Thursday, March 5, 2015

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIST STEVE KEEN CONFUSES CASH WITH MONEY. NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO ACADEMICIAN ECONOMISTS AND THEIR FALSE DOCTRINES.

Today, I read this silly work published by Forbes and written by Ph.D. economist from Australia, Steve Keen, who seems to have become a darling among anti-banking conspiracy theorists in the blogosphere. Keen claims that a recent-dead Italian economist Augusto Graziani is the only guy ever who figured out what money is.

Graziani’s own words reveals he had no idea what money is. Graziani revealed himself to be wrong on the subject of money, thoroughly.

Graziani mixed up bank credit with money and in so doing, confused himself, embarrassingly so. Stupidly, Graziani said, “So money is fundamentally the promise of a bank to its customer, and a monetary payment is the transfer of that promise from one customer to another.”

For the entire history of commercial banking, every banker worth his salt would call that credit. Never in the history of commercial banking by anyone who engages in banking and commerce would anyone confuse credit with money as Graziani has.

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. There is no other definition of money. The Romans said so. It's their word.

It's easy to know what could be money and what isn't money. Money can exist without banking and without legislators.

Cash, which is evidence of deposits circulating in perpetuity, requires banking. Without banking there can be no cash. 

Legal tender is anything legislators deem legal to settle taxation and debt to legislators. Without legislators and their agencies of enforcement, there can be no legal tender.

It should be clear that legal tender cash, which is all that anyone has these days, couldn't be money because it requires both banking and government and it fails to settle debt. Cash is liability of bankers, the same as deposits.

Money, if it were to exist, could discharge debt in payment fully. Contemporary cash cannot do this precisely because it is irredeemable. That means, you cannot demand money (coined metal by weight and fineness) from a banker. There is reason why the technical phrase, demand deposit, exists in commercial banking.

Graziani and Keen get wrong the concept of currency as well. Currency means that which has bearer negotiability. It has never meant anything else. So if a thief buys milk from a grocer using stolen cash, the grocer gets to keep the cash by currency.

Academicians like Steve Keen and Antonio Graziani live in a fantasy land of false definition and fanciful bogus theory that fails to comport with reality. They preach a false doctrine, economics, which is quite pseudo-science.

If academicians like Keen only knew about trade, commercial banking and the jurisprudence with respect to trade, they wouldn't accept false theory such as the one perpetrated by a rather clueless Graziani.

Keen errs in the worst way that anyone could when he foolishly claims, "Banks create money by issuing a loan to a borrower; they record the loan as an asset, and the money they deposit in the borrower’s account as a liability." Heed my words: Bankers never, ever create money nor do bankers lend money.

First, no one has money. All anyone has is either cash or deposits, which can be traded through negotiable instruments like personal checks and ATM cards. Even if there were money, through the entire history of commercial banking, no banker ever lent money.

In the days of money, a banker was a merchant who bought money and debt and sold bank credits. Today, a banker is a merchant who buys cash and debt and sells bank credit. All loans are merely advances of bank credits.

About the only bit Keen gets right is his claim that “banks must be part of your economic analysis.” Of course, all regular readers of Bizarro Theater who have read The Theory of Trading Property for Profit know this.

It turns out that Keen once bet Rory Robertson, who worked as banker for Macquarie Bank. Keen bet Robertson that Australian house prices would collapse. Unsurprisingly, Keen lost.

The terms of the bet had Keen walk from Canberra to Mt. Kosciuszko — 224 kilometres — wearing a T-shirt that read: “I was hopelessly wrong on house prices”.

Long ago, beginning in the mid-1850s, the brilliant banking lawyer Henry Dunning MacLeod worked out the principles of money, credit, currency and the like. MacLeod could do so because as a lawyer and not a university theoretician, he understood property (the right of ownership) and the effects upon property through trade. MacLeod wrote excellent works debunking academician economists with their silly false theories like JS Mill and even Adam Smith.

Here is a later edition of MacLeod's Theory of Credit (1893), which many in America can read free.

Read more ...

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

BITCOIN IS SOFTWARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. BITCOIN IS NOT LEGAL TENDER CASH.


Bitcoin is software. The law which governs property in software is copyright. In essence, Bitcoin is no different than musical works of the Beatles, which is the right way to look at Bitcoin.

Bitcoin trades for legal tender cash and bank credits, which can be converted into legal tender cash. Works of copyright also trade for legal tender cash and bank credits.


Speculating in copyright is a normal part of trade. 
Speculation in Bitcoin amounts to speculation in copyright.  

In Anglo-American 
jurisprudence, property means right of ownership and never the thing owned. Property means the right to possess, the right to give away, the right to destroy, the right to recover upon theft.

In trade, people buy and sell property. They don't buy and sell  things. When you buy milk from the market with cash, you buy the right to own the milk and part of that right is possession.

Yet, there are many times when people buy property, or right of ownership and never take possession. Few ever take possession of their stock certificates when they buy property in a firm as parceled in stock. Landlords never take possession of their rental property. Their tenants do.

Without doubt, Bitcoin is not "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system."  Bitcoins aren't "electronic cash" nor are Bitcoins cash at all. 

Cash requires bank credits. Cash is paper that evidences bank credits. Cash arises as an artifact of banking. 

Whether legal tender or not, cash is denominated bank notes circulating as evidence of deposits. Deposits are bank credits. Denomination means named multiples of the unit of bank credits, such as a ten dollar bill, a twenty dollar bill or a one-hundred dollar bill.

Today, Americans have cash. Specifically, Americans have legal tender cash. So too do Canadians have legal tender cash, the Brits, all those of the Eurozone, the Japanese, and so on. Legal tender cash is centralized bank notes circulating in perpetuity. Seemingly, legal tender cash does the work of money, but never is cash actual money. 

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. The Romans said so. It's their word. Even the U.S. Constitution supports that concept. 

When money existed, money gave its possessor currency. Money doesn't exist and hasn't for many decades.  

Always, money can exist without banking and government. Cash only can exist with banking and banks. Never can cash exist without banking and banks. Not only does legal tender cash need banking, but also legal tender cash needs government.



Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer digital protocol for transferring property of copyright. Any specific Bitcoin is an arrangement of electromagnetic impressions — bits in a pattern — on a recording medium. Each Bitcoin is software with built-in digital copy protection that prohibits duplication.  

In essence, that is all any specific Bitcoin is. Any Bitcoin, identified by its blockchain, is little more than a work of art. 

As such, any specific Bitcoin identified by its blockchain falls under copyright. The copyright in Bitcoin gives anyone exclusive right to prevent duplication of a specific work of Bitcoin as designated by its blockchain.

Copyright gives the owner of a specific bitcoin, property in that bitcoin, or the right of ownership. Anyone who owns bitcoin can make copies of that bitcoin for himself in various digital storage media. However, when someone sells their copyright in bitcoin in a purchase and sale, the ability to use any copies gets lost owing to the Bitcoin blockchain protocol.  

Currency means bearer negotiability. It doesn't mean cash. Bearer negotiability means the property (right of ownership) goes with possession. No need exists to prove title.

So when you buy milk at the Quik-E-Mart with cash, you don't first prove to the cashier that you own the cash. The cashier readily takes your cash and lets you walk out the store with the milk.

In a purchase and sale of cash for milk, the agents of the owners of the market buy property in cash and sell property in milk. You sell your property in cash and buy property in milk.



With Bitcoin, even though people seemingly are anonymous, the software everyone must use to manage transaction between two parties of trades with Bitcoins exists to proves title in Bitcoins. That is what the block chain mechanism of challenge and proof is all about.

Bitcoin lacks currency, because title must get proven of every Bitcoin in a trade. If Bitcoin gave any possessor currency, property in Bitcoin, that is the right of ownership, would go with possession. No one would need prove he owns a specific Bitcoin before trading it away in a purchase and sale. 

Cash gives anyone currency, which is another way of saying bearer negotiability, precisely because no one needs to prove title to cash before selling cash and buying something with it in a purchase and sale. 

Prepaid anonymous debit cards are the closest thing to electronic cash. All cash is evidence of bank deposits. Both cash and deposits are liabilities of bankers. Ask bankers. The smart ones will tell you what I have told you.

Bitcoin is more akin to "prisoner's money." Mostly, Bitcoin gets used to trade contraband in extra-legal purchases and sales. Basically, Bitcoin exists to facilitate heroin dealing where deals get made anonymously through the Internet while delivery gets made through legitimate package delivery services, such as UPS, Fedex, USPS, DHL, Canada Post and the like. 

Many have been tricked by the metaphor used to explain Bitcoin, being fooled, nay, suckered into believing Bitcoin is banking-free cash, which is an impossibility, and into believing Bitcoin is money, also an impossibility, as money is coined metal by weight and fineness. 

When people trade bitcoin for drugs and drugs for bitcoins, people are bartering. Such bartering is the same as trading a digital movie with copy protection for drugs and drugs for a movie with digital copy protection. 

Bitcoin requires banking because no one would want to accept Bitcoin as payment unless also being able to sell Bitcoins for legal tender cash or bank credits of an established banking system. Without others willing to sell cash or bank credits and buy Bitcoins, Bitcoins would be useless. 

Bitcoins are as dependent upon banks and banking as any other copyrighted product put on offer for trade in purchases and sales for cash and credit.

At day's end, if ever before a legitmate court, Bitcoin shall end up being ruled as incorporeal, immaterial chattels jura in re propria.

So you can truly understand Bitcoin, check out FROM BITCOIN TO SHITCOIN IN ONLY A FEW DAYS.


Read more ...

Monday, August 12, 2013

ON CREDIT, MONEY, CURRENCY, INFLATION, PRICES, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE

It is counterproductive to use wrong definition to discuss anything. The current misuse of the word inflation leads to all kinds of mischief and false beliefs.

Rising prices are not inflation. Regardless of how many times however many persons make the false claim that inflation means a rise in prices, logically, this can never be. Every economist who utters that false belief reveals himself to suffer from intense indoctrination, revealing that he or she lacks knowing the nature of money, credit, banking and central banking. Many believe, falsely, inflation and deflation are changes in prices rather than causal to such.

Concepts are invariant. The authentic concept of inflation that the word inflation once labeled has not changed, ever. And it means today what it has meant always, whether the monetary system is specie money based or fiduciary money based.

WHAT IS CREDIT?

Credit isn’t money. That should be obvious to all, at once. If credit were money, we would have but one word in our language and not two words, each which label separate concepts.

In past, Credit was a postponed payment of money; a promise to pay money at a time in the future.

Today, credit is postponed payment of cash or bank credits.

Credit is a right of action to demand the price of goods, which is given in exchange for goods, that is, a right of action against a person to pay or do something; itself is a property, an exchangeable right; produces the same effects as money or cash until paid off and extinguished; a right to collect on a promise to deliver a thing of goods or money or cash; is a right of action a man makes against himself when he promises to pay at a time in a future; the right to demand money.

Credit is auxiliary to money; supplemental to money; can get exchanged against goods; can get exchanged against other credit. Credit is a vendible commodity and thus can get sold or exchanged any number of times, like any material chattel until it gets paid off and extinguished.

Credit can become currency — that which has bearer negotiability and circulates goods — if title can get transferred, hand-to-hand. Credit is worthy as property in trade only to the extent to which another will take it for property in something else.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT CREDIT IS NOT MONEY?

Credit has the power of purchasing, but is not money. Credit instruments can mediate trade. However, not always is someone willing to accept offered credit. Credit can collapse as persons can refuse to pay or lack the means to pay.

Always, though, a possessor of money has the power of purchasing, always.

WHAT IS MONEY AND WHAT IS CREDIT?

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. The Romans said so. It's their word. When money existed, money had these qualities.

When it existed, money rested upon the belief that any man would take it in a swap. Money made value (a ratio, a trade rate) because property in money could trade for property in something else.

When it existed, money was a good that has greater exchangeability than all others. When it existed, money would get offered for goods other than money. In short, money had one use — to be spent.

Money gave its holder bearer negotiability. One's property in money (right of ownership) passed along with honest possession in every purchase and sale. There was no need to inquire if the one offering money had title before trying to buy a thing. Because of bearer negotiability, property and the possession in money were inseparable.

Money was that commodity that anyone can receive freely in exchange for what he or she has but does not want to keep for himself or herself, taken in trust, that with it he or she can, at any time, get from others what they have but do not want to keep for themselves.

A banking system can have money or fiduciary cash. Without going into great detail, fiduciary cash depends partly or wholly on the confidence that the owner can trade it for other goods.

Today, you live with fiduciary cash of negotiable bank credits. You do not have money whatsoever.

Under a specie money system, money is only gold or silver coins. Under a fiduciary money system like we have today, money does not exist. Federal Reserve banknotes and U.S. Treasury token coins — half-dollars, quarters, dimes, nickels, pennies — have taken the place of money.

There is money and then there is credit. Money were to exist could settle credit, always. Yet, in the final settlement, money could extinguished credit.

Money can exist without banking or lawgivers. Cash must have bankers to exist. For it to exist, legal tender cash must have lawgivers and their agents of enforcement as well as bankers.


WHAT ARE ECONOMIC QUANTITIES OF PURCHASING?

A quantity is anything that can get measured and an economic quantity is anything that can get measured by wealth (property of trade).

Because negotiable credit and cash are measurable quantities and because both get used in trade, credit and cash are an economic quantities; and because both get used in exchange, credit and cash are economic quantities of purchasing.


WHAT IS CURRENCY?

Currency is the circulating medium — that which someone holds in the middle ground. The key to coming to see and then to understand what is currency is to know what has bearer negotiability.

Bearer negotiability is an aspect embodied in money as well as negotiable debt instruments. In essence, bearer negotiability means the right of ownership in a thing gets passed along with honest possession in every sale or every exchange. The property and the possession are inseparable. Typically, bearer negotiability gets recorded on those things that could be lost, stolen, or sold and then used by another.

No need exists to inquire as to the title of ownership to money or negotiable debt instruments offered by anyone in exchange for goods. That is bearer negotiability.

Today, currency consists solely of cash, which is bank credit circulating in perpetuity. In practice, cash has bearer negotiability.

In our fiduciary monetary system, only Federal Reserve banknotes and U.S. Treasury token coins are currency. Most often, ATM debit cards, credit cards, and bank checks have bearer negotiability. Rare are the times when these instruments lack bearer negotiability, but it happens.

Thus, currency is that which has the power of purchasing and resembles money, sometimes called money substitutes, although far too many include far too many things as so-called money substitutes. In short, currency consists of cash and checkable deposits.

In the U.S., the St. Louis Federal Reserve tracks these, which constitute currency:
  1. Currency Component of M1 (aka cash money, aka money — Fed Res banknotes + U.S. Treasury token coins)
  2. Total Checkable Deposits

FROM WHENCE DOES CURRENCY COME? 

Bank credit becomes extant through currency accretion — the addition of new Federal Reserve banknotes and U.S. token coins along with negotiable bank credits joining in circulation with existing ones.

It is banking customers themselves who call for currency accretion in the form of notes and coins. When the Wednesday through Saturday average of cash withdrawals from ATMs and bank tellers rise, central bankers of the Federal Reserve order the U.S. Treasury to mint more notes and coins.

WHAT IS INFLATION?

Inflation arises from purpose-driven process undertaken by central bankers — Federal Reserve bankers in America — to increase the number of products sold by their member commercial bankers — opened contracts of credit.

Inflation is a rise in bank credit over deposits subsequent to acts undertaken by central bankers that attempt to increase credit outstanding.


INFLATION AND MONETARY SYSTEMS

In the days of specie money, inflation was the word use to label an increase in banknotes issued over specie money deposited.

When central bankers reduce the inter-bank lending rate or reserve requirement ratio in hopes of its member commercial bankers selling more of their products — opened contracts of bank credit — that is attempt at inflation. Whether or not that an actual increase in sales arise — a rise in non-revolving credit outstanding or a rise in revolving credit outstanding — remains to be seen.

THE TRUE CAUSE OF RISING PRICES

Prices rise or fall owing to the one, true, great infrangible law of economics — the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices holds that the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price.

Beliefs must arise from a logically consistent bedrock. The Law of Prices is that bedrock.

Often, the amount of the winning bids can increase if the economic quantities of purchasing increase. Today, that means an increase in currency. The true cause of price increases are winning bidders willing to spend more than previous winning bidders in the face of output.

When either the entire stock of currency or the flow (turnover) of currency increases relative to all output of the economy, that is, whenever there is a rise in economic quantities of purchasing relative to goods; then there shall be a tendency for all prices to rise.

Prices only rise if winning bids rise faster than output of products.

AGGREGATE PRICE LEVEL AND THE CPI: BOGUS CONCEPTS

No such thing as a monolithic price level exists. That is mere fantasy conjured by bad economists, notably, Irving Fisher. The price of any product sold fluctuates solely because of winning bidders.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services [see: Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions (No. 1) ]

The rest of the CPI frequently asked questions gives a cursory overview of the index but fails to mention hedonics and exactly what are the products carried in the market basket [see:Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions ].

In truth, the CPI is hypothetical and does not represent anything meaningful. The CPI makes for great persuasion in propaganda and thus great politics, but it's bogus with respect to authentic economics. Certainly, it does not measure inflation.

The payment method for some goods hinges on non-revolving credit, e.g., houses, college tuition. Thus when persons get less non-revolving credit or when fewer persons get such non-revolving credit, the amount of winning bids falls and in the face of supply, prices drop.

The payment method for some goods hinges on revolving credit, typically casual wear clothing, meals eaten out at sit down restaurants, tickets to attend sporting events, airline tickets. When persons get less revolving credit or when fewer persons get such revolving credit, the amount of winning bids falls and in the face of supply, prices drop.

The payment method for some goods hinges on money (cash) or credit that clears so amazingly fast that in all essence seems to function like cash. Such credit instruments are ATM debit cards and less so, checks drawn on checking accounts. The typical goods with prices dependent on cash include gasoline, groceries, cigarettes, booze, beer, wine, condoms, movie tickets. When persons get more cash because they increase their cash holdings in preference to credit that either they cannot get or do not want, the amount of winning bids rises and in the face of supply, prices rise.

HOW TO MEASURE THE EFFECTS OF INFLATION AND MONEY ACCRETION ON PRICES


When the rate of inflation rises faster than the rate of output of goods exchanged primarily for non-revolving credit, inflation leads to higher prices for those products bought with non-revolving credit, primarily.

When the rate of currency accretion rises faster than the rate of output of goods exchanged primarily for currency, currency accretion leads to higher prices for those products bought with currency, primarily.


WHAT IS AUTHENTIC PRICE INFLATION?

Price inflation does not mean a rise in prices. Fiscal policy is the source of price inflation. It is an attempt to get persons to rent cash from bankers by forcing up prices.

Prices get forced up by having the government become an even bigger bidder for goods, which leads to bank credits expansion — inflation — and currency accretion. Merely, central bankers become the highest bidders of new bond issuance by government. Today, this is known as quantitative easing.


WHO IS A COMMERCIAL BANKER?

Anyone who knows about Commercial Law today knows that a banker is a trader who buys cash and debt by selling bank credits. A depositor sells his cash or bank credits to a banker, which is a muutum that in law and commerce gets called a deposit and buys bank credits, which are rights of action against a banker, that is, the right to claim future cash.

Bank customers have rights of action to demand an amount of cash from bankers at a future date. Evidences of such rights include checking account bank statements and passbook savings books.

Of course, under U.S. Commercial Banking Law, bankers have up to 30 days to meet those obligations.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANKERS AND INFLATION

Federal Reserve central bankers do not hide this foregoing truth. Merely they do not explain it this way. It would become obvious to the woman and man on the street that the forever march of upward prices reflects increases in economic quantities of purchasing of which bankers and Congress are causal.

Mind you, bankers want output to grow at a faster rate than currency accretion and inflation rate because when that happens living standards rise wholly for many. Yet, the primary goal of commercial banking is to profit from the sale of revolving and non-revolving bank credits.

SHOULD YOU OPPOSE COMMERCIAL BANKING?

A banker is no different than a retailer who buys merchandise from a wholesaler or manufacturer by selling a 30-day net invoice, 60-day net invoice or whatever are the mutual terms between the parties.

Under Commercial Law, as the same for bankers, the retailer becomes the owner of the goods. The wholesaler or manufacturer relinquishes all title of ownership to said goods to the retailer. Likewise, the wholesaler or manufacturer gains a right of action against the retailer as evidenced by the invoice.

If your dads did not teach you this legal truth, now you know it. When you deposit cash, you are selling it for bank credits. You give up title of ownership to the cash you deposit.

Bank credits give you a right of action to the cash in a future of the same amount. This is a right, merely. You must assert your right. It is possible that even when your right gets upheld, you cannot collect any cash.

It is not true that bankers create cash from thin air; nor do bankers lend out other people's cash.

Now, if anyone has a beef, most likely it is that commercial bankers can whip up checking account credits from nothing, putting those on their accounting ledgers, selling those to depositors while buying cash from depositors.

Yet, if anyone opposes that, that one must oppose the concept of credit itself. And what the banker does, so too does the retailer who buys on credit, merchandise from the wholesaler; and so too does the wholesaler who buys on credit merchandise from the manufacturer.

Opposing commercial banking is tantamount to opposing credit. Credit is the great engine that has raised up mankind. It is the true source of human achievement and advancement.

Perhaps credit is the greatest invention from the minds of men, maybe even greater than potable water systems and sewer systems. For it is through credit that men call forth the future into the now.


FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING AND CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

Conspiracy theorists believe that double claims of ownership exist on money deposited with a banker and thus fractional reserve banking must be fraudulent. Of course it is not fraudulent. Men have crafted laws to make it legal. Rightly, a deposit is a sale for bank credit and a right of action against a banker.

Conspiracy theorists could say the fractional reserve banking has been designed wrong. Yet if they did so, they would get forced to say that all credit suffers from wrong design. Because what commercial bankers with depositors do is what retailers do with wholesalers, exactly.

If conspiracy theorists knew how central banking worked, they could render a great argument against central bankers over monetizing government debt by issuing bank credits to government agencies without first taking deposits.

This, of course, should be banned as it robs savers of cash of buying power through the effects of money accretion and of course, money accretion leads to unit buying power loss.




Read more ...

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

POPULIST-RAGE APPEALING BLOGGER, A GUY WITH NO ECONOMICS BACKGROUND CLAIMS BITCOIN IS MONEY. WHY DOES ANYONE READ HIM?

Today, In EU Rules Bitcoin is a Currency, US Says Bitcoin is a Commodity; Which Side is Correct? What About Gold and BitGold?, wildly popular "financial" blogger, Mike Shedlock, a guy who once confessed that he has no background in economics outside of reading books from the likes of huckster, cult-like Mises.org, idiotically claimed "bitcoin is both money and a commodity". Shedlock then pushed his mini-cult members to read a flawed work by Murray Rothbard, a long dead college professor associated with Mises.org.



Bitcoin is not money. Anyone who claims that Bitcoin is money simply doesn't know anything about money and is merely spreading stupidity. 

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. Money were it to exist could exist without bankers and without lawgivers. 

Cash, which is evidence of bank credit in circulation, requires banking. Legal tender cash, which is what all of us have, requires bankers' cash, lawgivers and their enforcers.

Never in the history of banking has any smart banker ever considered cash as money. No jurist every thought of cash as money.

The U.S. Congress requires the Federal Reserve to collateralize every dollar in circulation precisely because cash isn't money and never has been money.

Money hasn't existed legally in the USA since 1933. As a matter of practicality, the bulk of the economy of Americans has not relied on money since the Civil War.

Bitcoins are like Beanie Babies or DVDs. They're collectibles and nothing more.
Without doubt Bitcoins are not currency. You must prove title before you can trade Bitcoins. That is what the blockchain is all about.

Anything that requires title proof isn't currency by jurisprudence. Currency means the property (right of ownership) goes with the possession.

A liquor store robber can spend his ill-gotten cash in a supermarket for milk in a purchase and sale of cash for milk, milk for cash. By law, the supermarket can keep the cash because the sale was an honest exchange, even if the cash was ill-gotten.

Postage stamps circulate goods. So too do supermarket coupons. No one would be foolish enough to say that either postage stamps or store coupons are currency.

Bitcoins are useless without cash of various banking systems. Drug dealers accept bitcoins for their heroin because they know they can sell their bitcoins to future druggies for cash, through the surrogacy of Bitcoin exchanges.

Bitcoin exchanges are little more than financial launders, so-called "money" launderers for drug dealers, prostitutes and murderers-for-hire.

Murray Rothbard was a hack, so stupid about all things money, credit and banking, that he believed, wrongly, there is a double claim of ownership on deposits. For the entire history of banking and law, a banker owns what gets deposited, buying such in a purchase and sale. The depositor sells cash, other bank credit or debts. In the days of money, depositors sold money.

Read the definitive works on Bitcoin right here:


And to read more about Mike Shedlock and his rather questionable background, check out:






Read more ...

Saturday, May 31, 2014

42 YEARS BEFORE ADAM SMITH THERE WAS A DUTCHMAN NAMED JACOB VANDERLINT. IF ONLY BEN BERNANKE KNEW ABOUT VANDERLINT.



Yes, it's true. Forty-two years before Adam Smith and his famed, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), a work highly derivative of the Physiocrats and Dudley North (read: Plagiarism), there was a guy named Jacob Vanderlint. Vanderlint had a work published in 1734 titled Money Answers All Things.   

If only Ben Shalom Bernanke, the Ukrainian-American, and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve had read the work of Vanderlint.

Vanderlint's work is concept-dense. To get a good understanding of the work, you need to know quite a bit about English, especially how a Dutchman would have expressed early modern English in 1734.

Right away, Vanderlint lays down what all should know. Money only ever is coined metal by weight and fineness. Anything made from paper never could be money.



Take notice how Vanderlint nails it when he expresses the idea that money is the measure of contract between any two men. In other words, money is the tally of property for property.

Vanderlint stresses again, that money means gold and silver with this follow up passage:

Notice here but a few paragraphs in, Vanderlint lays down the true quantity theory of money: 

Take note Vanderlint lays down the right quantity theory of money and not the bogus one preached by far too many of total money to total goods. The right one is total money to total population. After all, it's one man who trades with another man according to each of their preferences and not according to the amount of goods produced.

Once a man buys all his limited imagination can muster, any sum of buying power in excess of his fulfilled desires only goes to inflate prices through excess bidding.

Here, Vanderlint says the more money per capita, the higher prices shall be. The lesser the money per capita, the lower prices shall be:

And here, Vanderlint shows the true genius inside him as he reveals that bank credit works the same as money (gold or silver coined) and as long as a strict credit to money ratio gets maintained, credit will lift prices and circulate goods as if credit were money itself:

Vanderlint warns that if too much credit raises prices, it shall raise the cost of production and  thus exporters shall need higher prices to cover their costs. Vanderlint further warns that no amount of raising taxes on imports against superior competitors shall change the situation unless the excess credit gets taken away.

Next, Vanderlint goes on to say that when wage earners have money surplus over their necessaries, trade flourishes. In other words, Vanderlint has said that when buying power rises, or said another way, when true wages rises, trade expands:
...
In the balance of the work, Vanderlint argues to bring forth more land into cultivation to drop prices for food and drink and thus raise buying power of wage earners. The work is quite impressive even for today as Vanderlint has provided data and cited footnotes.

And truly this is the whole of it. Any policy by central bankers should be such to bring higher return to capital by bringing higher return to workers. For it is workers who buy stuff.

No amount of plying individuals with cash and bank credits is going to do anything but raise prices and enrich already entrenched players. Yet, by doing so, every one is made worse off. 

Ben Bernanke might be a genius when it comes to academia economics, but the man is functionally retarded when it comes to trade, banking and real life.

The worst bit about Bernanke is that you are paying for his personal, social experiment as he applied his fanciful academia egg head theories. 

Americans are now in the sixth year of the Greatest Depression as evidenced by the sixth straight year of true decline in GDP. Bernanke touted himself as an expert in the Great Depression caused by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

Had Bernanke only read Vanderlint, Americans might be living in Good Times right now rather than Hard Times.

Vanderlint's genius reminds me of another Dutchman of sorts.


Read more ...

Monday, April 28, 2014

FALLACY FRAUGHT FORBES TRIES TO STOKE FEARS OF HYPERINFLATION

Over at Forbes, in an article intended to stoke fears of hyperinflation, writer Mike Patton who touts himself as an ex-wire house worker and an investment adviser,  pens a piece fraught with fallacy. Patton's work is typical of many, having its basis on shop worn fallacies that never cease in causing mischief in the minds of many.





"Inflation may be defined as a general rise in prices" ~ Mike Patton

Anyone who claims that to be the true meaning of inflation would be wrong. 

In the fiduciary monetary system of centralized bank notes, inflation is merely the growth of the circulating media — cash, which is evidence of past deposits circulating in perpetuity and bank credit in the form of checkable deposits.

The damaging effect of inflation becomes revealed when the growth of credit outstrips the growth of output owing to credit being priced too cheap. 

The residential realty bubble of the 2000s is classic inflation. When enough became incapable of servicing their debt owed on credit extended, widespread bankruptcy erupted and inflation stopped. 

Writers from at least since 1810 through the early 1920s understood well what inflation means:


  • Reflections on the abundance of paper in circulation, and the scarcity of specie; Francis, Sir Philip; J. Ridgway, 1810
  • Currency inflation: how it has been produced and how it may profitably be reduced. Letters to the Hon. B.H. Bristow, secretary of the Treasury; Carey, Henry Charles; Collins, printer, 1874
  • The principles of currency, and the error of “inflation”: an abstract of the Oxford lectures, applicable to financial questions in the United States; Price, Bonamy; H.L. Hinton & co., 1875
  • Currency inflation and public debts: an historical sketch; Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson; Equitable Trust Company of New York, 1921

"Why does the Fed want inflation? Because inflation is a signal of a growing economy." ~ Mike Patton
All prices conform to the one, true infrangible law of trade, the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price.

During times of excess credit, which is inflation, prices of the same assets get evaluated ever higher precisely because bidders have more buying power in the form of credit.

Contrary to Patton's claim, inflation is not a signal of a growing economy and thus Fed Res central bankers do not seek inflation based on that false belief.

As credit is another product, the same as cars and food, Fed Res bankers seek to inhibit the dollar from increasing in buying power relative to output. If output rises faster than cash in circulation, cash would buy more goods, more services, and more credit. As merchants of credit, bankers would earn less buying power.


"[W]hen the Fed expands the money supply, money is more plentiful..." ~ Mike Patton

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. The Romans said so. It's their word. Even the U.S. Constitution supports that concept. 

Thus, it is impossible for Federal Reserve bankers to increase the amount of money in circulation. No money circulates goods, services or credit.

Today, Americans have cash. Specifically, Americans have legal tender cash. So too do Canadians have legal tender cash, the Brits, all those of the Eurozone, the Japanese, and so on. 

Cash arises as an artifact of banking. Money, if it existed, could exist irrespective of banking or of politicians and government agency.

Legal tender cash is centralized bank notes circulating in perpetuity. Seemingly, legal tender cash does the work of money, but never is cash actual money. 

Legal tender means Congress has decreed Fed Res banknotes as the only acceptable payment for debts owed to Congress. Whether legal tender or not, cash is denominated bank notes circulating as evidence of deposits. Deposits are bank credits.  

Federal Reserve bankers can strive to only increase deposits, cash or a combination thereof through re-discounting and through debt monetization of government bonds, buying bonds outright through conjured checking account credits.


"[W]hen the Fed reduces bank reserve requirements ... banks have more money to lend." ~ Mike Patton

Not only do bankers not lend money since money doesn't exist, but even in the days of money, bankers never lent money.

A bank is a firm that seeks profit through the business of selling its own credit. Through banking, bankers exchange their credit for the credit of others. Thus, a banker is a trader who buys cash and debt by selling bank credits. 

Bankers transmutes property into a form, which can get traded. Bankers facilitate the trade of merchant credit for bank credit, the trade of cash for bank credit and the trade of property in future profit for bank credit by holding lien against extant property.

Banking stands as the medium of exchange by making credit negotiable from one holder to another so that credit might work the same as money once did and as cash does now. Thus, a bank is a refinery for credit.

As a refiner of credit, bankers transmute credit, bankers transmuting property into credit through coining less merchantable property into more merchantable property, which is credit of general acceptability. In so doing, bankers engage in alchemy earning metaphorical gold when bankers earn profit through transmuting property into credit.

Bankers don't lend their own capital. Rather, bankers transmute the credit of depositors. In so doing, the guaranty of bankers upon this transmuted credit lets depositors trade upon this guaranty.

Bankers facilitate trade for wanted goods through bank checks.


"Another consequence of a significant expansion in the money supply is the devaluation of the currency." ~ Mike Patton

It's impossible to devalue currency. Currency means bearer negotiability. Bearer negotiability means the property (right of ownership) goes with possession. No need exists to prove title. 

Currency doesn't mean cash. The word currency isn't a synonym for the word cash. 

Anyone either has an instrument of currency or that one does not. Cash has currency. When you buy milk at the Quik-E-Mart with cash, you don't first prove to the cashier that you own the cash. The cashier readily takes your cash and lets you walk out the store with the milk.


"In essence, when there is a substantial increase in the supply of an item, including currencies, its value declines." ~ Mike Patton

Nothing has value. To claim the value of something declines is to fall for the fallacy of intrinsic value. Value is not a quality, an aspect of a thing residing absolutely within it.

It takes two things to make a value. Value results from the expression of a ratio of importance between two commodities in exchange. When one of two things in a purchase and sale is cash or credit denominated in cash, we give value another name. We call it price.
Read more ...

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

THE WEALTHY PEOPLE EFFECT AND WHAT IT TRULY SHOULD MEAN TO YOU

As their neoclassical school brethren, those of the Austrian school get reality as wrong as the Keynesians and Monetarists do. The latter wrongly believe one side of the coin, spending, leads to a better state of trade. The Austrians wrongly believe its the other side of the coin, savings (see Chris Casey's attempt to justify savings over at the Austrian mouthpiece in the USA, Mises.org).

Neither spending nor savings increases the state of trade. It's profit. 




Savings are illusory. It's profit that must arise. If profit lays idle, then trade stops.

Whether Austrians, Keynesians or Monetarists, the Neoclassicists get it wrong because economics is fake, a false knowledge. As I explained in WHY IS THE ECONOMY SO HORRIBLE? BECAUSE ACADEMIA ECONOMICS IS FAKE, like the Keynesians, the Austrians wrongly believe that the basis of trade, or what they call, "the economy" is scarcity and utility. 

Yet, the whole of what humans do, which is trade, can be summed up in two words, property and profit. 

The "wealth effect" is badly named. It should be said as the "wealthy people effect." The "wealthy people effect" also is known as "trickle-down" economics. 

The "wealthy people effect" is the belief that if street prices rise of extant property (right of ownership) that can be held as collateral, wealthy people will trade that property as wealth held in collateral letting them sell rights of action against themselves to buy bank credits in a purchase and sale. With these bank credits, these wealthy ones then will buy luxury goods (e.g., through HELOCs) or to expand business. In either case, it is believed that employment should rise either to produce more of these goods or to fulfill work in expanding business.

The idea of savings is rather silly. There is no such thing as savings. Beyond break-even, individuals and firms gain profit. In trade, there are only purchases and sales. Individuals for themselves or their firms through purchases and sales buy property in bank credits by selling cash, bank credits or debt, or buy property in other things by selling selling cash, bank credits or debt instruments.

Only through profit for workers (wages less living expenses) or firms (sales less outlays) can individuals and firms call for more goods. It is from confidence in expectation of profit that bankers enter into purchases and sales of bank credits for both cash and debt at discount. 

Back in 2010, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke said, "Higher equity prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can spur spending." Deciphering, Bernanke said, when stock prices rise, those who hold stock have collateral with increased liquidation prices, which instills confidence in bankers, who will sell bank credits to those seeking it with such collateral.

As I explained in YOU LIVE AT THE MERCY OF A CLOWN-CAR DRIVEN BY MEN AND WOMEN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE, guys like Bernanke believe prices make people behave rather than increases in their buying power owing to increasing profits, whether by wages less living expenses for individuals or sales less outlays for firms.

Prices aren't wealth, whether rising or not. Only property which can be traded at the moment of trade is wealth. Once trade ceases, that which was traded no longer is wealth, but merely potential wealth. A used bicycle with flat tires and bent handle bars on offer at a garage sale no one buys isn't wealth, yet the seller has property in it.

The foolish believe the key lies in prices. For them, higher prices means worthier collateral. However, ever increasing prices leads to the profit squeeze, when at some point of ever rising prices, outlays outstrip sales and wages fail to rise with living expenses thus pushing people to below break-even loss. It is from then that collapse follows and debt reckoning begins.

Even the phrase "paradox of thrift" is badly named. Thrift means prosperity, not savings.

The word savings enters English in 1737 meaning "money saved," in turn from the Old French "save" meaning to "keep safe," which came into English around 1200. By 1300 save was being said to mean "keep possession, hold back." 

In the days of money, and money only ever can be coined metal by weight and fineness, some would sell their gold or silver to bankers in purchases and sales for shares of future profits of those bankers. The rhetoric around doing such became "Save your money with us," and "We'll keep your money safe with us."

Yet, nothing ever was saved. Bankers didn't keep anyone's money separated from all others in a warehouse, keeping anyone's money for safe. Instead, bankers lent money in which they had property, property acquired in purchases and sales of claims against profit, which gets called interest, for money.


The word thrift is a Middle English word from about 1300 meaning "thriving, prosperity" and comes from the Old Norse meaning the same.

In prosperity, anyone who wants to work can find work. Profit abounds. Wages increase faster than living expenses. Sales increase faster than outlays. The creation of property grows at an increasing rate.


Under false-belief faux prosperity, little creation of property of wealth happens. Instead, increases in the estimates of street prices for extant property of potential wealth swells false beliefs leading to credit inflation and speculative promotion (2002-2008 Residential Realty Bubble, 1997-2000 Dot Com Bubble) .

Read more ...

Monday, January 13, 2014

WHY IS THE ECONOMY SO HORRIBLE? BECAUSE ACADEMIA ECONOMICS IS FAKE.

FIRST, THE REAL

Trade, or Commerce, or Buying and Selling, or Real Economics, which is what I teach, is all relevant matters of mankind regarding the purchase and sale of property. Said another way, it's the theory of trading property for profit. 




The entirety of trade, or commerce, or real economics ties up with two words — property and profit. Without profit from effort, anyone would lack buying power to buy anything else. Without property, no one can trade. 

At less than break even, anyone would stop trying to produce property. No one works at a loss.

In trade, or commerce, or real economics, there is but one law and one axiom, the Law of Prices and the Axiom of Profit. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production otherwise a producer goes to ruin.


Though most think of property as things possessed, property always has meant the right of ownership and never the thing owned. Only when property gets created, can trade arise between two persons. 

The name for property put to making stuff is called capital. The name for property put to purchase and sale for cash and credit is wealth. The name for property that can be sold to satisfy debts is asset. The name for property pledged against a debt is collateral.

Profit is the name of sales at prices set by winning bidders less the outlay spent to acquire property for those sales. Profit signals potential return to increasing capitalization to gain efficiency and thus higher profit, lest competitors come to the party with better capitalization.

Trade, or commerce, or real economics is about acquisition of rights to own stuff. No one can derive satisfaction until that one owns. All talk about pleasure, pain, satiation, utility and the like is irrelevant until acquisition.

A trade is a purchase and sale for cash or credit, which can be settled by cash. Today, because of the legal tender designation for cash, cash lets anyone settle contracts straightaway. 

Cash is printed, circulating bank credits. Cash consists of banknotes issued by a centralized authority. Cash represents deposits circulating in perpetuity. 

Anyone who possesses cash has bearer negotiability, also said as currency. Bearer negotiability means the right of ownership in a thing gets passed along with honest possession in every sale or every exchange. The property and the possession are inseparable.

Cash stands as a money substitute. Cash exists as a money substitute precisely because politicians have decreed legal tender status for cash. Gresham's Law reveals why cash has crowded out money.

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. Each coin by weight gets a unique name called denomination.

Money does not exist anymore and hasn't for decades. In the days of money, money extinguished both cash and credit.

Today, Americans, Canadians, Australians, Europeans, Japanese, and all others have cash and token coins. Any token coin has denomination higher than the sum of street prices of the metals which constitute it.

In spite of shopworn fallacies, never was money "a medium of exchange" or "a store of value". Instruments of banking are the media of exchange. It is bankers who do the exchanging, today, buying cash and debt through discount and selling credit, transmuting property of lesser saleability into property with more saleability.


Without doubt, doing the work of money does not make something money. Credit does the work of money and no one would ever say credit is money.

Price is an objective ratio that expresses a rate of trade of an economic quantity for cash or credit denominated in cash. Value is an objective ratio of exchange in swap, which most know as barter. Price and value arise from the same concept, except one has cash as one economic quantity for another. Both are rates of trade, of exchange.

By objective, we mean that someone not a party to a trade can observe the swap. There isn't anything subjective about it. 

Prices get set by double auctions. In most job markets, inter-employer competition has employers engage in English auctions (highest bidder wins) for workers, while inter-worker competition has workers engage in Dutch auctions (lowest bidder wins) for jobs.

Where the winning bidders of employers and winning bidders of work seekers intersect, that is the clearing price, which, when it involves work, we call it a wage.

In credit-as-capital markets, inter-lender competition has lenders engage in Dutch auctions (lowest bidder wins) for borrowers, while inter-borrower competition has borrowers engage in English auctions (highest bidder wins) for jobs.

Where the winning bidders of lending and winning bidders of borrowing intersect, that is the clearing price, which, when it involves credit, we call it a interest.

Labor absent capital is living at bare subsistence. It is to capital that profit can arise owing to efficiency of surplus output. 

Both rent and interest to the capitalist are shares of profit paid in parts as a hedge against loss. 

Trade, or commerce, or real economics has correspondence with both practical and theoretical civil jurisprudence as well as accounting.

Occam's razor is on my side. 


AND NOW, THE FAKE

Academia economics is wrong, thoroughly wrong. Neo-classical economics is fraught with fallacy. It's a sham. It doesn't matter if it is preaching from the Austrian School or the Keynesian School. Being logically consistent against wrong premises still leads to wrong conclusions. 


Everyone who lives in the real world knows this. If academic economics were correct, the political policies based upon it wouldn't lead to banking, and credit crises and high unemployment.

Academicians preach a false dogma surrounding scarcity and utility (usefulness), often calling economics the science of scarcity. 

Academicians cite examples to justify their false beliefs. They say that though useful, air is abundant and thus can't be an economic good. They say that though useful, water is abundant and thus can't be an economic good. They say that in the desert though, where it is scarce, water becomes an economic good. 

Yet, anyone who puts air into cans turns abundant air into potential wealth and thus an economic good. Anyone who puts water into bottles, turns abundant water into potential wealth and thus an economic good, whether in a desert or in a big city surrounded by aquifers. Putting air into cans and water into bottles creates property. 

And what of monopoly patents, seemingly which are useful and scarce to have the right to be exclusive producer? Many firms buy monopoly patent not to produce, making such not useful, but to exclude competitors from doing the same. 

The firm which buys monopoly patents gains property in those patents and restricts trade by control of property. Such action reveals that property, or right of ownership, is what counts.

Thus, neither scarcity nor utility gives rise to economic goods. It's property. Until one gains property, one can't do anything, including experience satisfaction.

Since neo-classical economics is predicated on scarcity and utility rather than property, academia economics begins with false premises. Thus, all conclusions arising from the alleged faux science must be rejected as false.

Neoclassical clowns preach that value arises from utility. Value is not a quality, that is, it is not an aspect of a thing residing absolutely within it. Nor does value arise from utility, nor the cost of production, nor any other claimed intrinsic quality, nor scarcity.

It's a specious claim that utility stands as the cause of value. Holding that utility makes the cause of value forces the belief in intrinsic, absolute value owing to some quality inherent in a thing. While the qualities of a thing remain the same, such a thing can be useful during some times and yet not during others. 

Contemporary economists believe that the amount of utility derived from consumption of a good declines with each additional unit; and thus, a person maximizes his utility when he distributes his income among various goods so that he obtains the same amount of satisfaction from the last unit of each good.

The idea of marginal utility is the pseudo-scientific claim that one derives 100% satisfaction from the first unit of a thing and less than 100% satisfaction from each subsequent unit.  It is from the foregoing that economists claim what gives rise to value and hence prices.

Academia economists would have the world believe that if someone sold a house for $400,000 but only spent $300,000 from the proceeds and never touched the $100,000, then the buyer overspent by that $100,000 and the seller should have sold for only $300,000. Yet, never in the real world would find the seller years later sending back to the buyer $100,000.

Marginalism is a crock, bunk, hokum. Utility does not impute value. Marginalism is pseudo-scientific psychology. Academician economists have assumed marginal utility as true without any proof, taking it as axiom and have built sandcastles of mischievous theory upon it. 

The bogus concept of marginal utility deals with satisfaction, and specifically with satiation. Marginal utility is pseudo-science satiation psychology never proven through the scientific method in psychology much less for economics. Academicians enter the realm of conjectural, pseudo-scientific psychology when they attribute motives and cognitive processes to prices. 



Cournot was right when he said: 

"... accessory ideas of utility, scarcity, and suitability to the needs and enjoyments of mankind ... are variable and by nature indeterminate, and consequently ill suited for the foundation of a scientific theory." 

There can not be a "Law of Supply and Demand" because exceptions need elasticity to explain why such exceptions exist. A law of science governs the relation of phenomena, of all facts. If exception must be made, there can't be a law. 

Academicians preach the fallacy that producers sit on supply, offering up supply only through an imaginary supply schedule. They spin an alike bogus story about a demand schedule.

Yet, in the real world, inventory gets to the shelves once produced and gets put on offer. It's winning bidders who set the price, regardless of cost of production. If some producers sell at loss, those producers either get forced into efficiency, reducing costs or those producers must exit. Winning bidders must bid higher to gain the remaining inventory of sellers who can at least break even on costs. 



While guys like Paul Krugman might understand academic economics, be expert even, they do not get trade, or commerce, or buying and selling, or real economics, you know, the actual economics that exists from manifest phenomena of the real world.

Krugman's brand of academia economics is built on all of the fallacies of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham, while rejecting the few lucid thoughts those foregoing had. And then their brand doubles down with more jokers like Stanley Jevons, Leon Walras, Francis Edgeworth, Alfred Marshall, all of whom accepted pseudo-scientific psychology never proven and totally unneeded. Jevons was so crazy that he claimed that sun spot activity created the cycles from boom to bust, from depression to prosperity.

Inauthentic, false, academia economics continues the parade of errors by adding erroneous thought of Throstein Veblen, Irving Fisher, John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Sameulson, Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow and Robert Mundell.

Economic theory espoused by all of the major universities suffers from significant flaws, even though there are kernels of truth is some thought here and there. Like all academicians, academic economists join a priesthood, receiving Ph.Ds, and became anointed to sermon on academic economics. Every Ph.D conferred in economics has been given to someone who has learned a false doctrine.

Even the Nobel Prize in Economics is little more than back slapping to the guy or gal who can remain logically consistent with the illogical house of cards that is academic economics.



Academic economics exists to justify political action of one kind or another, which means action against individuals and their respective property. Scarcity and utility are chimera faux concepts to justify political action of confiscation of output and redistribution to those of favored groups. Those who parrot the false belief that economics has anything to do with scarcity and utility have accepted rhetoric and have become indoctrinated.

 Every law crafted from economic theories of academia is a bad law. Every law that interferes with profits and impairs someone's property is a bad law. 


Full Disclosure

I earned a degree in economics from what was once a highly selective university. All my profs who taught me their false doctrine earned their Ph.Ds from Harvard, Yale, UC Berkeley and the like. 

For More

For those seeking a slightly more formal treatise, enjoy The Theory Of Trading Property For Profit.


Read more ...