The Flying Frisby - money, markets and more

A slightly-longer Sunday morning thought piece than usual today, but one that is well worth the effort I hope you’ll discover.A reminder that:* This August I am going to the Edinburgh Fringe to do one of my “lectures with funny bits”. This one is all about the history of mining. As always, I shall be delivering it at Panmure House, where Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations. It’s at 2pm most afternoons. Please come. Tickets here.* My first book and many readers’ favourite, Life After the State - Why We Don’t Need Government (2013), is now back in print - with the audiobook here: Audible UK, Audible US, Apple Books. I recommend the audiobook ;)Isaac Newton, who, along with William Shakespeare, Leonardo Da Vinci and Aristotle, must be one of the cleverest individuals to have ever lived, made groundbreaking contributions to physics, mathematics, optics, mechanics, philosophy and astronomy. The laws of motion, the theory of gravitation and the reflecting telescope were among his many contributions. He was also a brilliant alchemist, obsessed with theology and biblical prophecy. As if that isn’t enough, he is credited with the design of the Gold Standard, the primary monetary system of the world for over two hundred years. Today we explore how this brilliant system was accidental.In 1695, counterfeit coins accounted for more than a tenth of all English money in circulation. Massive LOL: the English used the counterfeit coins, in particular, to pay their taxes. The Exchequer that year reported no more than ten good shillings for every hundred pounds of revenue. Coin clipping was also a major problem, especially of old coins, and silver coins were disappearing from circulation altogether. Silver was worth more on the continent as bullion than it was in the UK as tender, so arbitrageurs shipped coins abroad, melted them down, and sold them for gold. Everyone from the Jews to the French was blamed, but by 1695 it was almost impossible to find legal silver in circulation. It had all been melted down and sold.This all led to a scarcity of money, which inhibited trade. More damage was caused to the English nation in just one year by bad money than “by a quarter century of bad kings, bad Ministers, bad Parliaments and bad Judges”, said the historian Thomas Babington Macaulay.King William begged the House of Commons to respond to the crisis and, seeking help, Secretary of the Treasury, William Lowndes wrote letters to England’s wisest men, asking their advice: among them, philosopher John Locke, architect Sir Christopher Wren, banker Sir Josiah Child, and scientist, Sir Isaac Newton.Newton was in his mid 40s and probably not far off the peak of his powers. He had published his most famous work, the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, just eight years earlier in 1687, and it had established him as the smartest man in the country. He would now put his great mind to money.With the formation of the Bank of England the previous year, Newton had become aware of the possibilities of paper money. “If interest be not yet low enough for the advantage of trade,” he wrote, “the only proper way to lower it is more paper credit till by trading and business we can get more money.” He could see that token value and intrinsic value were not necessarily one and the same.It was also obvious to Newton that the currency criminals were rational actors. They would continue to clip, counterfeit, and sell abroad while there was profit in it. Bullion smuggling carried the death sentence, yet still it went on. Coercion alone would not be enough to stop it from happening. The market itself needed to be changed.He came up with two measures. First, to deal with the clipping, all coins minted prior to 1662 should be called in, melted down, and, using machines, re-made into coins that had a single consistent edge. With no more hand-hammered coins in circulation, clipping coins would become that much more difficult. Re-minting the entire country’s coin, however, at a time of such primitive machinery, was no small undertaking. Second, to deal with the silver issue, the amount of silver in coins should be lowered so that the silver content and the face value of the coin were the same.The thought of such a devaluation went against the psyche. The idea that token value and intrinsic value might be different was alien and Newton’s second proposal was not widely welcomed. There were 20 shillings to a pound, so a shilling should contain a concomitant amount of silver.  Newton may have thought that the token was more important than the silver content, but landowners and the government, which was largely made up of them, would lose 20% of their silver by Newton’s proposal. In 1696 Parliament approved the recoinage, but stipulated the new coins maintain the old weights. Newton warned that the silver outflow would continue.The following year, nudged by John Locke, Charles Montague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sent Newton a letter notifying him that the King intended to make him Warden of the Mint. So began his new career. Perhaps the role was only intended as a sinecure, but Newton took it very seriously.Putting his chemical and mathematical knowledge to good use, Newton got the Mint’s machines working and the coins minted at a speed that defied the predictions of even the boldest optimist and, as an industrial operation, Newton’s recoinage was an enormous success. Newton would also have to learn the skills of a policeman—both investigator and interrogator—and he proved masterful. This ruthless enforcer of the law, oversaw numerous investigations, exposing frauds, and then prosecuting perpetrators. Poor counterfeiters had no idea what they were up against, and many were sent to the gallows for their crimes.So good at the job of Warden was Newton that, in 1699, he was promoted and made Master of the Royal Mint, and after the Union between England and Scotland in 1707, Newton directed a Scottish recoinage that would lead to a new currency for the new Kingdom of Great Britain.He had solved the clipping issue, the counterfeiting issue was vastly improved, but silver was still making its way across the Channel, just as Newton had said it would. As long as the silver content exceeded the face value of the coins, the trade would continue. By 1715, almost all of the coins that Newton had struck between 1696 and 1699 had left t he country.Newton’s studies had moved on from tides, planetary motions, and pendulums to the gold markets. He drew up an extensive table of assays of foreign coins and in doing so realised that gold was cheaper in the new markets opening up in Asia than in Europe, and thus that silver was not just being sucked out of England, but out of Europe itself to India and China where it was traded for gold.Meanwhile, the world’s next great gold rush had started.If you are interested in buying gold, check out my recent report. I have a feeling it is going to come in very handy in the not-too-distant future.My recommended bullion dealer is the Pure Gold Company.World gold output doublesSome time in 1694 Portuguese deserters had found alluvial gold two hundred miles inland from Rio De Janeiro in Minas Gerais in Brazil. Soon everyone was flocking there, “white, coloured, black, Amerindian, men and women; young and old; poor and rich; nobles and commoners; laymen and clergy,” said a Jesuit priest who lived in the area. By 1724, within just three decades of the discovery, world output had doubled. By 1750, 65% of global production was emanating from Brazil. The gold made its way to Lisbon, along with sugar, tobacco and other Brazilian products - similar amounts to that which the Conquistadors had sent back to Spain the previous century - and with it the Portuguese minted their moidores coins.The Portuguese used their gold to buy English cereal crops, beef and fish, woollen goods, manufactured articles, and luxuries. Portugal imported five times as much from England as it exported to it, and it used its gold to settle the difference. The moidores, which weighed slightly more than an English guinea, worth 28 shillings, actually became currency, especially in the west country, where there were more of them than local coins. “We hardly have any money,” wrote an Exeter man in 1713, “but Portugal gold.” In London, the Bank of England began buying vast amounts of gold, “to be coined as it comes in” and the Mint began minting guineas from the moidores. By 1715 the Bank had 800 kg/25,700 t.oz, a nascent central bank reserve, and this figure would rise would to 15.5 tonnes/500,000 t.oz by 1730. So much gold coin had never been minted before and London soon overtook Amsterdam as the foremost precious metals market. Gold was coming and staying. Silver was leaving for Asia. In 1717 Newton was called on to investigate.He came up with a new system and outlined it in a report to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury in September 1717. Less than three months later there was a Royal Proclamation that forbade the exchange of gold guineas for more than 21 silver shillings - even if they were clipped or underweight. Thus was a guinea just over a pound, which was 20 shillings, or 113 grains of gold. The ratio of gold to silver was effectively set at roughly 1:15.5.But silver coin clipping continued, and full-weight silver coins continued to be exported to the continent, where 21 shillings of silver could still get you more than a guinea’s worth of gold (just over 7.6 grams/1/4 t.oz), and to Asia, especially India and China, often via the East India Company, where silver was even more valuable. The result was that silver was used for imports, and so left the country, while exports were traded for gold, which thus came into the country.All in all, some two-thirds of that Brazilian gold is thought to have ended up in England. Hundreds of tonnes in total.Britain had always been on a silver standard. A pound was a pound of sterling silver. “In all men’s minds the only true money of the country was the silver coin,” said Sir John Craig, historian of the Mint. Although that Royal Proclamation suggested a bimetallic standard, in practice, with so much silver going abroad, it moved Britain from silver to its first gold standard. Gold was more dependable than clipped silver. The future would look back on Newton as the father of the gold standard. His system proved the bedrock of Britain’s domestic and international trade through the 18th century, helping it to become such a formidable commercial power. But it was an accidental gold standard. Nobody—not the institutions nor the persons involved—had had the slightest intention of creating a new monetary system on gold. Most people wanted to sustain silver as the prime coinage of the land. Newton had tried to create a functioning bimetallic standard. But market forces had other ideas.In the 1770s there was another recoinage in Britain, which, in terms of sheer scale, was unprecedented. Some 155 tonnes/5 million t.oz of gold in total, perhaps 30 times greater than Newton’s recoinage of 1696-9, greater than anything attempted by Spain or Venice, or even Rome. No attempt was made to recoin silver. It was a formal admission that Britain was now on a gold standard. Newton’s accidental gold standard was formalised.Anno domini for goldThe second half of the 19th century proved the golden age of the gold rush. First California, then Australia, then New Zealand, then South Africa, then Western Australia, and finally the Klondike.Aside from taxation (see Daylight Robbery), it is difficult to think of anything more overlooked that has had a more profound influence on the course of human history than the gold rush. Nations, indeed civilisations, have been formed on the back of them. (The beneficial impact of gold discoveries in Northern Spain to the Roman Empire is dramatically understated, for example). The fifty years from January 24th, 1848, were perhaps the golden era of the gold rush. The date stands as a watershed moment, the dawn of a new golden age. You might say there are two histories of gold, one before and one after 1848, akin to a BC and AD moment in time. On that day a carpenter from New Jersey by the name of James Marshall saw something shiny at the bottom of a ditch while carrying out a routine inspection of a lumbar mill he was helping build on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada in California. The scale of the gold business changed out of all proportion. The amount of metal available changed beyond all recognition. Annual production rose fivefold in five years. The Paris Mint coined 150 million Napoléons D’Or in eight years from 1850-57, compared to 65 million in the preceding 50 years. The US Mint’s output of gold eagles rose fivefold.The gold price should surely fall with all the new supply, feared bankers and economists. “The price must fall,” said the Economist, wrong about everything even then. The Times agreed. French economist Michel Chevalier wrote an entire book, On the Probable Fall in the Value of Gold. But the gold price did not fall. It stayed constant. What the Times, the Economist and Chevalier had all failed to appreciate was that most of the gold would use as money, and that trade, exchange and economic expansion would be the result.Surprisingly perhaps, the biggest casualty of the gold rush was silver. Silver had been money for thousands of years. Not for much longer. Its price halved. In 1850 only Britain, Portugal, Brazil, and a handful of other nations were on the gold standard. Everyone else was on bi-metallic standards. Come 1900 China was the only major nation not on a pure gold standard. Scarcely had the discoveries in California been made when the US began minting $1 and $20 gold coins, in addition to the $10 eagle. Before the discovery, the US Mint struck $4 million worth; in 1851 it minted over $62 million worth. Gold is “virtually the only currency of the country,” said a Congressman proposing a $3 gold coin in a debate in 1853. 1853 would also prove the last time silver dollars were struck, though they still circulated. In practical terms, if not nominal, the US was moving to a gold standard. Then the Coinage Act of 1873 eliminated the standard silver dollar altogether. The act became known as the Crime of 1873. There was a rearguard action, a “silver crusade” to get silver reinstated, especially as silver supply was now increasing thanks to discoveries in Nevada, Colorado, and Mexico. There was, thought some, a “deep-laid plot” engineered by a foreign conspiracy to increase the national debt, which would have to be paid in gold. Bimetallism became a central issue of the election of 1896, when an ambitious young Democrat by the name of William Jennings Bryan won the nomination that he thought would carry him to the presidency with what is widely regarded as one of the greatest speeches in American political history. “Thou shalt not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold,” he bellowed. But no.Gold rather than silver was now in the pockets of millions of people around the world. The increased gold supply effectively sent both France and the US onto gold standards, even though nominally they remained bimetallic (the US until 1900). The move from silver to gold gathered pace in Europe from the 1870s. In 1872-3 Germany launched its new mark, followed by Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy had signed up to a Latin bimetallic monetary union in 1865, which was undermined by the tumbling silver price, and they largely abandoned the silver part of the equation after 1874. By the end of the century, every major nation bar China was on a gold standard, the classical gold standard which Isaac Newton is credited with having designed.But that classical gold standard, that golden age of sound money for which many hard money advocates of today, including yours truly, pine, was not designed and planned, it was accidental.As a the poet Robert Burns wrote:But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,In proving foresight may be vain:The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ MenGang aft agleyThe modern system of fiat money by which we operate today is also accidental, evolving from political expediency, political pressure, technological developments, deficit spending, suppressed interest rates, misguided obsession with GDP, and more. Many, especially the powerful, have exploited it for their own ends, but nobody designed a system in which 99% of money is digital, in which 99% of money is debt, in which loss of purchasing power and Cantillon Effect are built in, which robs the young, the salaried, and the saver, which makes an increase in the wealth gap inevitable and so on. The modern system is clearly in its endgame. Better systems are emerging. But endgames last a long time.Enjoy this article? Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

A few years ago I wrote a script called Four Murders and Some Funerals, about an old lady who is the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice. Seeking revenge she murders one of the perpetrators (by accident - long story, but it works), discovers she’s a natural at bumping people off, does away with the other three, and ends up becoming a vigilante serial killer - righting wrongs wherever she finds them and usually where the law has failed. I still think it was a pretty good script, though it never got made - a bit like Miss Marple, only more savage and retributionist. Anyway, as a result of writing said script, I had to come up with a number of original ways by which an old lady might kill people: I had one person pushed down a lift shaft, another electrocuted in the bath, another shot and another poisoned. This all involved quite a bit of research, especially the various poisons. Should our heroine use cyanide, polonium, fentanyl or botulinum, for example?For obvious reasons, I wasn’t quite comfortable googling all the questions I had, so I took to Tor, DuckDuckGo and internet anonymity. I’m glad I did because, believe you me, how to murder someone is one heck of an internet rabbit hole to go down. Before long I was reading about hiring Chechen hitmen and lord knows what else. Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, researching a script about a murderer is a fairly trivial use case for internet anonymity. But I don’t think the day is far away when your internet search history - which Google keeps forever, by the way, unless you take steps to delete it - will be taken into account for things like insurance risk, profiling, social credit score, by potential employers and so on. I don’t think several days researching how to kill someone reflects particularly well. Of relevance, one of my followers tells me that Justin Trudeau is trying to impose a law whereby police can retroactively search the Internet for ‘hate speech’ violations and arrest offenders, even if the offence occurred before the law existed.But you don’t have to be asking questions about how to kill someone to want anonymity. You might be living under some extreme theological regime, asking questions like is there a god; or under a totalitarian regime, asking questions about freedom; or under a corrupt and incompetent regime, asking questions about vaccine safety. You get the point. Anonymity protects you. It limits the power that others have over you and the ability they have to control you. It enables you to protect your reputation, and stop things from being used against you, especially out of context. It gives you greater control over your own data and thus your destiny. But let’s say I did actually want to kill someone, and that I even researched how to do it, before deciding not to. The only crime I would be guilty of is thought. But if my search history can be used against me, it doesn’t matter if, ten years later I have moved on from the murder thing, it’s still there, and if the police or some activist decided to uncover it, I would, in the eyes of many, forever be guilty of murder, even if I had committed no such crime, beyond thinking about it - which, I bet, most of us have at some point in our darkest hours.For me the most powerful use case is freedom of thought. Being anonymous is liberating. I’m sure that is why masked balls proved so popular.  If you know you are being watched, you are less likely to explore new ideas outside the mainstream, ideas which family, friends, colleagues or even society may dislike. These might be philosophical, political or theological ideas, scientific or artistic. We might want to express thoughts we otherwise feel unable to express. A lot of things, if judged from a different time or place, by people who lack complete knowledge or understanding, may seem odd or worse intolerable. Anonymity protects against having to worry about how actions are perceived and against  constantly having to justify them. Anonymity is the nemesis of censorship.Get your friends to read this.This happened to a comedian friend of mine the other day. I don’t want to say his name, because I don’t want to draw attention to the doxxing. He was posting anonymously on Telegram. Some ideological opponent spent hours following him, going through his material and then exposed his identity, publishing all the stuff he had been saying in order to try and lose him his job. (Which he nearly did: he got suspended but thankfully re-instated). They did something similar to the tycoon Paul Marshall, who had an anonymous Twitter account.The most compelling real life example of why we need internet anonymity must be Satoshi Nakamoto. We would not have bitcoin without it. For sure, many will say, “bah, bitcoin”, but we are talking here about one of the most revolutionary technologies ever invented, and one that has the potential (I don’t say it will, I say it has the potential) to fix our broken political and economic systems peacefully. How? Because it enables people to opt out. It provides an alternative money system and money is the zero patient: “Fix the money, fix the world,” runs the mantra. Remove the state’s monopoly on money, you reduce its ability to create money at no cost to itself and you limit its ability to do all the terrible things it does. And please don’t say, “But what about the NHS”.Subscribe to The Flying Frisby.So I favour internet anonymity, which is a much harder feat to achieve now than it used to be. But I also get that this is not a black and white issue. I’ve no doubt that many a murderous act has been plotted anonymously by terrorists and others looking to kill innocent civilians. Certain politicians, celebrities and others take an enormous amount of abuse from anonymous accounts: I have heard Ian Wright complain many times about the racist trolling  he gets from anonymous accounts, demanding that X, Facebook et al take the trolls to account. The privilege of anonymity gets abused, and badly. What is they say, “with freedom comes great responsibility”?With anonymity, even more so.Many government ministers will care more about the terrorist plotting and the online abuse (which they probably get more than their fair share of) than they will about the freedom to explore new ideas. And, as I say, the censors hate it because the anonymous are harder to control. So, going forward, we can expect more and more attempts to prevent it. Seven reasons we need internet anonymity:* Freedom of expression.* Protection of privacy.* Safety and security.* Overcoming barriers to access.* Encouraging innovation and creativity.* Protection against online harassment and abuse. * Preserving autonomy and control.Tell your mates. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

