Monthly Archives: April 2013

Mark Thoma saw a growing gap between the academia and the economy itself – The Great Disconnect – and hopes that weblogging will help close the gap (November 2011):

Modern communications technology is forging new connections between academic economists, the public, policymakers, the press, economists outside of academia, and other academic disciplines in ways that were not possible in the past, and there is little doubt that these connections have increased in recent years. The Great Disconnect is, hopefully, coming to an end.

We are still working out how blogs fit into academic economics, what professional mores ought to apply to blogging, how blogging relates to the academic mission of teaching, research, and service (including serving the public mission), how it should be viewed in tenure and promotion decisions, and so on. But this is a new endeavor for economists, and such questions are expected. We will get these things worked out over time. For now, however, there is plenty of room for optimism that new forms of communication will continue to enhance the public presence of economics in ways that provide mutual benefits to the profession and the public sphere.

I tend to share that optimism, but still think that national Economic Supreme Courts (ESC) are required to really bridge the gap. We cannot leave it to government bureaucracies and the political process to select sense from nonsense. That approach failed before in more civilized times and will surely fail in the present kakophonia.

Brad DeLong wrote on the shift of the Phillipscurve 2013 but see also my analysis in DRGTPE. Also, he wrote a surprising text that referred to … Holland !  The full title of his lecture is Europe Fails to Learn the Lessons of History: Notes on Political Union for Barry Eichengreen’s “Future of the Euro” Conference, as Delivered. The article suffers a bit from a too academic and ivory tower approach to the severe Depression in Southern Europe. He also mentions that Jan de Vries is in the room during his talk, but he and Jan do not mention the censorship of science in Holland since 1990. Otherwise it is a nice review how Europe got into its mess. Still, there are long comments by readers, and now Mark Thoma has show his optimism again that it will be sorted out.

The Palgrave reports that this weblog has been included as number 509. One must be an optimist indeed to join in this fray.

These three weblogs in a row have titles “The end of …” and were inspired by Steven de Jong at NRC Handelsblad who was inspired by Carlos Lozada at the Washington Post who discussed The end of everything, and who was inspired naturally by Francis Fukuyama‘s The end of history 1989.

Steven suggests that “The end of …” is a catchy title to provoke debate. He prefers debate to the reasoned exposition that says it all and that kills debate. There is a distinction between publicists who have to gain attention since they live from the proceeds, and scientists who would put the truth in first place. It is a good bet that the form versus content distinction follows the motives. The distinction is tricky though since some scientific results apparently came with a lot of debate.

It so happens that I wrote about The end of laissez-parler in 1990, inspired by John Maynard Keynes’s The end of laissez-faire in 1926. This 1990 text provides the Core Argument of this weblog. I wrote it as an economic scientist but apparently followed Keynes in the choice of literary expression.

The phrase and its explanation can be found in the concluding paragraph of the 1990 paper After 20 years of mass unemployment: Why we might wish for a parliamentary inquiry, CPB internal note 90-III-38. It is this paper that got blocked from internal discussion and from the process towards publication, which constitutes the very censorship that requires the boycott of Holland to resolve it. The directorate then blocked all my papers anyway, and nowadays they are not interested whether the crisis confirms my analysis since I have been erased from relevance.

Key points to be aware of are:

