Email to the news

To people of ONO and some others
Subject: W.r.t. the ONO annual meeting and my advice to boycott Holland

Dear ms Margaret Sullivan, mr Jacob Mollerup, Jeffrey Dvorkin, Stephen Pritchard, Alan Stavitsky, A.S. Panneerselvan,

Last year I started my weblog

There is censorship of economic science in Holland since 1990 by the directorate of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB), under responsibility of the cabinet, now including Jeroen Dijsselbloem, chair of the eurozone group. Like we have “Greek statistics” there is “Dutch economics”. The economic crisis confirms my 1990 analysis but this is neglected too.

For the last 23 years, Dutch journalists have been neglecting my protest against this censorship of science. Dutch Ombudsmen in turn neglect my protest against this bad reporting.

Last year there were reports about the ONO annual meeting and I sent an email to mr Mollerup, see below. Unfortunately I did not get a reply. Perhaps the problem was that the weblog was still rather empty ? PM. Nowadays my own other website has changed from to

This year there were reports by Dutch Ombudsmen Sjoerd de Jong and Margreet Vermeulen about the meeting of 2013. Mr De Jong mentions his meeting of mr Panneerselvan in the bus. Not unlikely, mr Pannerselvan will have a good impression of mr De Jong. Generally people think that Holland is a tolerant and openminded country. However, impressions can deceive. Mr De Jong does not report about misleading and even plain false reports in his newspaper, even though I have called his attention to these.

Now that my weblog has been on the internet for a year, we can observe that journalists over the world may not have discovered it and very likely not have reported on it. My proposal is that you report on this omission and lack of focus. PM. The exception is Eric Bonse who took one of my texts:

A possible cause is that science journalists do not regard econometrics as a science. A possible cause is that economics journalists think that government officials cannot have a scientific status (as was mine). Overall, there is quite a lot of noise, and one must be prepared to search in the right direction, and start giving the benefit of the doubt to the scientist who reports a case of censorship. One possible cause is that people think that I could submit my analysis to a scientific journal, but then they neglect that the problem needs to be resolved at the Dutch CPB anyway so that there is no reason for me to do such an external submission. The proper process is an internal discussion at CPB, an exercise with the official model, and a publication as a research memorandum by the author; and only then it is upon the external peers to see what they think.

An important issue is the position of Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics and columnist at the New York Times. It so happens that he will visit Holland in June. I wrote him that his analysis is erroneous on the issues of taxation and the framework of policy co-ordination, and that it was curious that he praised CPB director Coen Teulings who continued the censorship. He can find better analyses in my books DRGTPE and CSBH (see my blog for the full names). My email is here: Unfortunately I haven’t had a reply and of course a columnist has more freedom than a reporter. However, professor Krugman mixes his column with science and thus one would expect more.

Please be aware that Southern Europe is already in a state of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Unemployment is not a natural disaster but a sign of bad policy. The current structure of the euro was a political gamble and was scientifically unwarranted risk taking. The basic problem was already clear in 1990. There is a serious omission in the Trias Politica structure of national economic decision making. Advisable is the move to a Tessera Politica structure with an Economic Supreme Court. See this weblog entry:

I would appreciate it if you would look into this. I intend to include this email in my weblog. Perhaps it could become one of you bulletin entries or “articles about ombudsmen” (…).

Sincerely yours,

Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus
Econometrician (Groningen 1982) and teacher of mathematics (Leiden 2008)
Scheveningen, Holland

Date: Sun, 27 May 2012
To: jacob mollerup
From: Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus
Subject: W.r.t. the ONO annual meeting and my advice to boycott Holland

Dear Mr. Mollerup,

Some Dutch newspapers have some reports by their ombudsmen about the ONO annual meeting.

However, Dutch media do not report about my protest against the censorship of science by the directorate of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau since 1990.

In 2004 I started to advise to a boycott of Holland till the issue is resolved.

The world is annoyed by the Greek statistics but the censorship of economic science in Holland is much worse.


When I inform Dutch ombudsmen about the failure of accurate reporting, they ask some economic journalist about the issue, who probably tells them that I would be some kind of lunatic, and there it stops. This is not a proper way to handle information.

My key book on the censored economic analysis is here:

After the abuse of power w.r.t. my dismissal at CPB, I had various jobs, also as a teacher of mathematics. A recent book of mine is “Conquest of the Plane”, see the PDF on my website and some reviews there:

Why don’t you call me ?

Best regards,

Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus
Econometrician and teacher of mathematics
Holland, [phone number]

PM. Ms Sullivan is the public editor at The New York Times, mr Mollerup and Dvorkin are at ONO,mr Pritchard is the reader’s editor at The Observer and mr Panneerselvan is the reader’s editor of The Hindu.

CC. Paul Krugman, the two Dutch ombudsmen, mr A. Robbins (ASNE), mr E. Bonse


Comments are closed.