WHO ARE THE MONETARISTS ? OR THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS

 

goats

 

I can usefully examine the analogy of the three men and their goat(s) a little further.

 

One man has twin goats (exactly the same as each other) to sell. The other two men have money; One of the buyers has fifty coins and the other has forty nine.

 

The seller sells the first goat for fifty coins which is the maximum available bid, but he also wants to sell the other goat. However, the second buyer only has forty nine coins, therefore the price will be forty nine coins -that is all it can be although it is exactly the same as the first goat and should by any logic therefore be the same price

What to do?

 

If buyers and sellers allow the price to remain at forty nine coins, then goats have fallen in value despite the fact that the two goats for sale were exactly the same in every way and should be the same price. But more importantly, at a new sale price of 49 coins, 50 coins now equals a goat plus one coin- the seller has made an extra two percent profit from his first sale, just by virtue of owning money!

 

So where did this unearned profit come from?

 

From the value of the first goat. It was worth 50 coins and now it is worth 49 coins- it has lost 2% in value. Every time a goat is sold at a cheaper price the value of ALL goats falls by that amount and that value is transferred from goats to money. And prices will always fall where money supply is restricted.

 

What would the consequences of this be on a larger scale?

 

Imagine a goat seller with ten animals to sell. He decides to do it through an auction. (The animals are all identical by the way- genetic clones!) So he calls ten local farmers together and calls for bids. It so happens that each of the farmers has one more coin than the next so the first has 50, the second 49 the third 48 and so on. Here is a table of the results….

 

eeeeeee

The first column A shows the goats if they were sold at a fixed price of 50 coins.

 

The second column B shows the actual available bids. The first goat went for 50 coins, the second goat went for the second highest available bid (49 coins) an so on..until the price reached 41 coins.

 

The third column C, shows the total individual loss each purchaser suffered at a final price of 41 coins. If you paid 50 coins, at the end of the auction your goat was worth 41 coins and you lost 9 coins in value. If you paid 49 coins, at the end of the auction your goat was with 41 coins and you lost 8 coins in value and so on.

 

If you look at column D you will see that the seller on the other hand made money on each deal. He received fifty coins for the first goat which only turned out to be worth 41 coins so he made an excess of 9 coins and so on…

 

If we look at the row marked ‘Total’ at the bottom of the table we can see the cumulative effects of all this.

 

In column A total we see that if the seller had sold all his goats at a fixed price of 50 coins he would have received a total of 500 coins.

 

In column B total we see that in fact he received a total of 455 coins, an apparent loss of 45 coins.

 

In column C we see that the total losses to the purchasers as a result of the falling price was 45 coins also.

 

But in column D total we see something very odd. We see that the seller actually made a total GAIN of 45 coins as a result of the falling price. When he has sold all his goats he has enough money to buy 11 goats at the latest price and still has 4 coins over!!

 

In fact there has been a transfer of 45 coins in value from the buyers of goats to the seller of goats as a result of the 10 transactions that have taken place. The seller has made approx 11% profit as a result of just ten transactions.

 

Every time a commodity is sold at a progressively cheaper price the value of ALL similar commodities falls by that amount and that value is transferred from commodities to money. And prices will always fall where money supply is restricted.

 

Imagine this on a scale of millions of sellers and purchasers….

 

This is what Monetarism is by definition, a restriction on the supply of money….

 

It seems incredible doesn’t it? Perhaps you are thinking I must be wrong, there would be evidence if this were actually happening on a massive scale.

 

Look at the housing market. All over America there are cash buyers of houses. Cash buyers are propping up the housing market. Just like the goat seller, these buyers have ‘earned’ enough spare cash to buy another house! Just like the goat seller they are cashing in on the unearned increase in value of their cash. Unearned increases in value that are a direct consequence of the monetarist religion of restricting the supply of money.

 

In fact we are fast approaching an asset value IMPLOSION – chaotic deflation on an unprecedented scale.

 

Wages have again recently fallen in Britain and price inflation has fallen as well. It is important that you grasp the significance of this; the prices of commodities are starting to chase wages downwards. This is Black Hole deflation just as destructive as runaway inflation.

 

Is there any way to avoid this Black Hole? Lets go back to our auction. What would happen if we created another 45 coins and distributed them so that every buyer could afford a goat at 50 coins? The buyer would get his asking price of 50 coins per goat. And they are all exactly the same so this must be right. Every buyer would get a goat.

 

But wouldn’t creating this money result in inflation? The money supply would expand by:

 

45/500 or 9%

 

This would equate to a nominal drop in value of the money available to approx 92% of its previous value. Not a real drop in value mind you; you still get your perfectly healthy goat!

But just for the sake of it lets work through the effects.