  1. My appointment at the Central Planning Bureau was that of a scientific co-worker with a task to provide scientific advice on economic developments.
  2. I observed that Parliament got lost in mere talking while neglecting scientific advice. Twenty years of mass unemployment in 1972-1992 were caused not by lack of scienfic knowledge and proper advice, but by Parliamentary failure to respect science.
  3. This failure by Parliament also amounted to a form of abuse of power. On the one hand one asks for scientific advice, on the other hand one neglects it, and one creates a state of chaos so that voters are disinformed about the true state of affairs.
  4. Hence, I draw a line in the sand. As a scientist I cannot accept this maltreatment of science. The Trias Politica structure is finished, and we enter the new configuration where Parliament must come to respect that what it has said to do but doesn’t.
  5. The only thing that a scientist can do is write a paper and describe the situation. This became that 1990 paper.
  6. The paper explains that Parliament should start studying the advices given, the concepts involved, and investigate the processes how such advices got neglected. By this study, Parliament could confirm that it was creating unemployment itself, and by the method of neglecting scientific advice.
  7. Unfortunately, CPB director Gerrit Zalm blocked the paper, which is censorship of science. He dismissed me with untruths, which is an abuse of power too.
  8. The Trias Politica system might have had some self-correction, if my paper had been published and had caused a debate in Parliament. Now Parliament may investigate not only how it neglects scientific advice, but it may also investigate how that element of self-correction got sabotaged. We now rely on the external process of what we call free society. Apparently it takes a huge economic crisis to get some attention to the censorship, and apparently it requires an advice of a boycott.

In my analysis, there is no return to the Trias Politica model. In my analysis, we should only accept a Tessera Politica model with an Economic Supreme Court, with a firm foundation in the Constitution. Scientific integrity is to be respected, in the form of a veto power for the case that the national budget would contain wrong information that is misleading to voters.

Of course we are speaking only about conceptual models here. The reality still is the chaos at the national Parliaments where scientific integrity is treated as a floor mat.  But in the Core Argument, Parliament has lost the power to chatter an economy into chaos.

It is possible that a boycott of Holland will not work. The Dutch are notoriously headstrong, stubborn, obstinate, and they will tend to resist any foreign meddling. “Je maintiendrai,” or “I will persist,” William of Orange said, when he imported himself into the Netherlands. It is not unlikely that the Dutch rather eat tulip bulbs than stop the censorship that they have come to love so much as part of their national identity. The boycott may not be the End of Holland, but it would be the End of Holland as we know it. No longer the land of milk and honey but the realm of censorship, bitterness and resentment, and a variety of tulip bulbs on the menu.

The most artistic End of Holland was created by Al Gore, who had Greenland break up in pieces so that the melting ice water flooded Holland. The cute scene is here on video. There is even a Dutchman who rebuilt Noah’s Ark just in case, see that same video report. Still, you are more likely to enjoy the scene of surfer Mike Parson who rides a 66 ft wave. Apparently those don’t happen on the North Sea yet, and we may have to wait till Greenland breaks up indeed.

A current projection is that the sea level would be 1.3 meters higher by the year 2100. An article in Nature Climate Change yesterday suggested that the average temperature rise might already be 2 degrees by 2050. I regard this as somewhat optimistic and would rather be risk averse. Incidently, there is a strange phenomenon. The ice mass on Greenland would be 3 kilometers high, and exerts a gravitational effect such the water level of the sea in the North is higher now than it would otherwise be. The disappearance of that ice sheet would also lower the sea level. The net effect would still flood Holland though. Somewhere around the year 2200 ? Would the Dutch living then still be able to sell their houses ? Here on video are the water protection plans of the Dutch government, explained by the two charming though somewhat incompetent ladies Louise Fresco and Tineke Huizinga. Perhaps they are trying to get their houses sold at still a good price.

The most likely End of Holland is the absorption into the European Union. Though William of Orange fought against Brussels, in the final chapter Brussels wins. After surrendering sovereignty, the Dutch discover that they are heavily taxed to pay for Southern Europe and French banks, whereupon many flee the country, and the incompetent who remain discover that they must eat tulip bulbs again. Hans Brinker can’t stand it anymore and takes his finger out of the dike.

I have to admit: when the country no longer exists it cannot censor science either.

On April 30, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands will retire. She ‘reigned’ from 1980-2013 while the years of Dutch censorship of science are 1990-2013, which is 23 out of 33 years, or 70 %, and which is not a bad record for despotism, as the ‘royal blood’ demands to show and impose itself. She still has 18 days to resolve the censorship under her ‘reign’, which would be a final triumph of decency and reason after years of neglect, but most likely she will spend more time on selecting a cute hat than on defending the integrity of science. A few days more for glory – but Sic transit gloria mundi.

Holland is a republic that happened by history to get a constitutional monarch. France is a monarchy that happened by history to get an elected president. Foreigners don’t understand the confusion, which is fair, given that many people in Holland or France do not understand it either. It is rather amazing how much orange pomp and circumstance some Dutch are creating around the April 30 transfer of the ‘reign’ to her son Willem-Alexander. The lackey mentality is ingrained in many human genes and requires an expression in ceremonies, constumes, parades and flags, otherwise the lackeys wither and get lost in the woods and swamps, perhaps hunting mosquito’s and other easy prey to stay alive.

Indeed, the key issue isn’t the orange family itself but Dutch society as a whole: compare the orange mania with the effort to defend the integrity of science. Of course there are vested interests in building up the orange fire and passion. The prime minister, the politicians, the mayors, the journalists, the broadcasting companies, the advertisers, the mechandisers. Follow the money, and see how the masses are played upon, and how their passions are manipulated to separate them from their euros. This circus stands in painful contrast to the lack of respect for science.

Thomas Paine in Common Sense, January 10 1776, already explained that hereditary royalty flies in the face of, well, common sense. Really, what is that transfer of the ‘reign’ on April 30 truly about ? It means that a constitution with a historical error requires that a slot is replaced. One figurehead for another. It is something to be ashamed about. If it has to be done, do it quickly, in a dark room so that people do not have to see the disgust on all faces, and be done with it.

It is no coincidence that my 2012 book carries the title Common Sense: Boycott Holland.

As a person she seems to have her nice sides. The Dutch also respond to the complexities of a family in the spotlights with some personal tragedies like the loss of her husband and son. Frans Bieckmann collected her speeches in a booklet Creation itself is at stake. The first speech she made in 1961 when she was 23 about The European Ideal. Another one to the American Congress in 1982. There is a lot of idealism and good will, quite in contrast to the censorship of science. It is a point that Thomas Paine may not have considered: that nice people should not be locked up in hereditary royalty. Though idealists can also wreak a lot of havoc in Europe.

The Dutch minister of finance and eurogroup president Jeroen Dijsselbloem became (in-) famous in Europe overnight, with the handling of the crisis in Cyprus. He is decent, he is smart, and he belongs to the younger generation that is set to take over from Angela Merkel and François Hollande over the next decade. Indeed, it is better to call him Jeroen rather than Mr. Dijsselbloem and keep him as a household name, as common as that of a soccer player, not only since he will stay on the stage for a longer time but also because it is easier to communicate up close rather than over a long distance. If one thing has become clear from the Cyprus event is that Europe has to communicate a lot.

The Cyprus government had four years since 2008 to resolve its banking problem and had refused to do so. In September 2012 the EU presented plans for a European Banking Union. These plans distinguish between system banks that have to be saved at all costs and normal banks that may collapse. The Cyprus government could have read those plans, especially since Cyprus even was the EU-President in the second half of 2012. The Cyprus government still refused to resolve its problems and apparently hoped that the EU would provide ample funds. Alternatively said, the Cyprus banking elite didn’t mind to use its own population as hostages, hoping that the bluff poker would work. The key message from the EU to Cyprus is that the EU did actually help, for otherwise the chaos would be much bigger. It is up to Cyprus now to get rid of its brutal elite, and find similar decent and smart people like Jeroen to clean up the mess.

It is good to know that Jeroen made an entrance on the political stage in Holland in about the same manner as now in Europe. He made his mark as the chairperson of a parliamentary enquiry into education. It is hard to believe, but the system of education in Holland had been spiralling downwards, and Jeroen suddenly was on national television, explaining what had gone wrong and what should be done to repair it. Overnight he was a national hero. A key thing to see is that this fame endured, and didn’t disappear as sudden as it had come, as we see with so many hypes nowadays. Jeroen is there to stay.