Good morning,As an experiment, today’s Sunday morning thought piece is in video. If you prefer, you can also read it below. You should also be able to read and listen, as many like to do.Let me know what you think.This week, May 7th, marks the 25th anniversary of one the UK’s greatest ever financial blunders. There is no shortage of them, but this one really stands out: that is Gordon Brown’s decision to sell more than half of Britain’s gold. The decision and then its implementation were both of such cack-handed incompetence that for many the only possible explanation is conspiracy. We will come to that in a moment.Every now and then the government does something that makes your ears prick up and think, “Well what are they doing that for?” This was one of those times. I knew nothing about gold or investing back then, but, even I, could see it was a dumb and needless thing to do. That’s the most amazing thing: Brown was under no pressure to sell. He was under no pressure to do anything. Even non-libertarians will struggle to explain why we need government when they are this incompetent.It wasn’t just me. The tabloids said the decision was, “catastrophic.” Gold traders called it, “appalling”. Parliament was outraged. Foreign central banks were too. What was Gordon Brown thinking?It was two years into Brown’s new job as Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the time, the UK held approximately 715 tonnes of gold, worth around $6.5 billion. The value of the country’s gold amounted to about half of its US$13 billion foreign currency reserves and the Treasury wanted to “achieve a better balance in the portfolio”. There was, it said, too much exposure to a single asset, which paid no interest and its price was volatile. Via a written question in the House of Commons the Government suddenly announced that it would be holding a series of auctions for its gold reserves, starting in six weeks, with an eventual plan to sell 415 tonnes by 2002. Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England, raised “strong objections” as he and Gordon Brown clashed, but he was “outgunned by a coalition of the treasury and some of his own senior officials”. "The sale of the gold was not something that we recommended at the Bank,” George later said. “We did not think it was a good idea to sell such a large amount of gold at once. However, the decision was taken by the Chancellor and his advisors, and we respected their right to make that decision."London was still (just) at the epicentre of the gold market and its numerous gold traders thought the decision was nuts. Gold prices move in decades-long cycles, they told Bank of England officials, and the price was likely a lot nearer the bottom than the top.  “The timing of the decision was ludicrous. We told them, ‘You are going to push the gold price down before you sell’,” said Peter Fava, then head of precious metal dealing at HSBC. “We thought it was a disastrous decision; we couldn’t understand it.” Revealing the timings and amounts for sale so far in advance would cause traders to short the asset, and that would drive the gold price lower.Not only did Brown give a six-week advance notice to the market that the UK would be selling, driving away any potential buyers and sending speculators short in advance of the sale, the UK had even lent one fifth of its gold out, which speculators borrowed and sold in order to front run the UK’s sale. Sure enough, the price fell 10% by the time of the first auction in July to lows not seen since shortly after the US abandoned the gold standard in 1971. No wonder so many see this as the worst decision in British financial history.Here is the timing of that first sale illustrated. £150/oz. Today we are at £1,900/oz. What a bunch of clowns. As soon as the commitment was made, a consortium of central banks - including the European Central Bank and the Bank of England - signed the Washington Agreement on Gold in September 1999, limiting gold sales to 400 tonnes per year for 5 years. This triggered a reversal in price, a 25% rally in a week. Such gains have never been seen before or since. If you are interested in buying gold, check out my recent report. I have a feeling it is going to come in very handy in the not-too-distant future. My recommended bullion dealer is the Pure Gold Company.In total, the UK eventually sold 395 tonnes over 17 auctions from July 1999 to March 2002, at an average price of US$275 per ounce, raising approximately US$3.5 billion. I have had it said to me many times that China was on the other side of the trade, but that is something we will never know. Never explain as conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence runs the wisdom, but this was so incompetent even those who favour that line of thinking struggle to explain Brown’s logic.It was done to diversify UK assets, runs the standard explanation. Gold pays no interest, Brown wanted a yield. How was Brown to know interest rates would fall for the next 20 years? Many, especially on the left, supported the decision. But such are the levels of incompetence, and it being gold, many other theories quickly emerged. It was “a political decision”, not a financial one, said the Bank of England. Many argue that the sale was part of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair’s plans to take Britain into the new euro currency without asking voters: either to fund the euro itself, or to fund the UK's entry into the European single currency. This theory is linked to the wider belief that there is an agenda to create a European superstate that will replace national sovereignty. Hence the argument that the sale was part of a broader plan to suppress the price of gold. Brown was acting on behalf of a shadowy cabal of bankers and financiers, the same people that today are thought to be attempting to impose the Great Reset and control the world's financial system.Others argue that he sold the gold at a low price in order to benefit his friends in the City of London. Brown is always suspiciously, in the eyes of some, quick to defend the “transparent” manner in which the sale was carried out. “The National Audit Office said that it was in a transparent and fair manner that the sale had happened while achieving value for money, so that is actually what happened,” Brown declared in 2007.Perhaps, simply, Brown thought the price was going even lower and called the market wrong. Not such an unlikely mistake to make. The 1990s had seen something like 1,600 tonnes sold by Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands. Official sector holdings in 1968 accounted for some 40% of all the gold ever mined in history. By 1999, that figure had fallen below 25%. The new European Central Bank might not even bother keeping any bullion from the 11 founders of the forthcoming single euro currency. Analyst Kamal Naqvi, then at Macquarie Equities, told the FT: “The British are looking to sell before everyone else.”Two months earlier, in April 1999, Switzerland, the fifth-largest holder of gold, narrowly passed a referendum to take the franc off the gold standard - it became the last nation to leave the gold standard. The sale of another 1,300 tonnes was green lit (Switzerland never actually sold). The following week the International Monetary Fund was “practically unanimous” in its plans to follow suit. There had been calls - led by Gordon Brown (who would repeat them in 2005) - to use the money to write off Third World debt for the new Millennium. “100 per cent debt relief on multi-lateral debt, IMF debt, to be written off by revaluing or dealing with IMF gold through sales,” Brown said."The decision to sell gold was taken after extensive consultation with the Bank of England, and based on their advice that the price was likely to fall further. It was the right decision, and it released over £2 billion to invest in other assets".He was never a man to admit when wrong, even with reality staring him in the face. Once the decision had been taken he was too stubborn to go back on it, even with all that advice from the gold markets. The result was that he nailed the bottom of the market.Of everything he did as Chancellor, internationally, this stupidity is what he’ll be most remembered for. The mistake was to swap gold, the money of last resort, an asset that is nobody else’s liability, an asset with a track record as money going back to pre-history, for modern fiat money, beholden to the whims of others. Gold’s day was done, they thought. Professor Niall Ferguson declared the “twilight of gold”., whose only future was “as jewellery or in parts of the world with primitive or unstable monetary and financial systems.” Hello!Thanks very much for reading.Until next time,Dominic.PS Here also in case of interest is my conversation with Tom Clougherty of the IEA from a fortnight ago. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