 

reedtable

 

This table shows a comparison of the amount of money owned before and after the ‘loss’ due to the creation of 45 extra coins. Every owner experiences some loss, but the loss is less, the less you originally owned.

 

bluetable

This table shows the ‘loss’ after it has been adjusted to show the effect of the new 45 coins being distributed among the ten farmers. In all but the case of the richest farmer the ‘loss’ is mitigated by the distribution of the coins. For a majority of the farmers there is a net gain.

greentable

This table shows the actual loss that results from coin creation in comparison to the loss that occurs from deflation and falling prices. In every case the loss from coin creation is less than would occur from deflation. Even the farmer who gains the least from coin creation cuts his losses in half.

 

So everyone is a winner then (or at least not a loser) well, sort of.. the real revelation is in the fortunes of the original seller of goats.

In the deflationary scenario he ended up able to afford another goat with four coins to spare- effectively an 11 % increase. That is all gone under the coin creation scenario. Now he has 500 coins, just as he should have. If he wants to buy a goat the price is 50 coins, same as it is for everyone else. Just as it should be.

Every time a commodity is sold at a progressively cheaper price the value of ALL similar commodities falls by that amount and that value is transferred from commodities to money. And prices will always fall where money supply is restricted.

 Imagine this on a scale of millions of sellers and purchasers….

 

This is what Monetarism is by definition, a restriction on the supply of money….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Crackernomics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

images

 

If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”

Albert Einstein

 

There is a famous quote that half of the money spent on advertising is well spent and the other half is wasted. The problem is that nobody knows which half is which.  The same thing can be said of Karl Marx.Half of what he wrote was true- the trick has been to figure out which half.

One of the really good, really perceptive ideas that Karl Marx crystallised was that in the modern world, material objects are the expression of social reality. In other words instead of a formally stated hierarchy in the form of law and custom we have an implicit hierarchy embedded in the material form of the society we see around us.

This is a truly profound insight.

The flip side of this insight is the realisation that technology is culturally specific. Since the concrete objects we see around us are the realisation of social reality they must express the society and the culture that gives birth to that social reality.Technology and culture are much more closely linked than you might be led to believe. Cultural artefacts can be more clearly understood as a form of technology.

Which brings us to money (surprise, surprise!)

One of the most difficult problems in explaining Crackernomics and how money is developing is to get people to understand that money is a dynamic, fluid technology. Not a static fixed expression of value.

This technology can be uncovered and examined in detail.

In The Great Money Train Hijack I suggested that you can understand money as a train ticket, that is to say a permission to ride on the rail system within the parameters of the contract embodied in the ticket. A money note is a permission to participate in the economy within the terms of a contract. The parameters of the contract determine the value of the ticket/currency note at any given time.

At its simplest level this means that a ticket on a notoriously inefficient rail system prone to breakdown and likely to deliver you to your destination late, is worth less than a ticket on an efficient system that is comfortable and punctual. This is a good working definition of inflation. The later a train will be, the less a ticket to ride on that train is worth… Inflation is an indication of the efficiency of the money train network.

I can focus in on this interactive, dynamic aspect of money more accurately by using the analogy of money (a coin), as a watch. Modern currency and modern watches were invented and popularised at around the same time and this is not a co-incidence; they are both fundamental parts of the social mechanism that allow the functioning of modern societies.

As any curious boy will tell you, a watch can be prised open and its workings exposed for examination. I am presently working on a new short film entitled ‘The Structure of Money’ which will do just that. But for the moment let us just focus on the surface, the watch face as it were.

The first thing you notice about a watch face is that it is constantly changing, providing information about a common abstract known as time. A coin performs exactly the same technological function. It provides and stores changing information about a common abstract known as value.

There is no more absolute value than there is an absolute time. They are both social constructs, that gain their social power exactly to the extent that they are held in common by the societies that adhere to them. It is only 4 o’clock because we agree it is. A 1 euro coin only has a specific value because we agree it does.

A watch changes its description of the time constantly. That is why it is useful. But the important thing to understand is that although the time constantly changes on the watch your relationship to the watch itself does not change. You do not disagree with your watch just because it shows that you are late for an appointment! You modify your behaviour accordingly. You take a taxi instead of the bus. If you simply moved the hands on your watch twenty minutes into the past would it mean that you were no longer late? Of course not. You would still be late and you would also be a fool.

The same is true of money. The value of a pound coin at any one time is a reflection of its commonly held value. And like the time, that value is constantly changing. It is always ‘getting’ later and money is always ‘losing’ value.

This reveals clearly the stupidity of those who argue for ‘sound money’ which is supposed to be money that never changes in value. This is the same as arguing that you should set your watch to twelve o clock and never wind it up so that you can always know what time it is without having to look!