Europe has had strange political leaders, like Helmut Kohl from Germany who got lost in an illegal party financing deal and Jacques Chirac from France who got convicted to two years of prison for diverting public funds. With leaders like that, you may question what they say or do. Think of Cyprus again, or of Berlusconi. The Greek who hate Angela Merkel should rather protest against Berlusconi and his lame promises. In any case, with Jeroen, we do not need to fear for this. Jeroen isn’t perfect and may make errors, but given that he is decent and smart, an error still means that no mischief is intended, so that he can learn from mistakes, and he tends to be open to new information that can help to correct such errors.

The key message of this article is that there is new information. Up to now, economic science has been explaining that a common currency like the euro also requires a political union. This is called the theory of the optimal currency area. In the Treaty of Maastricht of 1992, the political leaders created the euro but rejected the political union. The euro indeed was badly managed. Europe now goes from crisis to crisis, potentially making the minds of the population ripe to accept a United States of Europe, and give up national sovereignty, but also with the risk of rising nationalism and the break-up of what already exists.

Now, however, there is a new economic theory, that would allow to maintain both the euro and national sovereignty, provided that each nation adopts its own national Economic Supreme Court (ESC), that supervises national economic policy. The national ESC would be staffed by national economic scientists, who know their nation better than distant Brussels, and who operate under the rules of science, rather than the hidden rules of a distant bureaucracy. The international co-ordination that is required for a common currency comes about by the international scientific co-operation of the various ESCs, that is transparent and open to science and the public. This new economic theory plus a scheme how to handle the euro is discussed in the paper “Money as gold versus money as water” available at the Munich archive for economic papers.

Since I am Dutch and present this analysis from Holland, and since Jeroen is Dutch and is the minister of finance of Holland, readers may think that Jeroen and I have discussed this new theory, and that he is well-informed on this. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that. A huge unemployment and political chaos across Europe and complex communications and diplomacies over a few thousand kilometers apparently are required, to cross the few kilometers from my desk to his desk. There is also censorship of science in Holland since 1990. The Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB) is not an Economic Supreme Court and does not apply the proper rules of science. Next to “Greek statistics” there is “Dutch economic science”. Thus Jeroen entertains a misperception about the quality of his economic advisors and he lacks information about the new economic theory. Thus Europe needs some education on Jeroen, and Jeroen needs some education on Europe. The best thing that Europe can do is help Jeroen gain more information indeed where this is lacking now.

Thomas Colignatus is an econometrician and teacher of mathematics in Scheveningen, Holland. The article “Money as gold versus money as water” is available at

I haven’t visited the London School of Economics (LSE) so I cannot be sure what is happening there. Very likely the good people at LSE don’t know what is happening there themselves either. In Cambridge, Bertrand Russell didn’t succeed in convincing Ludwig Wittgenstein that there wasn’t a rhinoceros in the lecture room, and LSE will claim that they are better than Cambridge, so they will be more challenged to show that what isn’t there really isn’t happening. Nevertheless, I have some misgivings about the performance of professor Paul de Grauwe as member of the Central Planning Commission (CPC) of Holland, and since De Grauwe is also the head of the European Institute of LSE, my fear is that he also disinforms his LSE colleagues and students about his failure in Holland.

This caused me to write this email to professor Calhoun, director of LSE, and copy to the members of the European Institute. Below I first list the members and secondly print the email.

