{ position: center; }
Home / Articles @en / Op-Ed: Cover up that MINT, which I can’t endure to look on.
gold-bars-and-coins

Op-Ed: Cover up that MINT, which I can’t endure to look on.

The truth is so obscured in these times and the lie is so established that unless one loves the truth, one could not recognize it.

(B. Pascal, 1623 – 1662)

 

Bruno Paul, PhD ; Geoeconomy ; Socio-political transformations ; Founder of Conscience-Sociale.org
Paris, France January 9th 2014.

The BRICS[1] are a very concrete and current example that the economy is actually only a facet or a mask artificially stuck on politics. The rhetoric that carries each of them is however built on the opposite. Let’s summarize the approaches and see how and why the term MINT[2] is trying to emerge[3] today.

An economist looks in the rear mirror (that is to say in the past) at quantifiable results from “economic actors” therefore reduced to a brief quantification. Then he sets up what he deems to be a representative image of some salient aspects and uses elements of a doxai[4] so that he can draw his conclusions on the assessment of the moment. If he dares then to talk about the future, it is in order to point out the economic policies which should according to him be deployed as a consequence of this assessment, and of the principles arising from his doxai.

Thus the term BRIC was born in 2001 in the work of an economist at Goldman Sachs. The visible approach is that of a simple statistical aggregate. The chosen principles encourage him to find economic actors (and not political ones, mind you) to justify the development of a free trade doxai, to benefit those who created it. The only links that are allowed to be discussed are the ones related to the market. The invisible approach is that which supports the international trade system, that is to say the current international monetary system, based on the ever-increasing flow of U.S. Treasury bonds (UST).

The BRIC aggregate thus represents in the eyes of the most enlightened of the dominant doxai a consumer market of these US Treasury bonds. And actually a captive market, since the word “bond” also refers to “bind“, which aim is only to perpetuate financial domination over these countries naively qualified as “emerging economies”. If there is indeed a strategy, there is not an ounce of true politics. This strategy has reached some real success, as evidenced by the reserves of these obligations by foreign countries since 1945 and especially since President Nixon closed the gold window on 15 August 1971. But ever since this logic of finding new markets for bonds declines itself. The BRIC are far from being the first. Remember before the “four dragons”[5] then the “Asian tigers”[6] that explain the shape of the following figure. (Click to enlarge)

 

FDHBFIN_Max_630_378

Source : Federal Reserve of St Louis.

 

 

In October 2013 the stock of UST reserves was as follows:

BRICS [7]

Asian tigers

4 dragons

Europe (minus UK)

MINT

Japan + UK + oil countries

Other countries

31%

2%

8%

20%

2%

33%

4,5%

 

 

Contrary to an economist, a political scientist’s mind is forward oriented. He seeks above all the conditions and benefits of new relations (or their breakage) taking into account all dimensions of political actors, without reducing them to an intellectually or voluntarily poor quantitative analysis. In times of profound upheaval, an economic approach does not have the slightest chance to lead to correct expectations, but contrariwise it has all merit to strengthen the use of a doxai. It is especially through this bias that the pensée unique is spread. An economist is never as relevant as when he works on the history of his discipline and on its underlying sociological, political or philosophical foundation.[8]

And that is why economists have never wanted to see that the waves of UST spreading corresponded with a geographical extension of American influence in the world, and since 1990, their domination. They never wanted to see either that the association of the BRIC, far from being an easily manipulable aggregate of countries, would quickly lead to a geopolitical alliance, nor that this alliance would quickly strengthen itself in Africa (becoming BRICS) nor that this alliance would since 2009 declare itself as the spearhead of a real reform of the international monetary system.

We must in this regard look at the new appearance of the term MINT by Goldman Sachs, at the time China officially declared withdrawal of its support for UST.[9] This new policy comes to confirm the evolution of UST flow during the year 2013 for all countries (except Japan):

(Click to enlarge)

 Treasury Intl Capital

Source : Nowandfutures.com, using official TIC data

 Treasury Capital 2

Source : Nowandfutures.com, using official TIC data

 

The attempt to introduce the MINT in the discourse of the dominant doxai must thus be regarded as a last desperate effort to avoid further talks about BRICS, and instead to talk of emerging countries considered “future giants” and whose governments are bound by an important geopolitical context with Washington (think about gold resources and oil)… but for how long?

All elements of talks about MINT are only taken from choices made ex post facto to artificially justify the existence of this group.

On the contrary, it is for the countries of the Euro zone (Euroland), to continue rapidly to develop true strategic partnerships with the BRICS countries and even to consider taking Goldman Sachs’ word [10]  in developing a dual monetary system Euro and gold.[11]

Bruno Paul

Conscience-sociale.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Brazil – Russia – India – China – South Africa

[2] Mexico – Indonesia – Nigeria – Turkey

[4] Deconstructing the dominant doxai, build an alternative political thought. The link between representations, principles and standards”, G. Colletis and M. Salles, 10/2013

[5] They were the first wave of Asian NICs: South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong.

[6] The justification was that they were “New Exporting Countries’ : Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia (already there), Vietnam and the Philippines

[7] With large variation, for example if we compare India: 60 billion USD, and China: 1304 billion (in October 2013)

[8] For instance: Les vraies lois de l’économie, J. Généreux, 2001

[10] “Open the Mint to gold! “In reference to an article by Prof. FEKETE. MINT could also be a GS private joke, because “opening the Mint” (i.e: coinage) is one of the way advocated by New Austrian School of Economics to restore an effective gold standard.

[11] This would restore an equivalent of the Latin Monetary Union, as proposed by the New Austrian School of Economics