I love how easy it is to predict things about you based on what you like or dislike.Did you know, for example, that if you buy fresh fennel, you are likely to be a low insurance risk? If you like traditional architecture and old buildings, you are more likely to have a conservative, right-of-centre worldview. Whereas if you like modern architecture, you will lean to the left.For what it’s worth, there are plenty of 20th-century buildings that I find beautiful. I like Art Deco; I like Bauhaus stuff; I think a lot of modern US residential architecture is great. But I think a lot of more recent Deconstructivist and Parametric stuff has disappeared up its state-funded backside and has no chance of standing the test of time. Post-war social housing the world over is verging on the sinful, it is so ugly, not a patch on the almshouses built a century before for the same purpose, when mankind was far less “advanced”. Meanwhile, the glass-fronted apartment and office blocks that blight cities worldwide may be nice to look out from, but to look at they are horrible.When I look at, for example, what has been built in Lewisham, Elephant and Castle or along the banks of the Thames, you have to wonder what on earth people were thinking. What a wasted opportunity to build something with beauty that endures.I was looking out on the Thames from Canary Wharf the other day. Here is what we built.Here is what was possible.In any case, it is inevitable that most modern architecture will not be beautiful. Inevitable! It is built into the system. Let me explain why.Yes, there is regulation. When final say falls to the regulator, not the creator, and he/she never thinks in terms of beauty, only rules and career risk, and construction is always planned with his or her approval in mind, you immediately clip your wings and more. Imagine Michelangelo, Rembrandt, or Beethoven requiring regulatory approval for their work. Under this banner falls health and safety, bureaucracy, the technocratic mentality, planning, standardisation of materials and their mass production, and more.But there is something even more fundamental, which makes lack of beauty inevitable. That is the system of measurement itself. In the past, before mass-produced tape measures were a thing, we made do with the most immediate tools we had to measure things: the human body. Traditional weights and measures were all based around the human body. A foot is, well, a foot. A hand is a hand. A span is a hand stretched out. An inch is a thumb. There are four thumbs to a hand, six to a span, 12 to a foot, 18 to a cubit, which is the distance from elbow to fingertip. A yard is a pace, which happens to be three feet as well. A fathom is the arms stretched out - two yards, or six feet. It goes on: a pound is roughly what you can hold comfortably in your hand. A furlong is the distance a man of average fitness can sprint for. A stone is what you can carry without strain. A US pint is a pound of water, enough to quench a thirst, and so on. Man is indeed the measure of all things, to paraphrase Protagoras. Spread the truth about weights and measures.Da Vinci noticed it. “Nature has thus arranged the measurements of a man: four fingers make one palm. And four palms make one foot; six palms make one cubit; four cubits make once a man's height," he says in his notes for Vitruvian Man.It turns out the feet are very similar the world over and have been throughout history. The foot, for example, was the principal unit in the design of Stonehenge. Here are some different feet from around the world and from throughout history:The cubit was the principal unit of the Pyramids. The pound is the oldest measure of all and goes all the way back to the Babylonian mina.Here’s the thing: proportion is inherent to traditional weights and measures because they derive from the human body, which is proportionate. We are biologically programmed to find the proportions of the human body attractive. The religious will argue that God made man in his own image. Traditional weights and measures derive, therefore, from God, or his image at least, and so are divine.The metric system, on the other hand, is not based on the human body, but on the earth itself. A metre is supposed to be one 10 millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator (though one of French scientists measuring the distance forged the data, so the measure is flawed). The idea of a system based on the earth itself rather than the human body was to achieve a “universal measure based on the perfection of nature” and “a system for all people for all time” to use the words of those who commissioned the measure in the years after the French Revolution. Metric may have a brilliantly simple and comprehensible design, based around the number 10, but unlike traditional weights and measures, proportion is not intrinsic to it. For the purposes of science and for safety, as I argue in my lecture with funny bits, How Heavy?, a universal system of weights and measures is a very important thing. Thanks to the simplicity of decimals (again which derive from the human body and the ten fingers we use to count), metric can scale up or down for use in nanotech or in macrotech .As proportion is inherent to traditional weights and measures, buildings based on them will inevitably have inherent proportion and thus all the beauty which comes with proportion. But most of the world now uses metric in its building, which has no inherent proportion, so it becomes inevitable that modern buildings will not have the proportion inherent to older buildings, unless, the architects deliberately plan otherwise, which most of the time they don’t. Thus is modern architecture inevitably not beautiful.It’s why even functional old buildings, such as barns or warehouses, have a beauty to them. The proportion is inherent in the foundational weights and measures. It is missing in modern buildings.In the past, weights and measures changed, even if only slightly, from region to region. The result was regional diversity in buildings. Using local materials will have added to this regional individuality. But the world over now using the same system of weights and measures, following similar regulations, using similar mass produced materials, means modern architecture will lack beauty the world over. Bland conformity reigns. Even something as foundational as an old brick is proportionate. A brick is a hand in width. For obvious reasons: so a brickie could handle it.In short, unless an architect or builder takes deliberate steps to remedy this problem of proportion, modern buildings will only ever be beautiful by accident. Here’s a little irony: if you like traditional weights and measures, you’re more likely to be right of centre, favour free markets, individual responsibility - all that kind of stuff. Favour metric, and you’re one of those evil left-wing technocrats who champions government intervention, experts and the BBC.Now go tell your friends about this amazing post.Until next time,DominicPS Here is my lecture with funny bits about weights and measures from the Edinburgh Festival in 2022. I think it’s probably the best of all my lectures so far.PPS And here is an 5-minute extract from Italian TV series Sense of Beauty, which I presented a few years back, about beauty and architecture. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theflyingfrisby.comI was going to call this article “a tale of national betrayal.” Sterling is a national disgrace. If ever there was something that symbolised the decline of Britain from world leader to tin pot sh*te show, it is our currency. The US dollar has lost at least 93% of its purchasing power since World War Two. The pound, which was a few cents shy of $5 at the onset of war and today sits at $1.24, has lost an additional 75% against the US dollar.It’s shocking. An appalling betrayal by successive leaderships. When you devalue your currency, you devalue your entire country: the people’s labour, their savings, their assets.As long-time readers will know, I have identified a long-term cycle in the pound, and the next capitulation is due this year. If this plays out, then the pound is about to hit the skids.Don’t get wedded to the idea of a cycleLet me start with my usual disclaimer: it’s easy to look back at the past, find some arbitrary pattern, declare it a cycle, write some persuasive copy, and, all of a sudden, you’re a guru. When things don’t pan out as they should, you blame some outside factor, usually the government.Cycles do exist. We have the seasons, the moons, the cycle of life. There are good times and bad times. There are investment cycles too: bull markets and bear markets, the Kondratiev cycle, the 18-year cycle in real estate, commodities super-cycles, the 4-year presidential cycle. Mining is cyclical. New tech goes through a clear cycle as it evolves. I’m a big believer in the hype cycle. Yet actually trading them in real time is hard.Thinking in terms of cycles does help you to frame the bigger picture: it can give you an idea where you are in the grand scheme of things. But you can easily get wedded to the idea of a particular cycle, and then it’s very hard to break the mindset, even if real life right in front of you is telling a very different story.I remember people in the years after the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) being wedded to the idea of Kondratiev Winter and the next Great Depression. The Dow was going to 1,000, they said. It never went close and here we are today above 38,000. The problem was that the Kondratiev Winter argument was persuasive, and once you’ve been hooked by a narrative, it’s hard to break its shackles.If you are interested in buying gold, check out my recent report. I have a feeling it is going to come in very handy in the not-too-distant future. My recommended bullion dealer is the Pure Gold Company.So to Frisby’s FluxWith all that said, I am now going to argue that there is an 8ish-year cycle in the British pound that goes all the way back to 1968, at least. I’ve called it Frisby’s Flux, because I was the first to observe it and I’ve got to get my name on something.We’ll start with a quick skim through recent sterling history, then we’ll look at a chart, and finally, we’ll look at what’s coming next.In November 1967, the British government devalued the pound by 14% from $2.80 to $2.40 in order to “achieve a substantial surplus on the balance of payments consistent with economic growth and full employment”.In the early 1970s, after the Nixon Shock, the pound rallied against the dollar, but fast forward to 1976, eight (ish) years on, and we are in the year of the IMF crisis when Chancellor Dennis Healy is said to have gone “cap in hand” to borrow money from them. $3.9bn was the agreed sum, at the time the largest loan ever requested. Inflation in the UK reached 24%. From high to low, sterling lost around 40%, reaching $1.60.The pound recovered, and by the early 1980s, sterling was back above $2.40.Move forward eight years and we come to 1984 when the pound would drop by more than 55% to reach an all-time low against the dollar – $1.04 - in early 1985. This was during the miners’ strike and shortly after the Falklands War, but the real issue was extraordinary US dollar strength, something which took collusion between the G5 nations of France, Germany, Japan, the US and the UK and the Plaza Accord of 1985 to depreciate it.Again sterling would recover – this time to $2.Eight years later and we come to the notorious cycle low of 1992 and Black Wednesday, the day that sealed George Soros’s reputation with his bet against the pound. Sterling fell to $1.40 – a 30% loss - as the Bank of England took the UK out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.Eight years later, in 2000, the Dotcom bubble collapsed, and the pound lost 20% of its value, again falling to $1.40. (The pound is geared to financial markets. When they struggle it usually does too).But again it recovered. By 2007, it was above $2.10. Can you imagine? The pound above two bucks, and not so long ago.Then, in 2008, came the GFC and, yup, the pound lost 35%, hitting a low of $1.36. What did I say about the pound being geared to financial markets?The next low came in 2016 with the infamous Flash Crash , shortly after Theresa May's speech at the Conservative Party Conference. Having been above $1.70 at one point earlier in this cycle, it hit a low of $1.14, according to some measures. The overall drop from high to low was almost 35%. (As that $1.14 number came in the early hours of the morning, it is not showing up on the chart below).Here we are in 2024, eight years on. The next capitulation is due. Are we about to enter the drop zone? Could well be.Here is an illustration of the cycle. You can see how every eight years, the pound hits a low. (The chart starts at 1970, I couldn’t find data going back to 1967-68).Show this chart to your friendsSo what’s next?And how to protect yourself? And possibly even profit?

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theflyingfrisby.comCards on the table: A Western fiat money collapse, along the lines of Zimbabwe, Venezuela, or Weimar hyperinflation, despite unsustainable deficit spending and un-payable government debt, is not something I think we are likely to see. Many more knowledgeable souls than myself deem it inevitable, but more probable in my view is just the continued debasement of currency and the erosion of its value, so that, with the incremental effects of compounding, a generation from now fiat will have lost another 90% or more of its purchasing power. Heck, the pound has already lost a third of its value just this decade. Since the beginning of the century, it has fallen by over 90%.I guess that constitutes collapse. It all hangs on how you define collapse, I suppose, and over what timeframe.Yet, there's one scenario I can envision that could lead to a more rapid collapse, and it's one we might even be careering towards: war. If tensions between East and West escalate into full-blown conflict, you can be sure the East will attack Western currencies, just as the US weaponized banking and the dollar following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.China has lots of gold, as we know, much more than it says it does. Russia has plenty. Shanghai Cooperation Nations are all accumulating. US gold has not been audited for decades, casting doubts over whether it even exists. As for British gold, I wonder what happened to that! In short, Western fiat money is extremely vulnerable should the East decide to attack it. (For the time being at least, I don’t expect it to: China has some $3.25 trillion in reserves, and another $800 billion in US Treasuries. Why collapse their value?)But whether Biden or Trump wins in the US elections this autumn, neither is going to balance the books. Nor will Labour here in the UK. So you know that both the pound and the dollar are going to see their value steadily eroded for the next five years. Deficit spending will continue and debts will increase.Indeed, outside of a full-on deflationary tightening or collapse - I mean Paul Volcker in 1980 scale tightening - it is impossible for fiat money to see its purchasing power grow. Supply is going to increase, and purchasing power will decline. This is built-in, inherent, and inevitable. Hence why I advocate owning alternative, non-government money - gold and bitcoin.Today, I want to explore a scenario in which Western currencies come under attack and are forced to back their currencies with gold. I understand Russia briefly did this in March 2022. In other words, what happens to the gold price if gold gets remonetized?Similarly, we’ll explore potential bitcoin prices in the event of hyperbitcoinisation (where bitcoin becomes the dominant global money). The Remonetisation of Gold

I have a friend from school who is obviously gay. We’ve all known it for a long time, yet, for whatever reason, he has never been able to come out. He has never been able to admit to himself what is so apparent to everyone else. He’s miserable. Has been for years.I’m not sure if I were gay, if I would be able to come out.I have actually tried to be gay. Well, sort of. In the dark years of my late 30s and divorce, I thought a couple of times being gay might save me from having to deal with the alien species that is woman, so I tried watching gay porn. I was just bored by it. Within a few minutes I was looking at second-hand cars on Autotrader. I have never found men remotely attractive, even if I can admire a beautiful male physique. The only time I might possibly waver is if they are all dolled up in drag, with glamorous dresses, heels, breasts, makeup, wigs, and all the rest of it. But take the wig off and any spell is broken. In any case, to come out as gay requires coming to terms with the truth. I think it is a very brave thing to do.I think that’s why so many great social commentators and comedians are gay. Never mind the obvious love of performing and attention; why, for example, a disproportionately large number of actors and dancers are gay. (By disproportionate, I mean the ratio of gay to straight increases in acting and dancing relative to what it is across the broader population). I mean, because of this phenomenon, whereby gay people are able to speak truths; in many cases, truths that straight people are unable or too shy or polite or repressed to express. How often, for example, when watching a gay performer, does the word “outrageous” burst out of the mouths of those watching, often accompanied by a gasp and the hand going over the mouth? Yes, what they are doing or saying may be outrageous, but it is usually outrageous because it is an unspoken truth.The act of coming out is enabling because it requires tremendous honesty. That honesty is then carried into other areas of life. I’m sure that’s why, for example, Douglas Murray, is able to say the things that many of us are thinking, but few of us dare articulate. Coming out teaches you to be truthful, and truth is power.Even an entertainer like Kenny Everett was so baring of his soul, thereby revealing his vulnerability; I’m sure that is one of the reasons he was so loved. Also, because he was so funny; but often being funny is just being truthful where a subject is taboo.In my immediate circle, it is usually my gay friends who are the boldest. I immediately think of comedian Scott Capurro, who has been in the news quite a bit recently for upsetting people. The reason Scott upsets people so regularly is that so much of what he says is so close to the bone. If it were me, I would pull back. But Scott, like so many gay people, is fearless.Many of the greatest warriors in the ongoing culture wars are gay. I’m sure it is for the same reason: in this age of increasing censorship, the importance of speaking truth is ever more needed, and gay people are not scared of the truth. They have learnt to come to terms with it What’s more, a lot of gay people feel like outsiders, even if we live in much more inclusive times compared to say a century ago. So perhaps, by speaking truths, they do not feel there is as much risk to them as to someone on the inside. Or maybe, by being an outsider—whether by sexuality, or by something else (race, political belief, whatever)—you are forced out on a limb, and that in itself is bracing.They say the fool was often the only one who spoke truth to Power. I bet a lot of the time the fool was gay. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theflyingfrisby.comI wanted to take a look at the gold price today. As I'm sure you are aware, it has been extraordinarily strong in recent weeks.$2,100/oz, or just below, was resistance for four long years. Each attempt - and there were at least three - to get through that level stuttered and stalled. Then, last month, after a false break late last year, we broke out. Gold has not looked back, suddenly putting on over $200 and behaving like something out of the spivvier end of the cryptocurrency markets.