(1) Copied to professors, lecturers and readers at the European Institute of LSE

Barr, Nicholas (Prof) – Professor of Public Economics
Bartlett, William (Dr) – Senior Research Fellow in the Political Economy of Southeast Europe, LSEE
Begg, Iain (Prof) – Professorial Research Fellow
Bryant, Rebecca (Dr) – A.N.Hadjiyiannis Senior Research Fellow on Contemporary Cyprus
Chalmers, Damian (Prof) – Professor in European Union Law
Costa-i-Font, Joan (Dr) – Reader in Political Economy (on leave 2012/13)
De Grauwe, Paul (Prof) – John Paulson Chair in European Political Economy, Head of the European Institute
Economides, Spyros (Dr) – Senior Lecturer in International Relations and European Politics; Deputy Director of Hellenic Observatory
Featherstone, Kevin (Prof) – Eleftherios Venizelos Chair in Contemporary Greek Studies; Director of the Hellenic Observatory (on leave 2012/13)
Fraser, Maurice (Prof) – Professor of Practice in European Politics (on leave 2012/13)
Glendinning, Simon (Dr) – Reader in European Philosophy; Director of the Forum for European Philosophy
Gordon, Claire (Dr) – Teaching Fellow in European Political Economy
Hagemann, Sara (Dr) – Lecturer in EU Politics (on leave MT/LT 2012/13)
Hancké, Bob (Dr) – Reader in European Political Economy
Hobolt, Sara B (Prof) – Sutherland Chair in European Institutions
Innes, Abby (Dr) – Lecturer in the Political Economy of Central and Eastern Europe
Jackson-Preece, Jennifer (Dr) – Senior Lecturer in Nationalism in Europe
Ker-Lindsay, James (Dr) – Eurobank Senior Research Fellow on the Politics of Southeast Europe, LSEE
Kleine, Mareike (Dr) – Lecturer in EU Politics
Komárek, Jan (Dr) – Lecturer in EU Law
Lenz, Hartmut (Dr) – Leverhulme Fellow
Macchiarelli Corrado (Dr) – LSE (Postdoctoral) Fellow in European Political Economy
Monastiriotis, Vassilis (Dr) – Senior Lecturer in the Political Economy of South Eastern Europe; Hellenic Observatory
Moumoutzis, Kyriakos (Dr) – LSE Fellow in EU Politics
Pamuk, Sevket (Prof) – Chair in Contemporary Turkish Studies
Schelkle, Waltraud (Dr) – Senior Lecturer in Political Economy; Adjunct Professor, Economics Dept., Free University of Berlin
Simoni, Marco (Dr) – Lecturer in European Political Economy
Skoutaris, Nikos (Dr) – A.N.Hadjiyiannis Senior Research Fellow on Contemporary Cyprus
Thielemann, Eiko (Dr)- Senior Lecturer in European Politics and Policy
Wallace, Helen CMG FBA (Prof) – Emeritus Professor
White, Jonathan (Dr) – Reader in European Politics

(2) The email

Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
From: Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus
Subject: Disinformation at LSE about the economic crisis in the EU
Cc: Paul de Grauwe

To professor Craig Calhoun
Director of LSE

Dear professor Calhoun,

Thank you for your short biography on the LSE website, and your quote ‘rerum cognoscere causas’.

My reason to write you is:

(a) There is censorship of economic science by the directorate of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB) since 1990.

(b) LSE professor Paul de Grauwe is member of the Dutch Central Planning Commission (CPC) since 2011, which committee has the task to advise the CPB.

(c) Professor De Grauwe does not respond to my suggestion that he investigates (a) and advises the directorate and the world to stop that censorship.

(d) It may well be likely that professor De Grauwe does not inform his fellows and students at LSE about that censorship.

(e) Thus LSE would have disinformation about an important element in the EU economic crisis.

The case and its evidence are documented here:

I have an extensive website in Dutch, and a weblog in English with the advice to boycott Holland till the censorship is resolved.

My suggestion is that you set up a committee of say seven of which at least three would know both Dutch and English, of various disciplines, to look into the case, talk to me, and have an open method of inquiry, with questions and answers on the internet, so that everyone can check what is going on. My suggestion is also that the creation of this committee is announced at the start, so that the world can start reading too.

PM. The original issue in 1990 concerned unemployment in Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Dutch policy of a surplus on the external account means a beggar-thy-neighbour policy, or an export of unemployment, while it is of key importance to Eastern Europe – and indeed also Southern Europe – to be able to export to earn the funds for investments. After the introduction of the euro, the economic situation is changed a bit. My most recent paper is on the problem that the euro works as a gold standard. The directorate of the CPB however will not investigate my work, nor acknowledge that the economic crisis confirms my analysis, since they are quite sure that I have been dismissed in 1991 so that my work doesn’t require attention anymore.

I mention some more links below.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus
Econometrician (Groningen 1982) and teacher of mathematics (Leiden 2008)
Formerly at the CPB 1982-1991

Some other links:

Professor Bernd Lucke from Hamburg has started a new political party Alternative für Deutschland (Alternatives for Germany) with the objective to return to stable currency areas and possibly the return to the DM. Taking a leave from his job and turning from an academic into a politician, he doesn’t mind some power politics: Germany might refuse a contribution to the ESM to get its DM back. A few weblogs ago we could see him in the Maybrit Illner show on the European clown problem.

Taking a closer look at the AfD webpage I have been impressed by the people supporting the initiative. Their cv’s give a sample of quality citizenship, a fine selection of what Germany has to offer. When we concentrate on the professors, we see mostly professors of economics (“wirtschaft”), and we can understand that they, with their knowledge of the subject, are deeply troubled.

Since these professors have the civil courage of taking a stand in the public debate, I have taken the liberty to respond to the challenge, and have sent them the email below. First there is the list of professors, secondly there is the text of my email.

My analysis would allow the Eurozone to keep the euro without the austerity that is causing havoc in the EU, and my email thus runs counter to the AfD program. But it is good to see that people take a stand and let us see what the reaction will be. 

(1) To

Prof. Dr. Hans–Günter Appel, Beiratsvorsitzender Nationale Anti–EEG–Bewegung.
Prof. Dr. Ronald Asch, Geschichtswissenschaften, Freiburg.
Prof. Dr. Charles Blankart, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Berlin.
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Blum, Präsident des Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung Halle a. D.
Prof. Dr. Ludwig Cromme, Mathematiker, Mitbegründer der Brandenburgischen Technischen Universität Cottbus und dort Universitätsprofessor.
Prof. Dr.–Ing. Thomas Albert Fechter, Maschinenbau, Wiesbaden.
Prof. Dr. Herbert Frohnhofen, Systematische Theologie, Mainz.
Prof. Dr. Andrea Gubitz, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Frankfurt.
Prof. Dr. Gernot Gutmann, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Rektor Universität zu Köln a. D.
Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Hankel, Präsident der Hessischen Landesbank a. D., Königswinter.
Prof. Dr. Burkhard Heer, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Universität Augsburg.
Prof. Dr. Ing. E.h. Hans–Olaf Henkel, Praesident der IBM Europa, des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) und der Leibniz–Gemeinschaft a.D.
Prof. Dr. Carsten Herrmann–Pillath, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Frankfurt.
Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Hannover.
Prof. Dr. Jörn Kruse, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Hamburg.
Prof. Dr. Bernd Lucke, Hochschullehrer, Universität Hamburg.
Prof. Dr. Helga Luckenbach, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Gießen.
Prof. Dr. Lothar Maier, Verbraucherschutz, Stuttgart.
Prof. Dr. Dirk Meyer, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Hamburg.
Prof. Dr. Manfred Philipp, City University of New York.
Prof. Dr. Hayo Reimers, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Gießen.
Prof. Dr. Christian Rennert, Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Köln.
Prof. Dr. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Öffentliches Recht, Hamburg.
Prof. Dr. Peter Schneider, Erziehungswissenschaft, Paderborn.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schöhl, Wirtschaftsjournalismus, Darmstadt.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Seeger, Neurochirurgie, Freiburg.
Prof. Dr. Michael Stahl, Geschichtswissenschaften, Darmstadt/Berlin
Prof. Dr. Joachim Starbatty, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Tübingen.
Prof. Dr. Roland Vaubel, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Mannheim.
Prof. Dr. Adolf Wagner, Volkswirtschaftslehre und empirische Wirtschaftsforschung, Universität Leipzig.
Prof. Dr. Heiner Willenberg, Didaktik der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, Hamburg.

(2) The email text [… a bit editted here …]

Dear professors on the list of Alternative fuer Deutschland,

I am an econometrician (Groningen 1982) and teacher of mathematics (Leiden 2008).

I worked at the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB) in 1982-1991. In [1989] the Berlin Wall fell, and this caused me to develop a new analysis on unemployment, where various pieces of the puzzle came together that I had been working on before. A key point in that analysis is that Holland had been running an export surplus, and thus been exporting unemployment. For Eastern Europe it would be important that they got export opportunities, whence Western Europe would need to adapt itself too, and Holland included. The analysis back then is also relevant for the EU now, as the surplus of the North is the deficit of the South.

The fundamental analysis concerns stagflation since 1970 and the failure of the Trias Politica government structure to deal with insights from economic science. The solution would be that each democratic nation takes an Economic Supreme Court. The notion of Buchanan of a balanced budget or Schuldenbremse is interesting but inefficient, since if the information is not sound then the budget is not sound anyway, and if the information is correct then there may be periods when the budget better not be balanced. In the present time we would need strong investment in Europe.

Unfortunately, the CPB directorate censored the analysis, and dismissed me with falsehoods. I have been protesting the censorship of science since then, now for 23 years. In 2004 I decided that my best advice to the world would be to boycott Holland till the censorship is resolved. The economic crisis since 2007 caused me to write some additions to the analysis.

It has been quite interesting to look up your cv’s and email addresses. I am quite impressed by your backgrounds. Perhaps, with your critical thinking about the euro, you will also be open to the idea that you are disinformed about key elements in the analysis from Holland, and that censorship of science should not be tolerated. Please note that I do not publish in scientific economic journals, partly for practical reasons such like that the analysis is somewhat complex and that editors from the academia apparently do not understand a protest against censorship, partly for the reason that the censorship better be lifted first before I take other steps.

I hope that some of you will have the time and interest to contact me, and discuss what can be done […]. I have contacted some German journalists in Holland (Schweighoefer and Birschel) and who are supposed to report to the German media about events in Holland. Apparently they do not consider censorship of science so important. Apparently “Greek statistics” has made it into the newspapers but “Dutch economics” not yet. […] censorship in modern bureaucracies is different from censorship in earlier brutal times, but I do hope that the European respect for science is still present, and can give an “acte de presence”.

Below are some key links.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus
Econometrician and teacher of mathematics.



(3) New article: Money as gold versus money as water:

(4) My sequel to Keynes’s “General Theory”:

(5) The link to the fall of the Berlin Wall:

(6) Mathematician prof. Ludwig Cromme might want to consider this paper:

Few people understand that the Dutch run a World Empire. That empire is hidden in secrets and uses divide and rule methods to achieve its aims. This weblog entry will explain this, though without giving away too many details since a secret empire wields more power.

We start with the horse. Since this text is read world-wide and some people in the world may not know who a horse is, we include a photograph of Fokke, taken by Winnie of the Friesian horse, reproduced here with her kind permission.


Our history starts with the book by David W. Anthony, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language:
How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, Princeton 2007. The idea is that there were Proto-Indo-Europeans in the years 4000 BC in the steppes above the Caucasus, who tamed the horse, invented the wheel and axle, carriage and chariot, and happened to conquer the world.

Hence, if we want to understand who is important in the world, we must investigate their relation to the horse. In Wolfram Alpha, we can run a regression on people and horses. On average there are 4 horses per 1000 human persons. Some countries are very horse-prone and others haven’t learned to ride yet.



Important are the USA and Russia with 30 resp. 10 horses per capita. A key datum is that Holland has more horses per capita than the United Kingdom.

