Archive

Monthly Archives: August 2016

The road from science and scientific discovery into political discussion is often via the channel of a particular party. Politicians of any party are less likely to discuss an idea when there is no party advocating it anyway.

In the USA, members of the Senate and House are elected via districts, which is District Representation. This likely caused the division between two main parties, Democrats and Republicans. The situation likely causes that there are a lot of Think Tanks that want to reach out across the division, to inform voters directly on their various own approaches. For Think Tanks it is important to find at least one representative who is willing to support their case. Bipartisan support is nice but not always necessary, as one can always wait for the next turn in the political cycle.

In Holland, there is Proportional Representation (PR). With 150 seats, it takes only 1 / 150 = 0.67% of the nation-wide vote to get a new party into Parliament. When an issue is important enough to start a Think Tank on it, then likely at least 0.67% of the voters would care about it nation-wide, and then it might be better to start its own party rather than a Think Tank. Political parties in Holland have their own “scientific bureau“, that can inform the rest of the world about their analyses.

This paper of mine compares DR and PR, with the example of the UK, and concludes that the Dutch system is most democratic. See also the short discussion of this in Mathematics Teaching 222 in the context of the UK referendum on PR in 2011.

Baudet starts a think tank rather than a party

Thierry Baudet (1983) started in 2015 a Think Tank “Forum voor Democratie” (FvD) (forum for democracy).

Unfortunately the FvD English page currently still gives a Dutch text on their mission. Let me translate. Their stated mission is to fight the deterioration of democracy and improve its quality e.g. by means of referenda and direct elections of mayors. They also want to move power from the EU back to Holland. They want a strict system of “green cards” for immigrants. They explain their perceived link of democracy to the latter by that “uncontrolled immigration threathens social peace” (my translation). (Like in Brexit, immigration pops up at unlogical spots, as if people stop thinking when the subject arises.)

It is remarkable that Baudet thinks that he cannot get 0.67% of the vote for such a noble cause as the defence of democracy. In Holland, the political party D66 also wants to improve democracy, but they are pro-EU and not anti-EU, and thus he cannot join up. However, as a Think Tank, Baudet would be forced to collaborate a lot with D66, because of the shared view on democracy.

Perhaps it might be easier to start a niche Think Tank rather than a political party though: for, a party requires capable representatives. It may also be a matter of temperament, as Baudet states that he has no affinity with politics itself and wants to remain “independent”. It is okay for other people to follow him but he will not follow others.

Baudet and his FvD helped initiating the 2016 Dutch referendum on the EU Treaty with the Ukraine, see my discussion here and here. Baudet is also prominent in the peuro.nl petition, discussed in the former weblog text. There I promised to look a bit closer at Baudet’s views, which I will do here.

A bit on Baudet’s background

Today’s society cannot do without education. It is always useful to look at what people got their diploma in. This is not intended for an ad hominem argument but helps to clarify their field of competence and way of thinking. The theme of the “Two Cultures” by C.P. Snow indicates that we must be alert on bridging gaps. (See e.g. here.) When people age and grow more experienced, they will tend to diversify from their diploma, but it is seldom that a person from the humanities acquires a taste for science and mathematics as well.

Baudet’s cv doesn’t state whether he did gymnasium A or B. Generally students with gymnasium B tend to specify this though. Also given his later studies in history and law there is a great likelihood that Baudet did A. We should not expect insight in science and mathematics.

He got a bachelor in history in 2006. At Vox Europ 2012 “The EU is an empire, and empires mean war“, the website claims that he would be a historian too, but generally this label would be reserved for masters, and Vox Europ better corrects the claim.

Observe that the general label “historian” is vague too. It is generally better when people study a particular field before they look into the history of that field. It is awkward to look at an issue in the past when you don’t know about the very field of study itself. Grand themes might be an exception since it is impossible to study everything, but check out this discussion on David Armitage.

Baudet’s 2012 thesis,The significance of borders. Why representative government and the rule of law requires nation states“, is a thesis in law, supervised by law professor Paul Cliteur and philosopher Roger Scruton. Thus it is not a thesis in history, though the thesis refers to historical events.

PM 1. The other members of the thesis commission are in law too, except for Alfred van Staden who is a political scientist and professor in international relations. Would he vouch for these aspects in this thesis ? PM 2. The meaning of a thesis is that it is one way of showing that you are qualified to do scientific reseach in that particular field. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you fully proved a particular argument. PM 3. An objective of a thesis is that the new doctor learns modesty about what can actually be proven. PM 4. Cliteur states on his website that he looks at issues of free speech, see also his lecture. I informed him about the censorship of science since 1990 by the directorate of CPB, and he doesn’t show an interest. Apparently Cliteur doesn’t see that it is a no-brainer to say that religious fundamentalism and terrorists who abuse religion present a problem to free speech. Those groups enjoy that he pays attention to them because they thrive on attention and it makes them more important than they are. In the mean time, Cliteur doesn’t defend the freedom of scientific thought right on his doorsteps, while it would be important for a free society that such defence is provided.

I am still looking for a review of Baudet’s thesis by an independent reader.

Potentially the mentioned short Vox Europ article has the same theme as the thesis. The scheme of that short article is that imperialism causes wars, that nationalism is opposite to imperialism, and (thus) that nationalism would support peace. Also Baudet classifies the EU as imperialist. Whether these definitions and statements are supported by scientists working in this field remains to be seen. I am more inclined to interprete developments in terms of political economy, and I haven’t read a key (convincing) statement by Baudet yet why his approach from law should generate key conclusions.

For example, Robert Mundell’s theory of the optimal currency area starts from economics and then provides some historical data that confirm the point. It is open for falsification from history. Baudet seems to turn this around, and starts with historical cases like Napoleon or the USSR and transfers insights to the present EU. This complicates the issue very much, since it suggests that we all must be historians of Napoleon and the USSR before we might discuss the EU. Instead, I prefer a background in political economy, and look at the EU and its future, while I am open for falsifications by historians who suggest parallels in their area of study.

For example, Deirdre McCloskey in her work as economic historian started out from economic theory and the philosophies of ethics and liberty before she discovered the key role of Holland around 1650 in the transformation from the Middle Ages towards the modern world economy. I think that McCloskey is a fine economist and historian, and her discovery of the key role of virtue ethics in this historical process is very convincing – i.e. the change of the social view of the merchant as a robber towards that of admiration and high social status, with the whole social infrastructure of bourgeois society supporting that change of perception. A good historian is always aware that one should not read modern ideas into the past. However, scientific laws are the same over time, and economic processes work the same too.

Incidently, Hubert Smeets, a journalist who has been reporting about Russia and the former USSR over many years, suggested in NRC-Handelsblad last weeks, that Baudet, Kelder & Wellens (from the peuro.nl inititative) would have compared the EU to the former USSR. This is a strong accusation, since the USSR was a totalitarian state. Wellens asked the NRC Ombudsman for a correction. The Ombudsman Sjoerd de Jong gave a fallacious reply. This is my deconstruction (in Dutch) of this affair. Conclusion: Smeets made a false accusation. Baudet’s comparison concerns imperialism which is a different issue, and what Baudet wrote by himself doesn’t have to be supported by Kelder & Wellens. The Dutch Ombudsmen do not work well, see my letter of 2013 to the international organisation of Ombudsmen.

Comparison with Hans van Mierlo and D66 who are pro-EU

In 1966, master of law and journalist Hans van Mierlo (1931-2010) founded the political party D66 (“Democrats ’66”). The “crown jewels” of D66 are: (1) a change from PR to DR, (2) direct elections of mayors and prime minister, and (3) referenda. Thus:

  • Baudet cannot join D66 or their scientific bureau (named after Van Mierlo who didn’t do science) since they are pro-EU and he is anti-EU. But he would be forced to collaborate with D66 a lot because of the shared views on the “crown jewels” (except perhaps DR ?).
  • Scientific analysis of democracy shows that these D66 “crown jewels” actually are less democratic. See my book “Voting theory for democracy“.
  • As far as I know, Hans van Mierlo never studied democracy and its electoral systems. Van Mierlo only was in love with the USA of JFK, and in Holland in the 1960s these ideas sounded new.
  • As far as I know, nobody else in D66 studies democracy. See how they disinform the UK.
  • As far as I know, Baudet never studied democracy and its electoral systems either. I am not aware of a clarification by him why D66 never succeeded w.r.t. its crown jewels. Apparently, Baudet only buys uncritically into the propaganda by D66 as if referenda and direct elections would be more democratic. Curiously, Baudet’s 2012 thesis,The significance of borders. Why representative government and the rule of law requires nation states“, discusses representative democracy and not “democracy” by plebiscite.
  • The Brexit referendum is rather disastrous from the scientific view on democracy, but it requires some study – see here – to cut through the dogma that a referendum is pure democracy by definition.
Legalistic / Popular Scientific
Pro EU and euro Van Mierlo, D66: crown jewels
Anti EU and euro Baudet, FvD: referenda, direct elections, vague on DR vs PR
Pragmatic on EU and euro Me, SvHG: anti-crown jewels

When Van Mierlo deceased in 2010, I honoured him with the pamphlet “Laat D66 zichzelf opheffen” (Let D66 abolish itself). About the dead nothing but good, and the pamphlet was intended as an antidote for his sectarian followers in D66 who might turn him into a saint and martyr of democracy. Observe that I signed this pamphlet under my personal and not scientific name, since it is a personal political opinion that a political party better abolishes itself.

Pamphlet 2010: Let D66 abolish itself

Pamphlet 2010: Let D66 abolish itself

PM. There is also the Dutch LibDem Party (LDP), founded in 2006 by Sammy van Tuyll. They are social liberal like D66, like my suggestion from 1993 of a Social Liberal Forum (SLF). Van Tuyll has a background in medicine, economics and law, and should be able to understand my economic analysis. It is not clear to me why he doesn’t study and discuss it. Van Tuyll and I met in 2007 and I explained about the censorship of science, and it didn’t ring a bell. I can only suppose that when Van Tuyll ever is elected into government then he will continue with the censorship of science by the Dutch government.

Meeting Baudet in 2010

I met Thierry Baudet at a book presentation in 2010, when he was co-editor with Michiel Visser of a collection of essays on conservatism. My comment at the book presentation was that a good starting point would be the natural conservatism in classical liberalism as formulated by J.S. Mill and J.M. Keynes. Of course my background is in economics. The book title suggests the conundrum that conservatism actually is progressive, but the content of the book did not clearly resolve this conundrum. Overall I thought that the book was useful, but did not feel that I should buy the second volume.

I gave Baudet a copy of the book by Hans Hulst & Auke Hulst in collaboration with me (1998) Werkloosheid en armoede, de oplossing die werkt” (W&A) (Unemployment and poverty, the solution that works). In response, Baudet gave me his business card, whence I sent him a note on the next day, April 13 2010, to confirm contact. The card and this link show that Baudet was already active in improving democracy.

Baudet's business card of 2010, referring to Dutch Parliament with 150 representatives

Baudet’s business card of 2010, referring to Dutch Parliament with 150 representatives

My presumption was that Baudet would read W&A, and that there would be a discussion proceeding from there. In some interviews Baudet is portrayed with stacks of books in the background so there is the suggestion that he might read books. However, while I read the book that he and Visser edited, I did not get a reply on W&A and neither on my suggestion to have a further discussion. One possibility is that he was too busy with his 2012 thesis (though W&A is relevant for that topic too). But after completion of the thesis, there still is no sign of interest.

There is my warning from January 2012 to various young Dutch intellectuals who might come across as “Young Turks“, including Baudet, that they should not forget about the need for a solid scientific approach to change of society. I knew that Baudet was a PhD student but not that he would present his thesis in June that year. Perhaps Baudet thought this warning superfluous since he was working on that thesis at that time. Perhaps it is okay to put on blinders for a thesis when finishing it. The very purpose of a thesis however is to teach you the scientific attitude that one should not neglect criticism.

In 2012 I highlighted the issue that now surfaces in the peuro.nl petition again, namely the link between the EU and euro crises to the censorship of science by the directorate of the CPB.

If Baudet and his FvD are so much interested in improving democracy, why are they not interested in my analysis of the failure of Trias Politica, and the need for an extension with a constitutional Economic Supreme Court ? Why doesn’t Baudet write a review of “De ontketende Kiezer” (2003) ? Why this island mentality and burking and elbowing out of views of others ?

Baudet doesn’t inform Kelder & Wellens at peuro.nl

Baudet in 2015 collaborated with master of law and journalist Jort Kelder and management accountant Arno Wellens on the peuro.nl petition that wants an enquiry by Parliament about the creation and future of the euro. See my discussion of peuro.nl in the former weblog entry.

Kelder & Wellens confirm to me that Baudet did not inform them about W&A and this warning of mine of 2012 to the “Young Turks”. If they want Parliament to provide “full information”, then I would hope that they themselves acknowledge that they had a glitch in their own information amongst themselves. They disinformed the 40,000+ people who signed their petition.

Because of Baudet’s neglect since 2010 of key information about economics and censorship of science, there now is this peuro.nl initiative that focuses only on the euro, while the relevant enquiry should be about unemployment, role CPB … and euro. The euro is only a symptom, and an addition to what went wrong already before.

KWB

Jort Kelder, Arno Wellens and Thierry Baudet, screenshot peuro.nl 2015-12-14

Council of Recommendation

The format of a Think Tank for Baudet’s FvD allows academics to join up in a council of recommendation, too, which some might find problematic if it were a political party.

Member of the FvD council of recommendation are professors in constitutional law Jos Teunissen and Twan Tak. They should understand my approach that there should be no taxation on minimum earnings. See the short text “Don’t tax sweat“.  Teunissen has this useful text “Vrijheid, gelijkheid en belastingen” (2010) on couples, but it is better to start with individuals, and then see DRGTPE p131-132 on couples. Constitutional lawyers should also understand the failure of the Trias Politica model of democracy and the need for an Economic Supreme Court (per nation).

Seeing the names of Teunissen and Tak causes the hope that they will be able to explain these things to the other members of the council, and that all agree that FvD can be abolished as it has been based upon a wrong analysis, neglect by Baudet and disinformation since 2010.

Here we find Baudet’s thesis advisors Paul Cliteur and Roger Scruton again. Obviously the thesis differs from the mission of FvD and it is a bit remarkable that the supervisors travel along, though the direction of travelling might also have been the other way around (from Euroskeptism towards thesis).

To my surprise I also see: Deirdre McCloskey ! After some search, though, we see that Baudet explains in his cv that he taught “between 2010 and 2011” at Arjo Klamer’s school “Academia Vitae” (though it filed for bankruptcy in February 2010), when Jos de Beus (1952-2013) got ill. McCloskey may have taught at this school too. Arjo Klamer was close to De Beus and gave an impressive presentation at the memorial meeting – see my comments on this. It is important to know that Jos de Beus did not understand Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem for collective decision making. It is important to know that there is a line in economic theory from Jan Tinbergen to his PhD student Hans van den Doel to me, with a floundering branch to political theorist Jos de Beus, who collaborated with Van den Doel. Jos de Beus and I met when I presented Van den Doel with the Samuel van Houten Penning in 1994. We had occasional contact but to no effect.

As an economist, Arjo Klamer could help out by studying my work, but he doesn’t. Klamer however is also in the council of recommendation of FvD. For some reason, economists Klamer and McCloskey prefer Baudet’s non-economic approach in theory of law above my development in economic theory from Jan Tinbergen and Hans van den Doel. If only they studied my analysis and stated why they disagree, but now the world must wonder why they don’t look at it at all. And why would they not understand that they cannot see the full analysis yet, because of the censorship ? Ergo, that this censorship must be lifted ?

A member of the FvD council of recommendation is philosopher Ad Verbrugge. He is founding chairman of “Beter Onderwijs Nederland” (BON) (for “Better Education”). At the website of BON, some mathematicians are slandering about my work on mathematics education. Verbrugge doesn’t do anything about this. There is this letter of 2009 (my website has moved to thomascool.eu). I have rephrased some questions again this Summer for fellow math teacher Karin den Heijer, now board member of BON, see page 11 here.

The link to mathematics education is important. See my letter to the president of KNAW and directorate of CPB 2016, that explains that maltreatment of my work on mathematics education hinders other people to also see the value of my work in economics.

Member of this council of recommendation is Kees de Lange, emeritus professor in physics and former chair of an association on pensions NPB. De Lange might have looked at my suggestions on mathematics education, see my suggestion on what physicists might do. I am not impressed by De Lange’s understanding of economics. I am not aware of someone in the Dutch world of pensions who warned about the 2007+ crisis. In 2009 I contacted De Lange as chairman of NBP and informed him about the censorship of science since 1990 by the directorate of CPB. His reply was sympathetic to my feelings, as if that were a relevant issue, and that NBP did not look into economic analyses, and that my approach might only be discussed when shared by more economists (but they didn’t look at analyses anyway). I came away from this with the impression that De Lange was lost, both as a scientist and chairman of NBP. Later in 2010 De Lange helped found a political party 50Plus, he was elected in the Dutch Senate as member of a two-man fraction of OSF 2011-2015, but then continued independently.

PM. At this spot it is useful to mention that Baudet, Wellens and De Lange also perform in video channel “Cafe Weltschmerz“, created by (bachelor in business and marketing) journalist Willem Middelkoop (LinkedIn), who after the 2007+ crisis got rich by telling people to get into gold rather than have a parliamentarian enquiry into unemployment and censorship since 1990 by the directorate of CPB. One of Middelkoop’s books was published by Amsterdam University Press and by standard arrangement adopted by the University of Chicago Press, but it should have been accepted at neither place since there is no link to science. See my discussion of the gold bugs. One supposes that Middelkoop likes it when Baudet, Wellens and De Lange continue to create uncertainty amongst viewers, so that the market for gold as a “safe haven” remains strong. It is a pity, though, that this circus also draws in young people looking for answers, like psychiatrist Esther van Fenema (wiki) and mathematician Anna Grebenchtchikova (LinkedIn) and lawyer Hester Bais. They, with their higher education that should guard them, might be falling in the journalistic trap to look at symptoms rather than causes.

Member of the council of recommendation is Tom Zwart, professor of international and European law, since 2007 director of the Dutch School of Human Rights Research. Perhaps freedom of expression is also a human right of a scientist ? Or is the option to do science no human right ?

Member of the council of recommendation are other economists Edin Mujagic, Bruno de Haas and Daniel Lacalle. Let me invite them to study my work, starting with DRGTPE (before the crisis) and CSBH (after the crisis). Mujagic hasn’t responded yet, though my analysis dates from the fall of the Berlin Wall, that also affected his past. Lacalle is a hedgefund manager and could get very rich if he would start supporting my analysis (supporting the boycott of Holland, explaining to all that it is needed, and speculating on it).

Last but not least there is Theodore Dalrymple, who might be very happy to finally understand why the Dutch welfare state isn’t working as it is supposed to.

Thierry Baudet and Paul Scheffer

At “Cafe Weltschmerz” there is also this (tedious) interview of Paul Scheffer (1954, like me, Angela Merkel and Franςois Hollande) by Baudet on the Dutch referendum on the treaty of the EU with the Ukraine. Scheffer states that he would vote Yes for the treaty. Baudet participated in setting up the referendum, with the objective that people would vote No. It is fine that they can have this civilised talk, though it was so tedious that I quit watching after 10 minutes (though the referendum has already taken place).

Baudet was for one year a post-doc in 2013 with Paul Scheffer who has a chair in European studies in Tilburg. Originally, Scheffer first wrote a popular book on migration and the multicultural society, and then turned this into a thesis for Tilburg. The Leiden professor of social history Leo Lucassen stepped down from the promotion committee in protest that not enough had been done to make it a real thesis.

Scheffer did highschool HBS A, and graduated in political science in 1986. In his student years he joined the Dutch communist party, and later switched to the social democratic PvdA. He was at the Wiardi Beckman Stichting (WBS), the “scientific bureau” of PvdA in 1986-1992.

I was a member of PvdA in 1974-1991. When I was at CPB in 1982-1991 I developed my analysis on unemployment, with the conceptual breakthrough when the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 caused me to look at some fundamentals. My analysis was censored by the directorate. I sent a copy of my 1990 paper to Parliament, so that all parties were informed, and I was free to contact PvdA of which I was a member. I contacted WBS, and I assumed that fellow social democratic scientists would be interested in an analysis on unemployment. To my great surprise and dismay, they were not. See the letter reproduced in “De ontketende kiezer” (2003) p128. See my discussion “Soms loopt het zo” in “Trias Politica & Centraal Planbureau” (1994). My contact was with fellow econometrician Paul de Beer. I met Scheffer at a PvdA convention at that time so he was in the know. I met Scheffer again at the memorial service of Jos de Beus. I later discovered that Paul de Beer was an adherent of the idea of a basic income. See my discussion about the sectarian behaviour around basic income.

Director of WBS in 1989-2006 was Paul Kalma. I had had some contacts with earlier director Joop van den Berg (1981-1989), now fellow at the Dutch Montesquieu institute. The idea that there are drawbacks to the Trias Politica structure hasn’t arrived there yet.

When Holland succeeds in having this parliamentarian enquiry on unemployment and the role of the CPB … and the euro … then these events at WBS would be important to look into as well. As said at the beginning, the road from science and scientific discovery into political discussion is often via the channel of a particular party. Politicians of any party are less likely to discuss an idea when there is no party advocating it anyway. Thus it is very relevant to know why social democratic researchers at WBS were and still are not interested in a new approach to unemployment. I will be interested in hearing what has been happening as well. Obviously, Parliament will be hesitant to ask questions, since WBS is protected by the aura of science and by that parties will not easily look into dealings of other parties. But the notion of “scientific bureau” better be taken seriously, and scientists should be familiar with the idea of answering questions. Perhaps Thierry Baudet can already ask Paul Scheffer what his recollections are, and why Scheffer didn’t and still doesn’t do anything about the censorship when he heard about it.

The three Pauls (De Beer, Kalma, Scheffer), in 1991 at WBS (wikimedia commons and website De Beer)

The three Pauls: De Beer, Kalma, Scheffer, who were in 1990-1991 at WBS (wikimedia commons and website De Beer)

Advertisements

When a petition (“civil initiative“) in Holland achieves 40,000 signatures then it is mandatory for Dutch Parliament to pay attention to it, and formulate an answer.

The right to petition is old. The right to petition is in the Magna Carta of 1215. In Holland, the petition in 1566 by the nobles to Margaret of Parma is still taught in schools as a first step to the 80 year liberation war from Habsburg Spain in 1568-1648.

Famien_Strada_Histoire-Smeekschrift_der_Edelen-ppn087811480_MG_8892-T1p287In 2016, a letter to Parliament might be enough. Perhaps the issue can be resolved when Parliament (existing parties) indeed pay attention. But Parliament might not pay attention as it is too busy with its own petitions to the cabinet. Citizens with an issue might unite in a political party and get a seat in Parliament, but then there might be one-issue parties. Thus, the procedure for such a civil initiative and the criterion of 40,000 signatures make some sense. Dutch wikipedia (a portal no source) has a list of such petitions since 2006.

My scientific endeavour caused me to propose two petitions: (1) to have a Parliamentarian enquiry into unemployment and role of the Central Planning Bureau … and the euro, (2) to have a Parliamentarian enquiry into mathematics education and its research and policy making. Let us momentarily ignore the second one on math ed and its research, and focus on the economy.

There are two other petitions on the economy that require some attention. These have been caused by popular worry on the 2007+ crisis and not by scientific endeavour. Thus, let us discuss these three petitions to Dutch Parliament:

  1. Ons Geld (our money): a petition to have a different system of money and banking, with nationalisation of seigniorage, e.g. 0% or 100% fraction reserve banking. Their general website apparently is different from the petition itself, and is here. They want Parliament not just to study but to accept a principle.
  2. Peuro.nl: a petition to have a Parliamentarian enquiry into the creation and policy options for the euro.
  3. My petition to have a Parliamentarian enquiry into unemployment and role of the Central Planning Bureau … and the euro. Dutch readers would benefit from my discussion in 2013 (three pages) of euro 2.0 and a new system of money and banking.

From a position in science, the first 2 petitions are misleading to the people. They don’t focus on the real problem in the crisis and distract from the 3rd petition. They also abuse public worries about the crisis for the hobby horses of the initiators. These initiators found 40,000+ people willing to sign up, but the initiatiors did not give these people full information about the 3rd option. The initiators regard democracy as a beauty contest for the attention of the masses and not as an obligation to first arrive at sound information.

Thus, when Parliament evalutates the law on civil initiatives, it might look into rules how to better deal with information.

  • It would be important to know what individual members and Parliament as a whole accept as information. There is often reference to “science” but scientists have various analyses. A petition for a Parliamentarian enquiry might be superfluous when Parliament can already state what it “knows”. Such an enquiry however is useful for finding new information – e.g. via testimonials by experts.
  • Parliament already has a list of incoming data (with a difference between data and information). People might check these data too, but perhaps there can be a Parliamentarian institution turning these data into information.
  • People who want to embark upon a petition might be assisted in the identification of what isn’t known yet, and should also accept the responsibility of scientists to include information that might be new to them and respond to criticism, so that they don’t impose upon social time needlessly for what it essentially their own process of learning.
Petition 1. Ons Geld: 0% or 100% (?) reserve banking and nationalisation of seigniorage

Steps in the petition proceedings were:

  1. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch minister of finance, replying to the petition in his letter of Feb 1 2016, rejected a change in the present system of money and banking.
  2. For the Parliamentarian debate there were different motions.
  3. The motion by Wouter Koolmees (D66) was accepted, to make it easier to have a 100% fraction reserve bank. Potentially, deposit insurance premiums might be reduced, but not fully abolished, since bad investments are not excluded (except in my scheme in “Money as gold versus money as water” (2013)).
  4. The motion by Pieter Omtzigt (CDA) to have a deeper study by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) apparently is still under consideration. However, Jeroen Dijsselbloem apparently accepted the suggestion during the debate, and the WRR now has a weblink about this planned study. At WRR, a key position is by Arnoud Boot, professor of financial markets, at UvA. Boot has been prominent in the Dutch discussion on the 2007+ crisis.
  5. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, in his letter of June 21 2016, reviews current policy. He doesn’t refer to the WRR study like it doesn’t exist or would be relevant.

Thus, the petition started by non-scientists, and their request has been channeled towards science.

The initiators might have asked Arnoud Boot directly – by phone or email or at a conference or by organising a small conference themselves – whether he would be willing to look into this issue and try to get some WRR backing. There have been plenty of academics and policy researchers who have looked into the notion of 100% reserve banking, see for example the Benes & Kumhof IMF 2012 working paper, that revisits the Chicago Plan of 1936 by Irving Fisher and others. A researcher alerted me to Charles A. E. Goodhart and Meinhard A. Jensen,”A Commentary on Patrizio LainaÌ’s ‘Proposals for Full-Reserve Banking: A Historical Survey from David Ricardo to Martin Wolf´“, Economic Thought Vol 4, No 2, 2015. Update 2017-06-09: On 0% reserve banking, see e.g. here (except for the view at the end that our banking system is a Ponzi scheme).

The advantage of the petition however might be that now it is the minister of finance who asked WRR. It might be less easy for the minister to neglect the report once it arrives because he himself asked for it. However, such WRR reports tend to cause ministers no real problems.

A key problem would be that seigniorage now is under control of the European Central Bank (ECB) and that the Maastricht Treaty would require amendment which would not be achieved easily. However, the EU is managed by crises by management, and there will be plenty of crises requiring new adaptations.

Irving Fisher (1933) and Arnoud Boot (ca. 2010), Wikimedia Commons (photo Christiaan Krouwels)

Irving Fisher (1933) and Arnoud Boot (ca. 2010), Wikimedia Commons (photo Christiaan Krouwels)

A guarded compliment for Dutch Parliament

Overall, I find the process still is a bit surprising. It was Parliament that created this new law on petitions, and Parliament can be complimented that it dealt with the petition by proper procedure.

Undoubtedly, all political parties already had ideas by themselves about money and banking. They didn’t need this petition to discuss the topic. However, the media reported on the initiative, and it touched a nerve in public worry about the 2007+ crisis, and thus the existing political parties in Parliament were alerted on their role as representatives of the people in general. Apparently, the petition caused a temporary focus on some aspects that they enjoyed discussing.

The end result that there will be a study by WRR could also have been achieved otherwise, but overall the petition allowed Parliament to show how Parliament can work on its better days. Except that it is a pity that Parliament did not discuss my letter that explained what in this petition was misleading.

Why the Ons Geld petition is essentially misleading

The economist in this group is Ad Broere, now independent consultant. It is unclear to me whether he is a general economist or a business economist, but he taught financial management and management accounting. I don’t see when the petition started but I informed Broere in April 2013 about this weblog of mine and about my approach to Euro 2.0, and did not get a reply. I find this problematic. Isn’t Broere interested in fellow economists who look into a similar issue ?

The Ons Geld documentation refers to engineer and non-economist Klaas van Egmond, who supposes a stock of money as large as GDP (= 1 in the model MV = PY) so that 1% growth in the stock of money (seigniorage under full reserve banking) amounts to 6 bn euro’s (page 13 of their document, or p645 in Van Egmond & De Vries ESB 4721, November 5 2015). They also seem to forget that banks use current seigniorage to pay for costs. They sugggest that all seigniorage can be taken by the government without the need for bank to raise transaction fees. Taking seigniorage away from banks might also be seen as the government introducing a tax on banks that they must recuperate in fees. The email exchange with Van Egmond on this is here. Any economist who looks into this proposal should spot these misleading assumption. It is curious that ESB let this paper be published. Any banker can tell these initiators that they tend to neglect the costs of operating a money system. Indeed Wim Boonstra in the same issue of ESB explains about costs.

There is also Dirk Bezemer who is only an advisor to the Ons Geld group, but he claims a position in science, and in fact recently in June 2016 was appointed as economics professor in Groningen which I protest about.

I already discussed this Ons Geld petition when observing that Dirk Bezemer disinformed Dutch Parliament in 2015. Before that, he disinformed Sweden in 2012, and after that he disinformed Radar TV in 2016.

A strange interaction between Van Egmond and Bezemer

Klaas van Egmond in both ESB and his presentation for Parliament refers to the article by Bezemer 2009 “No one saw this coming“. Apparently, Van Egmond has not read this article since he misrepresents its message.

The crisis of 2008 was not or hardly forseeable: “no one saw this coming” (Bezemer, 2009).” or in Dutch: “De crisis van 2008 was niet of nauwelijks te voorzien (…)

However, Bezemer really stated (VoxEU column):

“One result from such reflection would be that in fact, many had predicted this course of events for years. In a recent study (Bezemer 2009), I document the economists who did “see it coming”. At least a dozen serious analysts issued fairly detailed, well reasoned, and public warnings of imminent finance-induced recession.

They were apparently ignored by Stevens and other central bankers who then, as Alan Greenspan professed in his October 2008 testimony, watched with “shocked disbelief” as their “whole intellectual edifice collapse in the summer [of 2007]”. The official models they relied on missed the crisis not because the conditions were so unusual, as we are often told. They missed it by design.”

More on Dirk Bezemer 1

Bezemer’s background is in agricultural economics (thesis 2001). This need not be a problem. Jeroen Dijsselbloem is an agricultural economist, and there it is a problem. John Kenneth Galbraith started as an agricultural economist too, and I am much in favour of Galbraith, so this background itself should not prevent Bezemer from studying other issues too. It might actually be beneficial to have more background than only a focus on money as often happens with monetary economists. Bezemer came to money and banking via the notion of risk, the collapse of the Albanian economy due to a Ponzi scheme, and the crisis of 2007+.

Scientists should reply to criticism by fellow scientists. If Bezemer doesn’t reply to criticism and proceeds in disinforming others then his claim on being a scientist is up for grabs.

Bezemer had the bad luck that his paper “No one saw this coming” of 2009 got the fancy of readers who worried about the economic crisis. He got a subsidy from INET. Apparently he doesn’t want this success to be tainted by having to reply to criticism.

  • Just to be sure: I am very specific w.r.t. my criticism of 2009  w.r.t. Bezemer’s paper of 2009. If he would provide an answer perhaps this criticism might be resolved.
  • In 2016 there however are the additional questions:
    • why it takes so long to answer to criticism of 2009,
    • why he misleads people by not responding to criticism, including now his co-authors or own PhD students Kristiana Rozite, Joeri Schasfoort, Maria Grydaki, Anna Samarina and Lu Zhang, or his contacts in the Bank of England (BoE),
    • why he didn’t spot Klaas van Egmond’s errors: (a) on the stock of money, (b) on bank costs, (c) on misquoting his own paper,
    • why he doesn’t support my protest against censorship of science since 1990 in Holland. Like we had “Albanian (Ponzi) economics” and “Greek statistics” we also have “Dutch economic science” and one would expect scientists to protest about this.
More on Dirk Bezemer 2

In a google for this weblog text I also found an interview in English with both Lex Hoogduin and Dirk Bezemer in 2014 about the “pluralist” course in money and finance that they teach at the university of Groningen (also my alma mater).

Apparently, this “pluralist” approach still excludes reference to my work (DRGTPE and CSBH). It is also awkward to read such such interviews. I warned about developments before the crisis but neither Hoogduin nor Bezemer warned about the crisis but make a living of explaining it after the fact. Hoogduin was personal advisor of Wim Duisenberg and thus would be a prime witness for the peuro.nl Parliamentarian enquiry discussed below.

Bezemer states:

“(…) almost nobody saw it coming. Those who did see it coming, where rather obscure economists working in the Post-Keynesian and Austrian traditions.” (Bezemer, p6, first column, bottom)

  1. This is a misrepresentation of history. There is much more to the explanation of the crisis than what Bezemer makes of it. This is not a trivial issue. The diagnosis is relevant for the treatment. When you only see half of the explanation – since you willfully ignore criticism – then your policy advice will also be biased.
  2. There were more people warning, including me. Let Bezemer reply to my criticism. I am no obscure economist. I am part and parcel of the tradition of Jan Tinbergen and the Dutch Central Planning Bureau. I am an economist who is censored and ignored by deliberation.
  3. Bezemer shifts the meaning of his own analysis. Has he forgotton what he wrote, and is he starting to believe the quote in his title ?
  4. Hyman Minski was no obscure economist. The post-keynesian and Austrian traditions are well-known in economics, i.e. for people who study economics who aren’t of a one-track mind. Much is also in Maynard Keynes, who clearly included the uncertainty of the future into the conceptual model (e.g. “animal spirits”). “Post-Keynesian” might often read as Keynesian as well.
  5. It may well be that central banking economists like Lex Hoogduin forgot about Minski but that doesn’t make Minski obscure but it rather makes Hoogduin less competent. It is not as competent as well how Hoogduin treats my analysis, e.g. in the context of Peter Bofinger‘s visit to Amsterdam in 2012.

Bezemer also states:

“Thanks to research grants, I can put my money where my mouth is.” (Bezemer, p6, second column, bottom)

This is a wrong application of the proverb. Putting your money where your mouth is concerns your own money, not the money of other people received as research grants.

PM. Edin Mujagic and murdering money

I now found this text by Edin Mujagic who argues that the Ons Geld petition is rather superfluous, and that the focus should be not on banks but on Central Banking. I agree with much of this. However, it would be a change in the system of money and banking when economic agents could have accounts at the Central Bank at very low cost, see my paper “Money as gold versus money as water” (2013). The Central Bank doesn’t have to make investments since it can always print money, and also print money to run the system. A transaction fee however makes sense since it involves human activity. Also, it is better to first have an Economic Supreme Court before discussing changes in Central Banking. Mujagic has a recent book on central banking that I haven’t read and likely will not read, since it is better that he first reads my earlier analysis. Mujagic collaborated with Thierry Baudet on the latter’s Forum voor Democratie, about which later on.

Petition 2. Peuro.nl: A Parliamentarian enquiry into the creation and policy options for the euro

The petition was started by doctor of law Thierry Baudet (1983), master of law Jort Kelder (1964) and management accountant Arno Wellens (ca. 1988). Steps in the proceedings have been:

  1. When the petition had 38,000 signatures, there was this useful tv-interview with Kelder by journalist Sven Kockelmann (1969) (March 30 2015).
  2. After the petition got its 40,000+ signatures, there was a meeting of the Parliamentarian committee where the petitioneers presented their case (Video December 14 2015).
  3. Jeroen Dijsselbloem restated the position of the Dutch government, with the main point that the euro had been created in a democratic process (letter July 13 2016).
  4. The Parliamentarian committee will look into this when returning from the Summer vacation.
  5. PM. Political parties are busy with their programmes for the Dutch general elections of March 2017.

In NRC-Handelsblad Baudet, Kelder & Wellens warned “the Dutch elite” that there might be a Nexit if public concern isn’t handled properly. They got a reply by economists Steven Brakman & Harry Garretsen, and there is a short deconstruction by Ron Ritzen. Note that Kelder doesn’t want a Nexit but only wants to leave the euro and only warns about the risk about a Next.

Kelder and Wellens versus Baudet

Kelder and Wellens show much interest in money & wealth and its frauds.This interest might have seduced them to embrace the peuro.nl petition, not hindered by a deeper study of political economy (Dutch “staathuishoudkunde”).

Kelder studied law, became a journalist, was chief editor of Quote magazine (a Dutch version of Forbes) and started his own digital magazine 925.nl (“nine to five”) of which Wellens is chief editor. Kelder is well-connected and counts Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte as one of his friendly contacts from the students days and young liberals JOVD. Mark Rutte studied history, and not economics, and still is an adept of Margaret Thatcher.

In the interview by Kockelmann, Kelder states that he was invited by Baudet. In 2010 I gave Baudet a copy of the book by Hans Hulst and Auke Hulst in collaboration with me, “Werkloosheid en armoede, de oplossing die werkt(1998). Readers of English may be helped by this part of the analysis “Don’t tax sweat“. I asked Kelder & Wellens whether Baudet had informed them about this, and they said “No”. At a Parliamentarian enquiry, Baudet might explain why he invited Kelder without giving full information, and Kelder might explain why he is happy with this.

Kelder

On the question what news Kelder wants to see, Kelder rather dodges the question.

  1. Duisenberg (1935-2005, age 70) is deceased. A point of him is that people like Lubbers, Kok, Zalm and Bolkestein are still alive, and that there still is the opportunity to record their views. They are no longer in Parliament. However, they already presented their views in Parliament in the past. Their positions have been well documented. Readers and listeners of Dutch can see the video of “Geschiedenis24” of Black Monday of the Maastricht Treaty.
  2. According to Kelder many people accept the euro without studying it. If Parliament would have public hearings then people would start paying attention. This “media circus” however is not the purpose of a Parliamentarian enquiry. The purpose is to collect information for law making. Thus, the law on petitions generates a request to abuse the law on the Parliamentarian enquiry.
  3. Kelder states that there is hardly discussion about the consequences of the euro. There is discussion about millions of euros but not about the trillions of euros involved in the future of the euro, say ESM and so on. His peuro.nl initiative is intended to generate more attention for a public discussion of these issues. However, Kelder ignores that there is a discussion between experts. Public discussion of course is okay in a democracy, but soon issues become complex, and then the lay people and experts have a difficult time in communicating with each other. My suggestion has been the creation of an Economic Supreme Court (ESC), to help bridge the gap. The ESC focuses on government policy, is open to science and the public, and thus would provide a platform to discuss issues on content without political meddling. Kelder ignores this idea too. Thus he is aware that there is a problem in modern democracy with complex issues, but his solution is from 1800 to have a “public debate”. Thus he ignores that there is already discussion (see e.g. my papers and book “Common Sense: Boycott Holland” (CSBH, 2012), and he, as he writes me, actually doesn’t have time for following this discussion, so that he is a bit like the ostrich who wants Parliament to make the monster go away.

Recently, Kelder stated that he wants to quit the euro (Telegraaf, July 2). It is unclear whether he means that Holland must create the guilder again, or whether he e.g. wants a break-up into Northern and Southern coins (and France belonging where ?). Thus Parliament still has something to study for him.

I feel uncomfortable about this Telegraaf interview, since Kelder uses strong language that make him sound annoyed and angry, while he generally tends to present a polite and easy-going image. In the interview, Kelder grows aware himself about this contrast, is amazed about his own bitterness, and clarifies that he isn’t himself when speaking like this. Kelder states these views:

  • He rejects the Southern influence on the euro because of the differences in management cultures (Calvinism versus Catholicism), and sees leaving the euro as the only way to handle such differences,
  • he calls the EU a “religion”,
  • and calls Jean-Claude Juncker a “power junkie” (Dutch “machtswellusteling”, Google Translate “power voluptuary”) who has not been elected democratically (though there have been EU Parliamentarian elections),
  • and warns for a Nexit (NL leaving the EU) when Dutch policy makers do not come to their senses. Kelder would not be in favour of Nexit. He focuses on the eurozone. In this, Kelder seems to ignore the errors in democracy in the Brexit referendum. That is, when there would be a Nexit, he would not fight it as a result of misleading processes (e.g. errors that are propounded by Baudet’s Forum voor Democratie), but would still regard it as proof that people reject current policy making,
  • he doesn’t want to come across as angry, because he states that he isn’t, though he uses language that suggests that he is.
Baudet and Wellens

This weblog entry is already too long. In a sequel I will look at Baudet and Wellens.

PM. Petition 3. Unemployment, CPB … and euro

I suppose that I can give the short conclusion that this petition is the one to sign (by Dutch citizens). See the About page of this weblog.