The next important insight from this analogy is to understand that value is not embodied in a coin anymore than time is embodied in a watch. Time is not divided up between each individual time piece and value is not divided up between each and every note and coin. If you gathered every watch together and put them in a pile, would you have gathered all the time there was in one place? Nonsense.

And if you make a thousand more watches, is time diluted in some way? Of course not. But the more watches there are, the more people have access to information about the commonly held idea of time. More people can interact in a more complex way

Who could be against the idea of the maximum number of people having access to time? Who could be against the maximum number of people having the most efficient information possible about the common social idea of time?

Here is a simple example of the benefits of the maximum possible knowledge of value

e.g. 1

There are three people on a desert island, one of whom has a goat.

One of the other two people finds a coin on the beach and successfully buys the goat from its owner. The ‘value’ of the goat is one coin. It can’t be anything else.

e.g.2

Same three people, same one has a goat. But now both of the other two find a coin on the beach. What is the value of the goat? The value cannot be determined by price since there is only one price; (one coin) but two examples of it (two buyers). If the goat is sold it must be on some other criteria than the most money offered.

e.g.3

Now say that the one buyer finds 50 coins on the beach while his competitor finds 49 coins. When the goat is sold its value (the differential between available money) is described down to 2%. And if it were 500 coins vs. 490 coins the value of the goat is described down to 0.2% and so on.

In other words, the more money there is in circulation, the more accurate the value placed on any given commodity will be. In exactly the same way that the more watches there are in circulation the more punctual a society will be.

Who could be against that? Let us take our example a stage further.

e.g.4

Suppose the first man has two goats to sell. One goat has three legs. As in the beginning, there is only one coin in circulation. The price of a goat with three legs and the price of a goat with four legs is the same. There is no ‘price mechanism’ since no price variation is possible.

e.g.5

Say both purchasers have one coin each. Still no price mechanism.

e.g.6

Only when there are enough coins in circulation for there to be a twenty five percent differential in price (four legs vs. three legs), would there be anything like enough money to take account of the real value of the goats.

e.g.7

And what if the three legged goat miraculously grew another leg to make up for his perceived deficiency? The two goats are now more or less the same. Does that mean that now there is less meaningful difference (information) that we can safely diminish the money supply?

Hardly.

The information that a particular goat can grow another leg to replace one that is lost is surely likely to form a vital part of any further negotiations on price !. There is now very much more information than there was before so there needs to be very much more money to express that historical information.

Knowledge and information about the economy and its history are always expanding. Therefore the money supply will always have to correspondingly expand to take account of this fact. As knowledge and information about human history have expanded so the methods to record them have expanded.

So I ask the question again:

Given that money is an expression of information and that the availability of money is an expression of the availability of information who could be against having the greatest possible dispersal of money?

Who wants to restrict the flow and the amount of money and why?

Who are the Monetarists?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Crackernomics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or Painting Yourself Into A Corner or There Was An Old Lady…or The United States Of Everywhere

henry

http://online.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075?tesla=y

Henry Kissinger produced an interesting and revealing opinion piece in the Wall Street journal on the ‘western system’ in crisis. Henry points to developments in Libya and Afghanistan and with relations with Russia and China as evidence things are not going well. He didn’t mention Egypt which is an interesting omission for reasons which will become clear.

Although he is now seen as irrelevant among an increasingly large section of the commentariat it will always be informative to consider what kind of crisis Kissinger thinks the West is in. After all whatever else, Kissinger is a prime architect of the world order such as it is.

Kissinger thinks that:

‘The concept of order  that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis’

Which leads me to ask: What is this ‘concept of order’ Kissinger is referring to and what is the ‘modern era’?

Well one thing Henry is sure about is that the ‘concept of order’ (whatever it is and however it has changed) has been a ‘western’ concept for as long as anyone can remember. By this I think we can be fairly sure he means from the C16th and the beginning of Germanic land democracy onwards. The ‘modern era’ he tells us, is the period after the second Germanic war when the USA inherited Europe’s mantle as centre of the world.

Post 1945 America followed a two prong strategy often known as ‘realpolitik’ ; the proclamation of  ‘freedom and democracy’ politically and ‘free market trading’ economically. The plan was to avoid nation state competition and confrontation within the American sphere of influence (through building up an interdependent trading system) and to avoid direct military confrontation with Cold War adversaries.

Kissinger points out that this twin political and economic track resulted in Globalisation and that most importantly, Globalisation was the inevitable outcome of this process begun in 1945.This is a key element that WHITEISM shares with Kissinger and is in sharp contrast to both modern left and right who make no claim of an explicit link between Anglo Saxon post war strategy and the economics of financialisation.

