual acts of hundreds of people, the debasers of the currency today are government ministers and state officials: debasement is official policy, the inevitable consequence of fiat currencies.

Is hanging too good for our lords and masters today?

A Statue Commemorating Sir Isaac’s Service to his Country as Master of the Mint on the Fourth Plinth at Trafalgar Square:

Among the ideas for a permanent memorial on the plinth at the North West corner of Trafalgar Square, there have been from time to time suggestions that the statue should be of a notable civilian.

In keeping with the other statues – one King, two generals and one Admiral – a life which contained some signal service to the country at large ought to be the guiding principle on which such a civilian should be chosen.

It is suggested here that an eminently suitable candidate for this honour is Sir Isaac Newton. Apart from Sir Isaac being universally known for his astonishing scientific achievements, his claim to notice in the context of a public statue in Trafalgar Square is the heroic effort he put into the Great Recoinage of the debased gold and silver currency which eradicated mutilated money and thus put an end to the argument and riot that habitually took place when pay day drew nigh or payments fell due.

For the raison d’être of these articles on read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

For background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

For a series of articles on the pernicious effects of progressive tax regimes: THE MORAL DILEMMA AT THE HEART OF TAXATION

For a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES


Tuesday, May 14th, 2013

The Gold Spot is a regular feature in which Mark Rogers excerpts a passage from his reading as the Text for the Day and then comments on it.

Extract from CURRENCY WARS: THE MAKING OF THE NEXT GLOBAL CRISIS by James Rickards, Portfolio/Penguin, New York, 2011

The continuation of the trend toward a diminished role for the dollar in international trade and the reserve balances begs the question of what happens when the dollar is no longer dominant but is just another reserve currency among several others? What is the tipping point for the dollar? […]

Barry Eichengreen is the preeminent scholar on this topic and a leading proponent of the view that a world of multiple reserve currencies awaits […] the plausible and benign conclusion that a world of multiple reserve currencies with no single dominant currency […] this time with the dollar and the euro sharing the spotlight instead of the dollar and sterling. This view also opens the door to further changes over time, with the Chinese yuan eventually joining the dollar and the euro in a coleading role.

What is missing in Eichengreen’s optimistic interpretation is the role of a systemic anchor, such as the dollar or gold. As the dollar and sterling were trading places in the 1920s and 1930s, there was never a time when at least one was not anchored to gold. In effect, the dollar and sterling were substitutable because of their simultaneous equivalence to gold. Devaluations did occur, but after each devaluation the anchor was reset. After Bretton Woods, the anchor consisted of the dollar and gold, and since 1971 the anchor has consisted of the dollar as the leading reserve currency. Yet in the post-war world there has always been a reference point. Never before have multiple paper reserve currencies been used with no single anchor. Consequently, the world […] is a world of reserve currencies adrift. Instead of a single central bank like the Fed abusing its privileges, it will be open season with several central banks invited to do the same at once. In that scenario, there would be no safe harbour reserve currency and markets would be more volatile and unstable.

Comment: It is hard to fathom such an unrealistic expectation of lead currencies, swilling about supporting each other and every other currency, as being somehow optimistic and benign; Rickards is not saying that he thinks they would be by using these terms, he is pointing up the authors of these expectations as hailing them as benign: what could go wrong, we’re all good chaps…aren’t we?

Rickards’s view is of a piece with Gustav Cassel’s point (quoted in Gold on the Outbreak of the Great War), that “the responsibility for the value of the currency, in cases where the gold standard has been abandoned, must exclusively lie with those in whose hands rests this provision of the means of payment.” The point being that this is an astonishing level of trust to put into the institutions of government, not just moral trust, but a trust that the necessary calculations, observations and measurements can be made consistently and continuously to keep things afloat and stable. The euro is a very good object lesson that both these sorts of trust are misplaced, which is putting it mildly…

From an Austrian School point of view, the goodness of the humans in charge is irrelevant: it is the utterly impossible nature of the task that is the stumbling block. But it is just there, of course, that the immoral temptation to swing things to the state’s advantage comes to the fore – again as shown up by the euro.

Where there is no reference point, no anchor, no solution is feasible… which is why we keep getting  more of the failed nostrums. Which leads on to a very interesting observation: why taxes must go up in an economic world divorced from the gold standard.

Politicians are incapable of managing monetary affairs (see the article linked to below on The Mess We’re In: Why Politicians Can’t Fix Financial Crises). The gold standard prevented them by and large from acting on economic hubris. Unconstrained by gold, bewildered by their failures, corrupted by their power, they turn to the one nostrum that lies unfailingly to their hand: taxation. That is why it is found important at times of high and progressive taxation to denounce “avoiders” as selfish cheats who won’t do their bit for their fellow citizens (see my The Moral Dilemma at the Heart of Taxation). So the gold standard not only prevented printing money, it also held down taxation. Another reason to vote for gold!

For the raison d’être of these articles on read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

For background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

For a series of articles on the pernicious effects of progressive tax regimes: THE MORAL DILEMMA AT THE HEART OF TAXATION

For a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES

Rule of law or rule of Banks?

Friday, March 8th, 2013

The gold investor should always seek opinion from a broad spectrum of sources in order to get the whole 360° picture of current markets, tendencies, geopolitical influences, economic news and sales.
To this end we offer a compilation of pertinent information for you to peruse and digest at your leisure.

Here at we take a dim view of the perpetual impunity afforded to private companies that feel they are so big they are above the law which is the case for so many of the banking giants. Here are some tasters to articles revealing just how the US Attorney General has admitted that it is too difficult to prosecute large groups that could have a direct and detrimental effect on National and even International economies.
Needless to say the usual suspects are amongst the perpetrators/

Banks above the law

“At the same Wednesday judiciary committee meeting where Attorney General Eric Holder hemmed and hawed before acknowledging that the president cannot authorize a drone strike on American soil, against an American terrorist suspect posing no imminent threat, he explained why the Justice Department has failed to bring criminal charges against a single Wall Street bank. Mr. Holder suggested, as a Financial Times headline put it this morning, that some banks are “too big to jail.”Here’s what happened. Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican, asked for more information on why federal and state authorities chose not to indict HSBC after it acknowledged laundering money for Mexican drug cartels, helping rogue states avoid international sanctions and working closely with Saudi Arabian banks linked to terrorist organizations.
Mr. Holder said: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”
It’s nice and all that Mr. Holder cares about the stability of the global financial system, but that is not Mr. Holder’s job. As attorney general he is the country’s top law enforcement officer, and in that capacity he should prosecute criminals and criminal institutions.”

How Many Billions Of Drug-Laundered Money Does It Take To Shut Down A Bank?

Here is the transcript from testimony regarding the Banks secrecy Act involving the US Treasury, Department of Justice and Financial Industry.
Merely confirms the worst – the banks have impunity………. and can continue to mis-sell products, ignore international sanctions, deal with rogue states and drug cartels …. because making money has no conscience, no boundaries, no morals, no ethics, no remorse ….. and therefore has no place in a world where us mere humans actually matter.

“Now in December, HSBC admitted to money laundering. To laundering $881 million that we know of for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. And also admitted to violating our sanctions for Iran, Libya, Cuba, Burma, the Sudan. And they didn’t do it just one time. It wasn’t like a mistake. They did it over and over and over again across a period of years. And they were caught doing it. Warned not to do it. And kept right on doing it. And evidently making profits doing it.

Now HSBC paid a fine, but no one individual went to trial. No individual was banned from banking. And there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC’s activities here in the United States. So what I’d like is, you’re the experts on money laundering. I’d like your opinion. What does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?”

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Near Bottom of Stress Tests

Interesting that 2 of the most powerful banks on the planet are dangerously low to the bottom limits required to pass the tests. Chances are that even these tests are skewed and really exist to pay lip service to the demands of politicians. In reality, both Banks would be in danger during another crisis. Their skullduggery innovations department must be on overtime working on their next get-rich quick scheme to reward themselves by robbing the “sheep” consumers who never seem to learn. They were of course big actors in the Facebook saga that saw someone make over $4 Billion in a few days due to the manipulated launch price.

Gold bar sales in China jump twofold during Spring Festival

Sunshine, Valentine and a Lunar New Year have helped boost sales of gold in China this year. Figures released by the Ministry of Commerce have shown a doubling in sales of gold bars.
We have long supported a theory that lots of individual investors buying gold is less suspicious than a huge purchase made by the central bank but at a point in the future if all gold was deposited in National banks it could prove the backing for the Yuan – directly valued against gold by a new gold standard – that allows it to pose as a reserve currency with meaning and true value.

Leonard Melman: Are You Prepared for Hyperinflation?

During an interview with the Gold Report with 24H Gold, Leonard discusses his analyses of the precious metals outlook for 2013 which includes references to the many areas of growing concerns regarding currency debasement and inflationary pressures often and previously discussed here. His conclusions like our own is that gold is not bursting its bubble but readying itself as the perfect store of value when the effects of a deepening crisis set in further during 2013.


Tuesday, February 5th, 2013

By Mark Rogers

Developing economies. Less developed countries. Third world countries. And then of course, developed economies.

But is there not a question being begged by these terms?

Let us look again at what I characterised as Keynes’s self-indictment:

“We take as given the existing skill and quantity of available labour, the existing quality and quantity of available equipment, the existing technique, the degree of competition, the tastes and habits of the consumer, and disutility of different intensities of labour and of the activities of supervision and organization, as well as the social structure.”

I call this a self-indictment because it displays an extraordinary degree of complacency and ignorance about how economies work (see the previous article in which I examine Lord Bauer’s response to the Keynesian approach).

What is fundamentally wrong about the Keynesian starting point is that not only is it not a starting point, it isn’t even an endpoint: this paragraph posits a certain stasis as the foundation of an economy. It is true historically that economies can stagnate and thus civilizations disappear, but any functioning economy, such as those Lord Bauer discovered when he left the academy and looked at what was actually happening in West Africa and Malaya, is dynamic, in short developing.

Looked at from the other end, the idea of “development” as a comparative term also suggests that there is an end result, i.e. something called a “developed economy”. But as we have seen in The Knowledge Economy, the western economies are headed on a path to what we could call “de-development”. With heavy government regulation and intervention, with QE, with the loss of paper trails in, for example, the subprime mortgage crisis, the legal underpinning of a free economy seems to be in freefall. I suppose that is one form of dynamism, but it is not a desirable one.

Readers curious as to why articles of this nature should be appearing on a gold investment website should read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

And for background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

And for a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES


Friday, February 1st, 2013

By Mark Rogers

Keynes described his working assumptions thus:

“We take as given the existing skill and quantity of available labour, the existing quality and quantity of available equipment, the existing technique, the degree of competition, the tastes and habits of the consumer, and disutility of different intensities of labour and of the activities of supervision and organization, as well as the social structure.”

Lord Bauer says of this passage:

“This drastic simplification is doubtfully appropriate even for the analysis of short-term growth in an advanced economy. It is altogether inappropriate to discussion of the long-term progress of less developed countries.” (Reality and Rhetoric, first quoted here.)

It is a sizeable package one is being asked to take for granted; indeed, once all these things have been taken as given, what is there left to explain?!

As a young man, first entering onto the study of development economics, of which he was to become a master and for many years the leading critic of the orthodoxies that prevailed in the academy, Peter Bauer spent many years in West Africa and Malaya (as it then was). His detailed field work made him realise how inadequate the prevailing attitudes were, lacking as they did any substance in actual knowledge of the less developed economies as they actually were. He says:

“I came to this general area through two studies, one of the rubber industry in South-East Asia and the other of the organization of trade in the former British West Africa. I spent more than ten years on these studies during the 1940s and fifties, when I was for substantial periods in each of the two regions. What I saw was starkly at variance with the components of the emerging consensus of mainstream development economics.”

And he explicitly points the finger of blame at Keynes as having, through the “givens” listed above, infected the academic understanding of these matters. What need even to go into the field to study the farmers and traders and politicians and social structures of the ldcs when Keynes so conveniently lets you off the hook of the need for evidence.

Hunter Lewis (first drawn on here and here) points out in his book Where Keynes Went Wrong that Keynes quite explicitly, as it were, provides no evidence for his economic musings and theorizings. What Peter Bauer encountered in the field was the living refutation of the Keynesian approach to economics.

Readers curious as to why articles of this nature should be appearing on a gold investment website should read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

And for background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

And for a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES


Thursday, January 31st, 2013

Some commonly encountered criticisms of the market system ignore the simple fact that market participants are people. Human beings and their arrangements cannot be faultless. It is therefore not surprising that objectionable phenomena are to be found in the market order, including the operation of pressure groups, the contrivance of scarcities, attempts at coercion, and well-authenticated instances of fraud. But even when they are numerous, such phenomena do not serve as a valid basis for replacing the market by a controlled economy. In recent years, detractors of the market order have made much of instances of political pressure, or of fraud by market participants. Would it make for a better society if more people with such habits were in the government sector and thus possessed the coercive power which goes with it?

From Reality and Rhetoric: Studies in the Economics of Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1984

“One of the most distinguished development economists in the world, and undoubtedly the foremost conservative one.” Prof. A. K. Sen, New York Review of Books

P. T. Bauer was ennobled as a life peer by Mrs Thatcher in 1982

Readers curious as to why articles of this nature should be appearing on a gold investment website should read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

And for a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES


Tuesday, January 29th, 2013

By Mark Rogers

 Banks are businesses like any other (in principle) but the regulatory frameworks constructed to “oversee” them in fact legislated banks out the consequences of operating in the private sector. The question inevitably arises therefore: what were the kickbacks?

They were obviously not such as obtained in the media, where for decades newspapers have espoused political causes and backed parties and politicians. Yes there were some ultimately certain relations that proved fairly poisonous for democracy – one thinks of Murdoch and Blair for example. The Browne/Balls-Banker axis was more fundamental, more insidious and more toxic than the media-politician axis, if only because the latter was transparent, in the sense that we could see some at least of what was going on and newspapers made no bones about their political stance.

Banks had traditionally been independent of the state (remember: the Bank of England was only nationalized in the late 1940s). The media-state “interface” had always been the more obvious and troublesome one: censorship versus boosterism – no surprise there. Journalists and politicians after all have a lot in common.

In other words, what the LIBOR arrangements, if guessed correctly by The Spectator, amounted to were not merely a conscription of the banks by the state, but the willingness of the former to be so co-opted. So where does that leave Barclay’s decision not the take the Queen’s shilling? And the subsequent vilification of Bob Diamond?

Are bankers inherently dishonest or do politicians persuade, even force, the at least more craven of the bankers to become so?

After all you don’t have much choice after you’ve been nationalized – and the legislation that exempted bankers from the commercial consequences of failure was effectively a form of nationalization.

Nazi-style socialism

It needs to be strongly emphasised that when Mr Anthony Blair persuaded the Labour Party to abandon Clause Four, the nationalization of the means of production, in favour of “market forces”, he actually was trading in the Communist version of Socialism for the Nazi version of Socialism which was to leave industrial and commercial productive forces in private hands but surround them with state interference and legislation. This is not market forces.

For a brilliant analysis of the banking problem as caused by the regulatory framework – not, it must be insisted upon, bad or lax regulation but the fact of the regulatory regime existing at all – please read the last of the three links below, and then go out and buy the book!

Readers curious as to why articles of this nature should be appearing on a gold investment website should read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

And for background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

And for a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES


Monday, January 28th, 2013

By Mark Rogers

George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has started quite a trend; the words “avoidance” and “evasion” are routinely used synonymously by politicians and journalists alike, and have by now mutated amongst the public at large into a general disparagement of those who “don’t pay their taxes” – even when there is no legal requirement to do so!

A case in point. At the local charity shop for which I sort the books, there is a persistent complaint that the charity doesn’t pay taxes on donated goods. This arises in the context of complaints about prices. It is a charity for a UK cause (you wouldn’t catch me supporting with my time the more problematic charities such as Christian Aid and Oxfam) and routinely receives donations of clothes from one or two of the large clothing chains. The obligation on the part of the charity is to sell them for around one-quarter of their retail value.

Even so, customers complain that £50 is too expensive, even though the original mainstream shop price for quality coats, for example, is £200. It doesn’t matter that customers are told they are under no obligation to buy; that they can always go to Primark if they want to pay less; or that the retailers expect their donations to make a proper difference to the charity’s turnover.

Far from accepting that these are reasonable points, the charity is routinely abused for not paying taxes, although not only are charitable donations exempt from tax, tax is recoverable at 25 pence in the pound if donated by a tax-paying donor under the Gift Aid scheme.

Now this is only right and proper: it would be utterly invidious for the state to tax gifts made for relief, especially as many charities, local hospices for example, fill crucial gaps that the unwieldy welfare state is unable to supply.

I even spotted a poster in a remainder bookshop window the other day: “CAN PAY, DO PAY, WE PAY OUR TAXES.” Lewis Carroll in Sylvia and Bruno imagined a protest march in which the burden of the demand was: “Less Bread! More Taxes!”

That could stand as the epitaph for the welfare state!

Readers curious as to why articles of this nature should be appearing on a gold investment website should read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

And for background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

And for a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES


Sunday, January 27th, 2013

By Mark Rogers

A recent story in the London Evening Standard announced that first time buyers are expected to stump up a £100,000 deposit. Thus, evermore young, first time buyers are being denied their place on the bottom rung of the housing ladder – or that is what at least it is usually called: edge of a bottomless abyss might be more accurate, and something from which they should be glad they have been saved!

A question that might at first blush seem curious: if there is a housing shortage, why are there so many estate agents? There are parts of London where they even cluster together. However, this is easily explained. Many of the properties on offer will not be unlived in – they will be the homes of people wanting to move for the sake of employment or retirement, and perhaps many more will have been put up for sale to realize their value, given that they were bought not merely to be lived in but primarily as an asset. The real explanation of the number of estate agents is that there are few buyers because most people, especially that class of “first time buyers” or rather would-be first time buyers, cannot afford the prices.

Estate agents earn their bread and butter from management fees for lettings: the houses for sale are the window dressing. Which is one among several factors that explain the high cost of housing: fees on sales are adjusted to take account of the length of time the house is on the estate agents’ books.

Another thing that the number of estate agents indicates in economic terms is the relative lack of information in the market: houses are expensive partly because there is no proper market in them, and therefore the information about what houses are worth – their prices – is limited. (See here, here and here for further discussion of the problem of the modern mortgage.)

Nevertheless, the modern fashion is to own – or at least to aspire to own. This is historically unprecedented. Most of the time, most people rented. Families who acquired houses, or who bought plots of land to build their own, usually did so towards the end of the pater familias’s career in upper middle class families who had acquired serious money. The house was then left to the children, so over time the number of people who owned their own homes increased, but slowly.

Why Rent?

Many families rented for their entire lives. And this in turn meant that there was a real market in housing, because renting meant that the market was flexible, price-sensitive and therefore price informative, and, crucially, not sodden with debt, i.e. a mortgage on your future which your income may never catch up with because of inflation.

Properties rented were owned in terms of the Common Law: what you were buying with your weekly or monthly rent was a lease with an almost full entitlement to property rights in respect of the inviolability of your privacy and the contents of the property that you brought into the house: landlords could not, for example, demand unilateral access while the current rent was paid in full, or demand that certain objects not to their taste were excluded. Landlords of course owned the property in the fullest sense of the term given that they had the right to sell it – but even this ultimate test of ownership was circumscribed by the rights of the resident tenants. So for the ultimate owner, the property represented two things: a current income, and a future saving.

The great advantage of renting was that the tenant’s obligations were contracted serially under the terms of the lease, which meant that, provided proper notice was given and dilapidations were duly paid for, the owner of the lease, i.e. the tenant, could leave the property at whim or out of the necessity of looking for work.

Leases were therefore one of the engines of a free and flexible economy. And they also have the advantage that they are a regular provider of price information.

One must wonder then if one of the reasons politicians are keen on promoting home ownership is that the modern mortgage is in fact a means of control over the home-owning population without the state actually having to nationalize their property…

In this context it should also be remembered that Victorian prosperity did, as mentioned above, mean a gradual increase in home ownership and homes therefore being left to descendants. However, the invention of inheritance tax in the late nineteenth century combined with modern inflation – which brackets houses into inheritance tax even though the residents’ incomes do not reflect that nominal, inflated value – have, all the while the politicians sing the virtues of home ownership, denied homes to an increasing number of inheritors.

And another problem arises with the so-called “homeless”. There are a lot of vendors of the Big Issue but they are not homeless: their hostel rooms or their flats are provided by the local authority and their rents are paid out as benefits by (and of course to) that same authority. The real homeless, the people who sleep on the streets, are either mentally disabled or young people who have fled home, in many cases state institutions. So once again in an economy dominated by the welfare state, it is all a matter of juggling with words, rather than material fact.

These considerations once again prompt reflections on what it is we really value and how that value is measured: as pointed out here, our money is not really money, and our mortgages are not real mortgages.

And once again, the question arises: when will this house of cards collapse? The eurocrisis is allowed to drift, quantitative easing underpins access to cash while piling up crisis for the next generation, politicians urge the banks to lend, and banks remain free of the consequences of moral hazard…

Readers curious as to why articles of this nature should be appearing on a gold investment website should read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

And for background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

And for a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES


Saturday, January 26th, 2013

They must be worse than blind who cannot see with what undeviating regularity of system, in this and in all cases, they pursue their scheme for the destruction of every independent power … The design is wicked, immoral, impious, oppressive: but it is spirited and daring. It is systematic; it is simple in its principle; it has unity and consistency in perfection. In that country entirely to cut off a branch of commerce, to extinguish a manufacture, to destroy the circulation of money, to violate credit, to suspend the course of agriculture … does not cost them a moment’s anxiety. To them the will, the wish, the want, the liberty, the toil, the blood of individuals is nothing. Individuality is left out of their scheme of Government. The state is all in all.

Letters on the Regicide Directory 1796

Quoted by Christopher Booker and Richard North as the epigraph to their book The Castle of Lies: Why Britain Must Get Out of Europe, Duckworth, London 1996

For an article by Mark Rogers on the cult of the state, click here.

Readers curious as to why articles of this nature should be appearing on a gold investment website should read: GOLDCOIN.ORG: MIXING POLITICS AND NUMISMATICS

And for background on the writer: CONFESSIONS OF A LAW AND ORDER ANARCHIST

And for a review of one of the most important books on the financial crisis published last year: THE MESS WE’RE IN: WHY POLITICIANS CAN’T FIX FINANCIAL CRISES