Europe and the world are watching Donald Trump’s behavior in the United States presidential campaign with amazement. He has shocked his country’s media elites, who are more accustomed than their European counterparts to harsh talk and mudslinging between candidates. His aggressive rhetoric and erratic tactics are a novelty for even seasoned followers of U.S. politics, writes Prince Michael of Liechtenstein.
Most interestingly, though, Donald Trump continues to run a successful campaign. Intellectuals criticize his supporters as ignorant, but experience shows that in instances where populist newcomers are successful, there is a flaw in the system. Voters are not ignorant.
In representative democracies, the political establishment typically reacts to newcomers by trying to marginalize them. Usually, the outsider is branded a buffoon, a racist, a radical or an extremist of one sort or another.
But instead of trying to brush aside Mr. Trump, opinion shapers should take a close look at what is wrong with the system that allowed him to get this far. The fact is that most people no longer believe that the political establishment has their best interests at heart. This is certainly the case in Europe, and Mr. Trump’s success indicates it is in the U.S. as well.
The working population feels unrepresented by both the right and the left. Entrepreneurs are increasingly stymied by overregulation. These two groups form the backbone of any properly functioning economy and are responsible for producing the country’s wealth. But there is a widening gap between them and those who reap the benefits: government, politicians and intellectuals. In this context workers can, and should, identify with entrepreneurs.
Seen from across the Atlantic, this seems to be the reason why Donald Trump’s exaggerated statements appeal to large swathes of the population. In Europe the problem is even worse; politicians’ reputations are at the lowest end of the scale.
The anti-Trump forces are now resorting to the marginalization tactic. This might work for the moment. But if the political classes do not learn the lesson of why people are gravitating toward more realistic, less intellectual, less party-centered politics, the consequences could be dire. The “newcomers” who crop up in the future could make Mr. Trump look far less radical than we see him today.
Read the original statement “Who is afraid of Donald Trump?” here -> GIS Statements
Interview von Liewo-Redakteur Michael Winkler mit Prinz Michael von und zu Liechtenstein – erscheinen am 13. März 2016
Im Kampf gegen den Terror will die EZB grössere Banknoten abschaffen, zum anderen eine Bargeld-Obergrenze einführen. Dem ganzen steht der Präsident des Think Tanks ECAEF, Prinz Michael von und zu Liechtenstein, kritisch gebenüber. Er wagt im Gespräch mit der Liewo* eine Einschätzung der Gefahrenlage. Lesen sie den gesamten Beitrag hier -> Liewo: Prinz Michael von Liechtenstein (PDF, 273kb)
*Liewo ist eine Wochenzeitung im Fürstentum Liechtenstein. Sie wird sonntags in alle Haushalte in Liechtenstein verteilt. Aktuelle Auflage: 37500 Exemplare.
People and economies have always needed means of exchange that represent value and set prices, even in a barter economy. These means of exchange had to have a trusted value and as economies evolved, precious metals, silver and gold served this purpose. As international trading developed, nations relied on paper money supplied by their governments and central banks that was still backed by silver and gold. This gave value and trust to the currency and forced discipline on the emitting institution.
In the course of the 20th century, the gold standard was abandoned and trust in the resulting fiat money depended on assessments of the underlying economy, political stability and belief that the central bank would protect the value of the currency with responsible monetary policies. This worked in some instances. Germany and its Bundesbank set with the deutsche mark an outstanding example of prudent monetary policy, impervious to pressure from politicians.
Unfortunately, government overspending led to large budget deficits and a fiscal crisis. Allowing economic cycles to run their course is rejected for political reasons, meaning that unsustainable cheap money is often used to ease cyclical lows in the economy. On the whole, the European Central Bank (ECB) has followed the politically expedient approach of southern European countries rather than the discipline that was the bedrock of the old German Bundesbank.
All means of exchange should be constrained in supply in order to retain value. For fiat currencies, the supply limit is no longer restrained. The euro area’s monetary base has increased from approximately 700 billion euros in 2006 to about 1.8 trillion euros in 2016, according to the ECB. This additional money creation, not covered by an economic basis, is worrying.
Gold-backed currencies used to provide a measure of control on monetary aggregates that is lacking today. Without controls on the money supply, confidence in its rarity is being sacrificed along with value. While gold may no longer be a realistic form of currency, it is still a valid medium of exchange with the advantage of holding intrinsic value and being limited in supply.
With individuals being discouraged from acquiring gold, central banks are buying again – especially Russia and China. Increasing gold reserves relative to foreign currency reserves has the advantage of reducing exposure to foreign monetary policies. There are large uncertainties around the quantity of gold the Chinese are acquiring, as the Peoples Bank of China may not be the sole purchaser. The authorities in Beijing can use other entities to buy gold on global markets, while China is also the world leader in gold mining output.
Both China and Russia are seeking to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar, especially China, which is striving to establish the renminbi as a global reserve currency. The gold in the vaults of the Russian and Chinese central banks is insufficient to back their currencies. So why are these countries buying? They are probably trying to use gold as a lever to increase confidence in their currencies and make them more independent from U.S. monetary policies and the dollar.
Meanwhile, there is growing awareness that central banks have misused their money creating capacity for political ends. This realization, combined with low interest rates, plunging confidence in traditional currencies and government institutions, and increased gold demand by Eastern central banks, may be contributing to the present rally in gold prices.
Unless Western governments and central banks change their policies, people may start shifting their trust from fiat money back to gold. Precious metals have the advantage of being easily storable, holding intrinsic value, and not being subject to negative interest rates, as is the case with bank deposits. Gold will only become more attractive if governments make progress in their current push to physically abolish cash.
A key concern is that today’s policymakers could abuse their legislative powers to outlaw physical ownership of gold, especially in Europe and the U.S., as a way of extending the control and reach of monetary policy. There are precedents for this, including President Franklin Roosevelt’s executive order in 1933 to outlaw gold currency ownership by individuals. The step would be a logical, if totalitarian, outcome of current monetary policies.
It is just one small step from abolishing cash to outlawing gold ownership. If the current economic policy direction is maintained, the strength of the U.S. dollar and the euro will wane, people’s trust in gold relative to their own currencies will increase, and certain members of the “dollar bloc” will prepare themselves to stop following the lead of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. currency.
Read the original statement “The Political Value of Gold” here -> GIS Statements
*GIS expert Gisela von Liechtenstein is an environmental engineer working in sustainability management at Midas Gold Corp., a Canadian mining company focused on gold exploration.
An Introduction to the Austrian School of Economics (Seminar)
Understanding how society works features a comprehensive innovative curriculum in Austrian Economics, LIECHTENSTEIN ACADEMY tries to get entrepreneurs, individuals and key opinion leaders in politics, the media, and academia interested. We are not awarding degrees. However, our world-class faculty will grant a degree for the individual modules if successfully mastered. The seminar is designed as a sequence of 8 self-contained modules and thus can be booked individually. To affirm an interactive and open-ended learning environment, we have limited the class size to 20 to 25 students. The instruction will be either in English and/or German. At a later stage, upon request all modules will also be offered in Spanish.
The contents of the individual modules represent a recommended minimum and thus may be subject to additions and change of emphasis by our instructors.
M1 – Economics An introduction to the “Austrian School of Economics’
M2 – Philosophy The methodology and the limits of the social science
M3 – Law Selected topics in legal theory. The evolution of law, natural law and spontaneous order
M4 – Philosophy Markets, moral and business ethics
M5 – Economics Money, banking and behavioral finance; selected topics in monetary-, capital- and business cycle theory
M6 – Politics Institutional economics and public choice analysis
M7 – Sociology The problems of demography, immigration issues and social security systems; the illusion of the welfare state’ and alternative models
M8 – Economics Environmental economics, property rights and the eminent domain problem. Public goods and “the tragedy of the commons’
Money facilitates trade and serves as remuneration for work. It also stores value. Money that is earned but not spent becomes savings, which can provide capital for investment. The effort expended in providing labor, services, or entrepreneurial activities, as well as the need for goods and investment, form the basis for the value we place in money.
Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China, admitted at a press conference during the G20 summit in Shanghai that monetary measures have a limited scope for stimulating the economy. Structural reforms, though they hurt, are necessary. GIS experts have repeated this many times over the past few years, but at least the PBoC is willing to admit it officially, writes Prince Michael of Liechtenstein.
For years policymakers in governments, central banks and academia have preached easy money and inflation as a solution to the economic woes in Europe, the United States and Japan. But years of administering this medicine have had no effect on growth. Instead, it has led to an asset bubble, damaged savings (especially retirement funds) and motivated governments to delay painful but necessary reforms.
China tried the same tactics, and was also unsuccessful.
The reasoning behind implementing these measures was an oversimplification: Cheap, abundant money would incentivize businesses to invest and consumers to spend, further allowing banks to lend.
What was ignored, especially in Europe, was that the lack of reform to restrictive labor laws, oversized public sectors and bloated regulatory frameworks creates doubt about whether growth can be sustained. Businesses become reluctant to invest and consumers to spend. Japan and the U.S. are seeing similar effects.
The money therefore stays in the financial system and does not reach the rest of the economy. That some companies prefer to use the excess cash to buy back their own shares is significant: it shows they see a lack of viable options for investment. The blame for that lies not with business, but with bad government policies, which have stifled investment incentives.
In a well-run business, damaging the company, first by assessing the situation wrongly and then by not reacting when the mistake becomes clear, would be grounds for changing management (and their advisors). Not so with these policymakers.
The European Central Bank continues with quantitative easing and negative interest rates, ignoring that such policies have not solved the problem. They will prove even less effective in the future, due to a decrease in marginal utility. Then there are all of the negatives already mentioned.
However, slowly, people are beginning to realize that the abundant, cheap money provided to the banks is not being injected into the economy. Instead of coming to the same conclusion as Mr. Zhou, some analysts are promoting the concept of “helicopter money”: central bank money, freshly printed, provided directly by the government to consumers as a gift – like throwing banknotes out of a helicopter.
That sounds wonderful and might stimulate consumption. But the populace could rightly see it as unsustainable, and might instead decide to save. In any case, such policies will only have a short-term effect and will further delay the necessary reforms. The underlying structural problems will remain.
“Helicopter money” policies may or may not be implemented, but that the discussion has come to this shows the difficulty of changing the mindset that economies can be stimulated purely through money supply. This mentality might lead to helicopter money but is certainly not a helicopter view. An efficient economy needs business, and not theoretical money supply equations.
It was refreshing to hear Mr. Zhou’s words. Such an obviously necessary change of paradigm would be welcome in the West.
Read the original statement “Economies need structural reform …” here ->GIS Statements