  Both in millions  
2008 vs 2010 Horses People H / P 1000
USA 9.50 309.0 30.7
Russia 1.35 140.0 9.6
UK 0.38 61.9 6.2
Holland 0.13 16.7 8.0

In the city of The Hague it is not uncommon that a street has an alley that leads to some backdoor stable. Even low income neighbourhoods have their horses, some kept in the living room. The tradition however seems to be waning. The latest Haagse Paardendagen were already in 1999. Many Dutch migrated to the USA where their horses have more space to run about.

In Holland, Sinterklaas (Santa Claus) rides a horse, Amerigo, and not some sled with reindeer. It was also an emotional report on national television, last March 16, how Salinero retired from the world championship tournaments and joined the former champion Bonfire in the meadow.

In 1688-91 England had the Glorious Revolution, when William III of Orange married Mary II and became king of England. The English tend to describe it as a home-grown event but it was a veritable invasion in which the Dutch actually conquered the Isles. It took the size of twice the Armada, with 500 ships with 40000 men, and, not to be discounted, 5000 horses. Historian Jonathan Israel described the invasion in 1992, and Lisa Jardin turned it into a book Going Dutch 2008. The invasion established that Northern Europe remained Protestant. It meant power to the UK Parliament with the Bill of Rights of 1689, and decent finance with the Bank of England of 1694, though some people are still critical about both Parliament and Bank. The Dutch relocated their world empire from Amsterdam to London, and later to New York and Washington. A florin invested in Amsterdam in 1688 means a fortune today.

A key question is whether the Dutch invasion of 1688 caused a sea-change of the British attitude to the horse. The magazine History Today explains that the British Isles already changed from oxen to horse at the end of the middle ages 1100-1500. The weblog History on Horseback confirms the impression. There is a hint, however, that the British started to treat their horses a bit kinder after the invasion. Perhaps the Glorious Revolution was so smooth because the English and the Dutch recognized their mutual love for horses. William III was half-English anyway: his mother was Mary I, daughter of Charles I.

A sea-change however was caused by the horse Sorrel, named after his sorrel colour. Wikipedia: “In 1702, William died of pneumonia, a complication from a broken collarbone following a fall from his horse, Sorrel. Because his horse had stumbled into a mole’s burrow, many Jacobites toasted “the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat.””

We now enter serious history making. One reason for protestant William III to invade England was to put a stop to the ambitions of catholic Louis XIV of France. The events lead up to the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 that established peace and freedom of religion – soon 300 years ago to the day.

1672 Rampjaar” for Holland, as it is attacked by France, England and two German bishops
1688-91 The Dutch reply: the Glorious Revolution
1700 Charles II of Spain dies without apparent heir but appoints Philip of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV of France. Louis XIV lets him be crowned quickly
1701 William III forges an alliance against Louis XIV
1702 William III dies but his alliance persists
1704, 1706, 1708 Victories of the alliance at Blenheim, Ramilles, Oudenaarde
1710 (Financial) exhaustion, and first efforts at peace talks
1711 German emperor Joseph I dies, with a threat of a Spanish-German superpower
April 11, 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. The notion of balance of power – as long as it lasted

The fabric of peace wasn’t perfect yet. William III was succeeded by the House of Hanover. The Prussian emperor Wilhelm II (1859-1941) hated his Hanover-English mother and was envious of the empire of his Hanover-English grandmother Queen Victoria (1819-1901) and thus started World War I, in which many innocent horses were killed. (I follow and agree with Sebastian Haffner on his analysis in the “Seven deadly sins”.)

So now you may understand where the notion of the “European Union” derives from. In the divide and rule method, the Dutch with their secret diplomacy and financial control make sure that other nations fight their wars or fight amongst themselves, so that there is peace and religious freedom behind the dikes including a decent Return on Foreign Investment. The main Dutch objective is that they can ride their horses as they have been doing since 4000 BC. The story is a bit more complicated since Poseidon is the god of both horses and seas, but we reserve ships for another moment.