‘There was an old lady who swallowed a fly’

As a consequence of this post war economic and political strategy:

‘The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.’

So that worked out pretty well oh but wait, hang on a minute. It turns out that:

‘…vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced (my emphasis) in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.’

So everybody was on board with the American post war project and thought America was the bees knees except that when it comes down to it they didn’t. The problem is that the nations of the world do not have a:

‘shared concept of legitimacy’

which means of course, that they don’t share Kissingers conception of legitimacy. Which means the Americanisation of the world has not gone anywhere near as far as some people would like it to and as a consequence:

‘The international order (thus) faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations’.

In other words those who lose out under globalisation tend to respond in nationalistic terms:

‘The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns (sometimes called Catholicism my comment), as has been the case with the European Union’s southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

And this is the essence of the problem.

If the United States of Everywhere really could come into existence through globalisation then every problem that sprung up around the world would be by definition an internal problem. America/Saxon Axis/NATO would be literally taking the worlds problems on its shoulders. Every failure would be seen a failure of the American dream. And this is precisely the problem the United States of Everywhere faces.

The USE is increasingly forced to try to develop external solutions to what have become internal problems

‘She swallowed a spider to catch the fly..’

Lets go back to Egypt. The most advanced section of society, the urban population explicitly renounced electoral democracy and embraced a military dictatorship to get rid of the Muslim brotherhood. There is no way around this. And since Egypt is part of the USE, the USE has to admit that part of its new nature is to embrace military dictatorship

‘For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions’ histories, cultures and views of their security.’

‘The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another.’

‘These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.’

Notice he says:

‘These goals are not necessarily self reconciling’

or put another way:

‘she swallowed a bird to catch the spider that wiggled and wiggled and wiggled inside her’

And most potentially dangerous of all ; the Anglo Saxon people, the ‘middle class’ of America, the Herrenvolk, have now become just one more problematic minority, responding in a ‘nationalistic’ way to the problems of Globalisation. So for the USA/Saxon Axis elite there seems to be no way to go back home to the farm. There is only an increasingly arduous and bizarre menu of foreign delights to look forward to; trying to keep one step ahead of the consequences of the last meal they had.

‘She swallowed a cat, imagine that..’

And of course:

‘I don’t know why she swallowed a fly’

‘perhaps she’ll die… ‘

‘History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy’.

Posted in The Democracy Brand, WHITEISM | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethnic Bomb:Reap the Whirlwind

iStock_000001960007gasmaskSmall-2-249x300deb2f4608e5f8e19509892c485e1826d

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/19/ferguson-riots-delight-iran-china-and-egypt-as-amnesty-dispatch-team-to-us-soil_n_5691186.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

It has long been a staple of Saxon Axis foreign policy to manipulate ethnic tensions within target states to promote political change. This tactic has been intensively used in the past decade. but the way it has been used recently is qualitively different from the Cold War realpolitik method applied in the decades after the end of the 2nd Germanic war..

The reason for this is that the ‘ethnic bomb’ has been hi jacked by Neo Cons.

That’s right; it was only a matter of time before a dangerous weapon like this fell into the hands of extremists.

 

The ability to foster explosive racial/ethnic/identity conflict is a powerful weapon- look up ‘USA soft power projection’ on Google if you doubt it. We can call this power the ‘Ethnic Bomb’. And we can say that the Ethnic Bomb is the post-modern equivalent of the Atomic Bomb.

 

The ethnic bomb uses ethnic division and grievances (funded by NGOs under the guise of human rights and humanitarian aid), to create a relatively small but dedicated group that will attack the general order of a nation, and create a ‘runaway reaction’ of disorder. Just like ‘liberated’ neutrons are ‘freed’ by an exploding plutonium plug to smash into uranium 236 atoms in a chain reaction!

 

Neo Cons have recently been using the hijacked ethnic bomb to devastating effect in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the entire ‘Arab spring’, Ukraine and Russia, western China, Latin America and on and on.

 

After the atomic bomb was developed, America effectively held the whip hand over the entire world until the Soviet Union developed the ability to manufacture a counterpart. After that, a period of relative stability appeared with neither side ultimately willing to risk the use of a weapon that could escalate out of control.

 

Now worldwide stability is again threatened because no one else apart from the Neo Cons has the ethnic bomb. Because of this Neo cons believe that they are free to use the E Bomb without fear of consequences; or so it seemed. But the process is getting out of hand in Syria/Iraq where a Sunni religious/military crusade threatens to topple the wrong apple cart. In arming and organising the Islamic State, Neo Cons were so psychotically desperate to get Assad and Iran they pushed reasonable safety considerations aside. And now it is blowing up in our collective faces.

So far so bad, but now we have: Ferguson- the Fukushima of the ethnic bomb.