All four of my children were born at home. I feel extremely fortunate about this - they should too. Four wonderful experiences. I will forever be in debt to Louisa and Jolie.When, twenty-four years ago, my then wife, Louisa, told me she wanted to give birth to our first child at home, I thought she was off her rocker, but I gave her my word that we would at least talk to a midwife, and we did just that. Within about five minutes of meeting Tina Perridge of South London Independent Midwives, a lady of whom I cannot speak highly enough, I was instantly persuaded. Ever since, when I hear that someone is pregnant, I start urging them to have a homebirth with the persistence of a Jehovah’s Witness or someone pedalling an upgrade to your current mobile phone subscription. I even included a chapter about it in my first book Life After the State - Why We Don’t Need Government (2013), (now, thanks to the invaluable help of my buddy Chris P, back in print - with the audiobook here [Audible UK, Audible US, Apple Books]).I’m publishing that chapter here, something I was previously not able to do (rights issues), because I want as many people as possible to read it. Many people do not even know home-birth is an option. I’m fully aware that, when it comes to giving birth, one of the last people a prospective mum wants to hear advice from is comedian and financial writer, Dominic Frisby. I’m also aware that this is an extremely sensitive subject and that I am treading on eggshells galore. But the word needs to be spread. All I would say is that if you or someone you know is pregnant, have a conversation with an independent midwife, before committing to having your baby in a hospital. It’s so important. Please just talk to an independent midwife first. With that said, here is that chapter. Enjoy it, and if you know anyone who is pregnant, please send this to them.We have to use fiat money, we have to pay taxes, most of us are beholden in some way to the education system. These are all things much bigger than us, over which we have little control. The birth of your child, however, is one of the most important experiences of your (and their) life, one where the state so often makes a mess of things, but one where it really is possible to have some control.The State: Looking After Your First BreathThe knowledge of how to give birth without outside interventions lies deep within each woman. Successful childbirth depends on an acceptance of the process.Suzanne Arms, authorThere is no single experience that puts you more in touch with the meaning of life than birth. A birth should be a happy, healthy, wonderful experience for everyone involved. Too often it isn’t.Broadly speaking, there are three places a mother can give birth: at home, in hospital or – half-way house – at a birthing centre. Over the course of the 20th century we have moved birth from the home to the hospital. In the UK in the 1920s something like 80% of births took place at home. In the 1960s it was one in three. By 1991 it was 1%. In Japan the home-birth rate was 95% in 1950 falling to 1.2% in 1975. In the US home-birth went from 50% in 1938 to 1% in 1955. In the UK now 2.7% of births take place at home. In Scotland, 1.2% of births take place at home, and in Northern Ireland this drops to fewer than 0.4%. Home-birth is now the anomaly. But for several thousand years, it was the norm.The two key words here are ‘happy’ and ‘healthy’. The two tend to come hand in hand. But let’s look, first, at ‘healthy’. Let me stress, I am looking at planned homebirth; not a homebirth where mum didn’t get to the hospital in time.My initial assumption when I looked at this subject was that hospital would be more healthy. A hospital is full of trained personnel, medicine and medical equipment. My first instinct against home-birth, it turned out, echoed the numerous arguments against it, which come from many parts of the medical establishment. They more or less run along the lines of this statement from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology: ‘Unless a woman is in a hospital, an accredited free-standing birthing centre or a birthing centre within a hospital complex, with physicians ready to intervene quickly if necessary, she puts herself and her baby’s health and life at unnecessary risk.’Actually, the risk of death for babies born at home is almost half that of babies born at hospital (0.35 per 1,000 compared to 0.64), according to a 2009 study by the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reports that mortality rates are the same in booked home-birth as in hospitals. In November 2011 a study of 65,000 mothers by the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU) was published in the British Medical Journal. The overall rate of negative birth outcomes (death or serious complications) was 4.3 per 1,000 births, with no difference in outcome between non-obstetric and obstetric (hospital) settings. The study did find that the rate of complications rose for first-time mums, 5.3 per 1,000 (0.53%) for hospitals and 9.5 per 1,000 (0.95%) for home-birth. I suspect the number of complications falls with later births because, with experience, the process becomes easier – and because mothers who had problems are less likely to have more children than those who didn’t. The Daily Mail managed to twist this into: ‘First-time mothers who opt for home birth face triple the risk of death or brain damage in child.’ Don’t you just love newspapers? Whether at home or in the hospital there were 250 negative events seen in the study: early neonatal deaths accounted for 13%; brain damage 46%; meconium aspiration syndrome 20%; traumatic nerve damage 4% and fractured bones 4%. Not all of these were treatable.There are so many variables in birth that raw comparative statistics are not always enough. And, without wishing to get into an ethical argument, there are other factors apart from safety. There are things – comfort, happiness, for example – for which people are prepared to sacrifice a little safety. The overriding statistic to take away from that part of the study is that less than 1% of births in the UK, whether at hospital or at home, lead to serious complications.But when you look at rates of satisfaction with their birth experience, the numbers are staggering. According to a 1999 study by Midwifery Today researching women who have experienced both home and hospital birth, over 99% said that they would prefer to have a home-birth in the future!What, then, is so unsatisfying about the hospital birth experience? I’m going to walk through the birthing process now, comparing what goes on at home to hospital. Of course, no two births are the same, no two homes are the same, no two hospitals are the same, but, broadly speaking, it seems women prefer the home-birth experience because: they have more autonomy at home, they suffer less intervention at home and, yes, it appears they actually suffer less pain at home. When mum goes into labour, the journey to the hospital, sometimes rushed, the alien setting when she gets there, the array of doctors and nurses who she may never have met before, but are about to get intimate, can all upset her rhythm and the production of her labour hormones. These aren’t always problems, but they have the potential to be; they add to stress and detract from comfort.At home, mum is in a familiar environment, she can get comfortable and settled, go where she likes and do what she likes. Often getting on with something else can take her mind off the pain of the contractions, while in hospital there is little else to focus on. At home, she can choose where she wants to give birth – and she can change her mind, if she likes. She is in her own domain, without someone she doesn’t know telling her what she can and can’t do. She can change the light, the heating, the music; she can decide exactly who she wants at the birth and who ‘catches’ her baby. She can choose what she wants to eat. She will have interviewed and chosen her midwife many months before, and built up a relationship over that time. But in hospitals she is attended by whoever is on duty, she has to eat hospital food, there might be interruptions, doctors’ pagers, alarms, screams from next door, whirrs of machinery, tube lighting, overworked, resentful staff to deal with, internal hospital politics, people coming in, waking her up, and checking her vitals, sticking in pins or needles, putting on monitor belts, checking her cervix mid-contraction – any number of things over which mum has no control. Mums who move about freely during labour complain less of back pain. Many authorities feel that the motion of walking and changing positions can even enhance the effectiveness of the contractions, but such active birth is not as possible in the confines of many hospitals. Many use intravenous fluids and electronic foetal monitors to ensure she stays hydrated and to record each contraction and beat of the baby’s heart. This all dampens mum’s ability to move about and adds to any feelings of claustrophobia.In hospital the tendency is to give birth on your back, though this is often not the best position – the coccyx cannot bend to help the baby’s head pass through. There are many other positions – on your hands and knees for example – where you don’t have to work against gravity and where the baby’s head is not impeded. On your back, pushing is less effective and metal forceps are sometimes used to pull the baby out of the vagina, but forceps are less commonly used when mum assumes a position of comfort during the bearing-down stage.This brings us to the next issue: intervention. The NPEU study of 2011 found that 58% of women in hospital had a natural birth without any intervention, compared to 88% of women at home and 80% of women at a midwife-led unit. Of course, there are frequent occasions when medical technology saves lives, but the likelihood of medical intervention increases in hospitals. I suggest it can actually cause as many problems as it alleviates because it is interruptive. Even routine technology can interrupt the normal birth process. Once derailed from the birthing tracks, it is hard to get back on. Once intervention starts, it’s hard to stop. The medical industry is built on providing cures, but if you are a mother giving birth, you are not sick, there is nothing wrong with you, what you are going through is natural and normal. As author Sheila Stubbs writes, ‘the midwife considers the miracle of childbirth as normal, and leaves it alone unless there’s trouble. The obstetrician normally sees childbirth as trouble; if he leaves it alone, it’s a miracle.’Here are just some of the other interventions that occur. If a mum arrives at hospital and the production of her labour hormones has been interrupted, as can happen as a result of the journey, she will sometimes be given syntocinon, a synthetic version of the hormone oxytocin, which occurs naturally and causes the muscle of the uterus to contract during labour so baby can be pushed out. The dose of syntocinon is increased until contractions are deemed normal. It’s sometimes given after birth as well to stimulate the contractions that help push out the placenta and prevent bleeding. But there are allegations that syntocinon increases the risk of baby going into distress, and of mum finding labour too painful and needing an epidural. This is one of the reasons why women also find home-birth less painful.Obstetricians sometimes rupture the bag of waters surrounding the baby in order to speed up the birthing process. This places a time limit on the labour, as the likelihood of a uterine infection increases after the water is broken. Indeed in a hospital – no matter how clean – you are exposed to more pathogens than at home. The rate of post-partum infection to women who give birth in hospital is a terrifying 25%, compared to just 4% in home-birth mothers. Once the protective cushion of water surrounding the baby’s head is removed (that is to say, once the waters are broken) there are more possibilities for intervention. A scalp electrode, a tiny probe, might be attached to baby’s scalp, to continue monitoring its heart rate and to gather information about its blood.There are these and a whole host of other ‘just in case’ interventions in hospital that you just don’t meet at home. As childbirth author Margaret Jowitt, says – and here we are back to our theme of Natural Law – ‘Natural childbirth has evolved to suit the species, and if mankind chooses to ignore her advice and interfere with her workings we must not complain about the consequences.’At home, if necessary, in the 1% of cases where serious complications do ensue, you can still be taken to hospital – assuming you live in reasonable distance of one.‘My mother groaned, my father wept,’ wrote William Blake, ‘into the dangerous world I leapt.’ We come now to the afterbirth. Many new mothers say they physically ache for their babies when they are separated. Nature, it seems, gives new mothers a strong attachment desire, a physical yearning that, if allowed to be satisfied, starts a process with results beneficial to both mother and baby. There are all sorts of natural forces at work, many of which we don’t even know about. ‘Incomplete bonding,’ on the other hand, in the words of Judith Goldsmith, author of Childbirth Wisdom from the World’s Oldest Societies, ‘can lead to confusion, depression, incompetence, and even rejection of the child by the mother.’ Yet in hospitals, even today with all we know, the baby is often taken away from the mother for weighing and other tests – or to keep it warm, though there is no warmer place for it that in its mother’s arms (nature has planned for skin-to-skin contact).Separation of mother from baby is more likely if some kind of medical intervention or operation has occurred, or if mum is recovering from drugs taken during labour. (Women who have taken drugs in labour also report decreased maternal feelings towards their babies and increased post-natal depression). At home, after birth, baby is not taken from its mother’s side unless there is an emergency.As child development author, Joseph Chilton Pearce, writes, ‘Bonding is a psychological-biological state, a vital physical link that coordinates and unifies the entire biological system . . . We are never conscious of being bonded; we are conscious only of our acute disease when we are not bonded.’ The breaking of the bond results in higher rates of postpartum depression and child rejection. Nature gives new parents and babies the desire to bond, because bonding is beneficial to our species. Not only does it encourage breastfeeding and speed the recovery of the mother, but the emotional bonding in the magical moments after birth between mother and child, between the entire family, cements the unity of the family. The hospital institution has no such agenda. The cutting of the umbilical cord is another area of contention. Hospitals, say home-birth advocates, cut it too soon. In Birth Without Violence, the classic 1975 text advocating gentle birthing techniques, Frederick Leboyer – also an advocate of bonding and immediate skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby after birth – writes:[Nature] has arranged it so that during the dangerous passage of birth, the child is receiving oxygen from two sources rather than one: from the lungs and from the umbilicus. Two systems functioning simultaneously, one relieving the other: the old one, the umbilicus, continues to supply oxygen to the baby until the new one, the lungs, has fully taken its place. However, once the infant has been born and delivered from the mother, it remains bound to her by this umbilicus, which continues to beat for several long minutes: four, five, sometimes more. Oxygenated by the umbilicus, sheltered from anoxia, the baby can settle into breathing without danger and without shock. In addition, the blood has plenty of time to abandon its old route (which leads to the placenta) and progressively to fill the pulmonary circulatory system. During this time, in parallel fashion, an orifice closes in the heart, which seals off the old route forever. In short, for an average of four or five minutes, the newborn infant straddles two worlds. Drawing oxygen from two sources, it switches gradually from the one to the other, without a brutal transition. One scarcely hears a cry. What is required for this miracle to take place? Only a little patience.Patience is not something you associate with hospital birth. There are simply not the resources, even if, as the sixth US president John Quincy Adams said, ‘patience and perseverance have a magical effect before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish’. The arguments to delay the early cutting of the cord (something not as frequent in hospitals as it once was) are that, even though blood going back to the placenta stops flowing – or pulsing – non-pulsing blood going from the placenta into baby is still flowing. After birth, 25–35% of baby’s oxygenated blood remains in the placenta for up to ten minutes. With the cord cut early, baby is less likely to receive this blood, making cold stress, infant jaundice, anaemia, Rh disease and even a delayed maternal placental expulsion more likely. There is also the risk of oxygen deprivation and circulatory shock, as baby gasps for breath before his nasal passages have naturally drained their mucus and amniotic fluid. Scientist W. F. Windle has even argued that, starved of blood and oxygen, brain cells will die, so cutting the cord too early even sets the stage for brain damage.Natural birth advocates say it is vital for the baby’s feeding to be put to the breast as soon as possible after birth, while his sucking instincts are strongest. Bathing, measuring and temperature-taking can wait. Babies are most alert during the first hour after birth, so it’s important to take advantage of this before they settle into that sleepy stage that can last for hours or even days.Colostrum, the yellow fluid that breasts start producing during pregnancy, is nature’s first food. is substance performs many roles we know about and probably many we don’t as well. Known as ‘baby’s first vaccine’, it is full of antibodies and protects against many different viruses and bacteria. It has a laxative effect that clears meconium – baby’s black and tarry first stool – out of the system. If this isn’t done, baby can be vulnerable to jaundice. Colostrum lines baby’s stomach ready for its mother’s milk, which comes two or three days later, and it meets baby’s nutritional needs with a naturally occurring balance of fat, protein and carbohydrate. Again, with the various medical interventions that go on in hospitals, from operations to drug-taking to simply separating mother and baby, this early breast-feeding process can easily be derailed. Once derailed, as I’ve said, it’s often hard to get back on track. I am no scientist and cannot speak with any authority on the science behind it all, but I do know that nature, very often, plans for things that science has yet to discover.Once upon a time, when families lived closer together and people had more children at a younger age, there was an immediate family infrastructure around you. People were experienced with young. If mum was tired, nan or auntie could feed the baby. Many of us are less fortunate in this regard today. With a hospital, you are sent home and, suddenly, you and your partner are on your own with a baby in your life, and very little aftercare. When my first son was born I was 30. I suddenly realized I had only held a baby once before. I was an only child so I had never looked after a younger brother or sister; my cousins, who had had children, lived abroad. Suddenly there was this living thing in my life, and I didn’t know what to do. But, having had a home-birth, the midwife, who you already know, can you give you aftercare. She comes and visits, helps with the early breastfeeding process and generally supports and keeps you on the right tracks.It’s so important to get the birthing process right. There are all sorts of consequences to our health and happiness to not doing so. And in the West, with the process riddled as it is with intervention, we don’t. We need to get birth out of the hospital and into an environment where women experience less pain, lower levels of intervention, greater autonomy and increased satisfaction.A 2011 study by a team from Peking University and the London School of Hygiene found that, of 1.5 million births in China between 1996 and 2008, babies born in hospitals were two to three times less likely to die. China is at a similar stage in its evolutionary cycle to the developed world at the beginning of the 20th century. The move to hospitals there looks inevitable. Something similar is happening in most Developing Nations.In his book A History of Women’s Bodies, Edward Shorter quotes a doctor describing a birth in a working-class home in the 1920s:You find a bed that has been slept on by the husband, wife and one or two children; it has frequently been soaked with urine, the sheets are dirty, and the patient’s garments are soiled, she has not had a bath. Instead of sterile dressings you have a few old rags or the discharges are allowed to soak into a nightdress which is not changed for days.For comparison, he describes a 1920s hospital birth:The mother lies in a well-aired disinfected room, light and sunlight stream unhindered through a high window and you can make it light as day electrically too. She is well bathed and freshly clothed on linen sheets of blinding whiteness . . . You have a staff of assistants who respond to every signal . . . Only those who have to repair a perineum in a cottars’s house in a cottar’s bed with the poor light and help at hand can realize the joy.Most homes in the developed world are no longer as he describes, if they ever were, except in slums. It would seem the evolution in the way we give birth as a country develops passes from the home to the hospital. It is time to take it away from the hospital.Why am I spending so much time on birth in a book about economics? The process of giving birth is yet another manifestation of this culture of pervasive state intervention. (Hospitals, of course, are mostly state run.) It’s another example of something that feels safer, if provided by the state in a hospital, even if the evidence is to the contrary. And it’s another example of the state destroying for so many something that is beautiful and wonderful.What’s more, like so many things that are state-run, hospital birth is needlessly expensive. The November 2011 study of 65,000 mothers by the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit looked at the average costs of birth in the NHS. They were highest for planned obstetric unit births and lowest for planned home-births. Here they are:* £1,631 (c. $2,600) for a planned birth in an obstetric unit * £1,461 (c. $2,340 for a planned birth in an alongside midwifery unit (AMU)* £1,435 (c. $2,300) for a planned birth in a free-standing midwifery unit (FMU)* £1,067 (c. $1,700) for a planned home-birth.Not only is it as safe; not only are people more satisfied by it; not only do the recipients receive more one-to-one – i.e. better – care; home-birth is also 35% cheaper. Intervention is expensive.So I return to this theme of non-intervention, whether in hospitals or economies. It often looks cruel, callous and hard-hearted; it often looks unsafe, but, counter-intuitively perhaps, in the end it is more human and more humane.When you look at the cost of private birth, the argument for home-birth is even more compelling. Private maternity care is expensive. For example, in summer 2012, a first birth at the Portland Hospital in London costs £2,880 (about $4,400) for a normal delivery and £3,790 (about $5,685) for an elective caesarean and for the first 24 hours of care. Additional nights in a standard room cost around £1,000 (about $1,500). You also have to allow for the fees charged by your private consultant obstetrician, which might be £3,000–£4,000 ($4,500– $6,000). So, in total, a private birth at a hospital such as the Portland could cost £7,500–£10,000 ($10–$15,000). There will be some saving if you opt for a ‘midwife-led delivery service’ or ‘midwife-led care’. In this instance, you will still have a named obstetrician, but he or she will see you less often, and the birth may be ‘supported by an on-call Consultant Obstetrician’. London midwives charge £2,500–£4,000 (c. $4–6,000) for about six months of care from early pregnancy to a month after birth. The comparative value is astounding, I would say.To have a planned home-birth on the NHS is possible, but can be problematic to arrange, depending on where you are based. Most people, after they have paid taxes, do not now have the funds to buy a private home-birth, so they are forced into the arms of government health care, such is the cycle at work.I was first introduced to the idea of home-birth by my ex-wife, Louisa, something for which I will forever be grateful. She hated hospitals due to an earlier experience in her life and only found out about alternatives thanks to the internet. I, as well as my friends and family, thought Louisa was insane. But she insisted. And she was right to.Our first son was actually two weeks and six days late. Because he was so late, we were obliged to go to the hospital, which we did, after two weeks and five days. We were kept waiting so long in there, we decided to go and persuaded an overworked nurse that we were fine to go and we left. The confused nurse was glad to have one less thing to think about. The next day Samuel was born: a beautiful and wonderful experience that I will never forget, one of the happiest days of my life – exactly as nature intended.Simply talking to people that have experienced both home-birth and hospital birth, or reading about their experiences, the anecdotal evidence is compelling. Home-birth may not be for everyone – I’m not suggesting it is. Birthing centres seem a good way forward. But a hospital birth should only be for emergencies. Childbirth is a natural process that no longer requires hospitalization, except in those 1% of situations where something goes seriously wrong. If it does go wrong and there is an emergency, call an ambulance and be taken to hospital – that is what they are for.Returning to the original premise of Natural and Positive Law, it’s pretty clear which category hospital birth falls into. Hospitals do things in the way that they do because of the pressures they are under, not least the threat of legal action should some procedural failure occur. Taking birth back home and away from the state reduces the burden of us on it and of it on us.Life After the State - Why We Don’t Need Government (2013) is now back in print - with the audiobook here: Audible UK, Audible US, Apple Books. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

As promised, here is my updated guide to buying and investing in gold. I really think it is important that you own some, given what governments are doing to currency. Spool down to the bottom if you want to see this guide in video form.I have also made this available as a PDF, which you can download here:(If that PDF doesn’t work, try this link)The best book about gold is The Secret History of Gold. Get your copy in the US here. In the UK here And elsewhere here.We are living in a world of uncertainty. There is inflation, war, political discontent, financial instability and, perhaps most concerning of all, state incompetence everywhere you look. The case for owning gold, for having wealth stored outside the system, where it is nobody else’s liability, is as strong as it has ever been. “Put 10% of your net worth in gold, and hope it doesn’t go up,” is something I am very fond of saying. If gold is going up, it usually means something somewhere isn’t right.That’s very much the case today.How to invest in gold.There are five ways:* You can go old school and buy bullion - coins or bars. * You can buy gold stored in vaults in places like London, Jersey, Zurich or Singapore. This gold is allocated to you. * You can buy ETFs via your stock broker. These are funds that store gold. The price of the fund tracks the gold price, and you own shares in the fund. (See footnote , if you need to understand what an ETF is).* You can buy gold companies - refiners, royalty companies, miners and so on.* You can buy futures, CFDs or spreadbets. I’m not talking today about buying mining companies (if you are interested in mining companies, consider a paid subscription, as gold mining companies are one of my areas of expertise). Nor am I talking about futures, CFDs or spread betting the gold price. Neither safeguards your wealth. They are speculations. In the right market they can make you a lot of money. In the wrong market, they can also lose you a lot.Upgrade your subscription here.Today we are talking about old school, physical goldI’ll put to one side arguments about whether gold is a good investment or not (I think it is), and whether I think it is going up or down. I’ll simply explain what is the easiest, cheapest and, perhaps above all, safest way to buy gold.A note on ETFsETFs are a simple way to get exposure to the gold price. It’s not really the same as owning actual metal, so the purists tend to veer away from ETFs, but institutions like them, as do traders, because they are easy to buy and sell. You buy an ETF just as you would buy any stock or share through your broker. London-listed gold ETFs include RMAU.L and PHAU.L. The world’s biggest is the NYSE-listed GLD. Costs - for example storage - are baked into the price.To buy an ETF, you need an account with a broker, such as Hargreaves Lansdown or Interactive Investor. You deposit money and buy through them.I steer away from ETFs mainly because they are too easy to get shaken out of. When you buy physical gold, to sell can be a bit of an undertaking, so it’s less likely to be done on a whim. Owning physical turns you into a long-term investor. It may be that you never sell at all and end up passing the gold on to your heirs.So where do you buy gold from?I’ve used many bullion dealers over the years. The dealer I like most, and with whom I have an affiliation deal, is the Pure Gold Company. Premiums are low. Quality of service is high. You get to deal with a human being. You can take delivery of your gold or store it online with them in their vaults. They deliver to the UK, US, Canada and Europe. (If you speak to them, tell them I sent you). I also like Goldcore.In theory, there is not a great deal of difference between an ETF and storing your gold online with a bullion dealer. Both are extremely convenient, whether for buying or selling. Both give you exposure to the gold price. But I favour the storing-it-with-a-bullion-dealer route, as, somehow, you are less likely to sell. ETFs make it too easy to sell and so weaken your hands.If you are buying coins, then beware of this scam.Where are you going to put your gold?Once you’ve decided where to buy your gold, the next question is: where to put it? Different people with different circumstances have different solutions.Some people have a safe at home and keep their gold there. Some keep their gold in safety deposit boxes. Others never take delivery at all, and keep it safely stored in a vault with the dealer in sensible places like Zurich, Jersey or Singapore.I’m not convinced homes in our “vibrant” British cities are safe, so these are not options I would take, but … I know one guy that has all his gold stored in a sock in his loft. I know another that has buried it in his garden, and only his close family know the location - he has quite a bit of land. I know another that keeps his gold and silver in plain sight - he uses the bars as doorstops. Nuts you may say, but how about this? He got burgled and the burglars didn’t take the bars. They obviously thought they were just doorstops.If - and only if - you have somewhere safe to store it, I’m a great advocate of taking delivery. You get to handle your metal. There are lots of fantastic different coins from around the world to buy - Chinese Pandas, South African Krugerrands, American Eagles, Austrian Philharmonics, Canadian Maples, Australian Kangaroos. The bars are nice too. It’s good to handle gold. But I refer you to my above comment about cities today.What about tax?But there’s another method of buying gold (and silver), which, quite legally, avoids this cost altogether. There is a slightly higher premium to spot when you buy, but we are talking about a tiny amount, nothing like 20% CGT. Given the potential savings involved, it’s surprising that more UK investors don’t buy their gold and silver in this way. The method I’m describing, if you haven’t already figured it out, is to buy sovereigns and Britannias.The gold sovereign used to be the pound coin. Imagine that - a pound coin made of solid gold. It was the pound coin from 1816, after the Great Recoinage, until 1932, when the UK finally abandoned its gold standard. Until then, the pound really was “as good as gold”. 22 carat gold to be precise – that’s about 92% purity. A sovereign weighs about 7gs, which is around a quarter of an ounce.Such is the devaluation of currency that has taken place over successive generations in the UK, it now takes over 600 pound coins to buy one of these old pound coins.Despite no longer being on the gold standard, the Royal Mint began producing sovereigns again in 1957 and continues to the present day. A large number of them are actually minted in that well known British heartland, Delhi. (That’s because there is a huge market for them in India).Technically these coins are legal tender, so they are exempt from CGT.As sovereigns are so common, the numismatic value is very low. You can pick up 100-plus-year-old Victorian coins at a few percent over spot. You get the history for free. And you can buy them from most dealers, including, of course, the Pure Gold Company and Goldcore.The main exception is the 1937 sovereign struck for Edward VIII. As he abdicated, the coins were never circulated. One sold in 2020 for a million quid. That’s some premium.Gold Britannias – which are an ounce in weight – only began to be issued in 1987. But they too are considered coins of the realm. Despite the fact that an ounce of gold is £2,350, the face value of a Britannia is £100. Don’t ask me how that works. I’m sure there’s a reason. But, as coins of the realm, they too are exempt from CGT.The Royal Mint began producing silver Britannias in 1997. They also weigh an ounce. They have a face value of £2 (an ounce of silver is about £16) and are also exempt from CGT.Sovereigns are not the most beautiful coins in the world - Britannias are nicer - but both make for a considerable saving on CGT (assuming you have made a gain when you come to sell - of course, there is no guarantee of that).Thank you very much for reading this report. Good luck with your investments, and I hope you enjoy reading The Flying Frisby.Once again my recommended bullion dealer is the Pure Gold Company. Premiums are low, quality of service is high. You can deal with a human being. You can take delivery of your gold or store it online with them in their vaults. They deliver to the UK, US, Canada and Europe, or you can store your gold with them in their vaults.Until next time,DominicDisclaimer: This letter is not regulated by the FCA or any other body as a financial advisor, so anything you read above does not constitute regulated financial advice. It is an expression of opinion only. Please do your own due diligence and if in any doubt consult with a financial advisor. Markets go down as well as up. We do not know your personal financial circumstances, only you do. Never speculate with money you can’t afford to lose. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe