The Flying Frisby - money, markets and more Dominic Frisby

While Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, like a jilted boyfriend turned desperado, is announcing a new policy every day, future Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s strategy has been to be as vague and non-committal as possible about everything, and get elected on the back of the Tories being so useless. It makes sense: the less he promises now, and the less specific he is, the more scope he will have when he comes to power to do what he wants.
Such is the topsy-turvy Orwellian world in which we live. Labour’s five missions—massive cringe—read like something that should be on the Conservative Party website. Labour declares upfront, first and foremost, that its “first duty” is “to protect our country – through economic stability, secure borders, and strong defence.” I’m sure this is all part of Starmer’s strategy to win over the middle and rid himself of the ghosts of Labour incompetence. “I’ve changed the Labour Party so we are back in service of working people,” he boasts. “Together we can change Britain.”
So what exactly will this huge change that is coming to Britain entail?
One of the few things Labour has been specific about is VAT on school fees. This has generated a lot of negative press, particularly in the mainstream media, which is heavily populated by people who went to public school and send their kids there too. But with only 7% of children actually going to public school, I guess Labour has figured, in these times of envy, that this will be a vote-winner. While it purports to be an attack on the rich, in real terms it is an attack on the middle classes, many of whom will now put their kids into state schools. The extra burden of this on an already overburdened sector does not justify the limited increase in revenues that will come from VAT, never mind the practicalities of imposing this charge and the schools that will go bust as a result. But extra revenue is not what this is about. It’s exploiting the politics of envy.
Nevertheless, there is one clear thing we can infer from it: the middle class is going to get shafted. Where it tries to be independent and self-sufficient, it will find itself dragged into state dependency. That is not change, though. This is a process that has been going on for decades—since the imposition of fiat money, in fact. And that, I’m afraid, is the broad brush stroke. The details may be different, but the direction is the same. We are going to see more government, more spending, more technocracy, more bureaucracy, more quangos, more regulation, more taxation, further declines in the purchasing power of money, further erosion of individual liberty, more state solutions to things that would sort themselves out perfectly well if government stayed out of it, and so on. We will also see further steps in the direction of supranational bodies, one-world government, and all the rest of it. Change is not coming. Continuity is.
So the absolute first thing you have to do is keep as much wealth as you can outside the system. Do not hold sterling, or any other fiat money for that matter. Yes, sterling is holding up moderately well in the forex markets, which know Labour will win, but that is just comparing it with other fiat currencies. Use gold and bitcoin as your savings vehicles. They will outperform sterling quite comfortably by the time of the next government. Make a note of what £100,000 currently buys you. It will buy you a lot less in five years.
If you are interested in buying gold, check out my recent report. I have a feeling it is going to come in very handy.
My recommended bullion dealer is the Pure Gold Company.

Labour’s Five Missions
* Get Britain Building Again
Labour promises to “strengthen public finances” and “reform planning laws, so we build more houses, giga factories (SIC), windfarms, roads, labs, and ports, developing the skills needed to do so.” It will “reduce energy bills and invest in the jobs and industries of the future via our

I am experimenting again with a video this Sunday morning. (Podcast listeners can still get just the audio). Enjoy :)
It was August 2018. Brexit Derangement Syndrome was only just starting to kick in, though the effort to derail it was underway. In comedy circles, I still was not talking very openly about having voted for Brexit—it would be another six months before I wrote 17 Million F Offs.
I was doing a show at the Edinburgh Fringe, my financial gameshow.
Now something happens to a performer at the Fringe. There are so many shows and so much competition that you will do (almost) anything to get publicity and draw attention to your show. The Fringe is a distillation of the entertainment industry; all the best things about it and the worst, all the highs and lows, seem to get magnified there. My PR man texted me and asked if I wanted to do a short spot about Brexit and comedy for Channel 4 News. I said yes. He said to go to the Pleasance at 5pm. They wanted someone who voted Leave.
I met the film crew there, and the presenter— I have no idea what his name was—was a very nice, very charming young Englishman in his early 30s. University-educated, probably public school, made me feel very at ease. We found a little alcove, and our interview began.
“In a comedy club, what do you say when heckled about Brexit?” he asked me.
Now there are three types of comedy gigs. One is where the audience has come to see you; two is when they have come to see comedy (not necessarily you); and three, the worst type of gig, is when they neither come to see you nor comedy.
Comedy clubs mostly come under category two (unless you are doing a solo show).
I answered the question truthfully: “I MC a lot of nights. My job is to create a warm and friendly atmosphere. Audiences in comedy clubs are fairly mixed. So, I tend to avoid talking about Brexit, as you risk losing half the room, which is not good for the night.”
“Sure, but what would you say if someone heckled you about Brexit?”
“Well, I don’t talk about it, so they don’t.”
“But if you did?”
“But I don’t.”
This went round in circles for a bit. Then he changed his approach. “And if someone heckled you about voting Leave?”
“Well, they don’t because I don’t talk about it.”
“No, but what if they did?”
“Well, they don’t. As I say, in a regular comedy club, with a mixed crowd, if you come down very heavily on one side, you risk losing half the room. I’m the host. I don’t like to do that. It might be different if I was doing a show specifically about it, but I’m not.”
“Well, what if you were?”
“Well, I’m not. And if I was doing a show about voting leave, I doubt many remainers would come.”
“But what if they did?”
It just kept going round and round in circles. I thought I was being reasonably articulate about the need to be diplomatic in a mixed room if you are the host, and I made the same point several times, each time phrasing it slightly differently, but he just was not having it. He kept coming back to this same question.
“But if someone heckled you about voting Leave, what would you say?”
Eventually, somewhat exasperated, I said, “Oh, I don’t know. ‘Whatever, loser.’ Something like that.”
He smiled and quickly drew the interview to a close. We parted company with, apparently, good will expressed. I had spent probably five minutes explaining the need to be diplomatic and a microsecond with that last line.
Later that day, I watched the clip from Channel 4 News. Guess which part of the interview they used?
“Leaver comedian calls people who voted Remain losers,” ran the headline of the vid on the Channel 4 site, or some such (I can’t find the vid now to quote it accurately).
The only clip from the interview they used was me saying, “Whatever, loser,” even though it was totally misrepresentative of the rest of the interview. Then in the comments beneath, I remember reading a load of remarks along the li

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com

Two bullish developments for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies this week: first, Donald Trump, who is currently the favourite to be the next US President, declared, 'I am very positive and open-minded towards cryptocurrency companies and all things related to this new and burgeoning industry. Our country must be the leader in the field; there is no second place.'
Those words will have been written for him, but they nevertheless show that policies, should he win the election, as currently looks likely, will be favourable. That has to be good for the sector.
Second the Ethereum ETF got green lit this week in the US, so today we consider the implications of that, and give our outlook on the sector more generally.
First up, ether has rallied. It’s risen by about a third from $2,900 a coin to within spitting distance of $4,000.
I must confess to being somewhat flummoxed by Ethereum. (If you want to read my guide, it is here). Briefly: its founding principle is to use blockchain technology for purposes beyond an alternative system of digital money. Known as "the world's programmable blockchain," it can be used to “codify, decentralize, secure, and trade just about anything.” Charlie Morris of Byte Tree likens it to a decentralized App Store (you should all read his letter by the way). Developers can use the platform to build and publish smart contracts and distributed applications (dApps), and it is a kind of marketplace for financial services (DeFi), NFTs (non-fungible tokens), games, and apps, all of which can be paid for in ether.
The Bitcoin maximalists don’t like it. Ethereum is not properly decentralized. The numerous forks that have taken place in reaction to hacks prove this—they would not be possible with a properly decentralised platform. Too many coins were pre-mined and handed out to founders. Ethereum 2.0 met with delay after delay. Transaction costs, known as gas fees, can get exorbitant. Its blockchain is not that robust. In short, it’s something of a ticking time bomb.
Well, maybe. But its founder, Vitalik Buterin, a billionaire many times over by the time he was 28 (just in case you weren’t feeling inadequate enough already this morning), will know all this. He is a genius, and I satisfy myself that by owning Ethereum, I am effectively long Buterin—not unlike being long Elon Musk by owning Tesla.
Ethereum also has numerous competitors—not least Solana, but also Binance Smart Chain, Polkadot, Cardano, Terra, and Fantom - which may or may not be a good thing. Many of these are technologically superior, say critics—faster, more robust.
Price-wise ethereum been something of a laggard. Its all-time high was $4,800 and it’s about a thousand bucks, or 20%, below that. That said, it does tend to move later in bull markets - and by more.
But despite all of this, Ethereum remains by some margin the number two cryptocurrency by market cap—at $465 billion—followed by Tether, which has another purpose altogether ($110 bn), then Binance Coin ($89 bn). By way of comparison, HSBC has a market cap of $165 bn. And you thought crypto was a passing fad.
So what can we expect with the launch of this new ETF?

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-mi

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  const

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 Agreemen