The Dispute About the True Money Supply

A lot has been written about the definition of the true money supply. The most advanced economists, the Austrian Economists, have long ago arrived at the correct definition of money: Money is a good that is broadly accepted as medium of exchange against all other goods.

So long as this definition is accepted, it is not hard to figure out what is to be included in and what is to be excluded from the true money supply.

Since I have already written about my definition of the true money supply, I want to use this post to reply to spurious arguments regarding what is to be included in the money supply.

1. Joseph T. Salerno writes:

“As the general medium of exchange, money is a good universally and routinely accepted in exchange by market participants.”

This is correct. We shall see if the rest of his writing is consistent with this statement.

He then goes on and writes:

“In the case of paper fiat money, such as the current U.S. Dollar, there is a second test that can be applied to determine whether a particular item should be counted in money supply statistics.”

However, he never clarifies what this second test is. Instead he goes on to explain the process of fiat money injection and how it is being used as the medium of exchange in the economy. Conceptually, he merely re-iterates what the function of money is and explains how fiat money in particular circulates in the economy.

“Demand deposits or checking account balances at commercial banks and other checkable deposits, such as NOW accounts held at S&Ls, are included in the TMS by virtue of the fact that they are claims to the standard money redeemable at par on demand by the depositor or by a third party designated by the depositor.” (TMS = True Money Supply)

This statement is substantially flawed. He said himself above that ‘money is a good universally and routinely accepted in exchange by market participants’. But suddenly he no longer applies this test. He now says that ‘claims to standard money redeemable at par on demand by the depositor or by a third party designated by the depositor’ are also to be defined as money. He fails to apply the very definition of money that he himself uttered above. If he wished to change the definition of what a money is, he should have done so before embarking upon the analysis of the different components of data provided.

But the definition of money, as uttered by the Austrian economists, is not arbitrary. It serves the purpose of understanding and analyzing human behavior in the marketplace. It is part of a broader framework which includes elements such as consumption goods, capital goods, credit transactions, etc. If we agree on what the definition of money is, then we need to apply this definition consistently. If we want to know the supply of money, of the medium commonly accepted as a means of payment in the economy we cannot include items that are not accepted as means of payment: NOW accounts, which are a part of individual savings deposits are NOT commonly accepted as means of payment. A buyer of an item cannot pay for it with a savings deposit. He cannot pay by transferring money from his savings account to the seller’s savings account. He cannot even do this with the checkable portion of his savings deposit. Only if this was the case could savings deposits be included in the money supply.

The savings deposit has to be turned into a demand deposit and then transferred to the seller’s demand deposit account or turned into cash.

To be very clear, I am not saying that this will never change. It is certainly conceivable, albeit unlikely, that some day savings deposits will be commonly used in payments. But in today’s world they are not. Hence they are not a part of the money supply.

Thus Salerno’s statement should be corrected as follows:

“Demand deposits or checking account balances at commercial banks are commonly accepted as payments in transactions. They are hence a part of the TMS. Other checkable deposits, such as NOW accounts held at S&Ls, are not included in the TMS by virtue of the fact that they are not commonly accepted as means of payment.”

He then says

“Savings deposits, whether at commercial banks or thrift institutions, are economically indistinguishable from demand deposits and are therefore included in the TMS. Both demand and savings deposits are federally insured under the same conditions and, consequently, both represent instantly cashable, par value claims to the general medium of exchange.”

Wrong: It is easy to distinguish savings deposits from demand deposits: They are not accepted as means of payment in transactions. Plain and simple. The fact that they are federally insured does not change this in the slightest.

“The objection that claims on dollars held in savings deposits typically do not circulate in exchange (although certified or cashier’s checks may be readily drawn against such deposits and are certainly generally acceptable in exchange), while not unimportant for some purposes of analysis, is here beside the point. The essential, economic point is that some or all of the dollars accumulated in, e.g., passbook savings accounts, are effectively withdrawable on demand by depositors in the form of spendable cash. In addition, savings deposits are at all times transferable, dollar for dollar, into “transactions” accounts such as demand deposits or NOW accounts.”

