Dubloons for the Dons

Today's German press is highly critical of the fudge by which the eurozone is to bail out the Spanish banking system with a fund of up to 100 billion euros, by means to be clarified at an indeterminate cost to the currency union in general and to Germany in particular. In some editorials the term 'blackmail' is used frankly; in others the same analysis is more delicately expressed. While Greece and Ireland were implicitly deemed to be 'small enough to fail' Spain [like Goldman or Morgan] has been treated as 'too big to allow it to fail'. The eurozone could survive without Greece and Cyprus; provided there was no domino effect on Spain or Italy: but the impression over the past week became a conviction that if Spain was allowed to collapse financially the eurozone would be under terminal threat and the whole European project would massively be enfeebled.

All the eurozone finance ministers were complicit in the round of conference calls that took place at the end of last week. All their governments have become almost-unconditionally susceptible to being organised by Germany into a superstate. The details of the fusion, and of the way the inner union will articulate with the non-euro EU member states must be settled quickly; and Germany will predominate in all the discussions. The vulnerabilities of Italy and France are so significant that neither will have a veto on the integration process: and the influence of the eurorats in Brussels will be diminished in favour of the smooth suits in Frankfort.

The first few hours of trading in international markets after the announcement of the purported loan-guarantee to the Spanish banks demonstrated that supernational gamblers would only give credibility to the package when they can see the funds actually allocated by the Germans. The package was announced on trust: and it was not trusted. The eurozone expressed an intention to support Spanish banks, in circumstances where no fund had yet been established from which the guarantee could be converted into a series of payouts. 'The markets' on which the prices of Spanish [and Italian] bonds have fallen since the 'rescue' was announced are only in a tiny proportion driven by real-world firms [such as pension funds] that hold such bonds as part of their long-term investment portfolios. The majority of recent purchases and sales of state bonds and of bonds issued by south European banks are speculative gambles: the 'value' of the bonds is utterly irrelevant to the gamblers, who are interested only in making a gain by rightly predicting a rise or a fall in the price of the euro in terms of dollars, sterling, yen or other currencies. The market reaction strengthens the Germans' hand: the Spanish deal - and any subsequent deal for Italy or France - will only have credibility if Germany actually places resources in the appropriate backing funds. Chancellor Merkel faces elections: she and her party will be annihilated if they are perceived to have sold the German taxpayer short. Serious negotiations must now begin, with the collapse of the euro as the imminent threat. The eurorats will posture around the periphery, but the power unconditionally rests between Berlin and Frankfort; the modern and the medieval capitals of the German Reich.

Britain has blundered into the position where most of the electorate want the UK to be separated from this whole mess: so it can't be all bad!

Money and Value

It is a key principle in my text Personal Political Economy - PPE [see link from this blog] - that while value is a common noun in everyday speech, and to value is a verb that matters hugely to anyone who is contemplating selling a house or an antique cabinet, the search for a comprehensive 'theory of value' has been one of the most useless components of academic Economics. Sometimes a chapter heading on the lines of The Theory of Value appears in a textbook above an exposition of the idealistic, mechanistic, normative model of Supply and Demand that has only ever applied to any real-world situation by chance for a very short period in specific circumstances. The concept that the untrammelled operation of Supply-and-Demand would 'in the long-run' produce an equilibrium, under which the optimum distribution of the available resources would be achieved throughout the economy, is utterly impractical and unconvincing.

In examining what is the 'optimal' allocation of wealth, Economists have no concept of justice that they assume to underpin their value theory. Tutored in Economics, the contemporary pack of machine politicians present voters with promises that they will promote fairness, which boils down to a variant of the package of trivial changes in taxes and benefits that the civil service Grauniadistas consider to be feasible. Fairness is one of the woolliest slogans that can be devised; but in contemporary politics it is a descriptor of a mixture of policies that intrude into the economy, and divert the patterns of payments, to achieve social objectives that might satisfy naive concepts of 'justice'. The dogmas of Market Economics that drove politics in Britain and the USA from 1980 to 2008 are in direct conflict with the 'fairness' agenda, which implies increasing transfers of wealth from those who generate it to the mass of dependants of the state: requiring more taxes from the diminishing minority of the population who can be classified as 'productive', and more government activity. While the Obama administration has increased state spending, especially through benefits and by funding projects that would not attract market investment in current circumstances [if ever], the UK government is committed to containing government spending and - in particular - capping benefits. The US economic data appear to show modest recovery [but not enough to pay for the increase in borrowing]: the UK data show less certainty of growth and increasing state borrowing. Benefits have been restricted for many tens of thousands of people, who will experience real hardship, while spending on benefits in total is still increasing.

Tens of thousands of immigrants are admitted every year to the UK who have no prospect of employment, and often a positive intention not to work. These people are admitted as asylum-seekers and as 'family members' of settled immigrants and as 'students' [notwithstanding efforts by the underperforming UK Border Agency to stem the flow]. These new migrants, and the children of settled immigrants, increase the total cost of benefits plus social housing plus schools plus health care: while the government attempts to reduce the rate of increase in spending on all those services by reducing eligibility to indigenous British subjects, many of whom have become retired or redundant after a lifetime of taxpaying employment. The resentment that has built up is not simply directed at the Conservative-LibDem coalition; voters recognise that a Labour government would not depart significantly from these policies, whatever the windbags say in their tedious speeches where attacking the coalition is much easier than making convincing policy proposals.

Economists [who are still being over-produced by the bloated university system] are now finding employment as 'valuers' of medical treatments, environmental 'assets' and other assets and actions that nobody considers can be traded on a basis of market Economics. The Health service evaluates treatments by setting the improvement in patients' lifestyle, or the prolongation of their lives, against the price of the medicine and the wages of the staff who administer it and the estimated cost of space and supplies in the hospital. It is impossible to 'value' a human life, and it is mere charlatanry to purport to state a 'benefit' that is equal to, or superior to, the computed cost of the treatment. Similarly any attempt to state the 'value' of a clean river or pollutant-free farming in money terms is simply voodoo Economics since nobody ever would, or could, set a price on such 'benefits' that the public would be willing to pay. There are areas of life where most mature people would agree that those who want to consume a product should be free to do so if their earnings enable them to afford the price. There are many other areas, such as healthcare and the preservation of parkland, where the vast majority would agree that the cost should be met from taxation. Whether it is local taxation or national taxation, whether it falls on income or spending [or whether the taxation is disguised as levies on water companies or petrol sales, so that the consumers paying the tax do not even recognise it] it is a societal levy. The more that deluded politicians follow the Economists' advice to 'privatise' public assets, the more they promote either the degradation of the environment or of health care or of education or the concealment of taxes within the prices that people pay for the output of the privatised businesses. The whole thing is a con: and the proof of that is that there is no credible system for the valuation of the 'benefits' that can be claimed to offset the costs of providing these services. The outcome is diminishing credibility for politics.

Gold and Value

When a group of aspirant 'scientists' developed modern Economics, between 1860 and 1875, they were not able to dream up any alternative to the monetary system that was endorsed by the precursor Science of Political Economy. So in tandem with their normative [and highly imaginative] concept of 'perfect' results being achieved by the free operation of their theory of supply-and-demand, they accepted the definition of money as a special commodity, recognised and often managed by the state, that served the functions of:
          a medium of exchange
          a means  of making deferred payments
          a measure of value
          a store of value.
In retrospect, these attributes only applied to money that was based on a Gold Standard; and by coincidence the spread of Economics through the world's universities was accompanied by the spread of the gold standard. Between 1870 and 1914 a succession of countries adopted the principle that the national currency was pegged to gold, so that at the start of the first world war a British Pound or a US Dollar was defined in terms of equivalence to gold: so-many dollars for one ounce of gold, so many pounds to an ounce of gold. Anyone who held pound notes could go to the Bank of England and demand [and receive] gold - in the form of sovereign coins, which were legal tender; and similar rules applied in the USA and Russia and France and most other advanced economies. Just a few states maintained a 'silver standard'; and a few, mostly the imperial possessions of western states, had a gold-exchange standard that seemed to work but no Economist clearly understood it until a bright young man presented a brief, brisk and profound account of how it worked: this was the serendipitous first publication by John Maynard Keynes.

It was serendipitous because within just a few months of the start of the war all the combatant European countries had to abandon the 'Old Gold Standard' and move uncertainly each to their own gold-exchange standard.   Britain had the one global expert on the subject, and Keynes was drawn into the centre of the government to lead a new way of managing the unprecedented amount of payments that passed through the Exchequer to pay for the war. He recognised at once that the massive creation of paper money made any return to the old system impossible: and that the attempt to equal the inflation of the money supply with the issue of government bonds that were notionally equivalent to gold reserves was pure fantasy. The idea that war-loan would be redeemed in the postwar world by payments of gold-standard money was absurd: but it was built into the unprecedented system of war propaganda which most government ministers allowed themselves to believe. The United States kept its gold standard, and required its allies to pay gold-standard money or gold-standard guaranteed bonds [denominated in dollars] for the supplies that they necessarily bought from the USA.

Thus at the end of the war the victorious allies recognised their obligations to pay each other immense sums of 'money'. To make this easier for them, they demanded vast reparations from Germany, and those payments were written in to the Treaty of Versailles. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy had collapsed into a significant number of separate new countries that acknowledged no obligation for the debts or other obligations of the former empire: so no reparations could be expected from there. The collapse of the Russian monarchy also meant that the massive holding of Russian state and corporate debt, that were due to be serviced in gold-standard roubles or pounds, had become worthless. Thus most of the load was dumped on Germany, which was obliged to deliver gold, coal, steel and other commodities free of charge, principally to France and Belgium, so that the 'victors' could meet their obligations to their own people and to foreigners in gold-standard money . Keynes had been taken to the negotiations as an economic adviser, and he resigned in exasperation when it was clear that even if Lloyd George understood Keynes's advice the Prime Minister would not act on it. Keynes came home and set out his objections in the prophetic tract on The Economic Consequences of the Peace. As the inflation that Keynes had predicted to be inevitable gathered pace in the ensuing years, the government forged ahead with its plan to restore the monetary system and in 1925 Winston Churchill as Chancellor of the Exchequer proudly announced the 'restoration of the Gold Standard' [which was in fact a variant of the gold-exchange standard]. Keynes published his reckoning of the inevitable Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill and pressed on with his main work; which resulted in 1929 in the publication of the Treatise on Money.

Since then 'money' issued by governments has gone through many redefinitions, has been subject to massive manipulation, and has been subjected to assorted 'analyses' by various schools of Economists whose only common link is to have been wrong in their predictions and disastrous when they have become policy advisers. Their 'profession' has avoided open acceptance of Keynes's Treatise; and the International Monetary Fund - of which Keynes was one of the founders - has still not adopted his concept that world financial stability can only be achieved if they create a global reserve currency [bancor] to which national currencies relate in a disciplined order. Exactly a century has been lost since Keynes wrote on Indian Currency and Finance and there is still no sign of his plain solutions being adopted.

In a world of ill-managed currencies, reckless debt creation and the inevitable consequential inflation, it is obvious that money is NOT a 'measure of value'. After the default of Greece we are all reminded that money is NOT a stable means of making deferred payments; and it would be a very poor joke for anyone to suggest that money is a 'store of value'. It is a 'medium of exchange' simply and solely because the law demands that prices are quoted and debts are denominated and settled in the national currency. Money is used because it has to be used: it is an imposition of the incompetent state, and the one certainty is that it loses purchasing-power: the longer you keep it [whether as banknotes or on deposit] it looses 'value'.

In future blogs I will develop this simple story that Keynes's genius is better appreciated when he is recognised as an authority on money, instead of being misrepresented as an inflation-inducing proponent of 'big government'. Over the recent past hundreds of millions of lives in the postindustrial countries have been conducted under a massive cloud of monetary delusions in an environment of debt; a system that is becoming unsustainable. Keynes warned what would happen if such fantasies were pursued: it is now sensible to return to what he wrote, on the record, and to understand his theories in the context of the pre-Economics science of Political Economy on which he built.