Last week it jumped out the thesis that Maruska Distefano, entitled "Central banks and seigniorage." The news was spammed all over the place by Marco Saba, Research Specialist for the Center Monetary Studies and author of several "authoritative" publications, as it should be a demonstration of how the universities recognize the problem, so that the ' author has obtained a degree mark of 110 cum laude.
Curious like a monkey, I decided to take a look at the university in question and the argument presented. The university, the LUM Jean Monnet , is an institution Private universities, which boasts a history as recognized even by 2000. The thesis? Well, I read it and I threw down two comments. Or someone more. This is the first part.
begin with an appendix inserted at random at the beginning of a degree in English and it is not contextualized in some way. Just to fill 3 pages with no one breaks the bales to read and translate it.
Following the introduction, which is nothing but an explanation of the index, in the end. In other words, went 13 of 85 pages of a dissertation of 110 marks for saying that a little curiosity and a few articles read on the net did choose this topic. Interesting the first
chapter, the historical origins of seigniorage, the days of empire when the goldsmiths Jews undermined the social economy by lending money that they had not, the Bank of England, founded by a Freemason. Everything up to the fact that the people is no longer the owner of the currency it issues. What I mean this is not yet clear, but it is always taken great state that we have been deprived of something of ourselves. The outrage moves the masses. We then
to recent events, with the paragraph from the evocative title "Seigniorage TODAY, which begins with a correct definition of seigniorage:
" Historically, the seigniorage was the term over which indicated the fee required
by the ancient kings to ensure, through its effigy
imprinted on the coin, the purity and weight of gold and silver. "
no objection. Except maybe that the other argument on seigniorage which is carried in the palm of your hand by seigniorage (the one Savior Tamburro for a degree in Economics of Financial Intermediaries Parthenope University of Naples, entitled "THE BANK OF ITALY, AND THE NEW Seigniorage WORLD ORDER ") has a section titled the same way that begins with the same words, the only difference being that the author quote the word seigniorage. Followed by a series of summons to a member of Hound, ignoring all principles of the claim. But mica so we would not expect that a graduate in economics weigh the statements found in the quotations on the conspiracy sites, no? Here is a quote
spectacular Pascucci, "Example of seigniorage in a nutshell." Pascucci priceless. But, as he reported in his thesis Distefano, has also reported the Tamburro in his right after the paragraph "Seigniorage TODAY" (a coincidence? Boyager We think not!) Riportiamola us too, to make Real information:
"The state borrows a bill from € 100 from €
Central Bank and the 'pays' with an 'obligation' to € 100. At year end
will "drain" from € 100 for those people returning to its rightful owner
(which is the international banker), plus interest, say
2.5%. The Central Bank has printed the spending bill
(all included) 30 euro cents (so it was only a piece of paper,
a commodity like any other, like a movie ticket), while the bill
€ 100 (+2 , 5%), the state returns to the Central Bank.
The Central Bank is a printing and behaves as if it were the owner of the note
. Ergo: the seigniorage on a single bill is € 102.5
- € 0.30 = € 102.2 "An amazing example
Logic and consistency of genius. The fulcrum around which turns the whole theory of seigniorage rubbish from beginning to end. Let us, as graduate students and professors are probably too busy doing other things.
The state borrows EUR 100 from the bank. The bank to produce the 100 euro spent 30 cents. Okay. The state gives the bank a bond of 100 € or a piece of paper, the cost of as many 30 cent (not, to be fair, since it sends less paper and less prepared for their titles), which shows a its debt with the bank that the bank may require up to maturity. In other words, the bank gives the state a more expensive piece of paper that has immediate value for legal a piece of paper that has no other value at the time that the promise of a future value. At the end state "will have to drain the population" (lovely image, is very ill-treatment of the masses) to return the 100 € and also the interests of, say 2.5%. The state then collects bills for € 102.5 and returns to the bank. In the central rambling sentence of the quote (re-read it best to see that something is missing, like the end of 'while'), it is said that the bank gave the state a bill for 30 cents and is seen returning € 102.5. But how are these facts 102.5 €? These are the notes issued by the bank? But then apply the same 30 cent (+ 2.5%). The bank does not act
Printing: is the owner of the note! How can it not be clear about this concept for a graduate student in economics? How can a university do not close when it is written in such a stupid argument that does not deal with problems related to the paranoid conspiracy?