 

Just like atomic weapons manufacture and storage, using and maintaining the E bomb requires a comprehensive safety mechanism. That mechanism was a framework of liberal, progressive ‘universal rights ‘ (which actually means subsuming Anglo Saxon national, economic and political identity at home within a broader framework of rights for others).

 

The Great Society in the 1960’s provided the safety framework required. The Great Society gave the Saxon Axis the moral freedom required to propgandise about conflicts abroad under the guise of human rights and democracy etc.

 

Unfortunately for America the Great Society safety regime has collapsed because surprise, surprise Neo Con extremists are not prepared to stump up time and money for safety measures. Like all crazy people they just want to blow stuff up.

 

Welfare and health care as well as prisons, military and law are all being privatised under the neo con religion. There is no basis to build a civil society among the marginalised in American society. Just like Fukushima was an accident waiting for TEPCO in Japan. Ferguson was an accident waiting for the New World order.

 

And now for the fallout…

 

‘US authorities have been told to show restraint in dealing with the racially charged demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri – by the Egyptian government. In a bizarre turnaround, authorities in Cairo used language similar to that offered by Washington when Egypt was facing its own protests from Islamists ‘

 

and:

 

‘Criticism of the US over Ferguson has similarly flowed from other repressive regimes, including China, with a comment piece published by the state-run Xinhua news service on Monday excoriating the US for the “racial divide” that “still remains a deeply-rooted chronic disease that keeps tearing US society apart, just as manifested by the latest racial riot in Missouri”.

 

and:

 

If you have ever wondered what expression a man sitting next to a barrel of nuclear waste would have on his face:

 

 

 

 

Posted in WHITEISM | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Sin of Wages: Shock! Horror! (not..) Paymageddon!

images

index

 

In the latest astounding Shock! Horror! Revelation (see’ Things We Know..’ below)- to hit the economy, discretionary spending and the consumer society took another big hit today when we found out that wages had actually started absolutely falling in Britain.

 

No longer are wages simply failing to keep up with price inflation- we now have outright deflation in wages.

As a consequence the media is quick to inform the public that interest rate rises are unlikely for the rest of the year. Of course this is no surprise to anyone who has been following the restructuring of the economy along MONETARIST lines. Pressure on wages has been caused by:

 

The Rise Of Self Unemployment

 

Self unemployment is like self employment except you don’t have anything meaningful to do. Or any money…This is the privatisation of unemployment just like the privatisation of jails, health care, the military and of course, the issuance of money. Self unemployment is the latest wrinkle in the development of the Secret Economy, a key objective of Monetarism and the Democratisation of Money.

 

Behind the Secret Economy is the realisation that it is no longer possible politically to defend the disparity of wealth and income that is exploding in the developed economies. So the new priority is to conceal it. This has been achieved by an massive expansion of self unemployment in Britain and America – a hidden army of people working in insecure, low paid jobs with no benefits, no security and most importantly of all, no scrutiny.

 

The Participation Economy

 

The Secret Economy is the flipside of the Participation Economy.

In the Participation Economy you can no longer choose whether to take part in specific economic activity or not. Unemployment benefit creates an economic backstop that allows people some leeway to decide whether they want to participate in the labour market at a given wage rate and conditions of employment. Destruction of unemployment benefit means that the majority of people have to take part in the wage economy at any rate. In other words there is no lower boundary below which wages cannot fall. It is this that explains the ‘shock’ fall in wages.

 

This failure of the lower boundary in wages is felt at the discretionary end of the family budget. It is still possible for a reasonable proportion of the population to pay for necessities, but for a larger and larger cohort of the working population there is less money for discretionary purchases. This is the Death of the Consumer Society I have referred to before.

 

This process is compounded by low interest rates. Low interest rates pressure the national currency to drop in value, making imports that much more expensive. Since people have already cut back on ‘luxury’ discretionary items, the fall in currency value is felt in increasing prices for the raw materials the economy imports.

 

So we have:

 

Imported commodities falling in price- they have to fall in price because people can no longer afford them. If they don’t fall in price they are simply no longer imported. (This is supply chain failure such as seen in Greece with pharmaceuticals. I predicted this five years ago)

This is deflationary

 

Wages falling because more and more people are being dragged into the Participation Economy

This is deflationary.

 

Credit going down in price because of low central bank rates.

This is deflationary

 

Imported raw materials going up in price because the national currencies are falling in value

This is inflationary.

 

Now here is the $64 000 dollar question:

 

Why doesn’t this inflation and deflation net out?

 

In other words why don’t we have a consensus on whether we are experiencing inflation or deflation?

 

In theory we should simply be able to subtract the amount of deflation from the amount of inflation to arrive at a net figure. If there is more deflation than inflation we should have net deflation and if more inflation than deflation we should have net inflation. Economists should be at least be able to agree on this figure even if they can’t agree what to do about it.

 

Instead we have a situation where central bank advisory committees and individual pundits argue over the direction the economy is heading in. Why can’t they come to a common view?

 

Because we have an oil and water economy. Society is separating out into multiple constituent groups that experience inflation and deflation completely separately. You already know this. The official inflation figures clearly bear no relation to inflation as you experience it in the day to day. The most popular explanation for this is that the figures are ‘rigged’ in order to hide the political truth of what is happening to everyone outside the elite.

 

But this is like accusing a blind man of pretending not to be able to see.

 

The blindness is genuine.

 

I have previously explained how introducing privately issued Democratised Money destroys the information feedback loop that allows monetary authorities to regulate the economy. Simply put, once you allow more than one institution the power to issue money, you can NEVER AGAIN know how money is actually circulating (the Shadow Economy). You can never again accurately calculate inflation- even if you want to.

 

We are oil and water because we are using at least two different currencies.

Some of us have access to derivatives – democratised money

Some of us only have access to state money.

So we experience inflation and deflation according to the currencies we hold and to the extent we hold those currencies.

 

But don’t make the mistake of thinking that the economy is being run solely for the benefit of democratised money. The economy is being run in order to achieve a balance between democratised money and state money. At least for the moment.

 

The Secret Economy- Eyes Wide Shut

 

So in the new Secret Economy whenever some new piece of ‘ surprise’ bad news appears, the official expression of the establishment will be one of …well ‘Shock and Awe’ I suppose. And when they are not busy looking surprised it will be..

 

Eyes Wide Shut.

Ps

UK inflation fall to 1.6% lessens likelihood of interest rate rise

CPI fall surprises forecasters who expected smaller dip as clothes discounting and drops in alcohol prices and bank charges fuel decrease

 

 

 

 

Posted in Crackernomics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Face Of It or Because Music Is A Priesthood.. or ‘Afore Ye Go’ or Its Always later Than You Think

Diane-Taylor_2043194cSinead O'Connor

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jul/27/sinead-o-connor-interview-i-deserve-to-be-a-priest

http://tradewithdave.com/?p=21494

 

I DESERVE TO BE A PRIEST-Because Music Is A Priesthood.. says Sinead O Connor

The personal odyssey of Sinead O’Connor has proved to be a object of fascination for journalists, fans and not least of all for Sinead herself. The Sinead shtick is that she is an original and possibly unique cultural and religious voice. Interviewers and fans alike are invited to gaze and wonder: Why does this tortured Catholic chanteuse crop her hair? And why does she have that manic stare? And why is she covered in tattoos? And why does she hate the Pope so much?

The answer of course, is because she is a Protestant.

No joke. Sinead claims that she deserves to be a priest, indeed has already been ordained as a priest:

“Oh, because I’m a priest?” – O’Connor was ordained in 1999 by the breakaway Latin Tridentine church (like the chewing gum?!?) – “Yeah, well being a priest was just civil disobedience. Although I deserve to be a priest, frankly, better than any of them, in terms of the actual faith and respect [I have] for the holy spirit. That doesn’t mean I’m a good person, I’m not. But you really don’t have to be a good person, in fact you can be a complete fucking cunt – it’s about the level of your faith and whether you actually respect the presence of that holy spirit.”

Aside from the Pope hatred guff, this claim of right to be ordained outside of the authority of the Vatican is Protestantism by definition. On the face of it it’s obvious. Yet neither Sinead or the journalist wants to say it. Why would that be?

Because of moral value

If Sinead is a Protestant then this interview is essentially just another cracker telling you the Pope is the anti-Christ. And crackers telling you the Pope is the anti-Christ are ten a penny on You Tube, as you know. But a Catholic, especially a tortured Catholic telling you the Pope is the anti-Christ-that’s the genuine article, straight from the horses mouth. That carries authority.

The defection critique is the more powerful the more committed the accuser is supposed to have been before his or her change of heart. The Colonel defecting from Assad’s government in Syria will tell you the regime has betrayed the Arab people. (‘Aha! Even his own officers admit he is evil!’ etc etc.) The defector from North Korea will tell you that the leadership has betrayed the ideals of Communism and so on. And of course handlers will make sure that their defectors cause as much trouble as possible from inside the tent, before they flee.

As I have said before, Dave Harrison at Trade With Dave has a nose for the action. A recent post deals with the emerging Bitcoin defection critique, albeit from an angle.

In ‘You lie… Ahead’ Dave argues that as far as new democratised money functions go, you won’t have to decide which you want; it’s possible for society to have it’s cake and eat it. I argue you that as far as new money functions go, you won’t have to decide because the decision has already been made-about forty years ago.

You Lie…’ features clip of a young woman by the name of Jinyoung Lee Englund who got a message from God telling her to go to Africa. Miss Lee neglects to mention whether God indicated she should go on to become director of marketing and communications for the Bitcoin Foundation. But she nevertheless ends up encouraging everybody in Africa to get into Bitcoin on the basis that they have a right to:

‘Global inclusion’

Global Inclusion? sounds like an anti-Christ propaganda gimmick in a low budget Apocalypse movie :

‘…. that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.’…

In contradistinction to Protestantism, Catholicism generally discourages personal religious revelation of the above kind, precisely because you the voice you hear in your head may not necessarily be who it says it is. The obvious danger is that the internal voice tells you that ‘All young women who wear lipstick must die!’ may very well not be The Voice Of God.

More subtly, you may hear a voice telling you that it is Gods Will that you go ahead and do just exactly what you have already decided to do. In truth the decision was already made; pretending you had not already made your mind up is simply a way of adding moral value to your decision. Just like Sinead.

Let us charitably say that Ms Englund may be a little self deluded. Vinay Gupta (also featured in the Trade With Dave post) is altogether more rooted in reality. He is pointing out that the Bitcoin project is failing politically because it cannot address developmental contradictions between Anarcho Capitalism and Libertarian Capitalism, in particular in relation to property rights in Bitcoin.

Gupta suggests one reason for this is the Bitcoin community is somewhat politically undeveloped and not equipped to approach a solution. He also rather slyly implies that the only possible solution available may very well be something ‘no one is willing to name’ yet. By which he means that when push comes to shove all the tortured anarcho capitalistic ideals will go out the window and in Bitcoin we will be face to face with the same forces that gave us Derivatives and the Credit Crunch.

By then of course, the ex ‘Anarcho Capitalists’ will have gained a fortune but lost their moral value. It is not going to be possible to offer a credible critique of financialised capitalism when you are openly in business with the very bankers you were supposed to be getting rid of. So they are in no hurry to leave the tent. At least for the moment.

It’s Always Later Than You Think

In ‘The Matrix’, our hero is told by the Oracle that he is not here to make a decision- he has already made the decision. He is here to know why he made the decision. I cannot think of a more succinct way of describing what Crackernomics is all about. Democratised Money including Bitcoin, is already here. It began with Monetarism in the 70’s. Crackernomics is here to tell you why it happened.

 

Posted in Crackernomics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Madness In His Method Or Known Unknowns and Unknown Knowns and Unknown Unknowns and… etc… etc..or “The old normal not the new normal not likely to be the new normal,” he said. The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/interest-rates/10929882/Mark-Carney-new-normal-will-see-rates-go-to-2.5pc-and-stay-there.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/29/uk-interest-rates-bank-of-england-charlie-bean

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10952024/FCA-Dozens-of-banks-spring-to-life-after-red-tape-cut.html

 

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/07/07/pers-j07.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/08/uk-manufacturing-surprise-drop-jolts-economic-recovery

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10960563/Portugal-banking-crisis-sends-tremors-through-Europe.html

 

‘Reports that say there’s — that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know’.

 

Donald Rumsfeld famously fashioned his wonderfully surrealist philosophy of American intelligence in 2002. In specifics he was referring to weapons of mass destruction. Fundamental to his (cough) reasoning was that the fact of Iraqi WMD, which was a given that could not be contradicted.

 

Planning was simply a matter of organising events so that they never could contradict this given, even when it was obvious that there was no prospect of weapons ever being found. After a decade of resulting chaos, slaughter and suffering in Iraq it can be said that in contradistinction to the well known aphorism: There is madness in his method.

 

Methodical madness is an appropriate way to sum up what is going on in Crackernomics.

 

The Known Knowns-That Is What We Know We Know.

 

We know that Bank of England base rate is going to be two and a half percent. How do we know this ?- because George Carney says it is 1

 

Carney tells us we should know that

 

“The old normal is not the new normal. It is not likely to be the new normal,”

 

The “vulnerable position” of family finances means any increases will be “more limited and more gradual than in the past”.

 

‘Things have changed. Households have a lot of debt. The Government is consolidating its financial position. Europe is weak. The pound is strong.

 

Apart from a disconcerting similarity to the ‘war is peace ‘ catechism in 1984 this is unremarkable. But then Carney says this:

 

‘The financial system has been fundamentally changed – it has to carry a lot more capital,‘ it has to carry a lot more liquidity insurance and it will pass on those costs to borrowers’

Keep that last bit in mind. It simply doesn’t make sense-does it? Surely permanently increased costs for the banks should mean rates higher than the previous long term average-not lower? What could be the explanation for this apparent contradiction?

We’ll come back to this.

 

Another thing we know that we know is that less is never more when it comes to banks and banking:

 

In the Telegraph:

In an attempt to make the banking market more competitive, the Government has given the FCA and PRA new powers after a perceived failure of their predecessor, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), to encourage new entrants’.

‘Whereas just five new banks were given the green light in the year to April – roughly the average over the previous seven years – 25 applicants met the regulators to discuss entering the banking market, the FCA and PRA said in a review of barriers to entry for banks’.3

 So we need more institutions that can potentially fail to choose from. Which is a bit like keeping a house fire going until the firefighters can arrive to put it out…

After the ‘known knowns’ there are the:

 

Known Unknowns Or Things We Know We Don’t Know

 

We don’t know why the USA economy shrunk in the first quarter- could be something to do with the weather( Isn’t this usually an English excuse?)

 

We don’t know why British manufacturing showed a surprise drop in output5

 

The Bank of International Settlements is telling everybody that it knows that the Wall Street party must end but it doesn’t know what is going to happen4

 

We also know that banking in Europe is in a perilous condition6 There is a constant low level rumble of banking failure stories, particularly on the periphery of Europe. It seems inevitable that one of them is going to get out of hand.

Which brings us to:

The Unknown Known

 

‘Psychoanalytic philosopher Slavoj Žižek extrapolates from (these) three categories a fourth, the unknown known, that which we intentionally refuse to acknowledge that we know’….

‘Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the “unknown knowns” – the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

What links all the economic stories I have referred to is the element of ‘surprise’- a ‘surprise’ fall in output, a ‘surprise’ run on the bank. Everything seems to be a surprise. Like the ‘surprise’ lack of WMD and the ‘surprise’ decent of Iraq into chaos. The ‘surprise’ heart attack on the way to your daily visit to Dunkin Donuts. Why is there no general attempt to link cause and effect in the mainstream media?

 

There seems to be an unwritten agreement in the mainstream media to express general bafflement when disconcerting stories come up. They simply don’t make sense do they? Not if interest rates are going to be 2 ½ %. And interest rates ARE going to be 2 ½ %. So these stories probably don’t mean anything…

 

Which brings us finally to

 Unknown Unknowns or more accurately The Great Unknown

 

The size and nature of the shadow economy is the greatest unknown of all. And this is deliberate. The Democratisation of Money is the privatisation of information, (Secret Economy). This seems hardly believable, but it is happening. The democratisation of money is linked directly to the figure of two and a half percent itself.

 

I can usefully return to the metaphor of a bookie. When you bet on a horse race you are not actually betting on which horse will come first. You are actually betting on whether the bookie will pay out or not. That is what a bet is- a number of people put money in a specific pot and generally a smaller number of people take money back out, triggered by a specific event. The ‘odds’ that you are given reflect this risk of being paid out. The smaller the book for any given race, the smaller the odds (potential payout) that can offered by the bookie. If only two people bet on a race and the total amount of their bets is $14, the bookie can’t offer odds of 100/1 on one or another horse. He would simply go bankrupt in short order.

 

The same is true of money. The central bank interest rate is the odds on money being exchangeable for value at any given time. The odds are directly related to the total size of the book- the economy.

The two and half percent interest rate and increased capital (state money) requirements go hand in hand. They are a reflection of the fact that the state money book has shrunk. That a significant proportion of the economy is now in the hands of derivatives.

 

Just like nation states, financial institutions that create and trade in privately issued money- democratised money, are required to hold foreign currency as a hedge. In other words forced to hold an increased amount of dollars or pounds to offset the risk of holding derivatives. This increased requirement to hold state money currency is called macro prudential policy.

 

It is not banks and financial institutions that are being squeezed by the new rules. It is the state money component of their assets that is being squeezed. State money is being squeezed by MONETARIST politicians. The state money book is smaller so the odds (interest rate) it can offer is smaller. What state money there is, will now permanently be used in part as a guarantee for privately issued money derivatives. That is how interest rates can be lower despite bank costs being higher.

So what proportion of the economy is in the hands of derivatives?

The long term average for interest rates in the post war period was around 5%. Previously I have suggested in line with a number of other commentators that the new normal for interest rates would be somewhere around 3-3 ½ %. Now Carney says 2 ½ %.

Which means the proportion of the economy which will be allocated to privately issued money- derivatives, is going to be bigger than I thought. Given the difference between 5% and 2 ½% it indicates that HALF the economy will be allocated to democratised money.

Which is a lot of democratised money.

Know what I mean?

PS

Waitrose sales in shock fall as 2013 summer hard to beat

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/11/waitrose-sales-fall-2013-hot-weather

Posted in Crackernomics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment