By Mark Rogers

One day.

The “sarkozy” in question? Bashing the City of London. So nothing has changed on the despising of the Anglo-Saxon economic model front, then. What else has changed as a result of the French and Greek elections?

While the Times has reported that there is a capital flight out of Greece (The Times, 8 May 2012) – which is hardly surprising – the answer to the above question is: nothing, politically.

The fireworks will be different colours after the French and Greek elections, but the unwillingness to recognise and to deal with the political death of Europe will continue: there is still no political will to recognise the failure of the euro and all the difficulties that that entails for the “union”. Not that there is much show of unity; there is little love lost on the continent for each other, but there is a determination to keep the bone of contention alive – not even the faux-radicals who have been elected to the Greek Parliament, while perfectly content to call their Northern neighbours barbarians, want to pull out of the euro! (Bloomberg here.)

“Voters shy from hard choices.” Thus Lexington in the Economist, April 28th 2012, page 42. “…voters everywhere … want many impossible things before breakfast, including low taxes and all the things that high taxes pay for.” He is, after a fashion, taking issue with Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, who concedes that the argument for small state-low tax politics is yet to be won: “Too many voters continue to like some of the things their taxes buy, such as entitlements and government jobs. If those things can be shrunk, [Mr Norquist] believes, so can their fondness for the state. Good luck with that, Mr Norquist.”

Well, Mr Norquist is perfectly entitled to point to Europe, where fondness for the state was invented and has become inbred, and in particular to Greece.

Greek voters wanted low taxes, so they simply didn’t bother to pay their taxes at all – and the tax collectors went on strike in sympathy – and they still wanted the things that high taxes pay for. A price system this is not.

The idea, fantastic as it seems, that tax collectors would go on strike against changes to their salaries would beggar belief were it not yet another strong reminder that those who advocate that the state simply pays it way out of trouble (which is what got us into the trouble in the first place) forget that the state has no money.

Even the editor of the Economist has advocated that the state in the UK should build more infrastructure (which, he says, “incidentally” provides more jobs) as a way of spending its way to recovery. This is the same Economist which considered the Socialist candidate, now victor, in the French presidential elections, M. Hollande, “rather dangerous” (April 28th) – even though he promises just such spending…

The tax collectors of Greece went on strike because they do not want their salaries cut, but in striking, i.e. refusing to do their job which is to collect the taxes out of which their salaries are paid, they are in effect cutting their incomes to zero.

The state has no money of its own: all that it spends is ultimately derived from the taxpayer: either directly, or by borrowing, which is then paid back by further despoliations of the taxpayer.

Ah! but what about Quantitative Easing? Apart from sounding like what Gargantua did after arriving in Paris, it has pretty much the same effect on the average saver: deluging the economy with printed money simply attacks the taxpayer from another angle – those who have saved see their savings and pensions eroded. Without savings, where is investment, and therefore growth, to come from?

Too much liquidity, and fake at that: QE seems to me to be essentially the government forging its own currency…

By Mark Rogers

While there is much speculation that there are moves afoot in some countries to rein in the private ownership of gold (see here and here), it is encouraging to read the following story (originally posted at L’Or et L’Argent) about how Singapore is opening up its markets to gold. This is yet another move in the free Asian economies to strengthen their positions, a welcome strength in view of the economic turmoil in the developed world and in China, whose economic future seems very uncertain.

Given that the following article points out the strong position of gold in Hong Kong, readers might like to read this fascinating account of gold dealing there; amongst other interesting points is the note that the Chinese Gold and Silver Exchange Society is the world’s oldest gold dealing exchange. Gold and stability could have no sounder exemplification than the growth of Hong Kong as one of the world’s strongest economies throughout the twentieth century and still leading the way in the new millennium!

Singapore’s move comes in tandem with growing speculation amongst gold observers that there is a slow but sure momentum building up to a return to the gold standard. The financial turmoil in Europe and the erosion of the US economy is fundamentally a crisis of paper money and cannot continue without a major shift towards the kind of stability that a properly backed currency provides. This shift will come either when the relevant governments realise that such a resolution of their problems needs to be carefully managed – or it will be forced upon them if they continue to do nothing other than roll the printing presses, which will in the end precipitate a catastrophe of an order such that even they will not be able to deny the obvious.

I shall in the very near future be posting reviews of Detlev Schlichter’s Paper Money Collapse and James Rickards’s Currency Wars, which contain detailed analyses of how our present woes are the inevitable result of fiat money, and, in Rickards’s book, an outline of how a return to the gold standard should be managed.

Meanwhile:

Singapore bows before Gold

The world’s fourth largest financial centre is seeking to open itself to the gold market. Thus, it has decided that tax cuts will apply to precious metals including gold.

The Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam confirmed a month ago that an exemption would be made to the 7% tax rate, hitherto applied to gold and all other precious metals, in order to encourage growth in trade negotiations and in particular as an incentive for producers to participate in the market.

Singapore will thus be able to compete on an equal footing with other neighbouring markets open to the gold trade, the most important being Hong Kong where producers prefer to sell their bullion – free of tax. It is evident that having to pay a 7% tax in Singapore discourages investors. This measure is completely logical and fair since no kind of taxes should be applied to a safe haven investment – the latter being basically currency.

This reduction will be initiated as of next October – which prompted certain declarations to be made at the time this measure was made public, for example, `that an important producer has expressed a particular interest in opening a factory in Singapore in the light of the announced tax change’ and furthermore that there will be more gold trading companies present in the country.

Gold has risen sharply and this is why there is so much competition between countries which are putting in place strategies to meet current requirements. If Singapore wishes to compete with its Asian neighbours who have a significant advantage, it will be extremely advantageous for it to adopt this fully justified initiative which will enable the gold market to benefit from a fall in tax or an exemption. By maintaining high taxes, Singapore has risked putting off all potential investors – the latter being welcomed with open-arms in Hong Kong and Japan.

By Mark Rogers

Needless to say, there is a great deal of concern about this story, first addressed on this site on Monday. Conspiracy theorists are in little doubt this is a government swindle, though leveller heads are pointing out that this is unlikely. Nevertheless, it has to be said that the Mint’s Media Statement is very cagey in what it says about the origin of the dud coins: the suspension of senior staff last December was because of “technical issues”, and the longer statement quoted in my last article doesn’t exactly link those “technical issues” to the dud proofs.

Nor does it link the criminal gang which stole R5 circulation coins to the minting scandal. While it is entirely understandable that the Mint does not want to debase the trust that any such institution must maintain and therefore does not want to say too much in case panic ensues, why, then, has it said anything at all?

The curator of modern money at the British Museum, Thomas Hockenhull, is quoted in The Washington Post, April 24, as saying that it is unusual for mints to go public on problems of this kind, while Tom Hallenbeck, the American Numismatic Association’s President is also quoted to the effect that glitches in manufacturing are to be expected given the volume of coins produced.

Exposed

An obvious reason for saying anything at all is damage limitation. Whatever is going on at the SA Mint was already under investigation by CNBC and Forbes, and with television exposure and Forbes publishing its findings next month, perhaps the Mint thought that its hand was being forced.

Undoubtedly, it has fallen between two stools as a result. The clarification that it had (somehow) produced under specification coins and not as TimesLive reported underweight ones, led at least one commentator to conclude that this was evidence of a deliberate skimming exercise by the Mint itself:  “A national mint producing investment grade gold coins for several months with debased gold is not accidental. Period.”

That, of course, still does not rule out infiltration by a criminal gang, but that having been said, that such a gang could get away with it apparently for so long says volumes about accountability and transparency in a major public institution.

Effect?

A claim is made here that dealers are buying Krugerrand bullion coins at a lower premium than usual, while raising the possibility that there will be a “flight” from the coin. Did it escape the mind of the author of the Mint’s statement that this might happen, and that if the proof Krugers fell under suspicion, the contagion might spread to the bullion coins?

Even the mere speculation by a writer with an “anonymous source” on an internet site might be enough, especially in the light of the generally gloomy picture of politics in South Africa.

All over the world, political elites are coming under fire: high taxation, monetary incompetence, the keeping of a self-serving distance from their electorates – general nannying while the ship of state flounders.

Even if the problems of the SA Mint were occasioned by such political incompetence, rather than a deliberate crime sanctioned at the highest level, the suspicion that is falling on governments everywhere is reason enough to seek safe havens elsewhere – indeed, they are vital as havens from the financial incontinence of the state.

Alternative

Whatever else is revealed, and happens in consequence, there is an alternative, again as mentioned on Monday: the Vera Valor. Not only is this coin of the highest standard of purity; not only is it audited to a high standard, and its source and manufacture of a high standard of purity; it also has another quality – it is a purely commercial venture, with no connections to malfunctioning government institutions and suspicious officials.

By Mark Rogers

On 8 December 2011, the Board of the South African Mint Company suspended the Managing Director of the Company and its General Manager Numismatic Coins, having become “aware of certain technical issues within the operations of the SA Mint Company.” The media statement went on to say that:  “Investigations into the matter have been instituted and are on-going.”

Nothing at this time was said publicly about what these “technical issues” were. However, dealers were alerted in confidential meetings to the need to assay their stocks of proof Krugerrands. A further statement, going into much more detail, was publicly issued on 13 April 2012.

This stated that “investigations into the matter have revealed that some of the proof Krugerrand coins cast between April 2011 and May 2011may not meet all the required quality specifications. Based on information that there had been fluctuations in assay results in the production process starting from April 2010, a conservative approach was adopted to analyse results from 01 April 2010 until 31 October 2011, the latter date being one on which  new quality control measures were introduced.  The extended period was adopted merely as a precaution.”

Proof and Bullion Kruggerands and Investment

The SA Mint only strikes the proof Krugers, bullion Krugers being the preserve of the Rand Refinery. Proof coins are issued in smaller quantities for the collectors’ market and are struck in a way that provides a mirror-like finish with a contrast of matt. They are important to collectors who are interested in “a perfect uncirculated” coin, a distinction that mattered when the Krugerrand was first struck given that the bullion coins were intended to circulate as currency.

This means that Krugers are minted from a copper-gold alloy, as the copper gives the coin greater durability. Apart from the mirror finish, the other difference between the proof and the bullion coins is the number of serrations (or reeds) around the edges, being 180 on the bullion and 220 on the proofs.

While the minting process is different between the SA Mint and Rand Refinery in order to achieve the required finish, the gold content and ultimately the investment are the same: bullion coins are still as valuable for their gold content and premium and are the most prevalent, but there is no difference to an investor if the Kruger is proof or just bullion.

The proof can be found to be more expensive but usually in collectors’ circles as they insist on this type of coin. However, in effect all of the Krugers are bullion coins and they can be found at the same purchase price. The importance of all this comes into play when demand is high: investors buy them all for the same reason. Even “proof” Krugers are important as they are part of the available investment quality bullion coins and there is no real need to differentiate their importance as an investment. Most Krugers are held for their investment potential and not by collectors – they are very “liquid assets” that contain a sure value (1 oz of gold).

Scandal Story Breaks – Misleadingly

Within a couple of days of the latest Media Statement issued by the SA Mint, TimesLive published a story that some of the proof coins were underweight. This was a very careless reading of the Mint’s statement which is quite clear on this point: the coins were under-specification, containing less gold than required by law. The South African gold collector who first alerted the Mint to the problem makes the crucial point on PM Bug (Precious Metals Forum):

“The coins are NOT underweight in any way, shape or form, they are under-spec. They weigh exactly the same as any of the Krugers available. This is just bad reportage from TimesLive. Now people will just weigh their coins, see the weight is right, and forget about it.” (Readers should view the short excerpt from CNBC Africa report that is posted on this forum after the statement just quoted – and look out for the moment when a gold coin being assayed registers at 94% silver! GoldCoin.org is attempting to discover more…)

Apparently TimesLive was aware that CNBC Africa and Forbes Africa were onto this story and wanted to scoop them – hence the sloppy reporting. Forbes Africa is due to publish the fruit of its investigations in its May issue.

So what was happening at the Mint?

“Concurrent with the investigation into proof Krugerrand coins, the SA Mint investigated the evidential theft of R5 circulation coins. This crime was ostensibly committed by a number of employees who appeared to have acted in collusion with what appears to be a syndicate-style operation that included external parties. Appropriate steps have been taken and all evidence gathered has been handed over to the Police’s Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation.”

How did a criminal gang come to be operating at the South African Mint, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the South African Reserve Bank? How far up the scale of management did it penetrate? Were the two officials suspended because this happened on their watch or is there evidence that they were somehow complicit and/or bought off? Is this yet another instance of the corruption and malfeasance that have embroiled South Africa after the early promise of the post-apartheid years? The ANC is after all no more than a tribal ascendancy and there is widespread disillusion with the ruling elite in South Africa.

True Value

This is an astonishing story and one that may have considerable implications for the Krugerrand, a popular investment because widely regarded as a strong one. Perhaps investors should start taking a very serious look at the Vera Valor, recently highlighted in the luxury magazine Meze.

The Vera Valor is a serious contender for replacing the Krugerrand as the gold coin of investor choice.

By Simone Wapler (translated from an article originally published in France)

In the middle of a difficult economic situation, investors rush for gilt-edged securities, among them: gold. But watch-out for the swindlers… do not confuse actual stocks with virtual stocks.

Everyone is talking about gold at the moment, especially as it is falling. Those who believe in a gold bubble are licking their lips. These bears are primarily to be found in the world of the big money men, the people who explain to you that your money must be made to “work”… in their own interest, clearly, just like Goldman Sachs. A recent survey carried out in France by the IFOP for the company AuCoffre.com produced surprising results. This particular French company is on the way to becoming the leading French company selling gold coins online. According to this survey, 68% of French people believe that gold is an investment with a future, but 60% find that it is incomprehensible and reserved to a privileged audience.

Some people who recently tried to buy gold through their banks found that it was not easy. Banks prefer to put forward their own certificates, or trackers, that are supposed to respond to the price of gold, rather than sell physical gold.  At first sight, if people want gold it is because they think that it will go up. Which is completely untrue. It is not gold that rises but currencies that drop. Here is the rise in the price of gold in the main currencies over the last 10 years:

• Peso 694%
• Rupee 487%
• US$ 474%
• Rouble 443%
• Pound Sterling 421%
• Real 339%
• Euro 287%
• Yen 262%
• Rand 262%
• $CAD 258%
• Francs 219%
• AU 186%

It is obvious that with the help of the crisis and the restarting of dubious monetary transactions, currencies continue to lose ground to gold and therefore its rise (since it is the commonly used term) continues. It is because currencies fall, with the dollar in the lead, that the central banks of the emerging country buy gold to diversify their reserves.

Who are the people holding gold for investment?

Out of the 166,000 tons of gold extracted from the ground, the central banks have 28,000 and private sector investment 30,000. Gold for investment is therefore to be found in the safe deposit boxes of the central banks, therefore the official sector, but also (and especially) in the private sector and in this case in two forms: in a shared form with the ETC (Exchange Traded Commodities) and in a private form for individuals. The ETCs are continuously listed certificates, in theory guaranteed by a physical gold reserve. Private individuals may also choose to obtain gold through their bank, and store it in their bank. In this case gold appears simply as one line on the bank account statement (1 ingot with a value of €40,000) and the bank stores it. Benefits: reduced management fees (since they are shared with others) and the safety of the large deposit-box of your bank.

But the real question is “does everyone actually have the gold that they claim to have”?

Why does the Fed refuse to have its reserves audited?

Our eyes are immediately focussed on the Fed, its colossal balance sheet of bad debts and its gold reserves. The Republican Senator Ron Paul has been asking for years for an audit on the gold reserves. In vain. [And see here for an analysis of this problem.] Just to stir up more problems, false ingots lined with tungsten have been discovered. They would appear to be of American origin.

Why do the central banks loan out their gold?

During the double decade (1980-2000) and the flat-period in the gold market, central banks engaged in the regrettable practice of giving gold out on loan in order to get some income from this dormant stock-pile. They can loan it out to commercial banks which use it to satisfy demand from an institutional client, for example. The last report on these strange practices goes back to 2006 and emanates from a private player, the specialized trader Blanchard. One then has to ask the question: do the ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) ETCs actually possess their gold?

There exist various legal arrangements according to country. The following question is often repeated: wouldn’t these reserves not just be gold out on loan?

When banks give gold in exchange is it their own or your own?

In February 2011, The Wall Street Journal informed us that gold is accepted in the swaps transactions of commercial banks.  At this date, the inter-banking market is completely seized up. Banks are terrified and refuse to lend between themselves. Where does this gold, that suddenly appears, come from? Is this gold out on loan by central banks or is this the famous gold in the pipeline of the customer? Deafening silence.

Comex sets the price of gold… paper gold. The largest futures market in the world remains Comex. A futures contract is a bit of paper which bears an expiry date, a commodity, a quantity and a price. At the expiry date, the owner of the bit of paper has a choice: to take delivery at the agreed price of the commodity or “roll-over his position”, i.e. take the following contract. The majority of speculators choose the latter. In the warehouses of Comex, there is therefore much less gold than that which is covered by the futures contracts which circulate. So much less that the Canadians (who are large gold producers) got annoyed: Comex sets its prices, disconnected from reality, on paper. Short sellers are financed by the lobby of the large US banks and everything is distorted, they claimed.

A revolt was organized in 2008 Vaporize Comex (Let’s smash Comex). Principle: that the holders of futures contracts ask for delivery, in unison, all on the same date to show to the face of the world that the warehouses of the Commodities Exchange were almost empty. The Canadian rebels had agreed on a contract at the end of December. Shortly after, rumours circulated according to which certain contract holders had agreed not to take delivery in exchange for substantial compensation in dollars…

 And that’s why the premium goes up!

 Simone Wapler is Chief Editor for Agora Publications (financial analysis and consultancy).

Source: Reuters

By Mark Rogers                 

On 27th January 2012, The Daily Telegraph reported that a Civil Servant with the position of Permanent Secretary for Tax at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, delivered himself of the opinion that those who pay tradesmen in cash are “diddling” the economy, “allowing them to evade VAT or income tax”.

The Permanent Secretary for Tax stated what taxpayers’ money is spent on:  “Tax provides the funding to run the country: hospitals, schools and everything else,” he says. “Every time someone pays cash in order not to pay VAT, the nation gets diddled.”

The Permanent Secretary for Tax has a pension pot, paid for by taxpayers, of £1.7 million pounds. He also said that those who contribute to the cash economy have no cause to complain about austerity. Clearly, £1.7 million pounds is no austerity – and so is very much open to objection.

H.M.R.C. – Stasi-style

H.M.R.C. is planning a “major clampdown”. In order to perform it, the government is to encourage sneaking: The Daily Telegraph reports: “Mr Hartnett encourages anyone who suspects wrongdoing to telephone the Revenue’s whistle-blower hotline and tip off inspectors.  He says: ‘Cash has been a problem for a long time. The people who are worried about it should use our whistle-blowing line to tell us. We are getting better and better at finding people who receive cash.’” Furthermore: “Tax disclosure rules introduced in 2004 had ‘massively changed the environment for tax avoidance and business’, he says. ‘We have now got to do the same with individuals’.”

These are highly charged statements; whatever other tasks a Permanent Secretary for Tax may perform, making political remarks is not one of them: they are beyond the brief of a mere Civil Servant.

Where does it all go?

Let’s see what we can make of these allegations and proposals. In the first place, having taken it upon himself, as a Civil Servant, to tell us that our taxes go on “hospitals, schools and everything else”, before making accusations about “diddlers”, perhaps he should justify this statement: is he certain that the taxpayer gets value for money?

The “everything else” is a bit suspicious, too: foreign aid that is declined by its recipients (here); MPs’ expenses; Civil Servants’ expense credit cards that leave no audit trail; one third of the national budget being spent on social workers, who routinely fail to save infants from horrible fates, while a mere 3% of what is spent on social workers is spent on the Armed Forces – which nevertheless face savage cuts; inordinately high salaries for local authority CEOs; vast sums wasted on government computer schemes, which just get written off; those in the private sector on the state pension seeing their pensions vanish, while those in the public sector have guaranteed pensions…. the welfarist list goes on (The Taxpayers’ Alliance are the experts on government waste). And while there is no guarantee whatsoever that this money is well spent, the government is so profligate that the Bank of England is indulging in massive Quantitative Easing so that the government can pay its debts… which is another way of saying that the government is able to write off its responsibility and accountability.

There’s the rub

“Cash” is indeed the problem. QE, while allowing the government to pay its debts, while decreasing the value of borrower’s liabilities, has a huge negative impact on pensions, annuities and savings.

So perhaps Mr Permanent Secretary for Tax had better be careful who he accuses of “diddling”. With the Welfare State seemingly beyond reform – but also beyond the nation’s pocket, and with QE devaluing the efforts of the prudent, why shouldn’t people find ways of doing what they can to hang on to their wealth? In an encouraging addendum to The Daily Telegraph’s story, an online poll shows 68.36% of respondents agreeing with the statement that “It’s not up to me to force other people to pay their tax”, while 18.98% agreed that they were “not willing to pay more if [they] can get a good deal with cash”.

In other words, prudence is valued. Savings, trying to do well for oneself and one’s family, are only regarded as “selfish” in the moral vacuum that the Welfare state creates. What a long way from the ringing endorsement of individuality and wealth creation that Gladstone made: “Let the wealth of the people fructify in the pockets of the people.”

There is a particularly ugly aspect to this move by H.M.R.C., which is very worrying in constitutional terms: the Customs and Excise, being the body that raised the King’s money, has always had stronger, almost extra-legal powers, than the Inland Revenue, the distinction being that Customs was practically a police force, founded in the days before income tax and granted powers to, for example, deal with smugglers. It was always a concern that VAT had been deemed a Customs’ matter; now given the merger of the Revenue with the Customs by Gordon Brown, there was always the possibility that this was a way of granting an extension of the sort of powers Customs officers enjoyed to the Revenue. And the remarks quoted above, including references to income tax, suggest that this indeed is what it happening….

Monopoly?

But let’s suggest a deal, taking our cue from the Permanent Secretary for Tax: those who operate in the cash economy shouldn’t complain of austerity – well, if they don’t complain, will they be left alone? After all, their activities may in their own small way help revive the economy.

And if the government can simply print money to pay its debts, will the Revenue have cause to complain if the rest of us decide to pay our taxes in Monopoly money?

(The manufacturers of Monopoly print more money every day than the U.S. Federal Reserve – although not, perhaps, for much longer……)

By Mark Rogers

In “Tales from a Palm Court”, Ronnie Knox-Mawer’s hilarious account of his years as a Judge in the last British colonies of the South Sea islands, he recalls his meeting with one of the island Resident officers. The living room of his Residence looked like a Victorian parlour, crammed as it was with artefacts, bric-a-brac, ornaments and furniture, including a harmonium.

The Resident, noticing the surprise on the Judge’s face, told him that the habit of keeping things ran deep in his family and recalled that on the demise of an aunt, there was found in her attic a large sack neatly tied with a label that read: “Bits of string too short to be of any use”…

The Victorian middle-class house was a place to keep things. Houses with capacious attics, rooms large enough to hold substantial wardrobes and chests of drawers, often a room given over to a library, and an ingeniously hidden safe – households were synonymous with saving and preserving. It was truly said: “The home should be the treasure chest of living.”

No room, no room!

Enter the brutalist and minimalist modernists. Surprisingly, the remark just quoted, so redolent of the sort of homes the Georgians and Victorians built, was made by Le Corbusier, more famous for his assertion that: “A house is a machine for living in”.

So which did he really believe? Well, he also said: “I prefer drawing to talking. Drawing is faster, and leaves less room for lies.” So let us look at a typical drawing:

This is the “Plan Voisin” of 1925, a proposal to bulldoze most of central Paris north of the Seine, and replace it with sixty-storey cruciform towers.

Jane Jacobs, in her seminal work, “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”, the book that demolished the inhuman assumptions of the modern movement in architecture, the anti-planner’s bible, notes: “In Le Corbusier’s vertical city the common run of mankind was to be housed at 1,200 inhabitants to the acre, a fantastically high city density indeed, but because of building up so high, 95% of the ground could remain open.” So perhaps the home as conceived by Le Corbusier was more of a machine in which to store human beings: as Jacobs mordantly remarks this was conceiving of the city “as a collection of separate file drawers”.

The vertical city as epitomised by the drawing above does not suggest that there is any room for storing and saving, indeed the design militates against these virtues, not least because in the absence of streets, there is no room in these cities for the arts and amenities of life – no streets, no shops and so no commerce: how were people to actually maintain and provide for themselves and the generations after them? The ordinary requirements of getting and spending, mundane productive labour, all these arts are overlooked by those who plan the shining path to the radiant future.

Indeed, everything that people used to provide for themselves, was to be provided by the authorities: thus is imprudence encouraged by such designs on people’s livelihoods.

What need to save, then, least of all in the safe haven of gold, that bulwark against the authorities’ own imprudence in imagining that people should be deprived of responsiblity for their own welfare.

The continuing furore over bankers’ pay led to the recent decision by Stephen Hester, the Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, to forgo his contracted bonus, worth just under £1 million. Wayne Rooney, the popular footballer, earns that in five weeks.

Top executive pay in the banks hovers around £1.2 – £1.35 million; these salaries are complemented by bonuses, which are largely or entirely paid in shares. Total remuneration for bankers is therefore high (albeit that a large element, the bonuses, may be said to be nominal). But, compared to the remuneration of other high earners, is it excessive?

Wayne Rooney earns £18 million a year, a combination of pay, score bonuses and sponsorship fees. Yet he is not damned for greed. Pop stars and film stars earn as large if not larger incomes; in fact some earnings are so high it is hard to find out exactly how high they are – the singer Rihanna, for example, is rumoured to be worth £70 million but her total income and net worth are undisclosed.

We hear nothing, however, about the impulsive greed of such people. Footballers’ transfer fees, when they do cause eyebrows to be raised, are justified in the context of the competitive world of international football, and the explanation seems to be accepted, notwithstanding the huge discrepancy between what bankers and footballers earn. So whence the moral froth?

Footballers and singers and film makers give people pleasure; their fans follow them, paying to see their latest games or films or buying their latest songs. Their value as entertainers is taken for granted by their audiences; it is easy to understand what they do, thus their value for the individual is measured instantly as a factor of that individual’s enjoyment of their endeavours. It is equally understood that their earnings are simply an aggregate of the money that audiences willingly pay to be entertained by them.

Given that bankers exercise, and are expected to exercise, an enormous responsibility for the deposits and savings of their clients, why is this fact not equally well understood? Presumably because the actual workings of the banking system and high finance are not amenable to the sort of instant understanding that facilitates the benign regard in which entertainers are held. That is, the fury directed at bankers is born of sheer ignorance.

There is another moral issue that lies behind this debate, and that is the way in which poverty (and therefore wealth) has come to be defined in the affluent west: it has ceased to be defined in absolute terms. The Poverty Site states the case for “relative poverty” thus:
“The view that relative poverty is not important is a perfectly valid position to take – it is just not the view that the authors of this website, along with most other researchers, the EU, the UK government, and politicians of all hues across the political spectrum take. So, for example, the government’s target of halving child poverty by 2010 is defined in terms of relative poverty.”

At least this makes it admirably clear that “relative poverty” is defined politically, that it is a political tool, designed to justify high taxation and providing politicians with their raison d’etre. Such a definition therefore helps perpetuate our contemporary intrusive and anti-wealth creation political system. The politicians needed someone to blame when that system imploded – and footballers just didn’t seem to fit the bill…

We continue to examine the folly of the modern mortgage, following our previous discussions on Golcoin.org in When Debt’s called Credit and When Debts called Credit 2.

There are many reasons why members of what we ought to call the pseudo-propertied classes might need to sell the houses on which they are paying a mortgage, even if the primary reason for owning the mortgage was to have a home rather than an investment asset. Those reasons may include the break-up of a marriage, a growing family needing more room, or the need to move to take up employment.

However, if the market has dried up, there are no buyers. This means that the pseudo-owner has negative equity in the property – the house is now worth less than the mortgage that still must be paid off. There are various ways in which this can be calculated but the honestly stated value is now – zero. No buyer, no value, only a liability.

Late last year a particularly galling instance of this problem was reported: that while middle management jobs are to be found in the South-East of England, those who live in mortgaged properties elsewhere in the country cannot avail themselves of these employment opportunities because they cannot sell their houses. If they are at risk of losing, or have lost, their jobs where they live, or simply wish to earn a larger salary as their families grow they are effectively trapped by their mortgage.

It is also reported that in many cities in the U.K. it is now cheaper to buy than to rent; this should really come as no surprise as this simply enlarges on the fact that it has been made cheaper to buy because of the credit available to do so. The more houses are bought up, the less properties are available to rent, and so rents climb. Renting of course answers the need for flexibility in terms of being able to move as jobs become available, or the family grows.

Yet owning your own home has long been trumpeted as a form of security, both for oneself and for one’s locality. Home ownership was widely encouraged through mortgage tax relief in the 1980s. Homes were seen as a bulwark against daft left-wing local authorities, the reasoning being that the greater the number of people who owned their homes, the more they had a direct interest in how their local authorities were run, in part because the rates they paid became visible to them as householders (rather than being an invisible component of the rent which the landlord charged them). This may have been a laudable aim – but mortgage tax relief was not the answer, as it became one of the chief engines of rapidly over-expanded credit, and therefore the heightened insecurity we are all now experiencing.

In the United States it is estimated that 50% of mortgage holders are “underwater”: “When factoring in second mortgage debt, seller closing costs, and sales commission, more than 50% of owners with a mortgage are unable to sell their homes and pay off their debts.” For more on this enormous tally of insecurity go to Irvine Housing Blog:

by Mark Rogers

We will now deal with one of the highest sold investment coins in the world, manufactured on Mexican territory. It is called the Ounce or Libertad.
Its origin dates back to 1981, and coming to enrich the gold investment market where hitherto only the Krugerrand had existed since 1960 with the Maple Leaf in 1979. At the beginning, this Mexican gold coin was called `Once’ but a few years later, its name was changed to that of `Libertad’.
It is a coin used as legal tender in Mexico (the silver coin is not considered legal tender, only that made out of gold), classified Type I and as opposed to other gold coins, this one does not have any face value. Thus, its value has to be measured in weight. If we want to calculate its face value, we can obtain it by converting its weight according to the current rate of exchange for gold’.

Origins

In the Seventies, while we were going through a serious oil crisis, it was necessary to develop new products which were going to make it possible to get out of the crisis. It was then that the Bank of Mexico, under the leadership of Gustavo Romero Kolbeck, entrusted the project to the Museum of Currency to manufacture a gold coin with the weight of one ounce, and who would be historically-speaking linked to the famous coin of `50 pesos Centenario’ (about which we wrote in another article), and which represented the centenary of Mexican Independence.

Features

Its weight is of 34.55gr, 900 thousandth of gold (of those struck between 1981 and 1991), with a diameter of 34.50 mm, 2.50mm in thickness, that is to say a total weight of 31.03gr. of gold with the remainder in pure silver.
At the time of the first run between the years 1981 and 1991, the coin was struck in 3 distinct weights, namely: 1 ounce, ½ ounce and ¼ of an ounce.
Between 1989 and 1991, the run of the Libertad was stopped then restarted in 1991 by supplementing the range with two new weights: 1/10th of an ounce and 1/20th of an ounce. Which meant that the coin was offered in 5 different weights.
In 1991, the purity of gold was also reviewed for this coin since it moved to 99.9 (0.999) – as well as the weight of an Ounce to 31.10gr.
These changes were from now on classified under Type II.

1 Ounce

1/2 Ounce

1/4 Ounce

1/10 Ounce

1/20 Ounce

Obverse and Reverse

Libertad' gold coin of 1981

The obverse of these coins bears the coat of arms of Mexico while the reverse `the Alada Victory’ – the same as on the coins of 50 pesos Centenario. In its right hand, it bears a laurel wreath which represents victory and in the left hand a broken chain which represents freedom – in the background, the Popocatepelt and Iztaccihualt volcanos, the first considered as a divinity during pre-Hispanic times and venerated by the Aztecs.

Overlooking the volcanoes and inserted next to the Alada Victory is written `1 Ounce of Pure Gold’ (on the left side), the year 1981 (on the right-side) and below: Mexico City (this was for the coin of the year 1981).

On the coin of 1994, appears `1 Ounce’ on the left side, `Pure Gold” on the right-side, and, on the edges of the lower part, we see the year, Mexico City and the law.

Libertad' gold coin of 1994

The Eagle takes up the middle part of the obverse, left profile outlined, with raised wings, in position of combat, inserted on a prickly pear cactus (national symbol of Mexico), holding a snake in its beak. Across the whole coin is written Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United States of Mexico).

In 1996, the appearance of this coin underwent a few changes. The Bank of Mexico decided to apply these changes in order to make this coin more attractive to the public. In this way, the obverse now bears in addition to the central eagle of the Mendocino Codex, the letters of 10 escudos all around as well as various types of eagles belonging to the succession of governments of the Mexican State, including the First Empire of Iturbide, Porfirio Díaz, the Aztec Eagle, etc…

On the reverse, the Alada Victoiry, today regarded in a very different way, highlights the column which supports it.
The layout of the letters also changes and these can now be seen on the top part, on the edge. The order of the inset appears thus – first: 1 ounce of Pure Gold, then the year of striking and the law.

Libertad' gold coin of 1996

Through its beauty, its purity, its quality and its fame over so many years, this coin is a coin of excellence, a reference for investment purposes at global level

“The physical gold market is actually being drained by euro gold buyers. People are converting their euros to gold and there is only a finite amount of physical gold available.” The “London Trader” made this assertion to King World News on January 17, 2012.

He also expressed concern over the amount of “paper gold” being created: “Yes, you will still see games being played and yes you can create paper gold out of thin air. But there comes a point where each time you do that the physical buyers are taking it and it has a lagging effect that will catch up, and eventually it gets reflected in the price.”

What is “paper gold”?

As might be inferred, it amounts to a trick.

“The IMF actually invented what became referred to as “Paper Gold” in 1971 – months before the U.S. severed the tie between the Dollar and Gold.

The IMF knew this step was coming, and so it invented the “SDR” (Special Drawing Right).

It was touted as a Reserve “Currency” that would replace both the U.S. Dollar and Gold in the basements of the world’s Central Banks.” source: The Privateer

This is astonishing: the yellow metal, something solid, something of genuine value was going to be replaced by – paper! It gets worse: in discussing StreetTracks Gold Shares (ticker symbol: GLD), the NYSE-listed exchange-traded fund sponsored by The World Gold Council, James Turk (Founder, Gold Money) explained on March 5, 2007 just how this paper gold “functions”:

“Investments in gold can be nearly anything gold related. For example, they can be gold certificates and other promises to pay gold. Importantly, they do not have to be physical gold. Therefore, all GLD has to do to satisfy its auditor is to show them the bank statement (i.e., a piece of paper) that says gold is stored in any Subcustodian appointed by the Custodian. The auditors do not have to go to the vault of the Subcustodian to prove that the gold actually exists, is not encumbered in any way, is securely placed in allocated storage, and accurately records the ownership of the fund.

“If GLD declared its asset to be “Gold”, the fund’s auditor would have to substantiate that the gold really exists, which GLD of course cannot do because of the inability to audit or even inspect gold stored in subcustodians and sub-subcustodians, which is a risk noted in the prospectus. This reality just re-confirms what I and others have concluded all along – GLD is just a paper scheme. It should not be considered as an alternative to physical gold ownership because it is not.” source: The Paper Game

This happens because what is being traded is called “Investments in Gold” rather than “Gold” as such. So in effect this is trading on a promise, and a loose one at that. One must wonder why the World Gold Council endorses what looks suspiciously like a fraud: read more of Mr Turk’s article to discover how trades in these “assets” can result in two people owning the same piece of gold!

Friedrich Hayek pointed out that merely putting the word “social” in front of a legitimate concept (e.g. “social justice”) automatically deprived that concept of meaning; the word “paper” clearly fulfils the same function in high finance….!

by Mark Rogers

The twentieth century saw in both extreme (Nazism/Communism) and mild (the European-style welfare state) forms the strange phenomenon of governments repeatedly taking against their own peoples – in the name of the people. No longer was an independent citizenry to be trusted to look after itself, educate its children, defend its homes and families, and generally stand on its own feet: the munificent state was to do all that, and the end result is bankruptcy. And evasion: the bankrupt states of Europe are not prepared to be honest about where state intervention leads, even though the lessons have been spelled out twice in the twentieth century in draconian form: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

As the eurocrisis deepens, measures antipathetic to savings are being mooted across the continent, involving amongst other things bans on the purchase of gold over certain amounts and bans on cash transactions. Any attempt by savers to convert increasingly worthless cash into solid investments like gold are to be thwarted, raising fears that a Franklin D. Roosevelt style confiscation of privately owned gold may be on the horizon.

Certainly measures proposed or drafted into law in the last quarter of 2011, in Italy, France and Austria, give cause for concern: in Austria there is a restriction on the purchase of more than 15,000 euros’ worth of gold; in France, all metal sales over 450 euros must be paid for by credit card or bank transfer; in Italy it is proposed to ban all cash transactions over (the figures vary) 300, 1,000 or 5,000 euros. The effect of these measures would be to render all significant purchases of precious metals recorded and therefore traceable to their owners.

It has been claimed that the various reasons for these measures are an attempt to rein in credit, to comply with U.S. requests for assistance in combating money laundering, or to help prevent the theft of ordinary metals: in the case of the latter there have been widespread spates in recent months of the theft of metals from anything ranging from telephone poles to industrial plant. While these may all be true goals (whether the proposed remedies will work is another matter – it always is), there is the significant problem that nowhere are the precious metals excluded from the measures. Hence the fears of confiscation.
Gold is a safe haven competitor against fiat money; this may not cause problems when economies are genuinely booming (i.e. the boom is not fuelled by easy expansions of credit). Yet when the fiat money system is collapsing and inflation is rampant the idea that people may protect their assets and their pensions by converting their cash into gold becomes a serious “problem” for the state: savings are seen as a threat.

We have seen how Keynes thought “wealth accumulation” a vice (Austerity for you – privileges for Politicians, December 16th, 2011). He further mockingly remarked: “The duty of ‘saving’ became nine-tenths of virtue and the growth of the cake the object of true religion.” Reckless governments are hardly likely to admire or condone prudence in their peoples; whatever the ultimate reason for this, such an attitude on the part of the authorities will only widen the gap between the political elite, unable to admit the error of its ways, and nervous private citizens wondering whether they have a future.

Finally, savings based in fiat currencies or related to debt-ridden financial institutions have the possibility to fall to zero in a crisis. Savings based in physical assets that you own help protect to preserve your accumulated wealth as they retain worth through a crisis.

The best physical asset to own during a crisis is gold which has proved its perennial purchasing power for over 6000 years – no fiat currency has ever existed that long to compare it and no other asset can compete with the value retention of gold. After all Gold can never be worth zero – it has intrinsic value, it is relatively rare on the planet and it has always been revered as precious because it is and has chemical and physical properties unmatched by any other metal.

By Mark Rogers

It is taken for granted that to qualify as a banker one must be greedy. The proposition is so silly that it is distressing to note how widespread is its acceptance. Of course there are greedy bankers, just as there are greedy butchers, bakers and train drivers; yet if banking was based on greed, it couldn’t exist. (This is another example of the misunderstanding of self-interest: see  Austerity for you – privileges for Politicians, December 16th, 2011).
The web of trust that is banking could never have come into existence if it was driven by the unqualified greed of all those who tried to participate. Banking arose out of the need of merchants to protect their monetary assets from theft en route as they travelled about Europe trading. They established networks of trust, whereby assets, often gold, could be placed in a secure depository, and redeemed through paper pledges at other trusted depositories, thus ensuring that the merchant carried as little as possible of his wealth about with him. This web of trust is the basic principle which still governs modern banking, and without it the system would collapse.
Isn’t the system already collapsing; doesn’t this prove that governments and people no longer trust the bankers because they are greedy? And the answer to the problem? Legislation: there must be more regulations to fetter the bankers, and to make them pay.
The trouble is they already do. Take bonuses: they are taxed as bonuses, and not as part of income, at a 40-50% rate. The greater a banker’s earnings, the more he already “contributes”. The level of income even without bonuses ensures that the wealthiest people in the country pay a huge percentage of the nation’s taxes, which are largely wasted: the tax-funded welfare state is notoriously inefficient, and a main driver of inflation.

The curious aspect of the demand for regulation is that it is MPs who are to be the overseers of this legislative campaign against greed. There is a strange dichotomy in the democratic mind: nobody much trusts politicians (though like bankers there are eminently worthy men and women to be found amongst them); nevertheless we entrust our health, our education, and all manner of things the state really has no business being involved in, to just these unloved politicians.
The question arises as to whether playing to the masses, which is what democratic politics now largely consists of, is likely to produce viable policies to prevent another crisis. In an editorial in the London Evening Standard, 19 December 2011, concerning the likelihood that parliamentary and public pressure will force the Chancellor to accept the Vickers recommendation on banking reform that banks must separate their investment and retail banking operations, it was pointed out that “[s]ome of the banks most exposed to the sub-prime crash – notably Northern Rock – did not conduct investment bank-style ‘proprietary trading’. Conversely, Lehman Brothers conducted only such activity, having no retail arm. Then again, Barclays Capital, Barclays’ investment banking arm, survived the crisis.”
In other words a key recommendation is based on prejudice and not the facts. So much for financial probity!

By Mark Rogers

Watch the Ads they didn’t want you to see here – read on

There are many theories surrounding the manipulation of the Gold Market and the Gold Spot price but few doubt that it takes place, orchestrated by some greater beings that seek to control the money supply.

In a recent cynical twist, gold has been effectively censored off the air of a host of major US TV Networks working in collusion with the Obama administration and the Fed.
An established gold investment company recently made two TV ads to be aired across the networks. The ads feature caricatures of Obama, Bernanke and Pat Boone who narrates the story. The latter works for the company Swiss America and has long been an advocate of the virtues of gold versus dollars.
The first of the ads takes a humorous jibe at Bernanke’s Wall Street reputation for being “helicopter Ben” , ready to dump money on a crisis.

“made-up” reasons for ban?

The reasons given for rejecting the ads vary from ;
• Comcast who explained that it “doesn’t meet our standards on public symbol. The Comcast Public Symbol Policy apparently specifies that the “use of the name or likeness of the President of the United States and/or the Presidential Seal for endorsing commercial purposes must be authorized by the White House.”
• Fox News said the “representation of public figures is something we try to avoid.”
• CNN/HLN told Swiss America the commercials were “not appropriate for the current political landscape.”

Swiss America CEO Craig Smith said “The networks’ reaction shocked me,” Smith said. “It’s a threat to First Amendment rights when a commercial message is rejected not because it is inaccurate or misleading, but because it makes what is perceived to be a political statement the networks want to avoid.”

Smith told WND he was concerned that the networks were protecting Obama and Bernanke.
“All we are saying in these two commercials is what dozens of responsible professional economists are saying every day,” Smith said;

“Gold investment as a responsible diversification strategy when governments printing of fiat currencies with abandon risk unleashing inflationary principles.”

Inflationary pressures are building globally and no-one has an answer to them rising and the consequent economic impact.
It is a common known fact that storing gold through a crisis and inflation is the BEST way to protect your wealth value and its purchasing power. This has been the case for 6000 years.

Gold can never be worth zero – it has intrinsic value.
Fiat currency can become worthless – its only value is that of a piece of paper

The Ban backfires

However, the censorship has backfired as Google TV accepted the ads which will eventually be shown throughout the networks via Google TV!
These humorous videos tell a very straight and simple story and the only possible reason for banning them is because of how close to the TRUTH they really are – and that hurts the Politocrats who believe they are all supreme and mighty to judge over us, control us and bankrupt us.

They are so desperate to cling on to power they will do anything – except we are not the fools they take us for – are we?

Here we continue our conversation from the previous article “When Debt’s called Credit”.

So, you mortgaged your salary and have been fortunate enough with your earnings to stay the course of a twenty-five year mortgage repayment plan. However, the asset which you now possess has cost you something like three times its original price. You are inclined to think that this, plus the profit on any potential sale, is what your house is now “worth”. However, your house will only be worth its inflated price (a price entirely created by debt) relative to a booming economy which puts a premium on home ownership. That is, it is worth this potential only if there is sufficient activity in the economy to fuel someone else’s borrowing to purchase your house to further inflate the value of that property.

One point to clarify, at the risk of stating the obvious (though there is little that is obvious about the modern mortgage): where does the borrowing come in – you have paid for your house out of your earnings on a monthly payment plan. The bank/building society has lent you the money by buying the house, and the repayment plan reflects the cost of, and length of time that, the money is out on loan in the form of bricks and mortar.

Thus house prices become grossly inflated. If the cycle continues, the house at the end of each twenty-five year period will keep tripling its nominal value – but this is unsustainable in the long run, and, despite Keynes’s dictum that “the long run is a misleading guide to current affairs”, that is exactly the view that should be taken: in the long run, the mortgage inflates the value of the asset, and it is entirely foreseeable that it should do so. In fact, that it does so renders the word “asset” in this context potentially meaningless. What happens if you cannot sell the house, and no-one wishes to rent it at a price that reflects anything like your “investment” in it?

Of course, there are many who buy their houses as homes and a long-run inheritance for their children. But the trouble with the modern mortgage is that it is sold largely on the basis that the asset is a tradable good. This is not a natural assumption for most people to make, especially families, and was not something that our forefathers generally assumed – unless they were builders, property developers and speculators.

There is a serious and somewhat sneaky consequence of the inflation of house prices: the government under New Labour changed an important measures of inflation, the Retail Price Index which included mortgage interest repayments, that is house prices, (and was used, amongst other things, to adjust selected benefits, including state pensions) by switching to the Consumer Price Index, which does not (interestingly, the latter also omits Council Tax, which is a concern for pensioners, who may well own their homes, but are not free of this major property cost). The measure of inflation used by those who make public policy does not include a major source of inflation.

Has the desire to own one’s own home become a mania of the Tulip or the Railway kind?

It is also worth remembering that inflation rates currently higher than interest rates, thus all monies stored/saved in this type of way are effectively losing value daily and their purchasing power rapidly eroded.

There are few “inflation-proof” savings or savings plans on offer but one to consider is the purchase (and ownership) of the only safe haven tangible asset – Gold in physical form. Historically gold has always protected wealth against periods of inflation and crisis. One important aspect is to ensure that you own your gold as this gives you complete control over its eventual resale which is the most important moment for your investment.
We strongly advise against the purchase of “paper” gold such as ETFs as these are so oversold that only 5% could be redeemed against physical stocks. These types of investments are extremely vulnerable in an economic crisis and the risk of significant losses is increased.

True value is an asset that maintains its worth at all times – during prosperity and austerity.

Choose yours wisely!

By Mark Rogers