Let's take a step back. The debt claim is a "piece of paper" which states that a person is a value to another at a certain date. The first is called the debtor. The second is called the creditor. For obvious reasons, the debtor must always be specified, as well as the value. The creditor may be specified in an implicit or explicit, as in the case of securities "bearer", which identify the holder as a creditor of security. The date must also be known in order to clarify since the title can be collected. If the credit can be redeemed at any time, is said to be payable at sight. The bill is nothing more, nothing less than a credit, payable at sight to bearer. Once it was also explained in the notes, but the euro has clearly considered it necessary to include this in all possible languages \u200b\u200bon each bill, being a concept implicit in the type of security. In all this, we forget what is essential in a credit? Identify the debtor? Take the note and read what is written there. There is the value of the note, in several places, together with the currency represents. There is the serial number. There is a signature. Then there are the acronyms: BCE ECB EZB EKT EKP. I think we finally found the defendant designated, the central bank. There is no written Germany, Italy or France. The debt contracted the bank, so the bank to ensure its value. Therefore the bank is the 'owner' of the note.
This involves several considerations, on what he said Pascucci. The bank gives the state a piece of paper that means "leftovers € 100 from the bank and you can withdraw them anytime." When the state makes the bank the bill 100, the bank has a piece of paper with the word "surplus of € 100 from me." Interesting but how useful a plot in a porn film, I recommend everyone to try to make a bill in their favor for 1000 € and then calculate how much they are richer.
Then, when the state makes to the bank EUR 100, the bank has won 100 euro, but came back a debt he had. It thus remains to consider the 2.5 euro that the state puts on us (and already seigniorage fell from 102.20 € to a maximum of 2.50). If they are paid 2.5 euro banknotes issued by the bank (I know, there are so small denomination bank notes, but it was not directed to the bank to get 100 to print a single bill, you must multiply all the numbers N ), the bank falls to 2.5 euro in debt. This does not mean that the bank has gained nothing from the loan, it would mean only if things were really as he says Pascucci and the rest. However, to calculate the possible seigniorage, we should not limit the interest to look at, but we must first "stripped" of interest "legitimate" and, to be fair, the cost of production of the note. In the example above, it is then returned to take the 102.5 state, take away the 100 loan from the bank, the 0.3 of the current interest expense and correct, or what would have been in force at that time for that loan for that period if there had not been the issue of the note. In "nutshell", then the difference between 2.2 (102.5 - 100 - 0.3) and the above rate.
Following this the usual rigamarole Aberrant state surrenders its monetary sovereignty. I say, even absurd, because what I hope the supporters of this thesis is a liquid state when it needs to issue paper money as well, as if nothing had happened. A bit like the children that suggests her father to do a check when he says he has no money to buy them a certain toy. "Why can not you simply take a piece of paper and say this is worth a hundred?".
behind the creation of paper money, there is a need for a capital that is "represented" by the nominal value of those pieces of paper, because it represents a claim "on sight". For this reason it makes sense to rely on someone with a strong financial position, whose aims are the profit (private company) and not someone whose main purpose is not to produce wealth, but satisfy the needs of the population (the state). The bill, though does not represent a value of precious metals deposits in central banks, is still part of the value of the issuing bank. When one goes in the bank can collect the claim represented by buying goods and services marketed by the bank, was produced by the currency, foreign currency, government bonds and private and so on. If all they did and the central bank did not have goods and services to meet all requests, should also affect their property assets. The task of the state in this case would make it pay its debts, it was also liquidating everything. If the state had to issue paper money, it would risk having to get to liquidate the state itself, whether private citizens (and others) require the state to reimburse the value of banknotes in sight. How? Areas of the state property to private and public goods should be.
step further. We talk about the authoritative revelation and heroes of this crusade. Tremonti hero because he requested to issue such notes 1 and 2 euro in Italy (to adapt more to the cuts of the old lire) has received an answer that would prove that the seigniorage of the ECB's lives, but rejects the one on small cut. Giulietto Church, which asserts that the seigniorage exists because people are wrongly convinced that central banks are public, even if it is not clear the link between the two. Teodoro Buontempo, who reported to the House the fact that the judiciary has ordered the Bank of Italy to compensate citizens who have appealed against the seigniorage, but did not specify which cases will be (I remember one that made headlines and the seigniorage had worn as a great achievement, in which a citizen had brought the Bank of Italy before a justice of the peace for the seigniorage on the euro and the magistrate ruled that the Bank would have to pay about 1000 euro citizen as compensation, ruling 'a moment' ruling overturned by the Court of Cassation, which noted that the euro is issued by the ECB and the Bank of Italy and therefore would not even matter for a justice of the peace, especially a that fails to award compensation to a person unconnected to the alleged crime). Sir Josiah Stamp, English banker of the last century, already mentioned above, but do not surrender to fill half a page, repeating the same quote. The same applies to Hemphill responsible for the credit at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Towers governor of the Bank of Canada from 35 to 55 and Anderson to Eisenhower's treasury secretary, for a total of two pages of quotes repeated. Finally, our esteemed Antonio Di Pietro, urged by the embarrassing questions from a reporter for Channel Italy called scandalous seigniorage, a bit 'as when he made a parliamentary question indignant about chemtrails and did not even have noticed that the recycled equal the same answer they gave a few months before Brandolini.
Curious like a monkey, I decided to take a look at the university in question and the argument presented. The university, the LUM Jean Monnet , is an institution Private universities, which boasts a history as recognized even by 2000. The thesis? Well, I read it and I threw down two comments. Or someone more. This is the first part.
begin with an appendix inserted at random at the beginning of a degree in English and it is not contextualized in some way. Just to fill 3 pages with no one breaks the bales to read and translate it.
Following the introduction, which is nothing but an explanation of the index, in the end. In other words, went 13 of 85 pages of a dissertation of 110 marks for saying that a little curiosity and a few articles read on the net did choose this topic. Interesting the first
chapter, the historical origins of seigniorage, the days of empire when the goldsmiths Jews undermined the social economy by lending money that they had not, the Bank of England, founded by a Freemason. Everything up to the fact that the people is no longer the owner of the currency it issues. What I mean this is not yet clear, but it is always taken great state that we have been deprived of something of ourselves. The outrage moves the masses. We then
to recent events, with the paragraph from the evocative title "Seigniorage TODAY, which begins with a correct definition of seigniorage:
" Historically, the seigniorage was the term over which indicated the fee required
by the ancient kings to ensure, through its effigy
imprinted on the coin, the purity and weight of gold and silver. "
no objection. Except maybe that the other argument on seigniorage which is carried in the palm of your hand by seigniorage (the one Savior Tamburro for a degree in Economics of Financial Intermediaries Parthenope University of Naples, entitled "THE BANK OF ITALY, AND THE NEW Seigniorage WORLD ORDER ") has a section titled the same way that begins with the same words, the only difference being that the author quote the word seigniorage. Followed by a series of summons to a member of Hound, ignoring all principles of the claim. But mica so we would not expect that a graduate in economics weigh the statements found in the quotations on the conspiracy sites, no? Here is a quote
spectacular Pascucci, "Example of seigniorage in a nutshell." Pascucci priceless. But, as he reported in his thesis Distefano, has also reported the Tamburro in his right after the paragraph "Seigniorage TODAY" (a coincidence? Boyager We think not!) Riportiamola us too, to make Real information:
"The state borrows a bill from € 100 from €
Central Bank and the 'pays' with an 'obligation' to € 100. At year end
will "drain" from € 100 for those people returning to its rightful owner
(which is the international banker), plus interest, say
2.5%. The Central Bank has printed the spending bill
(all included) 30 euro cents (so it was only a piece of paper,
a commodity like any other, like a movie ticket), while the bill
€ 100 (+2 , 5%), the state returns to the Central Bank.
The Central Bank is a printing and behaves as if it were the owner of the note
. Ergo: the seigniorage on a single bill is € 102.5
- € 0.30 = € 102.2 "An amazing example
Logic and consistency of genius. The fulcrum around which turns the whole theory of seigniorage rubbish from beginning to end. Let us, as graduate students and professors are probably too busy doing other things.
The state borrows EUR 100 from the bank. The bank to produce the 100 euro spent 30 cents. Okay. The state gives the bank a bond of 100 € or a piece of paper, the cost of as many 30 cent (not, to be fair, since it sends less paper and less prepared for their titles), which shows a its debt with the bank that the bank may require up to maturity. In other words, the bank gives the state a more expensive piece of paper that has immediate value for legal a piece of paper that has no other value at the time that the promise of a future value. At the end state "will have to drain the population" (lovely image, is very ill-treatment of the masses) to return the 100 € and also the interests of, say 2.5%. The state then collects bills for € 102.5 and returns to the bank. In the central rambling sentence of the quote (re-read it best to see that something is missing, like the end of 'while'), it is said that the bank gave the state a bill for 30 cents and is seen returning € 102.5. But how are these facts 102.5 €? These are the notes issued by the bank? But then apply the same 30 cent (+ 2.5%). The bank does not act
Printing: is the owner of the note! How can it not be clear about this concept for a graduate student in economics? How can a university do not close when it is written in such a stupid argument that does not deal with problems related to the paranoid conspiracy?
Let's take a step back. The debt claim is a "piece of paper" which states that a person is a value to another at a certain date. The first is called the debtor. The second is called the creditor. For obvious reasons, the debtor must always be specified, as well as the value. The creditor may be specified in an implicit or explicit, as in the case of securities "bearer", which identify the holder as a creditor of security. The date must also be known in order to clarify since the title can be collected. If the credit can be redeemed at any time, is said to be payable at sight. The bill is nothing more, nothing less than a credit, payable at sight to bearer. Once it was also explained in the notes, but the euro has clearly considered it necessary to include this in all possible languages \u200b\u200bon each bill, being a concept implicit in the type of security. In all this, we forget what is essential in a credit? Identify the debtor? Take the note and read what is written there. There is the value of the note, in several places, together with the currency represents. There is the serial number. There is a signature. Then there are the acronyms: BCE ECB EZB EKT EKP. I think we finally found the defendant designated, the central bank. There is no written Germany, Italy or France. The debt contracted the bank, so the bank to ensure its value. Therefore the bank is the 'owner' of the note.
This involves several considerations, on what he said Pascucci. The bank gives the state a piece of paper that means "leftovers € 100 from the bank and you can withdraw them anytime." When the state makes the bank the bill 100, the bank has a piece of paper with the word "surplus of € 100 from me." Interesting but how useful a plot in a porn film, I recommend everyone to try to make a bill in their favor for 1000 € and then calculate how much they are richer.
Then, when the state makes to the bank EUR 100, the bank has won 100 euro, but came back a debt he had. It thus remains to consider the 2.5 euro that the state puts on us (and already seigniorage fell from 102.20 € to a maximum of 2.50). If they are paid 2.5 euro banknotes issued by the bank (I know, there are so small denomination bank notes, but it was not directed to the bank to get 100 to print a single bill, you must multiply all the numbers N ), the bank falls to 2.5 euro in debt. This does not mean that the bank has gained nothing from the loan, it would mean only if things were really as he says Pascucci and the rest. However, to calculate the possible seigniorage, we should not limit the interest to look at, but we must first "stripped" of interest "legitimate" and, to be fair, the cost of production of the note. In the example above, it is then returned to take the 102.5 state, take away the 100 loan from the bank, the 0.3 of the current interest expense and correct, or what would have been in force at that time for that loan for that period if there had not been the issue of the note. In "nutshell", then the difference between 2.2 (102.5 - 100 - 0.3) and the above rate.
Following this the usual rigamarole Aberrant state surrenders its monetary sovereignty. I say, even absurd, because what I hope the supporters of this thesis is a liquid state when it needs to issue paper money as well, as if nothing had happened. A bit like the children that suggests her father to do a check when he says he has no money to buy them a certain toy. "Why can not you simply take a piece of paper and say this is worth a hundred?".
behind the creation of paper money, there is a need for a capital that is "represented" by the nominal value of those pieces of paper, because it represents a claim "on sight". For this reason it makes sense to rely on someone with a strong financial position, whose aims are the profit (private company) and not someone whose main purpose is not to produce wealth, but satisfy the needs of the population (the state). The bill, though does not represent a value of precious metals deposits in central banks, is still part of the value of the issuing bank. When one goes in the bank can collect the claim represented by buying goods and services marketed by the bank, was produced by the currency, foreign currency, government bonds and private and so on. If all they did and the central bank did not have goods and services to meet all requests, should also affect their property assets. The task of the state in this case would make it pay its debts, it was also liquidating everything. If the state had to issue paper money, it would risk having to get to liquidate the state itself, whether private citizens (and others) require the state to reimburse the value of banknotes in sight. How? Areas of the state property to private and public goods should be.
step further. We talk about the authoritative revelation and heroes of this crusade. Tremonti hero because he requested to issue such notes 1 and 2 euro in Italy (to adapt more to the cuts of the old lire) has received an answer that would prove that the seigniorage of the ECB's lives, but rejects the one on small cut. Giulietto Church, which asserts that the seigniorage exists because people are wrongly convinced that central banks are public, even if it is not clear the link between the two. Teodoro Buontempo, who reported to the House the fact that the judiciary has ordered the Bank of Italy to compensate citizens who have appealed against the seigniorage, but did not specify which cases will be (I remember one that made headlines and the seigniorage had worn as a great achievement, in which a citizen had brought the Bank of Italy before a justice of the peace for the seigniorage on the euro and the magistrate ruled that the Bank would have to pay about 1000 euro citizen as compensation, ruling 'a moment' ruling overturned by the Court of Cassation, which noted that the euro is issued by the ECB and the Bank of Italy and therefore would not even matter for a justice of the peace, especially a that fails to award compensation to a person unconnected to the alleged crime). Sir Josiah Stamp, English banker of the last century, already mentioned above, but do not surrender to fill half a page, repeating the same quote. The same applies to Hemphill responsible for the credit at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Towers governor of the Bank of Canada from 35 to 55 and Anderson to Eisenhower's treasury secretary, for a total of two pages of quotes repeated. Finally, our esteemed Antonio Di Pietro, urged by the embarrassing questions from a reporter for Channel Italy called scandalous seigniorage, a bit 'as when he made a parliamentary question indignant about chemtrails and did not even have noticed that the recycled equal the same answer they gave a few months before Brandolini.
0 comments:
Post a Comment