Our ECAEF team wishes all its friends and supporters a Merry Christmas 2018 and a Happy New Year. Don’t forget to mark your calendars:
Vernon-Smith-Prize
Winners Ceremony on Feb 4, 2019 in Vaduz (FL)
15th Gottfried v. Haberler Conference
on May 17, 2019 in Vaduz (FL)
4th Jacques Rueff Conference
in December 2019 in Monaco
by Henrique Schneider*
Dear friends. As usual, I was right. The United Nations climate summit in Katowice, that little Polish city created by coal and forged by fire, came to an end marked by:
Yes, this is the literal quote from my last week’s email. However, and it pains me psychologically and somatically (in means, bodily) to admit that, by having been cut-off, I missed big drama and a potential goldmine for sarcasm. The summit was supposed to end on Friday but it went on until Saturday night … because of carbon markets! The very thing I like(d) to negotiate!
The only way the Polish Presidency found to come to an end was cut markets off the decision text. See the parallelism to my present situation? At the end, the “market” decision is procedural, reading:
“…that draft decision texts on these matters in the proposal by the President were considered, but that Parties could not reach consensus thereon;”
Does this change one of the bullet points above? Not at all. First, there has been some agreement on some technicalities concerning mitigation of climate change, adaptation to climate change and resilience in face of climate change. So, there is a very thin “Paris rulebook”. This thin set of principles has to be deepened in or by further negotiations in work streams. And even the market people have to continue negotiating. The same market-related decision says:
“Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to continue consideration of the mandates referred to … above, taking into consideration the draft decision texts …, with a view to forwarding a draft decision for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its second session (November 2019);”
If you are really interested in the decision texts, check them out here: https://unfccc.int/katowice
The market negotiations were doing great in earlier 2018. Even during the summit, delegates managed to produce substantive texts. Remember, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement foresees three types of international cooperation:
Negotiating this plethora of non-free-market-approaches – i.e. forgetting that free markets only develop by spontaneous order where property rights are sufficiently clear –, market negotiators underestimated Brazil’s appetite. That little country wants it all. It wants the market, the aid-money and the ability to claim that any mitigation effort taken there as belonging to them. They want to sell the good while keeping it as their property. This led the negotiations astray.
By the way, I have developed an idea on how to solve some problems – using blockchain. It a paper in progress you can read here:
https://www.dropbox.
Comments welcome.
Apart from markets, there are other things bizarre. Take “Just Transition” as an example. It describes the transition towards a low‐carbon and climate‐resilient economy that maximizes the benefits of climate action while minimizing hardships for workers and their communities. It does not surprise that trade unions and the like appropriated that expression. But our friends in the so-called business sector are increasingly using it, too. The looters and munchers, subsidy-seekers and sycophants like the International Emission Traders Association IETA or the World Business Council for Sustainable Development WBCSD are uniting in the outcry for just transition, too. Why? Because they want money and to be erotically proximous to the state agents.
More optimistically, let this year’s commentary on the climate summit end with a piece of wisdom: “It was not the scarcity of stones nor the stone pricing that ended the Stone Age, but the emergence of a new technology, bronze.”
*Henrique Schneider is a Swiss economist, HoD at the Swiss Trade Association and engaged in adult education.
by Emanuele Canegrati*
This paper was presented at the III. ECAEF/CEPROM Conference on “Concurrent Currencies: Curse or Cure?” in Monaco on Dec. 6, 2018. These academic conferences in honor of Jacques Rueff are planned and organized by ECAEF (European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation, Liechtenstein) and hosted in Monaco by CEPROM (Center of Economic Research for Monaco).
Over the last several years very few topics have entered the debate of the financial world more than the entire subject of cryptocurrencies. This new type of monies has sparked a fierce discussion among economists, politicians, financial experts and entrepreneurs over their nature, functions and their value. Creators of these blockchain technology-based currencies believe they are the future of the global monetary system, where all transactions will be executed digitally, in a simple yet safe manner. Their detractors however, simply believe they are the greatest bubble ever seen in the history of finance.
And yet, the proliferation of these currencies hints that a new era is dawning, where private, digital currencies will replace those of issued by the State. This revolution has been envisaged by Friedrich A. von Hayek in his 1976’s book “The Denationalization of Money”, where he backed the idea of a monetary system made of private currencies created by issuers to compete for acceptance on the market, while replacing government issuance of a national currency, use of which is imposed in the form of legal tender laws. Until the advent of the blockchain technology, Hayek’s idea seemed only a chimera. Now, with the technology available to everyone, more and more people realize that the chimera of denationalization of money is turning into reality.
In his 1976’s book “The denationalization of money”, Friedrich A. von Hayek backed the idea of a monetary system made of private currencies created to compete for acceptance on the market, while replacing government issuance of a national currency, use of which is imposed in the form of legal tender laws. Hayek’s proposal aimed to create a free market-based monetary system and break up the central banks’ monopoly in money creation.
