Live data from Hacker News

'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

npr.org

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#81
100 year old events allows us, to some extent, to sidestep some of the deep feelings monetary discussions tend to evoke. These things recur. Tricks from the Napoleonic wars are reused during WWI. WWI lessons form the basis of WWII's monetary systems, which lead pretty directly to modern monetary systems and theories.

This event is not at all unrelated to the new deal, allied WWII monetary policies, lend lease, the marshall plan, Keynesianism, New Keynesianism (eg Friedman/monetarism) and into the present day.

the Bank(ers) ... purchased the securities in their own names with the bonds then held by the Bank of England on its balance sheet. To hide the fact.. bonds were classified as holdings of 'Other Securities' in the Bank of England's balance sheet rather than as holdings of Government Securities."

The BoE prints £350m of bonds. The BoE sells £100m to the public. BoE declares/lies that they successfully sold all £350m. The BoE buys the outstanding £250m of bonds itself using a virtual credit line backed by BoE bonds. Once the final transaction is completed, £250m of new money exists in government accounts and can be used to fund the war.

This is exactly how UK/US/Etc government deficits work today. Bonds are created. Some are sold. The rest is bought (or kept) by the Fed/BoE itself. The "deception" allows order to remain in the banking world while also allowing governments to fight the war/depression/deficit.

These days, the outright lies are not strictly necessary. Instead, we rely on complexity of ritual, bureaucracy and bond market transactions to "cover our tracks." One thing that has changed in society (if not in central banks and treasuries) is that "what gives money value" has become a non-question. I think that was different 100 years ago.

The researchers write: "The long-held laissez-faire principles of the Liberal and Conservative parties were thus sacrificed to raise the capital upon which the War's outcome depended."

This is a cliche. During the great irish famine 70 years prior, both the King and Prime Minister were involved in almost identical schemes. There are lots of examples.

To me, the odd part is that we can't play it straight and admit that governments invent money... or that it's OK that they do. Every policy that relates to banking, central banking, money printing or such requires some sort of lie. Just like now, FDIC bails out ostensibly uninsured accounts/banks. This seemingly has to come with an assurance that it's not what it looks like... even though it obviously is.

IE, it's not weird that money works like this. It is weird that we have to pretend like it doesn't.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#82
post #7
post #4

Another aspect of the british war debt, is that it was carried for hundreds of years. Rolling the specific consols into a unified public debt and then eradicating it wiped out the history of people sitting on long-tail bond payments from wreakage of the South Sea Bubble onwards. Basically, until they rolled them up you could have a stable (if low rate of return) income denominated in Napoleonic war debt, if you wante…

I find this history really interesting. Apparently there was a weird set of loans the UK took from the US during WW1 where the US put a moratorium on repayments during the Great Depression, and then loan payments never restarted: > These loans remain in limbo. The UK Government's position is this: "Neither the debt owed to the United States by the UK nor the larger debts owed by other countries to the UK have been se…

Just don't ask France about loans the USA has with them for the war...the Revolutionary War!

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#83
post #21

See also The Lancet 's updating of their original 1858 obituary of John Snow: > Dr John Snow: This well-known physician died at noon, on the 16th instant, at his house in Sackville Street, from an attack of apoplexy. His researches on chloroform and other anaesthetics were appreciated by the profession. versus the 2013 one: > The journal accepts that some readers may wrongly have inferred that The Lancet failed to re…

It's pedantic to say, but, based on what they said, their original was not incorrect, simply less exhaustive than it could have been. It could (and, seems to) be that the fellow's work on anaesthetics was seen as more important than his work on cholera. Given the (often overlooked) importance of modern anaesthetics, I can easily believe this.

"Barrack Obama passed away on Jan 20th; Obama was a senator from Illinois and the author of several best-selling books" is also correct. At some point an omission is so glaring that it becomes egregious.

That said, I believe the significance of Snow's 1854 findings were not yet widely appreciated in 1858, and in this case the omission in the original obituary seems understandable and reasonable.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#84
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of, but I don’t pay any fees for my bank account(s) and I don’t expect to in the future, even with the small insurance rate increase levied by the FDIC to cover making SVB depositors whole. Making loans with my money is profitable enough for my bank that they don’t need to charge fees.

You pay fees, even if they are hidden (e.g. lower interest rates in savings).

Many banks these days have zero commission brokerage accounts, in which you can hold T-bills or money market funds. Not a lot of reasons to use a "savings" account.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#85

100 year old events allows us, to some extent, to sidestep some of the deep feelings monetary discussions tend to evoke. These things recur. Tricks from the Napoleonic wars are reused during WWI. WWI lessons form the basis of WWII's monetary systems, which lead pretty directly to modern monetary systems and theories. This event is not at all unrelated to the new deal, allied WWII monetary policies, lend lease, the ma…

Maintaining the illusion that the government operates like a household is all part of the economic theatre that underpins much of fiscal and monetary policy. The moment sufficient people realise that money can be created for whatever the government needs, people will start asking why then can it not be created to benefit society in general. It's getting increasingly untenable as people realise that there is always money available to bail out this or that bunch of wealthy influentials.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#86
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it economics that stopped WW1 though?

Depends on where you draw the lines. Exhaustion of resources stopped WW1. Those resources include money, material, and men.

I think that's the point - it was just materials and men, not so much money.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#87
post #62
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not all that funny, considering that the reason they were paying those reparations was the 'damages' inflicted upon French slaveowners by slaves freeing themselves.

It was all damages - lost property (land and slaves), deaths, lost profits, etc. It was a terrible but necessary sacrifice on the part of Haiti because it was the only way France would recognise their independence, which paved the way for other countries to do the same (but nobody was forthcoming on their own either out of fear of pissing of France or their own slaves/colonies rebelling).

It was only necessary because france required it. And they could have stopped requiring it any time in the next 120 years and didn't.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#88
post #3

I wonder why they bothered going through with the fake bond purchase, rather than simply manipulate the published numbers of bonds sold? Unless the Bank was also keeping it a secret from central government?

According to one bitcoin maximalist[0] this was the real origin of fiat currency. I’m not sure I understand everything that is said nor fully believe, given that it’s a bitcoin maximalist dumping on fiat currency, but what I took away was that the english pound was redeemable for gold. When they did this fake bond purchase, they just minted new pounds (that didn’t have gold backing it) and used that to buy back these…

Which is wrong - the Romans realised that money should carry the face value of the coin over its commodity value, enforced by the power of the state (and taxation). It was kind of forgotten in the middle ages, when coin was a weird hybrid of its face value and its commodity value (much of the monetary shenanigans for hundreds of years was concerned with maintaining face value in light of fluctuating commodity prices).

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#90

100 year old events allows us, to some extent, to sidestep some of the deep feelings monetary discussions tend to evoke. These things recur. Tricks from the Napoleonic wars are reused during WWI. WWI lessons form the basis of WWII's monetary systems, which lead pretty directly to modern monetary systems and theories. This event is not at all unrelated to the new deal, allied WWII monetary policies, lend lease, the ma…

Maintaining the illusion that the government operates like a household is all part of the economic theatre that underpins much of fiscal and monetary policy. The moment sufficient people realise that money can be created for whatever the government needs, people will start asking why then can it not be created to benefit society in general. It's getting increasingly untenable as people realise that there is always mo…

>> the illusion that the government operates like a household

That's one way of putting it, though kind of specific to current discourse. You might also say the "illusion" that a central bank is just a bank. You could say the the "illusion" is that banks are firms, providing financial services for profit like any other type of service.

In times past, the "illusion" was that banks are "fully backed and solvent." It's hard to pin down exactly what the "deception" is. Almost always, it involves surprisingly moralistic language.

Our generations' "bailout story" is that bailouts are necessary for stability. But... the problem with bailouts is "moral hazard," which in current language means specifically "externalized long-tail risk." These moral hazards are what (in the current story) cause bank failures in the first place. The business cycle has been reduced to a banking cycle, and it's now described as a cycle of moral failures.

In truly modern (postmodern?) fashion, these days everyone sees that there's a lie, but no one agrees on what the lie is.

Post reply on HN