It is strange that Salerno says that applying precisely the definition of money that he himself uses at the beginning of the article is besides the point. Suddenly it is no longer relevant whether or not a thing is accepted as medium of exchange. Suddenly the criterion is ‘that some or all of the dollars accumulated in, e.g., passbook savings accounts, are effectively withdrawable on demand by depositors in the form of spendable cash’. He again evaded the use of the proper money definition. His remark regarding certified or cashier’s checks is of course spurious. It is true that checks can be drawn against savings deposits. But the buyer does not accept payment in savings deposit dollars. He only accepts payment in checking account dollars. Hence, the payer’s bank then has to turn the dollars in the savings deposit into demand deposit dollars and transfer them to the seller’s demand deposit account as such.

“In their own minds, money is what people consider as purchasing power, available at once or shortly. People’s “Liquidity” status and financial disposition are not affected by juristic subtleties and technicalities. One kind of deposit is as good as another, provided it is promptly redeemable into legal tender at virtual face value and is accepted in setting debts. The volume of total demand for goods and services is not affected by the distribution of purchasing power among the diverse reservoirs into which that purchasing power is placed. As long as free transferability obtains from one reservoir to the other, the deposit cannot differ in function or value …”

Now the money definition has changed again. Suddenly it is no longer the thing accepted as medium of exchange by everyone but what people consider as purchasing power in their own minds. He remains unclear as to what he means by “available shortly”. This completely changes the definition again. Money is NOT what someone considers his own purchasing power. Money is what one ACCEPTS as means of payment from someone else. One may believe that the value of his home grants him a certain level of purchasing power. He could sell his home and relatively ‘shortly’ have cash available for spending. But this doesn’t make his home a part of the money supply. The same applies to a different degree to savings deposits. True, the cash money would be available faster, but one still needs to turn his savings deposit into a demand deposit. Hardly anyone would accept payment in ‘savings dollars’, wired to his savings account, just as hardly anybody would accept a home in exchange for products and services.

We are trying to ascertain the true money supply for a reason. We want to explain the current and the future development of asset and consumption prices in the country, measured in dollars. The more money is available for spending the higher will the prices be. But prices emerge in exchange transactions where money is surrendered in exchange for goods and services. They change over time as a result of continuous ongoing exchange transactions. As a tendency, they change with every additional exchange transaction. The medium used in these transactions and thus affecting prices, and nothing but it, is what we need to measure. The mediums accepted and hence used in these transactions are cash and checking deposits, not savings deposits.

“Overnight repurchase agreements or “RPs” were devised in the mid-1970s as a means of evading the legal prohibition against the payment of interest on demand deposits. They are, in essence, interest bearing demand deposits held by business firms at commercial banks and therefore are included in the TMS.”

This is of course wrong. RPs are not in essence demand deposits. The essence of demand deposit money is that is that it is accepted as payment in transactions. In the case of an RP, the depositor surrenders demand deposit money in return for treasury bills and similar securities. He cannot use these securities in exchange. No one would accept securities in an RP account as medium of exchange. It is unclear as to why he even examines RPs under his analysis of M2. M2 does not contain repurchase agreements.

“Money market deposit accounts, as a hybrid of demand and savings deposits, are considered part of the TMS. MMDA’s are federally insured up to $100,000 per account, feature limited checking privileges, and offer par value cashability upon demand of the depositor.”

Again no word about the acceptability of the item in question in payments. No one accepts payments in money transferred into his market deposit account. MMDA’s are not part of the true money supply.

“U.S. Savings Bonds are instantly cashable at the U.S. Treasury (or at banks and thrifts acting on its behalf) at a fixed discount from their face value. As U.S. Treasury liabilities, moreover, their redeemability is “insured” by the full faith and credit of the federal government. U.S. Savings Bonds are therefore included in the TMS at their redemption value, because they represent secure and current claims against the Treasury for contractually fixed quantities of the general medium of exchange.”

But they are not accepted as a medium of payment in transactions which is the criterion for our money definition. U.S. Savings Bonds are clearly not part of the money supply.
2. Murray Rothbard writes:

“All economists, of course, include standard money in their concept of the money supply. The justification for including demand deposits, as we have seen, is that people believe that these deposits are redeemable in standard money on demand, and therefore treat them as equivalent, accepting the payment of demand deposits as a surrogate for the payment of cash. But if demand deposits are to be included in the money supply for this reason, then it follows that any other entities that follow the same rules must also be included in the supply of money.”