Hayek did not think of a monetary system made of an infinite number of currencies, as he specified in his 1978 revised and enlarged edition “Denationalization of Money: The Argument Refined”, where he maintained that rather than entertaining an unmanageable number of currencies, markets would converge on one or only a limited number of monetary standards …
Read the full version here ->
Cryptocurrencies Road to Denationalization of Money (.doc)
*Emanuele Canegrati is an economist, senior analyst at the London-based Forex broker BP Prime. He is a Faculty Member of the Liechtenstein Academy Foundation. He works as economist at the Italian Parliament and the Italian Ministry of Economy. He is a guest professor of Economics at LUISS University and La Sapienza University in Rome. He was Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics and at the Luxembourg Income Study Office. This paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the Center of Economic Research for Monaco (CEPROM), held at the Oceanographic Museum in Monaco, 5 – 6 December 2018, Monaco.
by Johan Norberg*
This paper was presented at the III. ECAEF/CEPROM Conference on “Concurrent Currencies: Curse or Cure?” in Monaco on Dec. 6, 2018. These academic conferences in honor of Jacques Rueff are planned and organized by ECAEF (European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation, Liechtenstein) and hosted in Monaco by CEPROM (Center of Economic Research for Monaco).
As I was pondering the origin and purpose of money, a friend brought me back to reality. He sent me a message from school about a problem with snack boxes. Apparently, the children had started trading food with one another, and turned school into a wild marketplace. Puffed rice cakes in the boxes created bigger problems than anything else because the children had started using them to pay for other goods, and even to buy help and services.
This school doesn’t have a central bank, and yet, the children developed a medium of exchange with all the textbook attributes: It is standardised so that it functions as a unit of account – whereas the fruits they bring vary in quality and size, rice cakes come from the same producer and each unit has the same diameter, weight and taste. And it is a store of value, since it is more durable than perishable fruit. Unlike our fiat money, it is also based on something of real value. If the owner does not want to save for the future, he can always eat his rice cake.
This little story reveals why Carl Menger’s theory of the origin of money as an organic process – “Money has not been generated by law. In its origin it is a social, and not a state institution”1 – is much more realistic than the idea that it started as a government edict. Menger meant that bartering was a hassle since it took a double coincidence of wants. If the baker does not want a copy of my book, I have to find a butcher who does who is willing to exchange it for meat that the baker wants, in order to get my bread. People learn that this hassle is reduced the moment they trade with some good that is in demand by most people. This good eventually becomes money.
This is also the evidence from economic history. Archaeological and historical records show that early civilisations traded with the help of goods like stones, shells, barley, furs and salt. As they became more advanced they began to use precious metals like gold and silver. Puffed rice cakes fits into a long history of economic behaviour …
Read the full version here ->
Let People Decide (PDF)
*Johan Norberg is a Swedish author and historian, devoted to promoting economic globalization and what he regards as classical liberal positions. This paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the Center of Economic Research for Monaco (CEPROM), held at the Oceanographic Museum in Monaco, 5 – 6 December 2018, Monaco.
Jörg Guido Hülsmann*
This paper was presented at the III. ECAEF/CEPROM Conference on “Concurrent Currencies: Curse or Cure?” in Monaco on Dec. 6, 2018. These academic conferences in honor of Jacques Rueff are planned and organized by ECAEF (European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation, Liechtenstein) and hosted in Monaco by CEPROM (Center of Economic Research for Monaco).
La liberté monétaire est-elle un mal à éviter, ou au contraire un remède à rechercher ? Cette question a été abordée maintes fois dans l’histoire de la pensée économique depuis le 16e siècle. Elle a été abordée essentiellement, et à juste raison, des points de vue économique et politique. Sans doute trouvons-nous ici le cœur de la question. Il est nécessaire d’avoir des idées claires sur les conséquences économiques et politiques qui découlent de la liberté monétaire, par opposition au traditionnel monopole régalien, avant de trancher sur sa mise en place, ou non.
Cependant, il convient de porter l’attention également sur ses ramifications culturelles. L’on peut reconnaître l’arbre par tous ses fruits, pas seulement par ses avantages et inconvénients économiques. Les institutions monétaires ne mènent pas une existence autonome, séparée du reste de la vie humaine. Elles ont forcément des ramifications sur le vivre ensemble des citoyens ; sur leurs priorités ; sur leurs manières de regarder le monde ; sur ce qu’ils aiment et détestent ; sur ce qu’ils considèrent être un problème ; et sur ce qu’ils pensent être une solution.
Mais quel est le poids de cet impact culturel de la monnaie ? Surtout, comment se manifeste-t-il concrètement ? Quels sont les mécanismes qui sont ici à l’œuvre ?
Le temps qui nous est imparti ne permet malheureusement pas de faire un tour complet de la question. Nous allons nous concentrer sur les mécanismes les plus importants, et nous allons les mettre en relief en comparant deux régimes monétaires diamétralement opposés, celui de la liberté monétaire, d’un côté, et le régime de l’interventionnisme monétaire qui prévaut aujourd’hui dans la quasi-totalité des pays du monde.
Dans ce qui suit, nous allons donc d’abord esquisser les traits caractéristiques de ces régimes monétaires et leurs conséquences sur les prix (I). Puis nous allons rappeler les principaux points de critique qui sont typiquement adressés à l’interventionnisme monétaire (II) avant de présenter, en plus de détail, ses conséquences culturelles (III) …
Read the full version here ->
Régimes monétaires et cultures économiques (PDF)
*Jörg Guido Hülsmann is a German-born economist of the Austrian School of economics who studies issues related to money, banking, monetary policy, macroeconomics, and financial markets. Hülsmann is professor of economics at the University of Angers’ School of Law, Economics, and Management. This paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the Center of Economic Research for Monaco (CEPROM), held at the Oceanographic Museum in Monaco, 5 – 6 December 2018, Monaco.