Here Rothbard errs. The justification for including demand deposits is not that people believe that they are redeemable in standard money on demand. The justification is that demand deposit money is broadly accepted as a medium of payment. This is our definition of money. Plain and simple.

“There are several common arguments for not including savings deposits in the money supply:(…)(2) they cannot be used directly for payment. Checks can be drawn on demand deposits, but savings deposits must first be redeemed in cash upon presentation of a passbook; (…) Objection (2) fails as well, when we consider that, even within the stock of standard money, some part of one’s cash will be traded more actively or directly than others.”

Here he sneaks in the word “directly”. It is true that pocket money is traded more actively than money stashed away. But both would be used directly as a means of payment at the moment of the transaction. No part of one’s money is traded more directly than others. All money is presented or transferred directly at the moment of payment.

“Thus, suppose someone holds part of his supply of cash in his wallet, and another part buried under the floorboards. The cash in the wallet will be exchanged and turned over rapidly; the floorboard money might not be used for decades. But surely no one would deny that the person’s floorboard hoard is just as much part of his money stock as the cash in his wallet. So that mere lack of activity of part of the money stock in no way negates its inclusion as part of his supply of money.”

This is true. But this comparison does not apply at all. Again, our argument has never been the lack of activity on the part of savings deposits in transactions. It is simply that they are not at all accepted as payments in transactions. Hardly anyone accepts a transfer into his savings deposit as a means of payment.

“Similarly, the fact that passbooks must be presented before a savings deposit can be used in exchange should not negate its inclusion in the money supply.”

The word “similarly” is misplaced. As I have explained above there is no similarity between the two examples. The floorboard money does not need to be presented and exchanged for something else before being used in a transaction. It can be used in transactions immediately and directly once taken out of its stash. The savings dollars do need to be exchanged for either cash or demand deposit money before being used in transactions.

“As I have written elsewhere, suppose that for some cultural quirk—say widespread revulsion against the number “5”—no seller will accept a five-dollar bill in exchange, but only ones or tens. In order to use five-dollar bills, then, their owner would first have to go to a bank to exchange them for ones or tens, and then use those ones or tens in exchange. But surely, such a necessity would not mean that someone’s stock of five-dollar bills was not part of Ills money supply.”

His scenario is of course spurious. If, in fact, suddenly no seller will accept a five-dollar bill in exchange it would cease its existence as money. It would no longer fit our definition of money. Plain and simple. The five dollar bills would also no longer be exchangeable for ones or tens. Since the only purpose of a note is its use as a medium of exchange, money, no one would accept it at par value. At best, it would trade at a significant discount against all other denominations. It would be utterly wrong to include it in the money supply. For as long as the 5 dollar bills are still in circulation they cannot exercise any upward pressure on prices. Even if there was a bank that would redeem it at par value (which is rather unlikely), the true money would only be circulating after the redemption and then have its effect on prices, which would duly be accounted for in our definition of the true money supply.

The significant difference with a savings deposit is that its primary purpose is not its use as a medium of exchange, but that of an interest bearing account. If this was not the case, people would not put their money into a savings account.


The inclusion by some economists of savings and similar components in the true money supply is the result of the failure to consistently apply the definition of money. All their arguments in favor of including these items, are crushed when one applies this simple test: Is the item in question broadly accepted as a means of payment in exchange for for products and services?

Related Posts:

True Money Supply

The money supply inside a country is the total nominal value of money units ready to be spent in its respective territory. Money is a medium of exchange. This is its ultimate purpose. All other so called money functions, like value storage medium, measure of utility, etc. are nothing but derivatives of this function. More precisely, money is that medium which is accepted by virtually everyone inside a certain territory as a medium of exchange for products and/or services rendered.

As explained in Credit Expansion Policy, the major business cycles, booms and recessions are caused by an increase and subsequent drop of the money supply, respectively.

If one carefully tracks the true stock of money and its growth or contraction over time, one can make fundamental assessments and predictions about the state of the economy and the outlook for asset and consumer prices in general.

The Federal Reserve Bank employs two measures for the money supply: M1 and M2. It also supplies other data, called ‘Other Memorandum Items’ which in its opinion is not part of the money supply.

We shall analyze each component of the data provided, and figure out whether or not it should be included in the money supply.

A lot has been written about the true money supply. There are completely different views on this matter. However, the solution to the question is pretty simple so long as one agrees that the definition of money is that it is the medium of exchange accepted by everyone within a certain territory.

Each component simply has to pass the following test: Is this item accepted by virtually everyone as a medium of exchange inside the USA?

M1: Currency + Traveler’s Checks + Demand Deposits + Other Checkable Deposits

Currency: This is cash money in the pockets, lockers, mattresses, or hands of individuals. Cash, when printed and used by the federal reserve to purchase assets and thus channeled into circulation increases the nominal amount of media of exchange available in society. Virtually everybody accepts cash as payment. It is without a doubt a component of the money supply.

Traveler’s Checks: Traveler’s checks are issued by American Express and other credit institutions. A traveler’s check has to be purchased in exchange for currency or checking deposits. Money is transferred from the purchaser’s account to the company issuing the traveler’s check. When used, money is transferred from the issuing company’s deposits to the person redeeming the check. Hence, traveler’s checks do not add to the overall availability of media of exchange, they are merely a means to facilitate the transfer of actualy money. Traveller’s checks are not commonly accepted as a means of payment inside the US. They are not to be included in the money supply.

Demand Deposits: Demand deposits are checking accounts. Additional checking account money can be created in different ways: When people deposit cash money in exchange for demand deposits, the overall money supply does not change. However, if we observe both figures, then all cash deposits will reduce the ‘Currency’ account, and increase the ‘Demand Deposit’ account. Another way of creating demand deposits is when the central bank issues new demand deposit money instead of printing new money, and purchases bank assets with it. In addition to that, banks may issue credit themselves by making out loans that are not fully backed by deposits. This money will appear on the loan recipient’s checking account. Checks can be written against them. Virtually everyone accepts payment in demand deposit money. Demand deposits are thus to be included in the money supply.

Other Checkable Deposits:These are savings deposits that can be drawn upon when demand deposits are overdrawn. But a savings deposit is not part of the money supply. A savings deposit does not function as a medium of exchange. When someone deposits money in a savings account the bank turns around and invests the money in credit instruments. It will then appear on the checking account of the seller of the credit instrument. This does not change when the savings deposit can be partially drawn upon. A buyer of a good cannot write a check against his savings deposits. At the best he writes a check against demand deposits that he is going to obtain after liquidating a fraction of his savings deposits. It would be rather impossible to try and use one’s savings deposits as a means of payment. No one would accept a payment ‘in savings deposits’. This even applies to that portion of it which can immediately be turned into checking account money. The recipient of a check written against the checkable portion of a savings deposit still demands checking account money as final means of payment. Thus the payer’s savings deposit dollars need to be converted into checking deposit dollars settling the transaction. (If this was NOT the case, savings deposits and other checkable deposits would indeed be a part of the money supply.) Other checkable deposits are hence not part of the money supply.

M2: M1 + Savings Deposits + Small-Denomination Time Deposits + Retail Money Funds

Savings Deposits: As explained above under ‘Other Checkable Deposits’, savings deposits don’t function as media of exchange. Nobody would accept a payment from someones savings deposit straight to his savings account. But our definition of money is that is is precisely that medium which is broadly accepted as payment. Savings deposits are hence not part of the true money supply.

Small-Denomination Time Deposits: These are deposits where the depositor contractually commits to not withdrawing the money for a fixed time frame. Time deposits cannot be used as media of exchange and are hence not part of the true money supply, even less so than savings deposits.

Retail money funds invest in short-term debt, such as US Treasury bill and commercial paper. They are not used or accepted as media of exchange, and are hence not part of the true money supply.

Other Memorandum Items: Demand Deposits at Banks Due To Foreign Commercial Banks and Foreign Official Institutions + Time and Savings Deposits Due To Foreign Commercial Banks and Foreign Official Institutions + U.S. Government Deposits + IRA and KEOGH Accounts

Demand Deposits at Banks Due To Foreign Commercial Banks and Foreign Official Institutions: These are checking account deposits held by foreign banks and institutions at American banks. Foreigners hold funds in checking accounts of other countries in order to cover expenditures in those same countries. These expenditures are covered using that country’s medium of exchange, money. They clearly are to be added to the true money supply.

Time and Savings Deposits Due To Foreign Commercial Banks and Foreign Official Institutions: As already explained above, time and savings deposits are not to be included in the true money supply.

U.S. Government Deposits: These are demand deposits held by institutions of the the U.S. Government at commercial and the Federal Reserve Bank. It is a curious fact that they have been excluded from the official money supply data. The money does not disappear from circulation. If A pays taxes to government entity B the funds are merely transferred from one account to another. The funds are used to cover expenses during day to day operations, pay employees, etc. and are hence a part of the true money supply.

IRA and KEOGH Accounts: These are, like savings and time deposits, merely investments in credit instruments and other investment vehicles and are not part of the true money supply.

Retail Sweeps

One more important item to be mentioned are so called bank ‘retail sweeps’. Retail sweeps were introduced in January of 1994 when the Federal Reserve Board allowed commercial banks to use a software that classifies certain portions of customers’ checking account deposits as money market deposits accounts (MMDAs). Researchers at the regional Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis have summarized it as follows:

“At its start, deposit-sweeping software creates a “shadow” MMDA deposit for each customer account. These MMDAs are not visible to the customer, that is, the customer can make neither deposits to nor withdrawals from the MMDA. To depositors, it appears as if their transactionaccount deposits are unaltered; to the Federal Reserve, it appears as if the bank’s level of reservable transaction deposits has decreased sharply. Although computer software varies, the objective is the same: to minimize a bank’s level of reservable transaction deposits, subject to several constraints.”

This means that customers don’t notice the slightest change to their demand deposit account. In effect, their behavior doesn’t change at all, no matter whether or not their checking deposit has been reclassified. Retail sweeps are nothing but an accounting fiction that enable banks to lower their minimum reserves and lend out more money.

But this means that the statistics on demand deposit accounts have been inaccurate since 1994. That portion which has been reported as MMDA when it was actually demand deposit money to customers needs to be included in the money supply. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis provides a monthly estimate on this number. Retail Sweeps are part of the true money supply.

Conclusion: Thus the true money supply ( we shall call it M(t) ) is defined as follows:

M(t) = Currency + Private Demand Deposits + Demand Deposits Due to Foreign Banks and Institutions + Government Demand Deposits + Government Federal Reserve Deposits + Retail Sweeps

Below is the development of the true money supply from 1959 through 2008:

Click image to enlarge.

Related Posts:

Antitrust and Monopolies

The Objectives of Antitrust Intervention

Public opinion believes that the societal apparatus of compulsion and coercion, the government, should protect individuals from monopolies: Monopolies restrict the supply of products and harm the welfare of the common man. The government has to step in and put and end to this injustice. Its intervention is supposed to foster free enterprise and fair competition and protect the poor and hapless from powerful corporations.

The term monopoly needs to be defined more precisely here. There are two types of monopolies which have completely different implications.

The supporter of antitrust enforcement by the government does not make a distinction between the two and hence arrives at flawed conclusions.

There are the Coercive Monopoly and the Market Monopoly.

The Coercive Monopoly is a business which is protected from competition by the government. It is not the monopoly that needs to be discussed here. It is, indeed, a monopoly that harms the consumers and benefits those who are protected. All that would need to happen to end this type of monopoly would be for the government to withdraw itself.

The type of monopoly in question is the ‘Market Monopoly’: Antitrust proponents claim that an unhampered free market produces market monopolies and that it is the government’s job to prevent this from happening.

The Market Monopoly

The market monopoly is a business that operates on a voluntary market. A business in that environment is comprised of a group of people that jointly works towards withdrawing factors of production (raw materials, labor, etc.) from the market in voluntary contracts, and combines them in lines of production where they create goods that are, from the consumer‘s point of view, worth more than where the factors were employed prior to withdrawal, aiming for an entrepreneurial profit.

This in itself is nothing but the schoolbook definition of a business on the free market, seeking to make a profit. The particular thing about a business that holds a market monopoly is that there is no other one that sells the same good.

But this does not change the fact that, based upon the law of marginal value preference, the market monopoly business has to set its price based upon consumer response. It cannot charge an infinite price for its goods. It also does not change the fact that it has to produce a useful product that satisfies a consumer demand. It also does not change the fact that this whole process is completely voluntary and peaceful on the part of the seller, as well as on the part of the buyer. It also does not change the fact that capitalists always stand ready to provide capital to entrepreneurs who are completely free at any time to identify cheaper processes and sell at cheaper prices and/or better quality, outstripping the previous monopoly, and ultimately reaping a profit to satisfy the profit-seeking capitalists, while at the same time improving the consumer’s situation.

Yet, for the sake of the antitrust proponents’ argument, we shall pass in silence all these facts and inquire as to what effects the government’s antitrust intervention will have regardless.

The Antitrust Intervention

What antitrust proponents now ultimately suggest is that the government decree a maximum number of goods to be sold by this monopoly business, and step in with police force if the business dares to satisfy more consumers than allowed by its decree. The fact that the business, as well as the consumers, are merely acting voluntarily towards what they consider to be their best choice, does not interest the antitrust proponents: In their minds, the fact that the people, in their role as consumers with every penny and every dollar, are casting a conscious vote, by choosing to purchase the product they seek, is a mere expression of the ignorance and the gullibility on the part of the public. The government is omniscient, its will supreme. Its decree has to be followed and enforced when violated. How dare the consumers make the decision who to buy from!

The government employs market share statistics, based on the revenue generated from the products in question. It decrees, for example, that company XYZ, is not allowed to sell more than the equivalent of 40% market share worth of its, say, operating system software ABC. Why exactly 40%? Why not 39.95% Why not 40.1%? The approach is, without the slightest doubt, completely arbitrary.

The Consequences of Antitrust Intervention

After the government steps in and limits the supply of the goods in question, who ultimately suffers? The marginal consumers, who would have purchased the additional unit of the product whose supply has been cut off. The objective of protecting the average consumer from overpriced or bad products obviously fails. In fact, the policy attains the exact opposite.

After the government has intervened, sooner or later a new entrepreneur will step in and fill the gap with a similar good. However, he will not be under any pressure from from the previous market monopoly company. He merely stepped in to fill the gap, because the police intervened and outlawed by aggression any more sales from the market monopoly business. At this point, his position is not threatened at all. Due to his inexperience and lack of competitive pressure, his goods will most likely be inferior and more expensive than the previous market monopoly’s goods. It will take him much longer to get to a point where his product can measure up to the previous market monopoly business’s product. Economies of scale will set in at a much later stage for this entrepreneur, so as he increases production, his prices will not drop as fast as previously. Marginal consumers will have to do with his inferior, higher priced product.

The fact that a new entrepreneur steps in to fill the gap will not in the slightest make the market more competitive or fair. Quite the opposite: The coercive intervention creates a less competitive environment with less competitive pressure for the new business, since it doesn’t have to fear competition from the previous market monopoly business, and the consumers ultimately suffer.

The intervention sends out the message that as an entrepreneur you shouldn’t strive for perfection when selling to consumers. For if your product becomes too popular your output might be restricted by the government.

Furthermore, it encourages the entrepreneur to attain a good standing in government, and thus to allocate funds toward bribing the politically connected in the form of campaign contributions, rather than invest in factors of production that would increase the output of consumer goods in the future.

Thus the policy doesn’t help the consumer at all and is bound to fail at attaining the stated objective.

Related Posts:


“Imagine a world in which everybody were free to live and work as entrepreneur or as employee where he wanted and how he chose, and ask which of these conflicts could still exist.

Imagine a world in which the principle of private ownership of the means of production is fully realized, in which there are no institutions hindering the mobility of capital, labor, and commodities, in which the laws, the courts, and the administrative officers do not discriminate against any individual or groups of individuals, whether native or alien.:

Imagine a state of affairs in which governments are devoted exclusively to the task of protecting the individual’s life, health, and property against violent and fraudulent aggression. In such a world the frontiers are drawn on the maps, but they do not hinder anybody from the pursuit of what he thinks will make him more prosperous. No individual is interested in the expansion of the size of his nation’s territory, as he cannot derive any gain from such an aggrandizement. Conquest does not pay and war becomes obsolete.

(Mises, Human Action, Chapter 14, Section 5)

Related Posts:

“It is what you do that defines you.”

An important axiom came up in the movie Batman Begins:

“It’s not what you are inside, but what you do, that defines you.”

When analyzing an economic system, it is first and foremost relevant to analyze the actual actions of the actors who fulfill economic functions in that system and the actions that the government takes. All labels that are attached to groups or individuals need to be stripped off and cast aside. It is in particular imperative not to rely on what government officials are saying, but to take a close look at what they are actually doing.

Related Posts: